by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 31, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Peter in Chains+
+Prayer Society intention for August+
“O HEART most pure of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
obtain for me from Jesus a pure and humble heart.”
First, I would like to address the conspiracy theories. There has been speculation on social media that Trump staged his own near-miss, that he was never grazed by a bullet, with the after-bandage photos seeming to show little if any residual damage. That doesn’t mean that a bullet whizzing by that barely touches the ear could not cause profuse bleeding, even if no tissue damage is visible. Or that the inside back of the ear, which cannot be seen, was not abraded. Cosmetic surgical procedures unavailable to the general population and high-tech cosmetic aids can expertly mask skin damage. Even had the shooter missed Trump entirely and only hit the firefighter and father who tragically died, it would still qualify as an attempted assassination.
And yes, as one reader writes in, Trump “could be one of them.” The Church fully understands what voting for an unworthy but less evil candidate entails. Those presenting as Catholic need to be conscious of the fact that they are branded as crackpots and their religious position damaged by suppositions they make that cannot be proven, i. e., conspiracy “theories.” When certainty cannot be obtained, moralists allow us to follow a probable opinion. Let’s leave what we can’t prove aside and focus on what affects us from a strictly religious standpoint, which places us on much safer ground.
Is Trump a Christian?
I recently received the following link from yet another reader: https://www.bitchute.com/video/uNky8MT7g0NX In this video, Trump states he is NOT a Christian, something many did not previously know. I watched some of this speech live and Trump admitted that Catholics have been persecuted and that no Catholic could vote for a Democrat in good conscience. He also embraced all non-Christian religions and placed them on an equal footing, as all those promoting “democracy” do. Those who lean toward him now know his true orientation. His true religious affiliation seems to be unknown. Of course in politics these days it is all irrelevant. We have Pres. Biden, a baptized Catholic and culpable as such, supporting full-term fetal death, as does VP Harris, and Trump, (sporting a Novus Ordo VP), who dodges the issue by leaving it to the states to decide. Anyone expecting a genuine Christian to be capable of election is living in a fantasy world.
Could Trump be Jewish, or at least leaning in that direction? We must remember that Trump’s daughter converted to Judaism, the faith of her presidential senior advisor-husband Jared Kushner. Trump’s father reportedly had many Jewish friends and business associates. And we know Trump is a staunch supporter of Israel’s war against Palestine following the Oct. 7 attack, the latest result of a conflict ongoing for over 100 years. Israel’s response to this attack is justified because Palestine is currently in the hands of Hamas, the terrorist organization that attacked Israel following numerous skirmishes over the years, aided and abetted by other terrorist groups. All would support any nation’s right to defend itself from such attacks. But the overall history of this conflict, which has escalated into a war, is little understood. And what is not understood at all is the longstanding position of the Church regarding the Jewish occupation of Palestine, which has been effectively buried. So a refresher course is provided below.
Valuable Catholic lessons on the Palestine question
First a little background on the history of the Palestine situation. “The Balfour Declaration of 1917, issued by the British government, supported the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire and under British control following World War I.
“The British Mandate for Palestine (1920-1948) saw increased immigration of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe, particularly during the Nazi era, which led to rising tensions between Jewish and Arab communities. The Arabs opposed the growing Jewish presence and the idea of a Jewish state, leading to outbreaks of violence” ) https://worldhistoryedu.com/origin-and-history-of-the-conflict-between-israel-and-palestine/).
When Israel became a state in 1948, the Arabs occupying that territory objected and went to war against Israel. Although the UN had established specific borders, the war ended with an increased number of Jewish Palestine refugees, which many considered as illegal occupation under international law. Several other wars followed.
In a scholarly work delivered as a history dissertation by Adriano E. Ciani in 2011 (https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/348/), Ciani carefully details the Church’s stance pre-Vatican 2 on the Palestine question. He begins with the following:
“In 1904, Pope Pius X granted an audience to the prominent Zionist Theodor Herzl, in which he reminded his guest that the Roman Catholic Church could never endorse or support the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine. This was to remain the essence of papal policy on Palestine for decades to come. A reader has been kind enough to provide the exact text of Pope St. Pius X’s comment to Herzl: “We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem if it were not always sacred has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.”
