MEDITATION ON THE LIFE OF ST JOHN

We leave the final word of the decision of its validity to the Catholic Church in the future. But nevertheless we can make an apriori conclusion based upon the evidence we have available:

IT APPEARS THAT NEW RITE OF EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION IS INVALID

A communist principle of Lenin was used by de Masons in order to destroy the Episcopacy and therefore also the transmission of the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Keep the shell, but empty it of its substance.”

A. General Principles

(1) Each sacrament has a form (essential formula) that produces its sacramental effect. When a substantial change of meaning is introduced into the sacramental form through the corruption or omission of essential words, the sacrament becomes invalid (=does not “work,” or produce the sacramental effect).

(2) Sacramental forms approved for use in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are sometimes different in wording from the Latin Rite forms. Nevertheless, they are the same in substance, and are valid.

(3) Pius XII declared that the form for Holy Orders (i.e., for diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy) must univocally (=unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.

(4) For conferring the episcopacy, Pius XII designated as the sacramental form a sentence in the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration that unequivocally expresses the power of the order that a bishop receives and the grace of the Holy Ghost.

Preface for the Rite of Episcopal Consecration:

“Complete in thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry , and adorned in the raiment of all glory , sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”

This form univocally signifies the sacramental effects as follows:

(1) “The fullness of Thy ministry,” “raiment of all glory” = power of the Order of episcopacy.

(2) “The dew of heavenly anointing” = grace of the Holy Ghost.

B. Application to the New Form

Preface for the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration:

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

(1) The new form for episcopal consecration that Paul VI promulgated does not seem to specify the power of the Order supposedly being conferred. Can it confer the episcopacy? To answer this question, we apply the foregoing principles.

(2) The short Paul VI form for episcopal consecration is not identical to the lengthy Eastern Rite forms, and unlike them, does not mention sacramental powers proper to a bishop alone (e.g., ordaining). The Eastern Rite prayers that the surrounding Paul VI consecration Preface most closely resembles are non- sacramental prayers for the installations of the Maronite and Syrian Patriarchs, who are already bishops when appointed. In sum, one may not argue that the Paul VI form is in use in valid Eastern Rites.

(3) Various ancient texts (Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Testament of Our Lord) which share some common elements with the Paul VI consecration Preface have been “reconstructed,” are of doubtful provenance, may not represent actual liturgical use, etc. There is no evidence that they were “accepted and used by the Church as such.” Thus they provide no reliable evidence to support for the validity of the Paul VI form.

(4) The key problem in the new form revolves around the term governing Spirit (Spiritus principalis in Latin). Before and after the promulgation of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration the meaning of this expression provoked concerns about whether it sufficiently signified the sacrament.

(5) Dom Bernard Botte, the principal creator of the new rite, maintained that, for the 3rd-century Christian, governing Spirit connoted the episcopacy, because bishops have “the spirit of authority” as “rulers of the Church.” Spiritus principalis means “the gift of a Spirit proper to a leader.”

(6) This explanation is false and disingenuous. Reference to dictionaries, a Scripture commentary, the Fathers of the Church, dogmatic treatises, and Eastern Rite non-sacramental investiture ceremonies reveals that, among a dozen different and sometimes contradictory meanings, governing Spirit does not specifically signify either the episcopacy in general or the fullness of Holy Orders that the bishop possesses.

(7) Before the controversy over it arose, Dom Botte himself even said that he didn’t see how omitting the expression governing Spirit would change the validity of the rite of consecration.

(8) The new form fails to meet two criteria as what the form of  Holy Orders needs to have so as to be valid as laid down by Pius XII.

(a) Because the term governing Spirit is capable of signifying many different things and persons, it does not univocally signify the sacramental effect.

(b) It lacks any term that even equivocally connotes the power of Order that a bishop possess — the “fullness of the priesthood of Christ in the episcopal office and order,” or “the full- ness or totality of the priestly ministry.”

(9) For these reasons, the new form constitutes a substantial change in the meaning of the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy.

(10) A substantial change in the meaning of a sacramental form renders a sacrament invalid.

C. Conclusion:

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, an episcopal consecration conferred with the new sacramental form promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 appears to be invalid, we cannot trust it at all. Nevertheless we leave the final judgement in the hands of the Catholic Church in a hopefully near future.

