It is not as complicated as it is sometimes made to seem. It simply refers to that Apostolic succession by which the Catholic Church of today is one with the Church of the Apostles.
With the same consistency of past ages, all who seek rest in a restless modern world, all who seek assurance of being in the right Church are invited to examine the Roman Catholic Church.
Apostolicity is the mark of the true Church being obscured by many false prophets. For this reason, namely, to show forth the genuine Catholic Church from the many mini-sects that have been spawned as a consequence of the Second Vatican Council and the antipopes supporting it, it behooves us to examine more closely the meaning of Apostolicity and to apply it simply and plainly and rigorously to all that surrounds us in the name of `Catholicity.'
The true Church is Apostolic in origin because it goes back to Jesus Christ, who chose the Apostles and clearly stated that He was founding a Church with Peter as its first visible head in union with the other Apostles.
One cannot speak of `Apostolicity' while ignoring that Jesus gave His power to all the Apostles, not just to Peter alone. When Jesus said to Peter: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", He did not exclude the other Apostles.
Jesus gave His power to all the Apostles when He commanded them to go into the whole world to teach and baptize.
The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, just as a legitimate Pope is the successor of St. Peter, the Apostle.
Despite the social upheavals that sometimes give rise to false claimants even to the throne of St. Peter or to the succession of the other Apostles, the Apostolicity of the Church will continue to the end of time. It will continue to the end of time and the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It must be in existence today. It must be possible to recognize this Church. Apostolicity is one of the ways of recognizing it.
The true Roman Catholic Church is Apostolic in doctrine. All over the world Catholics express their Apostolic belief by reciting the Apostles' Creed. History shows that all attempts to break this Apostolic continuity by heresy, or by schism, or by violent persecution, have been unsuccessful. The unfailing teaching authority of Peter and all legitimate Popes, his successors, have kept the links in the doctrinal chain intact. And where Satan has succeeded in creating a temporary situation where a legitimate successor of Peter has been wanting, the Apostolicity of the Church has never failed because the Holy Ghost has preserved and raised up legitimate and genuine successors of the Apostles in the apostolic college (bishops) to continue the genuine Apostolicity of the true Church. These latter are bound to all the legitimate successors of St. Peter. Such successors of the Apostles do not change the teachings of the Church, they continue them in union with all the true Popes.
In this way, the mission of the true Church of the Apostles continues. Christ said to the eleven: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20, 21). This means that the Church goes all the way back to the Apostles in doctrine and in foundation. This `going back' _ as well as its going forward _ is authorized, divinely sanctioned and valid. This Apostolic chain cannot be broken. We must not question the prophetic voice of the Savior saying, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (Matt. 28, 20).
The true Church is `ever old and ever new.' Truth never changes and therefore has about it the glamour of undying youth. The rules of grammar have respect for the youthful vitality of truth. One rule, regulating the tense of verbs, states: "Statements permanently true should be put in the present tense. The Catholic Church is Apostolic. It is permanently true that under one aspect, genuine Catholics may be said to be almost 2,000 years old because by grace and adoption, they are members of the Holy Family of the faithful. Thus, too, they are children of God no matter what their age.
The voice of Sacred Scripture sounds the warning, if you will: "Hold the form of such words which thou hast heard from me in faith and in love which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim.1, 13). We are urged to cling to the chain that binds us to Apostolic faith and tradition even at the cost of our lives.
And lest we should waver, we are encouraged by St. Paul: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."(Gal. 1, 8).
Furthermore, St. Paul wants the undistorted good news to ring around the world. "And the things which thou hast heard from me by many witnesses, the same commend to the faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also"(2 Tim. 2,2).
The Church Fathers are unanimous in teaching the Apostolicity of the Church. St. Irenaeus says: "Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church, who have succession from the Apostles." Note well that he speaks of those who have "succession from the Apostles." Not just any priest or bishop will do.
St. Clement says: "Christ was sent by God, and the Apostles were sent by Christ." Here we find that unchanging truth of `mission': No one can come from Christ who has not been sent by the Apostles.
St. Cyprian warns against the breaking of the chain of Apostolic succession: "Novatianus is not in the Church, nor can he be considered a bishop, because in contempt of Apostolic tradition he was ordained by himself withyout succeeding anyone."
