APRIL 2017 SUPPLEMENT
Published by Most Holy Trinity Seminary, 1000 Spring Lake Highway, Brooksville, Florida 34602. This newsletter is sent free of charge to all
Seminary benefactors who contribute $75.00 or more annually. If you would like to be on our mailing list, please contact us by mail, or at
[email protected]. Please visit our website at mostholytrinityseminary.org
Announcing…
The Roman Catholic
Institute
1
My dear Catholic people,
You will find nothing new in our organization. You
will see the same faces, and nothing will change in our
seminary or our parishes. As I said, we are merely
crystallizing and cementing our present beliefs and
practices, insuring that they continue on a steady path.
The faithful should be encouraged by this
development. Their greatest agony is to see priests fight.
The lay people bear up with many difficulties, but they
become very insecure and depressed when priests fight
among themselves. Not being well versed in theology or
Canon Law, they are unable to make an informed choice
about who is right and who is wrong. It is my firm hope
that our organization will provide the much desired unity
among priests.
The Roman Catholic Institute is open to bishops,
priests, and seminarians. Subdeacons may join permanently.
Before subdiaconate, seminarians may join temporarily,
provided they have completed one year of seminary.
The Institute has a List of Approved Clergy. The
purpose of this list is to ensure that the members do not
entangle themselves with clergy who are in some way
unworthy or unacceptable. Something plaguing the
traditional movement today is the proliferation of poorly
trained priests and of priests with liberal or bizarre ideas.
The Institute wants to keep clear of all of these types.
In the picture on the previous page, you see, from left
to right, Father Despósito, Father Selway, myself, Father
Palma, Father Eldracher, and Father Fliess. In the back
row you see our seminarian members: Caleb Sons from
Louisiana, Rev. Mr. Damien Dutertre from France, Luke
Petrizzi from Virginia, and Tobias Bayer, also from
Virginia. Of these, Rev. Mr. Dutertre is a subdeacon, and
therefore a permanent member. We therefore start off with
ten members. We hope and pray that the Institute will
grow in the future, and that God will bless its
undertakings.
In the following pages you will find our three
Directories. We want the lay people to see what we stand
for, and invite them to adopt these very same principles in
this great and life-long struggle we have all undertaken for
the integrity of Catholic dogma, Catholic moral doctrine,
Catholic liturgy, and Catholic discipline.
At the end of this supplement, I have begun a
commentary on the text of these directories, so that our
people understand more fully what they mean, and why we
have made these principles the basis of what we think and
do. I will continue this commentary in future newsletter
supplements.
Recently I have founded something which is long
overdue, that is, an organization of priests and seminarians.
It is entitled the Roman Catholic Institute.
The purpose of this organization is to make explicit the
theological, liturgical, and pastoral principles which guide all
of our actions. Furthermore, it is to ensure that these
principles do not pass away with me or with any other
member of the clergy, but that they be taught to the
younger clergy and adhered to by them. These principles
must endure as the rock-solid Catholic directives which
address the needs of these times.
The Institute has a very elaborate set of rules for the
clergy who belong to it. They represent nothing different
from the laws which governed clergy in the past, but with
special emphasis on preserving true doctrine, personal
sanctity, common life where possible, good example, and
good morals. The Institute also provides for the material
support of the clergy.
The Institute has three Directories, that is, three
declarations of principles regarding (1) doctrine and
theology; (2) the sacred liturgy; (3) pastoral practice. They
are called directories inasmuch as they direct the thinking
and activity of the members of the Institute.
Many traditionalists lament the lack of unity among
the clergy who have preserved tradition. This lack of unity
is due in great part to the fact that the governing principles
and rules were not clearly spelled out in the beginning. Each
one entered the traditional movement with his own idea of
how it should proceed, and what it stood for. Consequently,
tensions developed in various organizations, ending up in
splits and bitterness.
We are witnessing this very phenomenon in the Society
of Saint Pius X. Their forty-seven year history has been
marked by constant shifts in position and attitudes toward
the Novus Ordo. In 2012, for example, they said that there
would be no reconciliation with Rome until Rome returned
to Tradition. Now we see them on the brink, apparently, of a
reconciliation with the Modernist inhabitants of the Vatican.
