Before giving an answer to this question, a preliminary consideration just published:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/general_view.htm

Wishing all a blessed Feast of the Ascension of Our Loving Redeemer!

Thank you for writing and posting the article, John.

Imo, the Crucifixion of the Mystical Body (if we may use the idea that Christ's own life is "re-lived" throughout history by His Bride) is over, and she is (as her Master and Spouse was) in the tomb. Although she cannot die (any more than Christ could, as God), of course, it is still fitting that she should come as close as possible, and should even be thought to have died, at least in the sight of the unwise.

What we await now, in the same darkness which enveloped the deflated (and disillusioned) Apostles, is the Resurrection. During those dark hours after Our Lord's death and burial (but before His glorious Resurrection), those who stayed closest to Our Lady were able to persevere. She is the key in these times, as she has told us more than once.

Oddly, all those people who complain that the sede-vacantists do not do enough to "solve" this crisis, do not dare to find fault with Our Lady when she let Our Lord be scourged, crucified, etc, even though one word (or even a sigh) from her would have stopped it all. Why do they not find fault with her on this account? Why did she not intervene where the Resurrection was concered, shortening the period that Our Lord lay in the tomb? She remained silent, knowing that the Lord alone is God - and all He does pleases and glorifies Himself, and is for our greater good.

Why did she not change the course of these painful events, despite the fact that she easily could have? God willed it to be so - and that was more than enough for this most humble handmaiden of the Lord. God has willed this Crucifixion of the Mystical Body as well, and His will is to be adored (even when, especially when, it is most difficult - or impossible - to understand, and most painful to conform to it).

Addendum: I posted this at another site, in response to a man who is close to converting to the Faith, but is understandably confused by what he sees...

Mr. _____,

Recognizing Christ in His Church at this point in history is very much akin to recognizing Him while on the Cross - the good thief (St. Dismas) did so, to his eternal joy; the bad thief failed to do so, to his eternal misery. [Yes, I realize I said above that at present it is more like the Church is in the tomb than upon the Cross]

The servant is no better than his Master, and our Master was brutalized beyond recognition, dying the ignominious death of the Cross - for you, and for me. It is sensible then that His Spouse, the Church, ought to be taken to the brink, beyond what men can even endure or comprehend - in a word, that She should, to all appearances, die.

When Saint Pius X was dying, Cardinal de Lai said that the Church was over, humanly speaking.

Just as we do not know how God re-united Christ's body and soul, we do not know how the Church will recover from her present state - but we do know that she will, for she is, like her Master, divine. [Yes, I realize that Christ as God raised Himself from the dead, but how He did it is beyond our comprehension; we know that He did so, but we do not know how He did so.]

There are some good ideas out there, from people of all 'positions', but none of them knows how it will actually occur - only God does. Oddly, the SSPX and sede-vacantists are really taking the stances they do based upon the same principle - the indefectibility of Holy Church. However, as they are looking at it from two different angles, if you will, the answers they come up with vary significantly.

Faith is a gift, and is easily obtained by those who ask for it. God is not a miser, as we are. He wants to spread His goodness as far and as wide as possible - but in a human soul, He will never force it. The Divine Guest must be welcomed inside, and there He will prepare such a feast that we can only sit there awestruck. Ask Him to help you, for His help is the only kind that actually accomplishes anything, even in 'normal' times (whatever those are, if they even exist).

Thank you for the essay, it is quite appropriate for these times and something all those who love the Church should contemplate.

Where is the Church? That truly is the question for these times…My thoughts are these…I don’t pretend know how the current crisis will be resolved, so this question is not one of identifying some structure that resembles the Church as it once was, or identifying some solution to achieve that structure, but identifying the location of the “Mystical body of Christ, which is the Church” (Mystici Corporis, Pius XII). I believe that today especially, we must remember that Christ is the head of the body of the Church. Even in these times, the Church is visible…visible as defined by Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, “the Church is visible because she is a body”. So the Church is visible today through Her faithful, the Church Militant.