What has happened, beginning in the 20th century, is that anti-Semitism, which the Church has repeatedly condemned, was extended at Vatican 2 to the Palestine question itself, a completely separate political issue promoted by the Zionists, that had no relation to Jewish persecution. Despite their false claims to hold all things Catholic just as they existed prior to Vatican 2, LibTrads have adopted the stance that not only has the Church never condemned anti-Semitism, Her distrust and dislike for the Jews is evidenced by many warnings issued against them and confirmed by their confinement by the popes to the ghettoes of Rome. LibTrads even have revived the ritual murder charge, long ago dismissed by the popes. The founders of Traditionalism in Mexico and the U.S. blamed the Church’s infiltration and demise mainly on the Jews, and for many years those following them have continued to believe this was the case. Some have even descended to neo-Nazism, as various articles and studies have confirmed.
But fingering the Jews is a classic example of projection, which lifts blame for what has befallen the Church from those commissioned to die rather than let this happen — the cardinals and bishops — and transferring it to the Jews and others. Even the laity who were then adults and educated in Catholic schools must accept this blame for not better studying these issues and coming to the aid of the Church. Instead of adopting the offensive, they took the victim stance, waiting to be rescued and comforted. Of course we were all victims, but that should not have been our chosen designation. We are meant to be soldiers of Christ, not shell-shocked survivors of the spiritual combat in which all of us are expected to engage. By playing the victim, we effectively surrendered. The distinction must be clearly made between anti-Semitism and support of Israel’s recovery of the holy places in order to settle their own people there. Below, Ciani provides proofs that although the Church did all She could possibly do to combat anti-Semitism and help the Jews, at the same time She consistently opposed Israel’s efforts to resettle Jews in Palestine.
“Between 1939 and 1945, more than six thousand Italian Jews obtained passports, ship tickets and travel money from the Rome-based St. Raphael’s Association, an organization directly funded by the Vatican. Countless others were sheltered in monasteries, churches, convents and private homes, all with the explicit knowledge of the Pope, and consistent with his opposition to Nazi and Fascist racialist policies. The Vatican Relief Commission, at a cost of nearly one million dollars, supplied food, clothing, and medicine to untold thousands of refugees, prisoners and partisans during the winter of 1943-44, including at least 6,000 Jews in Rome alone.
“Throughout the war, a distinct bifurcation endured in the Vatican’s response to persecution of Europe’s Jews, characterized by assistance to Jews, where possible, on the one hand, and an opposition to the goals of political Zionism on the other. Simply put, the tragedy of the Holocaust and the refugee crisis that it created did not translate into Vatican support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Assistance to European Jews was regarded as a Christian duty, an obligation to lend assistance to a suffering fellow man. Monsignor Domenico Tardini, the Vatican’s undersecretary of state, expressed as much in the spring of 1943, when he observed that “the Jewish question is a question of humanity. The persecutions to which the Jews in Germany and the occupied or conquered countries are subjected are an offence against justice, charity, humanity… Therefore, the Catholic Church has full reason to intervene, whether in the name of divine law or natural law.” Support for a Jewish homeland, however, despite the catalyst that the Holocaust had created toward that very end, was unfailingly opposed by Pius XII‟s Vatican, based on the ancestral Roman Catholic tenet that the Terra Santa was sacred to the faith, and must never fall under the political jurisdiction of a sovereign power.
“In large part, Catholic periodicals and diocesan newspapers in the United States reflected the position of Rome; namely that the persecution of European Jews was a tragedy for all humankind, but that it did not necessitate, or obviate, the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine… Vatican policymakers preferred to keep discreet any public stance on the future of Palestine. Privately, however, Pius XII and his Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione, continued to express severe reservations about the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, fearing a loss of control over Christian sites in the Holy Land, and concerned with the possibility of a “Jewish beachhead‟ for communist influence and infiltration in the Near East. These sentiments were shared by a number of the Vatican’s most powerful Cardinals and diplomats, including Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII, who as nuncio to Istanbul was noted for his efforts to save Jewish lives, but was unreceptive to the solutions posed by political Zionism. In a September 1943 letter to Maglione, Roncalli expressed discomfort about the degree to which Vatican aid to Jews would be later considered an endorsement of their ‘messianic dream’, adding that the ‘reconstruction of the Kingdom of Judah and the Israelites would not create a utopia.’
