Why White Smoke Matters

The Words of the First Vatican Council

The First Vatican Council (1870) infallibly defined that the Church is infallible in both her extraordinary magisterium and her “ordinary and universal magisterium.”

The extraordinary magisterium is when the Pope makes an ex cathedra definition on a matter of Faith and Morals, or when a Pope in conjunction with the Fathers of a General Ecumenical Council makes a solemn definition (which usually ends with “let him be anathema”, or something to that effect). Classic examples of the extraordinary magisterium are the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX, or the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.

The “ordinary and universal magisterium” covers the daily life of the Church, including rites of Mass, the sacraments, canon law, canonization of saints, the parts of ecumenical council documents which are not solemn definitions but which deal with faith and morals, and even prayers and novenas promulgated by the Pope for use by the faithful.

(Where would the infallibility of the Church be if the faithful could be directed to pray to someone who was in Hell? And where would the infallibility of the Church be if the faithful could be directed to fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a Mass that had a falsification of Christ’s words in it, thus making that service a mortal sin, i.e., false worship against the First Commandment?)

The “ordinary and universal magisterium” is explained in paragraph #9 of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical, Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church), and in a book, meant for teaching Bishops and priests, which was given an imprimatur under Pope Pius XII in 1951. It’s called De
Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Meaning of Theological Qualifications) – by Fr Sixtus Cartechini.

Author Mr. John Daly, who has done extensive work in this area, explained why this work is so important in a speech entitled, “The Impossible Crisis”, which he gave in the USA in New York City in 2002 :

“The special significance of this work is that it was written for the use of the Roman Congregations in evaluating the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of different doctrines. It was published at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome in 1951. It is based on the standard doctrines of the great theologians and of the popes themselves on these topics, and it immediately became a standard work . . . .”

“I shall rely on Fr. Cartechini very heavily, because what he says is standard teaching. Anyone who doubts what he says can check it in countless other sources.

“The first three chapters of Fr. Cartechini’s work are about defined dogmas – extraordinary Magisterium. Chapter 4 is called What the Ordinary Magisterium is and how dogmas can be proved from it, or concerning divine and Catholic faith founded on the Ordinary Magisterium.

All of the above, and more, can be found in Section III of this website in the PDF document, “Why the Conciliar Church cannot be the Catholic Church, and Why the New Mass cannot be the True Mass”, chapters 1 and 2, and Appendix III.

I went on at some length about Fr. Carechini’s massive work to indicate that there are voluminous sources to prove that the daily life of the Church in its “ordinary and universal magisterium” is infallible as defined at the First Vatican Council.

Pope Leo XIII's Definition of the Magisterium

But Pope Leo XIII gives us a concise summary of what the “ordinary and universal magisterium” is in paragraph #9 in his 1896 encyclical, Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church):

“For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: ‘All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium’ (Sess. iii., cap. 3).It is then undoubtedly the office of the Church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Savior forever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.” (emphasis added by this website)

Please note that after Pope Leo XIII recognizes the infallibility of the Church’s Extraordinary magisterium, he emphasizes that the Church’s infallible “ordinary and universal magisterium” is also necessary for the Church to fulfill its mission. He then goes on to state that the “ordinary and universal magisterium” covers the daily life of the Church, which “is to be found chiefly” in the Mass, the Sacraments, Canon Law, and discipline. The Pope then goes on to say that all these are offered to mankind in that state of “absolute perfection” which was willed by Christ Himself.

And, indeed, an in-depth study of the history of the Mass, the Sacraments, Canon Law, Church discipline, etc. will find that there has never been an error in any of these in the entire history of the Church.

Likewise, there has never been an error touching on Faith and Morals in any Ecumenical Council document signed by a Pope, whether in the solemn definitions (which are covered under the Church’s “extraordinary magisterium”), or in the parts of the document which touched on Faith and Morals that were not solemn definitions. In other words, even the parts of Council documents which are not solemn definitions, but which touch on matters of Faith and Morals — even these parts of Council documents are covered by the Church’s infallibility, but this time under her “ordinary and universal magisterium.” 