No one who retains the use of reason, however, would say
that “Rome has returned to Tradition.” As a result of this
shift, we have seen in recent years the emergence of the
“Resistance SSPX,” a loosely formed group of priests which
claims to hold out for the “true” guiding principles of
Archbishop Lefebvre. As we know, however, the Archbishop
left no theological, liturgical, or pastoral directories, but only
many contradictory statements and practices which gave
each side, the left and the right, something to work with.
With the expected absorption of the Society of Saint
Pius X into the Novus Ordo humanist and dogma-less
religion, sinking into it with more than four hundred priests
and three bishops, it is all the more necessary to keep the
traditional movement on a safe and permanent course.
— Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
2
T H E O LO G I CA L D I R E C TO RY O F T H E
R O M A N C AT H O L I C I N S T I T U T E
I, ______________________________________________________ profess that Vatican II and the doctrinal,
disciplinary and liturgical reforms which have proceeded from it are substantial alterations of the
Catholic Faith. I profess that these heretical, evil, and blasphemous reforms can in no way proceed
from the Roman Catholic Church, since she is infallible in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her
liturgical worship. I therefore profess that the members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, despite any
and all appearances of authority, do not possess the authority to rule, for they are the authors and
promulgators of the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical abominations which have invaded our
holy places. I hold that they are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such. I furthermore
hold that the members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy constitute the Catholic hierarchy only
materially, that is, that they are in possession of legally valid designations to receive jurisdiction,
although they remain deprived of this jurisdiction until such time as they recant the apostasy of
Vatican II and its reforms.
I hold that the Second Vatican Council and its reforms constitute an entirely new religion, a
dogma-less religion of humanity, which differs essentially from Roman Catholicism as it has been
taught, known and practiced from the time of the Apostles to the present day. I hold, by Catholic
faith, that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible in its ordinary universal magisterium
concerning faith and morals. I hold that it is theologically certain that the Roman Catholic Church
is infallible in its universal laws, universal disciplines, and universal liturgical practices, inasmuch
as it cannot promulgate to the whole Church anything which is false or sinful in these matters. I
also hold that the Roman Catholic Church is indefectible, that is, it will endure as the institution
founded by Christ until the end of time, and that it cannot undergo any substantial change in
dogma, moral teaching, liturgical practices, or essential disciplines. I therefore hold that the
hierarchy which promulgates and promotes this new and false religion has no authority to teach,
rule, and sanctify the Roman Catholic Church, and that their very promulgation and promotion of
this new and false religion is positive proof that they do not represent Christ, the Head of the
Church, nor act with His authority. For it is impossible, by Catholic faith, that those bearing the
authority of Christ could promulgate a new and false religion to the Catholic faithful and in
Catholic institutions.
I consequently hold that it is a certain theological conclusion, flowing directly from the
infallibility and indefectibility of the Roman Catholic Church, that the hierarchy which
promulgates the new and false religion of the Second Vatican Council and its reforms, does not
have the authority to teach, rule, and sanctify the Church. I hold that it is necessary to conclude
that the modernist hierarchy, the promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms, is formally a false
hierarchy, and must be regarded as such, and treated as such, by every Catholic. I hold that the
modernist promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms are stripped of any ecclesiastical authority
owing to their intention to promulgate to the Roman Catholic Church the substantial
transformation of her doctrines, liturgy and essential disciplines, and that that those elected or
appointed to positions of authority, however legitimately, must be regarded as false popes and
false bishops. I consequently reject those known as John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II,
Benedict XVI, and Francis as false popes, as well as anyone in the future who may claim to be
pope but who, at the same time, intends to promulgate Vatican II and its reforms.
Accordingly I reject the notion, commonly known as opinionism, that the formal vacancy of
the Roman see and the episcopal sees in the aforementioned circumstances is merely a theological
opinion, as if the opposite opinion had theological merit, namely the opinion which holds that
3
these same promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms constitute the true Catholic hierarchy, and
could be held by a Catholic with impunity. For to assert, even as an opinion, that the promulgators
of Vatican II and its reforms constitute the true hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, is to
assert implicitly that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, in the name of Christ and by
His divine authority, could promulgate to the universal Church false doctrine, evil laws and
disciplines, and a false and blasphemous liturgy. To even hold this as an opinion is to implicitly
deny the infallibility and indefectibility of the Roman Catholic Church, which is heresy.