We have been given warnings with the apparitions of La Salette and Fatima…we have been given the teachings of the Popes of the last 150 years to define those doctrines that allow us to identify the Church…as laymen, we have better access than any previous generation to this information . We must know our faith to the best of our abilities according to our station in life.

Pius XII states in Mystici Corporis, “Similarly the Savior of mankind out of His infinite goodness has provided in a wonderful way for His Mystical Body, endowing it with the Sacraments, so that, as though by an interrupted series of graces, it members should be sustained from birth to death, and that generous provision might be made for the social needs of the Church.”

We still have the Sacraments because we still have Priests and Bishops that are faithful to Tradition. For now, this is all we need…as in all things, we must trust in Divine Providence.

The Seamless Robe and the Great Privilege of Witnessing the Passion of the Mystical Body - A General View of the Present Crisis from - http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/general_view.htm by John Lane

Excerpt from John Lane's article:
Let us all, therefore, keep ourselves from having an inordinate desire to see any matter settled which can only finally be settled by Holy Mother Church, and especially in this way let us preserve charity with all fellow Catholics. On both sides we must keep out of our minds all suggestion that the motives of our opponents are impure and let us be content to examine all disputed matters, including the question of the V2 popes when occasion arises, in the spirit that if we cannot agree then we have occasion for charity, and if we do agree then we have occasion for charity, because this is without doubt the will of God, Who has established on earth a final authority precisely to give certitude to all men on questions which they would not otherwise finally agree upon, and Who has in our time permitted that authority to remain silent, whether we think this is because the See of Rome is vacant or because it is occupied by an unworthy man. And further, that He permits this trial precisely that we may exercise Faith and Charity and thus give glory to Him the author of our Faith and Charity as well as our Hope, and receive an eternal reward for having cooperated in His infinitely wise plan.


Dear John, Thank you so much for this powerful writing. It was greatly edifying - and a clear call to all of us to grow in Faith and Charity. God Bless You.

I just have 1 question. With all the differences of theological opinions among tradionalists, where can one find the marks of the True Church? One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. I don't find these all together in any one group other than maybe in SSPX!

This is as good a starting point as any. No, the SSPX is not the Catholic Church. Here is Fr. Peter Scott addressing a related question. I think he errs in several points, but the questions and issues he raises are real.

The Church is where she has always been, but to be clear about that we must define her correctly. Otherwise we shall be in danger of accepting the claims of a pretender “church.”

“The prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church.” (Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, D.D., The Church of Christ, An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise. Herder, St. Louis and London, 1927 & 1941. p. 119)

And, “there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.” (op cit. p.155)

The Catholic Church consists of her members, rightly ordered to Christ our Head, and to each other. Pope Pius XII has defined the Church in the following beautiful words. “If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ – which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church – we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression ‘the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ’ – an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.” (Mystici Corporis Christi).

From this text it is clear that Holy Church is properly defined in terms of the union of Christ Our Lord with men, and of those men with each other. Pope Pius XII has also defined for us who may be considered the members of Christ’s Church.

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.” (Ibid.)

From this we see that the members of the Church are those who have been baptised, profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves off from Holy Church by schism or heresy or apostasy, or been excluded by the judgement of the Church (i.e. excommunicated). The Code of Canon Law encapsulates this same doctrine in crisp language. “By baptism a person becomes a subject of the Church of Christ with all the rights and duties of a Christian, unless, in so far as rights as are concerned, there is some obstacle impeding the bond of communion with the Church, or a censure inflicted by the Church.”

The theologians provide essentially identical explanations, as we would expect, of the nature of the Church, her unity, and how one enters and remains within the Church as a part and member of her.

Baptism, being an external rite, is a visible means by which men enter the Church in the first place.

The unity of faith is seen in the outward profession of the same doctrine by all of the Church’s members. As Pope Leo XIII teaches, “faith itself – that is assent given to the first and supreme truth – though residing essentially in the intellect, must be manifested by outward profession – ‘For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’ (Rom. 10:10).”