The “Vatican II Popes” officially promulgated False Teaching on Faith and Morals in the “official” Council documents at Vatican Council II. Therefore, they cannot be true popes

Here is the problem: The “Vatican II Popes” officially promulgated false teaching on faith and morals in the Vatican II Council documents, and officially imposed error on the faithful in the “ordinary and universal magisterium” by falsifying Christ’s words in the New Mass in English, and therefore they cannot be true popes.

The Words of Antipope "Paul VI"

An example of a false moral teaching in Vatican Council II is in paragraph #4 of the Vatican II document on “Religious Liberty”, where antipope Paul VI signed the false teaching that every religious organization has the RIGHT (as opposed to the freedom) to promulgate their false doctrines in private or in public, by the written or spoken word. This directly contradicted Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, and Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura. The Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary’s, Kansas used Quanta Cura as an example of an infallible Papal document.  A true Pope could never have signed Vatican II’s document on Religious Liberty as part of an Ecumenical Council, as Paul VI did. And a true Pope could never have endorsed this Vatican II document, as have antipopes John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I.

An example of a heresy is the false teaching that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics do. This heresy is found in the Dogmatic Constitution (!) Lumen Gentium. 

Paul VI also signed this document. And the antipopes who followed him from the John Pauls to Francis I unreservedly and pointedly endorsed this document also.

You will also find that Paul VI attempted to impose these false teachings on all of the Catholic Faithful. In the last document of the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI uses the language that the true popes have used to impose EVERYTHING in the documents of the Second Vatican Council on the faithful.

Here is what Paul VI promulgated at the very close of the Second Vatican Council II, with emphasis added:

APOSTOLIC BRIEF ‘IN SPIRITU SANCTO’ FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL

(December 8, 1965, read at the closing ceremonies by Archbishop Pericle Felici, General Secretary of the Council on behalf of Paul VI.)

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact, it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.

My Interpretation

So, antipope Paul VI could not POSSIBLY have used stronger language to try and bind Catholics to EVERYTHING in Vatican Council II, i.e., “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful.” Again, a true Pope would never and COULD never attempt to bind Catholics to false teaching engaging Faith or Morals.

The reader will note that in the first paragraph quoted above from the closing address of Vatican Council II, that Paul VI says the Council sought to address above all “pastoral needs.” John XXIII also invoked pastoral needs in the opening address of Vatican Council II. But five times previous to the invocation of a “pastoral” council in that opening address, John XXIII said that doctrine had to be preserved. Note that since two of the 16 Council documents of Vatican II were “Dogmatic Constitutions” — and since Paul VI was attempting to bind Catholics to ALL that was synodally decreed at the Second Vatican Council- then there can be no possibility that either antipope John XXIII or antipope Paul VI viewed Vatican II as merely a Pastoral Council.

This last point was ignored, obfuscated, or suppressed by the late author Michael Davies and the Society of St. Pius X, and is still being ignored or misunderstood by the leaders of SSPX and all those who follow them in taking this position today.

But, in any case, the “pastoral” duties of a true Council of the Roman Catholic Church are never at odds with the doctrinal or dogmatic duties of such a true Council. The following is quoted from an email from Mr. Gary Giuffre, circa 1990, dealing with the subject of “Roncalli’s Pastoral Council”:

But the word pastoral does not mean “fallible,” or “non-binding.” Rather, it refers to how the dogmatic teachings of the Church apply to the salvation of souls. For instance, pastoral theology is generally defined as:

“That branch of theology which deals with the care of souls. It takes the teaching of dogmatic, moral and ascetical theology and the rules of canon law and applies them to the everyday work of the parochial clergy in all its aspects.” (A Catholic Dictionary, Donald Attwater, Macmillan Company, New York, 1945, page 521.)
Therefore, “pastoral” is never at odds with “doctrine” in a General Ecumenical Council, or anywhere else in the Catholic Church. Pastoral means HOW doctrine and morals and other aspects of theology will be brought to the people for the care and salvation of souls. “Pastoral” does not mean fallible, and it does not mean we can have all the heresy and false moral teaching that we want. BUT this is the way that certain prominent individuals, such as the late Michael Davies, have used the word “pastoral.” The faithful have been, in effect, told: “Don’t worry, the Second Vatican Council was just a pastoral council.”