All sects that reject the Episcopate, by that very fact, cut themselves off from Apostolic tradition. The same may be said of all those `traditionalist' clergymen who roam around administering Sacraments without a genuine Roman Catholic Bishop have cut themselves off from the Apostolic succession.
Anglican Orders are still invalid despite the scandalous attitude of the antipopes and those who follow them. Even if Anglican Orders were valid, the Anglican Church would not be Apostolic in a full sense because jurisdiction is essential to Apostolicity of mission and ministry. These latter, are to be found only in the Roman Catholic Church.
The present day phenomenon of consecrated Bishops to continue the Apostolic succession and the essential jurisdiction of Apostolic mission and ministry by Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc is a clear sign of the Great Apostasy from the true faith as foretold by St. Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians. Since heretics and schismatics lose any authority in the Church, the Apostolic succession could only be preserved and continued by the consecration of priests loyal and obedient to the Apostolic See. With such consecrations, legitimately administered, has continued the fullness of Apostolic succession. And this leads us to the following consideration.
The justification for the consecration of Bishops by Archbishop Ngo lies primarily in fact, and secondarily in law. The first fact is that the Roman Catholic Church is constituted by the will of God as expressed through His Son, Jesus Christ. It is, therefore, God's will that there be true successors of the Apostles to whom Jesus Christ gave His authority _ and to no others: "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you, even unto the consummation of the world." (Matt. 28,18-20).
This is the expression of Christ's will; it is His command and empowerment of the Apostles to realize the divine plan of salvation. Redemption has already taken place. Now begins the era of Salvation! Or, as Catholic theologians are wont to say: "Christ redeemed us without our cooperation; but, He will not save us without it."
All history of whatever kind, in the ultimate analysis, is a history of salvation from the moment that our Lord uttered the words: "It is consummated." What was `consummated'? The redemption of mankind was consummated!
There now remained one last action on the part of the Incarnate Son of God: His return to the Father. And so He said: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And having said this, he expired." (Luke 23,46).
Because our Redemption depended upon the free will of Jesus in His humanity and His divine will in His divinity, this beginning of creations return to the Father was, comparatively speaking, more easy than salvation which requires the free will cooperation of the saved.
Lucifer cannot touch the Divinity nor can he and his minions destroy Jesus Christ.
The object of Lucifer's attack can only be the Mystical Body of Jesus: The
Roman Catholic Church.
Because there is no effective and fruitful participation in the redemptive action of Jesus (which is what salvation means) outside the Mystical Body of Jesus, the attack of Lucifer and his followers (members of the `Mystical Body of Satan,' if you will) is directed to the Roman Catholic Church.
Martin Luther's slogan was : "Tolle missam, tolle Ecclesiam." Destroy the Mass and you destroy the Church. This is very true from the point of view of the invisible, mystical reality. It is this mystical, invisible, reality that is essential for salvation. True, the visible reality of the Mystical is necessary during our present existence in time and space. And because we are still in this body of flesh and in this existence of time and place, the ordinary process of salvation takes place in our present mode of existence.
If there is no genuine successor of the Apostles to teach, to sanctify and to govern, there is no visible Roman Catholic Church; there is no Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, therefore. Effectively, then, the way of salvation is cut off from those among the living.
We are not considering those situations like pigmies in darkest Africa who never heard of the Gospel. Incidentally, it has to be proven that such is really the case. Nevertheless, the `ordinary' path to saving one's soul is that which has been outlined and defended by the Church since the time of Jesus Christ.
Attacks from Lucifer and his servants are not extraordinary events by any means. They are most ordinary and, consequently, those who keep appealing to these "extraordinary times" (as they hypocritically call them) in a vain attempt to justify their own arrogant heresies and disobedience to the laws of salvation as expressed by the genuine authority of the Church do nothing more than play the rôle of the false prophet. And, as everyone knows, our Lord and His Church have ceaselessly warned against false prophets _ false teachers, usurpers of Apostolic authority, false mystics, false Religious, false priests, false bishops, false cardinals, and finally, false popes.
It was because of all these false agents and promoters of false doctrines that Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, the courageous South Vietnamese Archbishop in exile from his homeland made the startling official declaration that had brought down upon him the wrath and indignation of the false shepherds occupying the visible `heart' of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, namely, the Vatican.