“The Holocaust, despite providing the most compelling rationale yet for the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine, did not alter either the Vatican’s or the American bishops’ opposition to the Zionist program, a stance which remained firmly rooted in historical and theological notions… On the substantive question of Jewish emigration to Palestine, and the creation of a Hebrew national home there, however, the American bishops remained resolutely in line with Rome. It was a policy that withstood the full airing of the tragedy of the Holocaust, and which stood firm against the rising tide of sympathy for Zionism in the United States, not just among Jews but among a growing segment of American Protestant Churches, Congress and even the Truman White House.
“The American Episcopal consensus that remained intact from the 1920s to the 1950s was weakened in subsequent decades by a number of factors, not least the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the great renewal movement in the Roman Catholic Church that was called by Pope John XIII in 1959. A number of American bishops took active roles at the Council, embracing its reformist zeal as evidenced by the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae, a declaration on religious freedom conceived by John Courtney Murray and tabled by Archbishops Albert Meyer of Chicago and Joseph Ritter of St. Louis. Though Cardinal Spellman loomed large at the Council, and was undoubtedly the leader of the “conservative‟ faction of American bishops, there emerged in Rome a growing faction of liberal-minded bishops, which included Meyer and Ritter as well as Detroit’s John Dearden and Kansas City’s John Patrick Cody, who more openly took up the Council’s mandate of revival and renewal.
“The Second Vatican Council was also significant, moreover, for the promulgation of Nostra Aetate, a declaration on the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church with non-Christian religions. Notable was the fourth section, which dealt specifically with Judaism. It repudiated the centuries-old charge of deicide against the Jews, and stressed the religious and spiritual bonds shared by the faiths, reaffirming the eternal covenant between God and the people of Israel. It further dismissed the Catholic objective of trying to convert the Jews, a symbolic turning point if juxtaposed with Pope Pius X’s 1904 warning to Theodor Herzl that should the Jews return to Palestine, there would be “Catholic priests waiting there to baptize them all.” For the first time in history, Nostra Aetate called for Catholics and Jews to engage in friendly dialogue and theological discussion to better understand each other’s faiths. After intense debate, the declaration was adopted by the world’s cardinals and bishops on 28 November 1965, a definitive turning point in the history of Catholic-Jewish relations.
“The Second Vatican Council, and its promulgation of Nostra Aetate, would herald the beginning of a new era both in relations between Catholicism and Judaism and, by extension, between the Vatican and Israel. The Council, moreover, would unleash a plurality of views in the Church that would preclude the survival of such a monolithic transnationalism.” (End of Ciani quotes)
What this means for us today
In Nostra Aetate, John Courtney Murray’s American proposition, as explained in our last blog, was finally admitted as Catholic practice. It taught that the Church need not evangelize to secure converts, Jewish or otherwise, and Jews could not be held responsible for crucifying Christ. Forget the fact that according to Rev. Denis Fahey, Rev. Cahill and others, the Jews had never been held responsible by the Church for this act as a race for His death on the Cross, only the Jewish leaders of that day who actually crucified Him. For they alone knew that He had indeed fulfilled all the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and certainly the rabbis leading the Jewish people following the destruction of the temple, as prophesied by our Lord, never acknowledged Him and shamelessly spread filthy lies about Him and His Blessed Mother. The Church would not have the Jews persecuted for this, but neither would they ever concede that the Holy Land should be given over to the very people who rejected our Lord and had no reason to honor or preserve the ground He trod or the places He taught.
So while we cannot support Muslim control of the Holy Places existing today, neither can we support the plans of the Zionists to repopulate Palestine in order to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem and install the Jewish Messiah, as Roncalli (already in on the plan) well knew. And that is their goal. See https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Final-Chapter-for-web.pdf for the full overview, but we will provide some excerpts here. As one Jewish writer observed many years ago, “The Roman Catholic Church wants Israel to lose sovereign control over the Old City of Jerusalem so that “the promises to the literal descendants of Abraham will be applied to the ‘New Jerusalem.’ If Israel controls Jerusalem, it is evidence that Rome’s claims are not legitimate and that the literal interpretation of Scriptures is correct. There is no place for the restoration of the nation of Israel in its theology. How can the Vatican claim to be “the New Jerusalem” and “rightful heir to the Kingdom of God” if the Jews control Jerusalem? How is the Catholic Church going to convince the world that their version of theology is correct?