I also reject as false the notion of those who allege in support of opinionism, that priests do
not have the authority to require the faithful to assent to the formal vacancy of the Roman see and
the episcopal sees in the present circumstances. For it requires no ecclesiastical authority to insist
that the faithful be consistent in their rejection of Vatican II and its reforms, and that they avoid
the implicit heresy of associating the promulgation of Vatican II and its reforms with the authority
of Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, vested in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
It requires no authority to require that Catholics regard as a false pope him whom they reject as
the living rule of faith.
I hold, moreover, that the solution to the aberrations of Vatican II is the complete rejection of
this council as a false council, including its decrees and enactments. The Second Vatican Council
manifested itself to be a false council, and devoid of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, by the fact
that it promulgated doctrines which were previously condemned by the Church. The heretical
nature of this council is confirmed by (1) the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul
VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, and other documents; (2) the series
of abominations perpetrated by Paul VI and his successors against the First Commandment of
God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in
some cases; (3) the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been
replaced by a Protestant supper service; (4) the tampering with the matter and form of the
sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders,
including episcopal consecration, labor under doubt or invalidity; (5) the promulgation of
disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve
of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate
heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis; (6) the scandalous mockery
made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons,
constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage; (7) the fact
that Paul VI and his successors are in communion with manifest heretics, have openly declared
themselves to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and have recognized an apostolic mission
in the clergy of non-Catholics, all of which destroys the unity of faith.
I further profess and adhere to by divine and catholic faith everything which is contained in
divine revelation, whether written or handed down, and which has been proposed by the Church
as having been revealed by God either by her solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal
magisterium. I furthermore accept all of the decrees of all of the ecumenical councils of the
Catholic Church, of the Holy Office, and of the Biblical Commission.
I wholeheartedly reject the heretical teaching of Vatican II concerning the unity of the
Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church,
but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and
its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the
1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the
Ecumenical Directory. It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally
in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of
Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the “Branch Theory” made by the Holy Office under
Pope Pius IX.
4
I reject the teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism as overtly heretical, which states
that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching
of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which doctrine was called
by Pope Pius IX a notissimum catholicum dogma. In addition, the ecumenical practices which have
resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.
I also reject the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanæ,
which nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in
Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and
by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Præstantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also
contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI,
and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.
I moreover reject the teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality, which attempts to alter
the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine
Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that
the subject of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the
pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of the Vatican Council of
1870.
I adhere to the Catholic liturgy of the Roman rite, pristine and untouched by liturgical
Modernists. Consequently I reject the Ordo Missæ of Paul VI as an evil liturgical discipline,
because (1) it contains a heretical definition of the Mass; (2) it was composed with the express
purpose of making an ecumenical liturgy, pleasing to Protestants, stripped of Catholic truths
concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the
Holy Eucharist; (3) it was composed with the help and input of six Protestant ministers, which
shows the heretical spirit in which it was conceived and formulated; (4) its authors systematically
deleted from its prayers and lessons doctrines which would be offensive to heretics; (5) it teaches,
both by its omissions and its symbolism and gestures, heresies and errors concerning the
priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist;
(6) it is most probably invalid owing to a defect of intention which it causes in him who celebrates
it, inasmuch as the reformed missal refers to the essential words of consecration as an “institution
narrative.”.
I reject the Vatican II reforms of the other sacraments, which participate in the same spirit of
ecumenical apostasy. Notable among these is the Vatican II rite of Orders, which has deleted the
notion of a sacrificing priesthood and has changed the form of the sacrament from that set down
by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, and the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration, the
essential words of which fail to indicate the essence of the Catholic episcopacy, reducing it to
merely a jurisdiction to found local churches.
I also reject the reforms of the Missal and Breviary made in 1955 and thereafter, because they
were designed and concocted by the same Annibale Bugnini, the author of the Ordo Missæ of Paul
VI. When seen in the subsequent light of the ultimate reforms of Vatican II, it is clear that the
1955 reforms of the Mass and of Holy Week in particular are inchoately the same reforms as those
of Vatican II. I hold that the legal justification for the rejection of these rites, which were
promulgated by a true Roman Pontiff, is the principle of epicheia, since if there were a Pope
reigning at the present time, it is reasonable to presume that he would not want these inchoative
changes to be used by the Church.