He declared the Chair of Peter to be vacant! He did this with full knowledge of the facts and with cognizance of his authority in the Church. He made this declaration before God and man. Those who have followed him in his declaration and have accepted him as their visible ecclesiastical Superior are expected not only to accept the external dignity of the episcopacy, but also the internal spiritual powers conjoined to that office.
Failing this, the only logical conclusion would impose itself upon the reasonable intelligence: The Roman Catholic Church has ceased to exist. Humanly speaking, if the Church were not of divine origin, such a conclusion could easily become a reality. It is only because the Church is of divine origin, because it is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that the Church can never be destroyed. This fact is proven by the efforts of Archbishop Ngo. Despite his efforts and the efforts of Satan to frustrate them, the Archbishop's heroic sacrifice for the Church was not totally in vain.
There resides one Bishop who has not abandoned the cause of the Church. This one Bishop has taken refuge in the words of Scripture: "Look toward me, and have pity on me, for I am alone and afflicted. Relieve the troubles of my heart, and bring me out of my distress. Put an end to my affliction and my suffering, and take away all my sins. Behold, my enemies are many, and they hate me violently." (Psalm 24).
And why should such a man be hated so violently? Because, as the Psalmist says again: "I stay not with worthless men, nor do I consort with hypocrites. I hate the assembly of evildoers, and with the wicked I will not stay." (Psalm 25).
Since it is the duty of the Bishop to defend the doctrines of the Church, it becomes an understandable obligation not only to state the teachings of the Church, but also to evaluate and expose those false teachers who seek to twist the truth for their own purposes.
The Apostolic See is vacant. The authority of right reason, the grace of God accompanying an Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church has declared it. The words of St. Pius X may be paraphrased to apply to those in genuine Apostolic succession as genuine Bishops of the Church: "The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called." (Encyclical Letter on Modernism, "Pascendi" Sept. 1907).
This saintly Roman Pontiff urged this duty upon all "the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other local Ordinaries in peace and communion with the Apostolic See."
This is the Apostolic See with which we are in `peace and communion.' We are not in `peace and communion' with those who presently occupy the buildings of our faith while unscrupulously destroying the supernatural faith of millions. We are in `peace and communion' with all the legitimate Popes since St. Peter; we are most certainly not in `peace and communion' with usurpers of the papal throne.
Convinced of the truth expressed by Pope St. Pius X in his Encyclical Letter on Modernism that "There has never been a time when watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body…" we respectfully and respectively apply this same need for vigilance on the level suggested by the circumstances of today.
Therefore, in response to the many solicitations of Roman Catholics today concerning the legitimacy and orthodoxy of certain groups and individuals posing as pastors of souls by teaching, administering Sacraments and implicitly imposing themselves as `leaders' of the faithful, we have decided that the public at large have a right and need to know whether or not these and similar groups or individuals are truly authorized representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.
It should be kept in mind that the Bishop teaches with infallibility when he is united to the Roman Pontiff. No one can teach in the Church who has not been appointed to do so. Consequently, as a Bishop commanded by all the Popes of the Roman Catholic Church to teach, sanctify and govern the faithful entrusted to me by divine Providence, and aware of the need of supernatural guidance to acquit myself of this grave duty, I will commend myself to the fervent prayers of genuine Roman Catholics and present the answers to the many questions received to the best of my understanding helped with God's grace.
The first subject to consider is the author of several `best selling' novels dealing with the Church: Malachi Martin.
From all appearances, Malachi Martin belongs to that group of peculiar liberals who have reduced Catholicism to nothing more than lip service in admitting, contrary to right reason, that the present occupant of the Chair of Peter is a legitimate Pope. For such as these, it is sufficient to say the magic words "Holy Father" and all else may fall by the wayside.
Malachi Martin has his own web site through which he promotes himself. The words `promotes himself' are purposely chosen: He does not, and cannot, promote the Roman Catholic Church.