No! There are real heresies in the writings of Luisa Piccarreta which we will explain. 

HERESIES:

The first principal heresy is that she clearly violate the Catholic notion of Divine Revelation and the role of private revelation in the Church. She (Luisa) clearly states that what she has received is a new revelation, available solely through her writings. This heresy is hold by the Modernists.

The second heresy is called Monothelitism. This heresy was comdemded by the 3rd Council of Constantinople (680). The heresy proposed that in Christ there was in effect only one will, the Divine Will, and that Christ’s human will was totally absorbed into the Divine. With a greater reason neither that could happen with any man’s will whatsoever. Impossible for anyone´s will to be absorbed into the Divine Will. And that is exactly what Luisa teaches again and again in her “revelations”. Luisa clearly and repeatedly teaches that when one receives this new ¨Sacrament¨ of the Divine Will the human will ceases to function as such remaining only the Divine Will in us. I repeat, this not even happen with Chist. He has 2 wills, one Divine and one human. 

The third heresy is called Quietism. Luisa follows this heresy by teaching interior annihilation, asserting that this is the means of attaining holiness. She is teaching that our free will is not responsable of our actions once it is placed into the Divine Will.

Besides, there is a formal condemnation of Luisa’s books:

¨On Wednesday, July 13, 1938, in the General Session of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, the Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals concerned with the defense of the faith and good morals, following the previous recommendation of the Reverend Consultors, have CONDEMNED and ordered inserted into the Index of forbidden books the following works written by Luisa Piccarreta and published by others at different times in several places:

1. The watch of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Chist, with a Treatise on the Divine Will

2. In the kingdom of the Divine Will

3. The Queen of Heaven in the Kingdom of the Divine Will

The following Thursday, July 14 of the same month and year, Our Most Holy Father, Pius XI, Pope by Divine Providence, in the usual audience accorded the Most Excellent and Reverend Assessors of the Holy Office, approved the decision of the Most Eminent Cardinals that had been submitted to him, confirmed it, and ordered it published.¨ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t.30, August 31, 1938).

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES TO KEEP IN MIND:

1.- Christian faith cannot accept ¨revelations¨ that claim to surpass or correct Revelation which was indeed closed down at the death of the last Apostle, St John the Evangelist.

2- The teaching given in any private revelation must be summited to Sacred Scriptures and Tradition in order to prove itself as something considered as catholic teaching.

3.- Everything we need for our salvation and sanctification to the highest perfection has been given to us by Jesus Christ and the apostles and handed down to us through the Catholic Church.

EXAMPLES OF HERESY IN LUISA’S BOOKS:

1. Jesus to Luisa: “I wish to emit the third FIAT, since I cannot contain my love any longer. This will complete the work that poured forth from me. Otherwise, the work of Creation as well as Redemption would remain incomplete.¨ (BH, p 119). Against principle 1,2 and 3.

2. Jesus to Luisa: ¨There will not be either before or after you, any creature for whom I will obligate through necessity assistance of my Ministers.¨

  COMMENT: One cannot be obligated through necessity to follow a private revelation. (Princ. 1)

3. Jesus to Luisa: ¨My Mother has supremacy over all the Church. In the same way I have done this with you… everything I reveal to you about my Will: The Goods that it contains and how the creature should enter into it and how the paternal kindness wants to open another era of grace”. (BH p.14)

  COMMENT: Luisa is claiming to have received a new ¨deposit¨ of faith which parallels the revelation given to the Apostles. St Thomas teaches de following: “There is a threefold state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second is that of the New Law; the third will take place not in this life, but in Heaven… we are not to look forward to a state wherein man is to possess the grace of the Holy Ghost more perfectly than he has possessed it hitherto.” (Summa I-II, 106).

Against St Thomas there is again Luisa’s ‘revelation’ from “Jesus”: “These revelations regarding my Volition will be as a balm to heal the wounds produced by the human will. Whosoever has the benefit of this knowledge will feel the flow of a new life of light, of grace and strength to fulfill my Will in everything… My daughter, the Kingdom of my Will is invisible. In these writings I have placed superabundant light, grace and attraction to make my kingdom victorious. TO THE EXTEND THAT THESE WRITINGS BECOME KNOWN, they will wage a sweet battle against the human will and will win.” (p.16, BH)  (Against principles 1 and 3)

4. Jesus to Luisa: “Even the way I ask you to pray is not found in any other” (p 19, BH).

   COMMENT: Suffices the Magisterium to answer for us: “Let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.” (DS 1800).