I adhere to the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
I consequently reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law because (1) it is promulgated by John Paul
II, a false pope, who has no jurisdiction to make any laws for the Catholic Church, owing to his
5
promulgation of the Vatican II heresies and errors; (2) it contains the heresy of Vatican II
concerning the Church, mentioned above; (3) it permits sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament, by
approving of its reception by non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin; (4) it permits communicatio in
sacris with non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin.
I hold that the only solution to the problem of Vatican II is to condemn it as a false council
which was dominated by heretics, and to discard and ignore its decrees and enactments.
Consequently, I do not seek to be recognized by the heretical hierarchy which promulgates
Vatican II, nor do I seek to work with the Novus Ordo clergy, or to consider myself co-religionists
with them. I repudiate the idea of celebrating the traditional Mass under the auspices of the
Novus Ordo hierarchy, as well as the notion of a group or fraternity of priests which has received
permission or seeks permission from the Novus Ordo hierarchy to function in communion with the
Modernist heretics.
I hold that in addition to the Sacrament of Baptism, there is Baptism of Blood, whereby an
unbaptized person is justified by means of a bloody martyrdom for the Catholic Faith. I
furthermore hold that there is a Baptism of Desire, whereby an unbaptized person can achieve
justification if, (1) through no fault of his own he cannot receive the Sacrament of Baptism; (2) he
desires the Sacrament of Baptism, at least implicitly; (3) by the grace of God he receives
supernatural faith and supernatural charity; (4) that he explicitly believe some truths of the
Catholic Faith, at the very least that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him, (5) he
has perfect contrition for his sins.
Finally I hold that the traditional Latin Mass which is offered together with (una cum) the
Novus Ordo hierarchy is objectively sacrilegious. Consequently I affirm that active participation
in Masses or services in which the name of a Novus Ordo hierarch is mentioned is objectively a
mortal sin.
All these things I hold to be certain and true.
(There follows the signatures of the member and of the Superior General).
____________________________________________________________________________________
L I T U RG I CA L D I R E C TO RY
OF THE
R O M A N C AT H O L I C I N S T I T U T E
1. The general liturgical principle of the Institute is to preserve the traditional Roman liturgy.
The Institute holds that the changes which were made to the Roman liturgy by the Commission
for the Reform of the Liturgy, founded by Pope Pius XII in 1948, and headed by Annibale
Bugnini, were transitory changes which were made in view of the Novus Ordo Missæ of 1969.
Consequently the Institute shall reject any changes made at the suggestion of the aforesaid
commission, even if promulgated by Pope Pius XII. The Institute holds that, although these
changes were duly promulgated by Pope Pius XII, the acceptance of them in the light of the
changes of Vatican II would be harmful to the stated end, namely the preservation of the
traditional Roman liturgy. Nonetheless, the Institute does not regard the liturgical changes of
Pope Pius XII as sinful to observe or attend, or as non-Catholic, but does regard them as a prelude
to the ultimate changes of Vatican II, to which their author, Annible Bugnini, attests.
6
1. The members of the Institute of the Roman Catholic Institute shall adhere to the Roman Missal
of Saint Pius V, the Roman Breviary of Saint Pius V, together with the additions and reforms
made up to and including the year 1948, exclusive.
The members of the Institute shall adhere to the Roman Pontifical by Pope Benedict XIV and
Pope Leo XIII and the Roman Ritual promulgated by Pope Benedict XIV.
2. The Institute shall accept any and all canonizations of saints made up to October 9, 1958, and
shall reject as invalid any canonizations which were attempted thereafter.
3. The Institute shall accept any feast days of the universal calendar which were established up to
December 31st, 1954, and shall reject any made thereafter.
4. The Institute shall reject the reformed Holy Week rite which was promulgated in 1955,
including earlier reforms which were permitted in 1951.
5. The Institute shall accept all changes made to the eucharistic fast made by Pope Pius XII.
6. The members of the Institute shall not use gothic-style vestments; they shall use only Roman-,
French-, German-, and Spanish-style vestments. The San Filippo (Renaissance) style is also
permitted.
7. The members of the Institute shall use only the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible when
citing or reading Sacred Scripture in English, and shall use only the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate
when citing or reading Sacred Scripture in Latin.
8. The Institute rejects the use of the translation of the Psalms promulgated for optional use by
Pope Pius XII in 1945.