When one thinks of Malachi Martin, there is a process of association of ideas that takes place. One immediately thinks of the Jew-infiltrator, ex-Jesuit Adolphe Weishaupt, who also reached an influential position in the Church in Church Law. From that vantage point, Weishaupt was able to provide his masters with the means to undermine the Church. This was the beginning of the Illuminati. This is not to say that the association is grounded. It just happens that way….It is, nevertheless, very strange that Malachi Martin boasts of having done so much for the Jews without informing his audience just exactly what he did for them. Perhaps there is some foundation for the public accusation that Malachi Martin was most instrumental in changing the Catholic attitude of 19 centuries regarding the Jews.
The difference between what Malachi Martin and his `pope' have done for the Talmudists as opposed to what the genuine Church has done is that the latter has always prayed and hoped for the conversion of the Talmudists from their organized antichrist posture to embracing the true faith. As for the former, both Wojtyla and Martin have emboldened the Talmudists to proselytize Christians who are now without a shepherd for the most part.
But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let us examine some of the `replies' to questions asked of Malachi Martin:
Question: "What do you think about the prophecies of Saint Malachy? He said there would only be 2 more popes after the Slavic Pope?"
Malachi Martin answers: "I cannot explain the accuracy of St. Malachy's description of individual popes. His list implies there will be two more popes after John Paul II. We know from what Our Lady said at Garabandal that John Paul II is the last pope of Catholic times, but this does not mean there won't be other popes obviously, not popes of Catholic times."
Comment: First of all, the alleged apparitions at Garabandal have never been recognized by the Church. Why would Malachi Martin not state this to his interlocutor? Instead of clarifying the whole question, Malachi Martin merely suggests in his ambiguous style that there will be `popes,' but that these `popes' will not be `popes of Catholic times.' What does this mean?
Secondly, before any conclusions can be drawn from St. Malachy's visions of the papacy, it is necessary to resolve the crucial question: Are the last four occupants of the Chair of Peter, viz., John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II genuine, legitimate successors of Pope Pius XII?
Are we to abdicate our right reason just to please questionable individuals? The preponderance of evidence indicates a clear break by the above-mentioned with the Roman Catholic Church founded on the Prophets and the Apostles.
We are too well aware of the irrational `labeling' of sincere Catholics who have no natural benefit to gain from accepting the judgment of their informed reason and conscience.
If anything, those who honestly and with genuine love for the Church accept the painful evidence and conclusions of right reason and informed conscience, these are the honorable sons and daughters of the Roman Catholic Church. Cowards and traitors to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ are the ones who defile their own conscience by refusing to accept the logical conclusions that are based on such evidence that even a blind man can see.
Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that Karl Wojtyla is a legitimate Pope, what would successive `Popes' be like? On the other hand, assuming that Karl Wojtyla and his last three predecessors were illegitimate popes, who among the present-day `Cardinals' could possibly be legitimately elected? And if they are not legitmate Cardinals, how can they be elected to the papacy? If all have fallen into heresy, all are excommunicated from the Church. Not only that, but all their current acts are null and void by virtue of Canon 188, §4. This canon states: There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration." Paragraph No.4 states: "if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith."
Conclusion: All those who have not separated themselves publicly from the Apostate Church are excommunicated. Those who have held any office _ including the office of pope _ are not only excommunicated, but are deemed to tacitly resign from the office held.
This poisnt will be dealt with in another question asked of Malachi Martin.
Question: "Could you give me your opinion of the Sedevacantist movement? As I'm sure you are aware, they believe that St. Peter's chair is vacant and that Pope John Paul II is not a valid pope. In fact, they believe that there hasn't been a valid pope since Pope Pius XII."
Malachi Martin: "Any question about the Sedevacantist condition of the papal throne can only be decided authoritatively by somebody with authority to do so. I am not that person."
Comment: In view of the fact that Malachi Martin is such an `eminent theologian' and `expert on the Catholic Church,' he would be expected to know of the existence of Canon 188, §4. Furthermore, he criticizes Wojtyla for his heretical actions, but refuses for some `strange' reason to conclude that Wojtyla is a heretic. Who is he fooling _ except those uninformed and misinformed pseudo-conservative apostates who listen to him?
Could some intelligent person explain how such people as Malachi Martin and many, many others _ including l'Abbe de Nantes _ are able to say that Karl Wojtyla is not a Catholic, but that he is still their `Holy Father'? Any thinking Catholic would have a problem with that. One of the essential properties of being a valid and legitimate Pope is that the candidate must be a Roman Catholic male.