5. Jesus to Luisa: “The soul that does my Will according to the perfection that I teach you … she will surpass all the other Saints… because by remaining in my Will they act divinely, secretly and in a surpassing way” (BH, p 38).

   COMMENT: Besides the heresy of Monotheism and Quietism in this sentence. Take heed that Luisa is saying that without this “revelation” the teachings and Sacraments of the Church as they have come to us through Sacred Scriptures and Tradition are inept to bring us to the level of sanctification God desires us to have”. It contradicts also principle #3.

6. “I (Luisa), upon hearing this, said to myself: ‘Soon He will say that His Will is more than Sacramental Communion itself’. Then He immediately added: ‘Right! Right! Because Sacramental Communion lasts a few minutes. It is temporary, My Will, on the other hand, is perennial Communion.” (p.36 BH).

    COMMENT: This is completely impossible. Holy Communion cannot be compared to the indwelling of oneself spiritually in God! The Holy Eucharist is God Himself lasting physically few minutes in us, whereas on a mystical union of wills with God we always remain OURSELVES united with God through the bounds of charity! It is Monothelitism in all its monstrous size. It is again the voice of the serpent: “You shall be like unto God!” (understood as God as He is in His own essence).

7. Jesus to Luisa: “Ah, I repeat and I confirm to you that my Will is Sacrament and surpasses all the sacraments together in a way that is much more admirable, since it needs no one’s intervention nor anything material. The Sacrament of my Will is formed between my Will and the will of a soul. When both wills melt into each other they form the Sacrament.” (p. 106, BH).

   COMMENT: This statement describing the nature of the union between the human and the Divine Will cannot be said even of Christ Himself. To say that His human will was melted into, or was fused with, his Divine Will, is heretical.

8. “When a soul acts in my Will her humanity is, as it were, suspended. Then the Divine Life of my Love takes its place and acts”. (p. 86, BH). 

    “Thus the soul, until she is buried in my Will and dies completely in It, by disintegrating her volition in Mine” (p. 28. BH).

    COMMENTS: It is the heresy of Quietism. Annihilation of ourselves when placed in the hands of God. St Athanasius explains: “The human will following and not resisting or hesitating, but rather always submitting to His Divine and omnipotent Will. For it is necessary that the will of the flesh act, but that it be subject to the divine will”

9. “Jesus said to me (Luisa): ‘My dear one, look at how for the one who lives in my Volition there is no grace that goes forth from my Will toward all the creatures in Heaven or on earth in which he (i.e. the one who lives in the Divine Will) is not the first to take part. This is natural because he who lives in the house of his father abounds in his possessions. And if those on the outside receive anything, it is in virtue of him who lives inside.” (p.25 BH).

   COMMENTS: Evidently, to live in the Divine Will is to join Our Lady as Mediatrix of all graces!(??).

10.-After being refused Absolution from her confessor, Luisa nevertheless received Holy Communion (after that refusal). She tells us that Jesus said to her not to worry… “For once a person is relieved of his own human will and given over to my Divine Will, there is no need for priestly absolution, for it is given to you by your loving Jesus”. (BH, Vol. 16. Nov. 5, 1923)

   COMMENTS: Excellent example of the heresies of Monothelitism and Quietism. By doing this act of ¨trust¨ you shall be automatically saved without need of practicing your religion at all!!!

CONCLUSION:

     Luisa Piccarreta´s Divine Will is more than heresy. It is an entirely new religion that has a blend of Protestantism, Modernism, Buddhism, Monothelitism, and Quietism. These heresies destroy human responsability for one’s actions. This new religion gives the “formula” to become essencialy like unto God.

Note 1.- BH = When the Divine Will Reign in souls, Book of Heaven: A selection of Passages. Luisa Piccarreta Center for the Divine Will. Jacksonville, FL. 1995.