9. The members of the Institute reject the use of the Dialogue Mass.
10. Bishops and priests of the Institute shall observe the rubrics of the Roman Missal regarding
the mention of the name of the pope and bishop during the vacancy of each of these sees.
11. Members of the Institute may not say Mass or conduct any public or private devotions in a
church or chapel that is commonly used for the Novus Ordo Mass. The veneration of a relic or of a
sacred image in these locations is permitted.
12. The members of the Institute may not show any signs of veneration of what purports to be the
Blessed Sacrament in Novus Ordo churches, or of their altars.
13. The members of the Institute shall conform all liturgical rites and ceremonies to the
instructions found the the Rubricæ Generales of the Roman Missal and Breviary, in the
Cæremoniale Episcoporum, and in the Rituale Romanum, and in the books of approved traditional
rubricists, such as Martinucci, Moretti, Van der Stappen, O’Connell, O’Kane, Le Vavasseur, and
others which are approved by the Superior General. Local or national customs, provided that they
are long-standing and not contrary to the rubrics, should also be observed.
I, the undersigned, do hereby freely accept to abide by this Liturgical Directory.
(There follows the signatures of the member and of the Superior General).
7
P A S TO R A L D I R E C TO RY
OF THE
R O M A N C AT H O L I C I N S T I T U T E
I. Administration of Sacraments
General Principles
The administration of the sacraments requires not only valid ordination but jurisdiction as well.
Sacramental jurisdiction is sought and obtained in ordinary times from the bishop of the diocese.
However, in these times of the vacancy of the episcopal sees owing to the promotion of heresy,
jurisdiction to distribute the sacraments comes from the principle of epicheia, which is the
favorable interpretation of the will of the lawmaker in the absence of the lawmaker. This principle,
therefore, demands two things in order that it can be validly cited and used for sacramental
jurisdiction: (1) the absence of the lawmaker, and (2) a reasonable cause by which to presume the
permission of the absent lawmaker. If either of these conditions should be lacking, then epicheia
could not be used for sacramental jurisdiction.
The priests of the Institute hold that both of these conditions of epicheia are present. For they
hold for certain that the Vatican II hierarchy is a false hierarchy, and does not have the power to
teach, rule, and sanctify the Church. Therefore the legislator of sacramental jurisdiction is absent.
They hold, as well, that those who repudiate Vatican II and the Vatican II hierarchy would be
deprived of sacraments if the priests of the Institute failed to provide them. Therefore the
reasonable cause exists to presume that the legislator — Christ the Head of the Church and a true
pope or true local bishop — would desire that he distribute the sacraments.
Consequently, the Institute holds that its priests may administer sacraments legitimately only to
those who have repudiated the Vatican II religion. It is not in accordance with reason that a priest,
who is using epicheia to justify his sacramental jurisdiction, distribute sacraments to those who
accept the authority of the Novus Ordo hierarchy. All ecclesiological principles require that one
may approach for sacraments only those priests who are authorized by the true hierarchy of the
Catholic Church. Therefore, if someone recognizes the Vatican II “pope” and “bishops” as the
true Catholic hierarchy, then these same ecclesiological principles logically require the priest of the
Institute to refuse sacraments to them. For there is no reasonable cause present to distribute
sacraments, by epicheia, to those who logically should be going to the Vatican II hierarchy for
sacraments. Furthermore, there is no reasonable cause for those who adhere to the Vatican II
hierarchy to approach a priest for sacraments who holds that the legislator (the local bishop) is
absent, owing to promulgation of heresy.
In other words, neither Christ nor the Church can authorize at the same time both the Novus
Ordo clergy and the traditionalist clergy to distribute sacraments. Only one of these distributes
legitimately; the other distributes illegitimately. Only one distributes as having jurisdiction from
the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church; the other distributes without authorization and
jurisdiction from the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Reason and logic always demand consistency. Inconsistency is a sure sign of error. Whatever act is
not in accordance with reason, furthermore, is a sin.
8
The refusal of sacraments to adherents to the Vatican II hierarchy, therefore, must not be
construed as an accusation of public sin, or of public heresy, or any other delict, but simply as a
moral consequence of the their recognition of the false Vatican II hierarchy as the true Catholic
hierarchy. To administer sacraments to them would be contrary to reason, and would therefore
eliminate one of the necessary conditions of epicheia, which would, in turn, ruin the foundation of
the priest’s jurisdiction in administering the sacraments to such persons.