Observation:: Since Malachi Martin recognizes Karl Wojtyla as his "Holy Father", he is bound by his "Holy Father's" religion and practices.
By so violently and shamefully criticizing his "Holy Father," Malachi Martin is a scandal to others. From this we can readily deduce that his sole purpose in speaking and writing on Roman Catholic matters is to create confusion, disgust and irreverence for all authority. In effect: Malachi Martin respects no authority but his own.
Question: "Are Catholics allowed to join Masonic Lodges? If not, why?"
Malachi Martin's reply: "No, Catholics are not allowed to join the Masonic Lodge, because Masonry as an organization mentally aims at the destruction of Christianity."
Comment: Having said that, one wonders how this eminent theologian and expert on the Catholic Church fails to draw the necessary conclusions from the fact that Marcel Lefevbre publicly stated in a talk in Montreal, Canada, that the man who ordained him and later consecrated him: Achille Card. Lienart, was a Freemason (31st degree).
Note well that this is a public admission on the part of Marcel Lefevbre wherein he himself states that he actually saw him (Lienart) in his Masonic regalia! This, therefore, should be considered as prima facie evidence of the fact. Are there any consequences flowing from this fact? There most certainly are. It means that Marcel Lefevbre knew that Lienart was a Freemason. However, neither Marcel Lefevbre nor Malachi Martin seem to know their basic sacramental theology.
Where's the problem? The problem is a very serious one with dramatic supernatural and social dimensions.
Let me explain. The teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Sacraments in general is this:
It is necessary to observe the following: 1. The character is always imprinted when the sacrament is administered and received validly; 2. It is independent of the moral qualities of the subject, consequently, it is equal in all; 3. Grace increases or decreases in the individuals, but the character remains immutable the same in the good as well as in the bad.
Concerning the reiteration (repeated reception) of the Sacraments, Noldin makes the following practical remarks: 1.Penance may be repeated (and in certain cases must be repeated) and Holy Communion; 2. Every doubtful Sacrament may be repeated, provided that there is a doubt _ a `dubium prudens et rationabile' _ (a prudent and reasonable doubt). Some Sacraments must be repeated, especially Baptism (Penance), even in the case where the doubt is merely slight (dubium tantum tenue). The same holds true for the consecration at Mass, in order that the faithful may not commit material idolatry in venerating a material object; likewise Ordination must be repeated in order to assure the valid administration of the Sacraments.
I have placed the above in bold italics to emphasize and draw attention to the gravity of this question.
I have said that the problem is a supernatural one because here we are dealing with the objective production of supernatural grace and a supernatural character imprinted on the soul. This is, of course, the more important consideration of the two. Nevertheless, the second consideration, namely, the social embarrassment to those individuals who have failed to receive that which they thought they were receiving creates many heartaches. It's like working for many years only to be paid with a bad check.
Was Marcel Lefebvre validly ordained to the priesthood? Then, there is the matter of this same Freemason, Achille Lienart, consecrating Lefebvre. It matters little that Lefebvre himself may or may not have been a party to the deception. It matters not that even Pope Pius XII authorized the episcopal consecration of Lefebvre. All these accidental elements pale in significance against the essential backdrop: Freemasons are positively, actively laboring to destroy the Catholic Church. It is the greatest _ if not the only _ obstacle to establishing the reign of the Antichrist.
The life of the Church is essentially a life of grace _ supernatural grace. Salvation is the work of supernatural grace. Where there is no grace, there is no salvation. It is impossible to please God outside the one true religion.
"Ex ore tuo judico" - I judge from your own words. Malachi Martin has spoken truly by saying that Masonry works to destroy Christianity. What better way to destroy the Church than by depriving Her members of the sources of supernatural life?
Martin Luther sought to destroy the Church by destroying the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Freemasons, guided by the ex-Jesuit Adolph Weishaupt, sought and continue to seek the destruction of the Church by bleeding Her of supernatural life _ the lifeblood of grace by falsifying the Sacraments.
Question: "I belong to a parish of the Society of St.Pius X. I have heard you speak about the underground church and wondered if you were speaking of the Society. I'm sure you are aware of the problems and accusations made against the Society. What statement, if any, would like to make about the SSPX?"