“The premise is this: According to Rome there will never be a Temple/Synagogue built in Jerusalem unless Rome first controls the real estate (Temple Mount, Old City, City of David, Mt. Zion) upon which it will be built. The Vatican is actively pursuing these goals… The Vatican has attempted to obtain control of Jerusalem, which started with the Crusades. For them to convince the world that the Messiah they put on the world’s stage is going to be accepted as genuine, they need to perform this play in the Old City. The story of this production is that this “Messiah” will merge THE THREE MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS, usher in peace and harmony in the world, and solve the Middle East conflict. The location for this “production” will be in none other than the Old City of Jerusalem.”
“This so-called “Messiah” that will be proclaimed, will be a false one and it will insist that by having a “world government” (i.e., the United Nations) the world peace and harmony will be ushered in. This will be a lie, and a fraud, but never mind. In our world, reality isn’t important. Public perceptions are. The end result is the stripping of Israel’s sovereignty as an independent nation giving way to a “regional bloc of nations” in the Middle East. Israel will be pressured to accede to these demands by all world bodies and the superpowers on the claim that “this is the only way to solve the Middle East conflict.”
“In order for the Jews to go along, they will convince them that with the “Messiah” having appeared for the Jews, it is time to start rebuilding the Third Temple — what they call “Solomon’s Temple.” This version of events is widely available through a simple search on the Internet… “Again: The Vatican is going to have everyone believe this “mysterious individual who will ‘unite the faiths’ and appear in Jerusalem which will be under the control of an authority headed by The Vatican.” That deal to have the Vatican come into Israel and take over these properties and to “control and dominate the Old City of Jerusalem” already exists and has been fully documented and reported in the world’s media.
“The deal that it has signed with Israel via Yossi Beilin and Shimon Peres (in secret and without the approval of the Knesset, [Israeli legislature, Ed.]) gives the Church not only extraterritorial status to their properties (which is what the bi-lateral agreement the Israeli government signed with the Vatican on December 30th, 1993, put in law) but of control over the entire city as “custodians” under UN presence. In this way the Jews will give up control over the Old City. To the Vatican, the Israeli people they would have a problem with. To the UN, they would say, “We had no choice.”
“Arafat had been lobbying for the idea of sharing undivided Jerusalem, and for creating a Vatican-style sovereignty in the Old City.” (Somehow we are supposed to believe that Arafat initiated this, and not the Vatican. [Is that why he was murdered? — Ed.). The agreement calls for Jerusalem to be “an international city based on international resolutions and an international guarantee.” The pack was signed despite the Vatican having signed an agreement with Israel six years earlier on December 30, 1993, which gave legal jurisdiction under Israeli law over the Church’s own institutions and assets in the Holy Land” (Barry Chamish, Israeli investigative writer and reporter).
David Ben-Gurion, London, Dec. 16, 1949
“In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the prophets to serve the federated union of all continents: this will be the seat of the supreme court of mankind, to settle all controversies, as prophesied by Isaiah. Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel and world Jewry: It aspires to become the spiritual center of the world.” And this is their goal, achieved in part by the recent erection of the Abrahamic Family House, which officially opened February 16, 2023. https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/abrahamic-family-house/.
Trump has not formally weighed in on the Palestine question. But he seems in favor of a peaceful resolution and a cessation of hostilities, both in the Middle East and in Ukraine.