Practical Application of the Principles
1. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who deny either the
Baptism of Blood or the Baptism of Desire or to those who promote these ideas.
2. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who frequent the
Novus Ordo Mass, unless they first manifest an intention of repudiating Vatican II and its
reforms.
3. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who are invalidly
married, or who are living as husband and wife after having received marriage annulments from
the Novus Ordo, the Society of Saint Pius X, or any other person or entity.
4. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who frequent a Mass,
even traditional, which is offered under the auspices of or with the approval of the Novus Ordo
hierarchy, nor to those who frequent the traditional Mass in which members of the Novus Ordo
hierarchy are mentioned in the Te igitur prayers of the Canon of the Mass, nor to those who
recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy as having the power to teach, rule, and sanctify the Catholic
Church.
5. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who obstinately hold
that the position of recognizing the Novus Ordo hierarchy as having the power to teach, rule, and
sanctify the Catholic Church has theological probability, and may be legitimately held.
6. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who are gravely
immodest in their dress, or who in any other way are guilty of grave public sin.
7. In all cases of refusal of the sacraments, except in those involving grave public sin, warning
should be given to those to whom sacraments shall be denied in a discreet and reasonable manner,
and should be given the opportunity to repent of their sins or to remove the impediments to
receiving the sacraments.
8. Those who are returning from the Novus Ordo to the beliefs and practices of Roman
Catholicism may not receive sacraments until (1) they manifest their resolve to utterly repudiate
Vatican II and its reforms, (2) it is determined that they are sufficiently instructed in the Catholic
Faith, and (3) are free from any impediments to receiving the sacraments, particularly invalid
marriages and cohabitation, or any other public sin.
II. Preaching
9. The clergy of the Institute shall preach a sermon on all Sundays and holydays of obligation,
unless there is a serious reason whereby it is inconvenient or impossible. They may also preach a
sermon on other occasions.
10. The clergy of the Institute shall preach at least four times a year concerning the principles of
Catholic resistance to Modernism as contained in the Theological Directory of the Institute.
9
11. The clergy of the Institute shall follow the instructions of the Superior General concerning the
subjects of their sermons.
12. The clergy should preach for not less than ten minutes on a Sunday or holyday of obligation,
and not more than 30 minutes.
13. The clergy of the Institute shall make serious preparation of their sermons, and shall be zealous
in learning, either by reading books or seeking advice from others, the skill of delivering a sermon
well.
III. Sacrament of Matrimony
14. The clergy of the Institute shall observe the general instructions concerning Matrimony which
shall be provided by the Superior General.
15. The clergy of the Institute shall not, under any circumstances, declare a marriage to be null,
whether in a public or private manner, except in those cases in which the nullity of the marriage is
certain from documentary proof.
16. The clergy of the Institute shall not permit those who are not validly married to act as
husband and wife toward each other. They may permit an invalidly married couple to remain
together, provided that (1) there is a serious reason for their remaining together; (2) the invalidity
of the marriage is not publicly known; (3) the invalidly married couple promise to act as brother
and sister toward each other, and in fact take the necessary means to observe the promise; (4) there
is no danger of scandal.
17. The clergy of the Institute shall insure that the couples to be married be properly instructed
according to the Syllabus of Marriage Instruction.
IV. Parish Bulletins
18. The clergy of the Institute shall place in their parish bulletin all information which is required
by the Superior General.
V. Design and Decoration of Churches
19. The clergy of the Institute must submit for approval to the Superior General any design for
construction or decoration of churches, and shall follow the instructions of the Superior General in
these matters.
VI. Devotions
20. The clergy of the Institute shall promote only those devotions which are officially approved by
the Catholic Church. All devotional practices must be approved by the Superior General.
VII. Apparitions and Private Revelations
21. Only those apparitions and private revelations which have been approved by the Catholic
Church may be promoted by the members of the Institute. All members shall follow the
instructions of the Superior General in these matters.
10
22. The members of the Institute shall avoid any fanaticism or obsession with apparitions or
private revelations, and shall not speak to the laity about apparitions or private revelations which
are not approved by the Catholic Church.
23. The members of the Institute shall avoid an excessive or obsessive interest in matters that
pertain to the end of the world.