This is at odds with Vatican I, and with the constant teaching of the Church on General Ecumenical Councils signed by a Pope. Another quote from Mr. Gary Giuffre taken from an email circa 1990:

A thorough study of the doctrinal character of general councils of the bishops, organized under the authority of the Pope, was published in 1908, by The Catholic Encyclopedia, and is quoted below in part:

“. . .(VI: 3,c) . . . papal ratification formally promulgates the sentence of the council as an article of faith to be known and accepted by all the faithful . . . the oecumenical authority of the pope is sufficient to impart validity and infallibility to the decrees he makes his own by officially ratifying them . . ; (VIII) . . . All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope.  For conciliar decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost.  Such was the mind of the Apostles when at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis  ( It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.)  This formula and the dogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times, they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church . . . General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience. . ;(IX) . . . A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council.  The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council’s infallibility.  The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope’s infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. . . The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an oecumenical council is, in fact or law, a gathering of all Christ’s co-workers for salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He therefore is in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving.  His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body – His own mystical body – gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops.  The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, “it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and Us,” and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.

“Some important consequences flow from these principles.  Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope. The council’s dignity is, therefore not diminished, but increased, by the definition of papal infallibility, nor does that definition imply a “circular demonstration” by which the council would make the pope infallible and the pope would render the same service to the council.  It should, however, be borne in mind that the council without the pope has no guarantee of infallibility; therefore, the conciliar and the papal infallibilities are not two separate and addible units, but one unit with single or double excellence . . .” [1]

[1] “Councils,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, The Encyclopedia Press, New York, pages 423-435.

So, we can see why there has never been an error engaging Faith or Morals in the 20 true Ecumenical Councils of the Church, but why there has been error in all of the false councils organized apart from the Pope, or organized under the auspices of antipopes — and this most definitely includes the Second Vatican Council, organized under antipopes John XXIII and Paul VI.

Clear Error Imposed on the Faithful In the New Mass in English

An example of imposing an error on the faithful in the “ordinary and universal magisterium” is the falsification of Our Lord’s words in the consecration of the wine in the English version, and other vernacular versions, of the Western rite. Paul VI imposed “for all men” instead of Our Lord’s words of “for many” in the consecration of the wine in vernacular versions of the “New Mass” worldwide in 1974.

This deliberately false translation contradicted Holy Scripture, the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, De Defectibus of Pope St. Pius V, and all the rulings and practice of the true Popes from St. Peter to this day. This is explained in the 90-page PDF found here: http://www.realnews247.com/new_mass_cannot_be_true_Mass.htm

There are other examples of the “Vatican II Popes” violating the “ordinary and universal magisterium” in a way that true Popes cannot do, in the documents of Vatican II, in the New Mass in the vernacular and even in the Latin, and in Canon Law and other disciplinary initiatives.

Pope Pius VI, for instance, taught that the Church cannot impose a bad discipline on the Faithful in his 1794 encyclical, Auctorem Fidei.

Yet we have millions of Catholic children in the last few decades making their “First Communion” at ceremonies where the purported host is placed in their little hands, with no Paten anywhere in sight. This guarantees that some particles of the host drop to the floor, to be trampled on by the little children and everyone else. This INSTITUTIONALIZED SACRILEGE of the “counterfeit church of darkness” destroys faith in the very idea of the Real Presence consciously and subconsciously, and is a BAD DISCIPLINE which the true Church could NEVER impose on the Faithful.