The minister who confers a Sacrament must have the intention of doing that which the Church and Christ intends (and do not what the false Church of Vaticano II intends or what the masons intend). And to do so in a right manner, the minister must use a Catholic RITE which Indeed was given by Christ for that purpose and therefore is indeed capable of signifying CLEARLY the Grace that the visible sign produces.

Begining with, let us remember the comdenation of the council of Trent (Canon 11):
“If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there he does not requiere at least the intention of doing what the Church does, let him be Anathema.”

Moreover, in whatever “fórmula” or sacramental change of the true Sacraments, if it does not reflect the intention that Christ had when He created it, this very fact alone makes that modified Sacrament invalid.

The meaning of any sacramental form must be a determinated one, it must be unequivocal, that is, it must be exclusive and univocal. By its very essence it cannot be at all equivocal, unclear, or ambiguous.

By its very definition a Sacrament is a sensible sign producing the grace signified. If the words used for this signification are ambiguous, it would therefore be obvious that in such a case Grace would not be granted because it is NOT signified. Therefore the Sacrament would be invalid.

In the especific case of the
New Mass and of the New RITE of priesly ordenation the “grace” signified is ambiguous and therefore incapable of producing Grace. Those New rites moreover, preecisely because the ambiguity, they are incapable of being faithful at the necessity of having the intention of doing what the Church and Christ does. Based upon this solid principles, we can safely conclude that these “New” rites by themselves are invalid.

Therefore one cannot accept Sacraments from a “priest” that was ordained with the New RITE of ordenation, in the same way one cannot accept the New Mass from the hands of a valid priest.

Conference (click here)

Source: Cathinfo

In view of the number of people who think that the meeting of the SSPX Major Superiors has produced a change for the better, it seems important to keep our heads cool. Below is Fr. Girouard’s thoughts on the June 29th SSPX communiqué.

THIS IS THE EMAIL FATHER GIROUARD SENT LAST JUNE 29th TO HIS PARISHIONERS IN ALDERGROVE, BC:

Dear parishioners,

The latest communiqué from Menzingen, following the Superiors’ meeting of June 25-28, is nothing more than window dressing to keep customers happy. See link to CathInfo:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SSPX-Communiqu-after-meeting-of-all-Superiors

Indeed, this communiqué doesn’t reveal any practical resolution, only “intentions”. So, after three days of meeting together, this is all the Major Superiors could come up with? Is this all they have been able to achieve? Seems like a lot of money, from the sacrifices of benefactors, has been spent for nothing… (Or maybe it was paid by the Rothschild’s donation from Austria?).

Remember, friends, the following: Whenever Menzingen comes up with soothing words like that, we must not forget what they have actually DONE.

(I will keep it short here…):

1-The April 2012 Letters from and to the 3 Bishops show the SSPX General Council’s true opinions.
2-In 2012, Bishop Fellay has sent the AFD to Rome, and has not since sent another official document to Rome to repudiate it.
3-Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope on June 17th, 2012, saying he would continue with all his strength to work for a recognition, and saying the only reason he cannot sign the Rome proposal of June 13th, was that too many people in the Society were not yet ready to accept it.
4-The General chapter of 2012 has abandonned the 2006 Chapter Resolution (“no practical agreement without the conversion of Rome”), which was in line with the Archbishop’s latest position.
5-Since the summer of 2012, Bishop Fellay and his cronies have punished severely anybody (clergy and lay) who publicly criticized his new policy, going even as far as expelling H.E. Bishop Williamson.
6-On June 27th, 2013 the 3 remaining SSPX bishops (F, G, T) declared publicly that they would accept an unilateral recognition by Rome, even without its conversion.
7-In October 2012, Fr. Wegner, then District Superior of Canada, admitted to me, and promoted, the new branding of the Society effected by a professional firm. This branding was summarized in one sentence: “If the Society is to grow, it has to cease criticizing Rome and the VII reforms, and focus rather on the beauties of Tradition.”

Dear parishioners, I think we must never lose sight of these above-mentioned FACTS. All the rest that comes from Menzingen is nothing else than lullabies intended to put people to sleep. Let us refuse these sirens’ songs. Let us  remain alert, strapped firmly on the boat of true fidelity to Tradition. And true fidelity can only be one that refuses any compromise with those and the things that are destroying the Church!

God bless,
Father Girouard