Malachi Martin's reply: "Attendance at mass at any chapel of the SSPX satisfies all Catholic obligations. Likewise, the sacraments administered by members of the SSPX are quite valid."
Comment: The first thought that comes to mind is this: On whose authority does Malachi Martin absolve all those who turn their backs upon their Pope's "bishops" wherever they (Lefebvrites) are located thus giving scandal because of their disobedience?
What is the basis for absolving the Lefebvrite Sect for their schism not only from Rome but from any Roman Catholic community with which they refuse to associate or pray? How much does Malachi Martin really know about this deceptive organization: Its deceptive foundation, its history and its `modus operandi'?
Is it possible that Malachi Martin has no problem with deception? Certain individuals of the Lefebvrite sect have boldly appropriated a unique authority _ not unlike Malachi Martin's _ by stating that their organization needs no bishop's permissions because they are like the Jesuits.
Even the Church of the Great Apostasy must maintain some kind of order just to exist. Understandably, it could not tolerate the kind of activity promoted by one of their own, Marcel Lefebvre.
For this reason, those whom Lefebvre publicly acknowledged as his "Holy Father" (not unlike Malachi Martin!) disobeyed this same "Holy Father" to the point of being personally excommunicated by this "Holy Father." Whereupon, Lefebvre merely mocked such an excommunication.
I find this most scandalous in a man who supposedly insisted on `helping' the "Holy Father" save the Church. Even when the "Holy Father" tried to fight off all this wonderful `help'!
This certainly smells worse than three day old fish in a Sicilian sun.
Who has authorized this para-Church? Malachi Martin? Apparently. But, then, since Malachi Martin asks for an `authority' to determine the validity of the sede vacante position vis-à-vis the present occupant of the Chair of Peter, claiming not to be that authority, how does he give himself out to be an authority in the matter of the Lefebvrite sects' establishments and the claimed satisfaction of "all Catholic obligations"?
And what of the seriousness of the question of the validity of the ordinations and consecrations of Lefebvrite priests and bishops?
It is an insult to the integrity and intelligence of those who base their judgment in these matters on the teaching and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. This kind of mentality as expressed by Malachi Martin smacks of the typical mind-set of the Modernists.
Question: "My question is what exactly is the underground Church you refer to? Is it Catholics acting outside the normal Church structure?"
Malachi Martin's reply: "Yes, that is exactly it. I am referring to a network of bishops, priests, nuns, chapels and schools operating outside the control of the canonical structure of the church."
Comment: An "underground Church" outside the normal Church structure is not an "underground Church" it is a sect outside the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason, the "network of bishops, priests, nuns, chapels and schools operating outside the control of the canonical structure of the church" are not Roman Catholics. They are nothing more than thinly disguised Protestant Sects with their own petty leadership. I do not say `hierarchy' because the true meaning of the word `hierarchy' means a `sacred authority.' There is nothing sacred about the authority the leaders of these heretical and schismatic groups exercise over their followers.
Obviously, Malachi Martin is forced to give his `recognition' of these right-wing Neo-Protestants because he needs their support. He does not need their money, to be sure, he has secured all this from a world eager to be enthralled with `inside revelations' (?) surrounding the Roman Catholic Church. But, money cannot buy that which Malachi Martin seems to need: an audience to flatter him and to hang on his every word as an `eminent theologian' and an `expert on the Catholic Church.'
Unfortunately, Martin's `expertise' does not encompass that which touches on his own eternal end. He is an ex-Jesuit. After twenty-five years, one would be justified in assuming he has made perpetual vows to remain in that Society. It is a common teaching of the Catholic Church that one cannot attain one's eternal goal outside that vocation to which one has been called.
Malachi Martin's vocation is to be a Jesuit. His own salvation depends upon this. He is not worthy of the kingdom of heaven because he has put his hand to the plow and has looked back. His leaving the Jesuits for whatever reason is tantamount to `looking back' _ he has done just what almost every one of those `traditionalists' have done: He has substituted the will of God with his own will.
For this reason, namely: His own spirit of disobedience- He usurps ecclesiastical authority and makes whatever pronouncement serves his willful purpose.
(To be continued)
Continue to next section of article xviii10-6
Return to Contents
Return to Homepage.