Therefore, for these and other reasons, the “Vatican II Popes” cannot be true Popes.

Therefore, the church they brought into being beginning on the day antipope John XXIII usurped the Chair of Peter on October 28, 1958 (two days after the white smoke of October 26, 1958) cannot be the true Church, but must a counterfeit church. (It is this “counterfeit church” which is eclipsing the True Church, as prophesied by Our Lady of LaSalette in 1846. Again, see the article linked on the home page of this website, Warnings from Heaven Suppressed.)

Questions Raised

Now, for Catholics who believe the teaching of the Church and Holy Scripture that Christ will be with His Church always, the only questions remaining become:

1. Exactly how was this monstrous crime of Apocalyptic proportions perpetrated against the Church?

2. Where is the Papacy and the line of true Popes?

3. How will the Church be restored to control of the Vatican and her rightful structures worldwide?

Catholics know that, despite even the dire circumstances facing the world in the current eclipse of the Church from 1958 to the present, the Church will survive and continue until the end of time.

The White Smoke of October 26, 1958 gave us the first clue as to where the investigation should begin, and in what the direction this all important investigation should go.

This is why the White Smoke of October 26, 1958 matters today — 50+ years after the “scene of the crime.”

With decades of hindsight, it is now clear that October 26, 1958 was the date on which the 1958 Conclave and the Vatican — and the Chair of Peter – were hijacked.

What is the Solution?

It is the first set of clues into this investigation into the Eclipse of the Church — which is still in progress. And there is no choice but for alert and concerned Catholics to seek the answer as to what has happened to the Pope and the Papacy, until God in His own good time reveals to us exactly how this crime against the Church was accomplished, and how He will resolve it.

I will move towards the conclusion of this section with a quote from an email sent out by Mr. Gary Giuffré of Texas over a decade ago:

Church historians acknowledge that there have been regional synods and conferences of rebellious bishops that have in the past veered into heresy. In each case, these meetings were not sanctioned by the Vicar of Christ, and therefore did not enjoy the guidance of Jesus Christ either in their deliberations or final pronouncements. The “Catholic Dictionary” explains that an ecumenical council is guaranteed to be free of error only so far as it is connected to the true Pope. It further describes a situation very much like our own, and what Catholics must do if confronted by such a dilemma:

“The council is … the assessor of the supreme teacher and judge sitting on the Chair of Peter by Divine appointment; its operation is essentially co-operation — the common action of the members with their head — and therefore necessarily rises or falls in value, according to the measure of its connection with the pope. A council in opposition to the pope is not representative of the whole Church, for it neither represents the pope who opposes it, nor the absent bishops, who cannot act beyond the limits of their dioceses except through the pope. A council not only acting independently of the Vicar of Christ, but sitting in judgment over him, is unthinkable in the constitution of the Church; in fact, such assemblies have only taken place in times of great constitutional disturbances, when either there was no pope or the rightful pope was indistinguishable from antipopes. In such abnormal times the safety of the Church becomes the supreme law, and the first duty of the abandoned flock is to find a new shepherd, under whose direction the existing evils may be remedied.” (“Councils”, The Catholic Dictionary, Vol. IV, 1908, page 426.)

We are not quoting the above to call for any kind of imprudent, uncanonical “conclave” or mock conclave, too many of which have already been attempted in the last decades, including one in Kansas, one in Montana, one in Canada, one in Spain, and one at the tomb of St. Peter, among others.

On the other hand, we cannot view the crisis in the Church or in the Papacy as something which does not concern us. We, each of us, must pray, certainly, — and work prudently, if the opportunity arises, for a restoration of the true Pope to the Vatican.

The White Smoke of October 26, 1958 has mattered, — matters 50+ years later — and will always matter.

— Jim Condit Jr.