VIII. Sacraments to Be Conferred Again Absolutely or Sub Conditione
24. As a general rule, no sacrament should be repeated sub conditione except where there is a
positive doubt concerning its validity.
25. Ordinations to the priesthood conferred in English or Latin according to the reformed rite in
use in the Novus Ordo during or after 1968, are considered doubtful.
26. Consecrations to the episcopacy performed according to the reformed rite of consecration
during or after 1968 are considered invalid.
27. Confirmations conferred in English or Latin according to the reformed rite during or after 1971
are considered doubtful.
28. Baptisms conferred by Novus Ordo clergy during or after 1990 must be verified as having been
done correctly. If positive proof of the correctness of the rite should be lacking, then the baptism
must be conferred again sub conditione.
29. Baptisms conferred by protestant sects are always considered doubtful, and the sacrament of
Baptism must be conferred again sub conditione.
30. Baptisms conferred by Eastern schismatics are considered valid, unless they have been
conferred by clergy who are not subject to the schismatic hierarchy, or have been conferred by
those subject to the Russian patriarchate, in which cases positive eyewitness proof of validity
must be provided.
31. Confirmations done by Eastern rite uniates and by eastern schismatics must be conferred again
sub conditione, unless they have been performed by a bishop.
IX. Exorcisms
32. The clergy of the Institute shall not presume to perform any public or private exorcisms, apart
from those contained in the rite of Baptism and in the rites of the blessings of things, such as holy
water, without the permission of the Superior General.
11
Commentary on the Theological Directory
of the Roman Catholic Institute
by Most Reverend Donald J. Sanborn
“I profess that Vatican II and the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical reforms which
have proceeded from it are substantial alterations of the Catholic Faith.”
These words contain the fundamental truth of the whole traditional movement. The central
question for every Catholic since Vatican II is this: Is the religion which has come out of Vatican
II and its changes the same religion as before Vatican II?
If the answer is “Yes, it is the same religion,” then there is no need to reject it or condemn it.
It would be schismatic and even heretical to reject it. If, on the other hand, the answer to the
question is “No, it is not the same religion,” then Catholics must uncompromisingly reject it, in
the same way that the Church rejected and condemned all heresies in the past. Just as there is no
middle ground between yes and no, so there is no middle ground between accepting the Vatican II
reforms as the Catholic Faith or rejecting them as non-Catholic.
Consequently, nothing else in this Theological Directory, or in the Liturgical and Pastoral
Directories, would make any sense unless it is true that the Vatican II reforms constitute a new
religion which substantially alters the Catholic Faith in doctrine, discipline, and liturgy.
“I profess that these heretical, evil, and blasphemous reforms can in no way proceed
from the Roman Catholic Church, since she is infallible in her doctrines, her disciplines,
and her liturgical worship.”
This passage is a profession of faith in the infallibility and indefectibility of the Catholic
Church. The very essence of the Catholic Church consists in the assistance which Christ, her
Invisible Head, gives to her, all days even to the consummation of the world, as He said before He
ascended. He accomplishes this assistance through the Holy Ghost the Paraclete. If you take away
this assistance from the Church, she would not differ from any merely human church or religion,
and would be subject to all of the religious errors and deviations which have plagued humanity
from the time of the Fall of Adam and Eve. The very reason why we give our assent of faith to the
teaching of the Church is that she has this assistance from Christ, and has the power to teach in
His name.
The assistance means that the Church is indefectible, that is, she will remain until the the end
of time as a visible and hierarchical institution, and that she will always remain the same, just as
Christ founded her. This means that through her hierarchy she will always teach the same
doctrines, both dogmatic and moral, will always retain the same essential liturgical practices, and
will always prescribe the same essential laws and disciplines. By this principle, her liturgy,
although it may vary in accidental forms, must always teach the Catholic doctrine, and only the
Catholic doctrine, in its rites and ceremonies. In discipline, the assistance of Christ guarantees that
the Church will never make a law that prescribes or permits something which is sinful.
As a logical conclusion from the first sentence, therefore, namely that the Vatican II religion
is a substantial deviation from the true Faith, we say that it is impossible that this substantial
deviation proceed from the authority of Christ which is vested in the hierarchy of the Catholic
Church. “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven.” It would be
contrary to the promises of Christ that the Catholic hierarchy promulgate what is a substantial
alteration of the Catholic Faith.
(To be continued)
12