Conclusion
Not Francis nor any of his successors are Catholics, or representatives of the Vatican. Any “deal” made with the Vatican was never made with the true Catholic Church, but with the Whore of Babylon, who Protestants themselves established through their creation of Freemasonry. Protestant pastors cooperated in the destruction of the Catholic liturgy and were present at Vatican 2. They applauded ecumenism, the absolution of the Jews as responsible for Christ’s death and the modernization of the Church. It is a certain faction of Protestantism, called Dispensationalists, who have supported the rebuilding of the Temple all along. One group has even established an evangelical seminary in Jerusalem with claims of Jew and Arab converts to Christianity (One for Israel). They teach that “The people of Israel are God’s chosen people whom He loves with an everlasting love. God continues to fulfill all of the promises given to the Fathers. … Yeshua the Messiah will return to establish God’s manifest kingdom, to resurrect the dead and determine the eternal destiny of all men, eternally blessing the believers and eternally punishing the wicked.”
These comprise many of the “Christians” who support Trump unconditionally because he supports Israel, and the number of these people seems to be growing. They are known as British Israel proponents, a rung listed on the ladder of Freemasonry, and they even count among their number a faction of Traditionalists. Certainly supporters of Hamas such as Harris could never be trusted. And if Trump is not a Christian and has Jewish leanings, one worries he would not be able to appreciate or impartially uphold the right of TRUE Catholics and sincere Protestants to lobby for the preservation of Israel from destruction of the holy places and protest its occupation by the usurpers. But at least it seems he is willing to protect the rights of Christians whether he professes to be a Christian himself or not. That is something that all those voting for him are bound to hold him to, should he be elected.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, Christ and His true followers will prevail in the end. The Jews longed for a fiery-eyed and righteous Messiah, and they shall have Him. Christ the King shall ride His white horse into the arena followed by a legion of angels, headed by St. Michael, when they least expect it and take possession of His throne. For He alone is the King of Zion, reigning forever and ever, Amen.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 22, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Mary Magdalene+
Having viewed certain segments of the Republican National Convention this past week, I need to once again caution Catholics about the attitude they should adopt concerning voting choices this coming November. From comments viewed in social media forums, it appears that some of those identifying as Traditionalists and even pray-at-home Catholics have fallen into the trap of believing that they are justified in their ardent support of the alternatives to Democrat candidates, meaning the Trump/Vance ticket, when this behavior is not in keeping with Catholic teaching.
Overall, last week’s convention was reminiscent of high school pep rallies highlighted by surprise guest speakers, with a smattering of Masonic play-acting and revelry thrown in. The rival sports teams were facing off, with all the hoopla that entails and the rah-rah-siss-boom-bah was deafening. Jock-style egos swelled and audiences applauded. Rock bands wailed in the background and candidates and attendees alike clapped and swayed to the tunes. It was the perfect example of a largely middle-class crowd that never matured intellectually beyond their high school or (liberal) college days, hence the convention’s appeal. And a good number of Catholics, who should be more intelligent and dignified, (given the very nature of the faith they profess), instead seem to have climbed on the bandwagon fueled by Trump’s attempted assassination and his underdog status as a (falsely) convicted criminal.
If Catholics were cheered and attracted by what they saw at the convention, then they are woefully lacking in the education department — Catholic education, that is. This, of course, is not easily obtained, yet is still available to those who care enough to inform themselves. The popes, also Catholic clergy and laypersons writing in the 1940s and 1950s stress the necessity of Catholics to educate themselves in these matters. The superficial attitude of those attending the RNC is absent from the solemn evaluations written by these men. Rather a sober and somber attitude is encouraged that weighs the common good and our bounden duty to best promote it. Levity and recreation have their place, but given the dangers facing Catholics today, it is best minimized or put aside to make way for in-depth, serious discussion of the issues. To understand the Church’s teaching on voting for the less worthy candidate, visit: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/a-voting-primer-for-catholics-why-pius-xiis-directives-must-be-obeyed/
And now have a situation where the president has withdrawn from the race and may very well resign his presidency. VP Harris, already the presumptive nominee to run against Trump, could then become president, a nightmare waiting to happen. Yet Harris could become tripped up by campaign financing regulations and state laws dictating the assignment of delegates. Federal lawsuits could be filed that would complicate matters even further, perhaps even delay the election. We are standing in the path of a runaway train and anyone on the tracks is bound to be mown down. Where this goes, no one can be certain, but all should be prepared for the twists and turns that lie ahead. And education is key to rightly judging this situation, whatever the outcome may be.