Generally the unity of charity is said to be evident in the subjection of each member to the authority of the Church – to the bishops and the pope – and in their mutual communion with each other, sharing the same sacraments and living peacefully in unity. “With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph. 4:2,3.)

Opposed to the unity of faith is heresy; to the unity of charity, schism. Thus those who refuse to profess the true faith are no longer members of the Church. And those who refuse subjection to the divinely appointed government of the Church or who refuse to remain in peaceful communion with the members of Christ, are likewise excluded from Christ’s Mystical Body.

In addition, Holy Church herself may exclude certain members as punishment for serious crimes. These excluded members are the excommunicates who are “to be shunned” (vitandi).

The Catholic Church certainly cannot be the New Church, the church of Vatican II. The New Church is not the true Church, because if it were then the true Church has failed, which is impossible.

The New Church has done the following things:

1. She has misled souls about the true means of salvation. She provides doubtful sacraments, false morality, heretical or erroneous doctrine, and bad example to the faithful.

2. She has destroyed the certitude of Apostolic Succession with a doubtfully valid ordination rite for episcopal Orders. Therefore there is no guarantee that this Church continues the Apostolic Succession.

3. She has been responsible for leading the vast bulk of Catholics to worship according to the false and Protestant “New Mass.”

4. The New Church has given most of her members a doubtful “sacrament” of Confirmation.

5. The New Church has legislated that non-Catholics may receive the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist without first abjuring their errors.

6. The New Church has re-defined Holy Matrimony so as to permit tens of thousands of couples to attempt marriage and fail, so that they live in sin instead of valid marriage despite the guidance and active co-operation of her authorised ministers. This is the only possible conclusion to be drawn from the flood of “annulments” issued by the New Church.

7. The New Church has made an arrangement with schismatic sects in which she has agreed not to try and lead the schismatics into her own sweet embrace. She has done this in a document entitled the “Balamand Agreement.” Therefore the Church is not “Catholic” or universal. She is only for some men.

8. Several other equally striking examples could be presented. In summary, as Bishop Williamson so eloquently puts it, there are now two religions claiming to be Catholic – the traditional Catholic religion and the New Church religion. And as is clear to all, the New Church religion is the only one permitted, promoted, and defended by the properly constituted hierarchy of the New Church.


The New Church does not have ANY of the four marks of the True Church. The New Church has no unity of faith or charity; it has no holiness in its members or means of salvation; it does not profess to be for all men; it is non-apostolic in doctrine and practices, and in its doubtfully valid episcopal orders. The New Church is Dis-United, Un-Holy, Non-Catholic, and Non-Apostolic.

Holy Church is incapable of inflicting upon her children the evils which the V2 Nopes have imposed upon the faithful. This is because Holy Church is indefectible (she cannot fail in any essential) and infallible (she cannot err in her universal teaching or her universal disciplinary provisions). She cannot give stones when her children ask for bread.

So, where is the Catholic Church today?

She consists of all of those who outwardly profess the true Faith and obey the legitimate authority of the Church. That is, the traditional Catholics, with the additional few who attend the Novus Ordo but do not accept its heresies, and can thus be said to be there in body but not in spirit. ”Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…” (St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists.)

For further detail, please consider this document: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/unity.html

John,

Thank you for this. I think that this recent discussion is so very necessary, in that the unity among traditionalists seems to be dissolving, and has been for some time. You are working to keep the Remnant united, and that in my view must be very pleasing to God.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

Based on the above I have three questions:

If one professes the true faith and believes that Benedict XVI is the pope (and officially recognizes him as such) is one saying absolutely that Benedict XVI is a legitimate authority?

If so must one actually obey this legitimate authority to be considered a Catholic?

Can obedience be claimed if one is choosing what to obey?

It seems to me that Benedict XVI cannot be a legitimate authority because the evidence indicates he is not a true pope...this is a statement of fact. Those who recognize his authority but do not obey him are necessarily working under the false notion that Benedict is a true pope. So their disobedience is correct but is not supported by their own position. Are they Catholics? I would say yes. Does the position they hold make sense? I would say no.