Democracy and the Catholic
While Democrats have accused Republicans of destroying democracy and vice versa, some Republicans have pointed out that this country was meant to be a republic, not a democracy. Yet those speaking at the convention typically referred to our form of government as a democracy, and while Catholics may think they know what that term means they most likely are not seeing it through the eyes of the Church.
A series of articles written in the 1970’s-1980s by the French Traditionalist Solange Hertz, later assembled into books, readily shows that from its inception, America was a Masonic nation, and democracy an “experiment” that clearly has gone awry. While the Church does not condemn the right kind of democracy as a viable form of government, the popes have repeatedly warned Americans that Catholics cannot endorse the liberal principles of democracy, nor the nationalistic excess known as Americanism, condemned by Pope Leo XIII, that now permeates the conservative atmosphere. Pope Leo wrote: “The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from Her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith… They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state… From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some ‘Americanism’” (Testem benevolentiae, 1899).
Of course Americanism, spawned by “Catholic” liberalism, later gave way to Modernism and ecumenism. And it is ecumenism that dominates Protestant evangelical teaching today, with so many expressing non-denominational beliefs. Trump himself lists as non-denominational, although his family religion was largely that of the anti-Catholic Norman Vincent Peale and his positivism, Protestant teaching the Church ruled as Quietistic, psychologically damaging and out of touch with reality. Trump also was an admirer of Billy Graham.
Despite its condemnation, Americanism was officially revived by Paul 6 even before he usurped the papal chair. Those who have read the opening chapters of The Phantom Church in Rome will know that Giovanni Montini, Paul 6, worked secretly as an OSS operative during World War II, and without the knowledge of Pope Pius XII, forged secret alliances with the newly formed CIA in the late 1940s which later guaranteed his election as “pope.” The CIA funded state elections and other causes in Italy following the war and actively worked to secure the election of John 23 in 1958, in direct violation of Pope Pius XII’s infallible election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. This is documented by correspondence and FOIA requests published by international attorney David Wemhoff, in his 800-page work, John Courtney Murray, Time Magazine and the American Proposition. The book reveals the fact that psychological warfare was implemented against Catholics for two decades to accomplish the establishment of ecumenism in the Church through the invalid elections of John 23 and Paul 6, in the name of democracy.
As a result, the false Vatican 2 council adopted the heresy that all men have the inherent right, (as taught by the renegade Jesuit John Courtney Murray and vehemently opposed by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, Rev. Francis J. Connell and a few others), to follow the dictates of conscience and that governments must recognize that right by suppressing any opposition to this belief. This is opposed to the Church’s God-given right to preach that the Catholic Church alone holds the truth and all other religions are false. Basically the formal endorsement by Vatican 2 of this proposition, which directly contradicts the necessity of the hierarchy to defend the Church’s rights, as expressed in Pius XII’s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, is what accomplished the downfall of the Church.
Ever since this event, there has been an effort by non-Catholics to unify into one amorphous mass as “Christians” and usurp the place of the Church as the sole proponents of the Bible and Gospel teaching, a new “Holy Roman Empire” of sorts, founded through revolutionary means on the ruins of Roman democracy resurrected in France and America. This union must be accomplished before one-world government is established, in order to place everyone on the same religious page, just as Freemasonry had to destroy Catholic monarchies before establishing American and French democracy. The roots of what such a Protestant mimicry of the Church’s empire can be found in the creation of the Sillon in France in the late 1800s, a purportedly Catholic effort to “Christianize” democracy. “Le Sillon (“The Furrow” or “The Path”) was a French political and religious movement founded by Marc Sangnier (1873–1950), which existed from 1894 to 1910. It aimed to bring Catholicism into a greater conformity with French Republican and socialist ideals, in order to provide an alternative to Marxism and other anticlerical labor unions” (Wikipedia). Just as he had done with Modernism, Pope St. Pius X thoroughly routed the Sillonists, as seen below.
Our Apostolic Mandate
“[In its early days], the Sillon did raise among the workers the standard of Jesus Christ, the symbol of salvation for peoples and nations. Nourishing its social action at the fountain of divine grace, it did impose a respect for religion upon the least willing groups, accustoming the ignorant and the impious to hearing the Word of God. And, not seldom, during public debates, stung by a question, or sarcasm, you saw them [young people] jumping to their feet and proudly proclaiming their faith in the face of a hostile audience. This was the heyday of the Sillon; its brighter side accounts for the encouragement, and tokens of approval, which the bishops and the Holy See gave liberally when this religious fervor was still obscuring the true nature of the Sillonist movement.
“For it must be said, Venerable Brethren, that our expectations have been frustrated in large measure. The day came when perceptive observers could discern alarming trends within the Sillon; the Sillon was losing its way. Could it have been otherwise? Its leaders were young, full of enthusiasm and self- confidence. But they were not adequately equipped with historical knowledge, sound philosophy, and solid theology to tackle without danger the difficult social problems in which their work and their inclinations were involving them. They were not sufficiently equipped to be on their guard against the penetration of liberal and Protestant concepts on doctrine and obedience.
“The truth is that the Sillonist leaders are self-confessed and irrepressible idealists; they claim to regenerate the working class by first elevating the conscience of Man; they have a social doctrine, and they have religious and philosophical principles for the reconstruction of society upon new foundations; they have a particular conception of human dignity, freedom, justice and brotherhood; and, in an attempt to justify their social dreams, they put forward the Gospel, but interpreted in their own way; and what is even more serious, they call to witness Christ, but a diminished and distorted Christ… No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker — the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work…
“[The Sillon’s] brand of Catholicism accepts only the democratic form of government which it considers the most favorable to the Church and, so to speak, identifies it with her. The Sillon, therefore, subjects its religion to a political party. We do not have to demonstrate here that the advent of universal Democracy is of no concern to the action of the Church in the world; we have already recalled that the Church has always left to the nations the care of giving themselves the form of government which they think most suited to their needs. What We wish to affirm once again, after Our Predecessor, is that it is an error and a danger to bind down Catholicism by principle to a particular form of government…religion ought to transcend all parties…
“This organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations… has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
“Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train. We fear that worse is to come: the end-result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men who become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”… [For they say]: “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.
“We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Saviour” (St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate). We urge readers to study this entire document. For more on democracy and the situation today, go to: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/dr-disandro-redefines-government-today-and-pope-pius-xii-on-the-obligation-to-vote/
Implications of St. Pius X’s condemnation of the Sillon
The false pope John 23, as a nuncio under Pope Pius XII, would later exonerate Sangnier in a letter sent to his widow in 1950, which is no surprise. What is described above by Pope St. Pius X, who some say had the gift of foresight, is what Christian conservatives hope to achieve under Trump. And it could well be the foundation laid for a one-world “Christian” church, excluding true Catholics. Yet the Church, and her members alone have the right to rebuild the City spoken of by St. Augustine, if now it can be rebuilt at all. And given the above, certainly it cannot be rebuilt on existing democratic principles. Pope Pius XII believed for a time this was possible but was rewarded by his pro-secretary Montini with an attempted poisoning. This lest the pope discover that his teachings and plans were being sabotaged by his enemies, who were even falsifying the Fatima message to promote their democratic ideals.
Following a vision of Christ that occasioned his recovery from the illness brought on by this poisoning, Pope Pius XII all but shut down the Vatican, and so it remained until his death. If Catholics must choose Trump as the lesser of two evils, let it be an informed decision. Modern-day democracy is not the Catholic ideal. Catholics are to remain politically impartial, meaning that whenever possible, strictly speaking, they should avoid all party affiliation and register as Independents, wherever this is allowed by the State. Any perceived religious affiliation with non-Catholics must be led by the Catholic parties, since the Church alone has the right to rebuild the City, as the popes have always taught. Catholics should avoid at all costs joining in the misplaced zeal of the masses for any particular candidate, given the nature of the democracy that is being proposed and the danger it poses to the faith. They should never forget that it was the falsified ideal of democracy that was used to destroy the Church, which means their loyalties must be adjusted accordingly.
In summary, Catholics must realize in the end that this type of democracy is aligned with the secret societies, as Pope St. Pius X observes, and they can never lend their enthusiasm, public approval or seeming acknowledgment of such principles. After all, the Liberty, Equality and Fraternity promoted by the Sillon and often cited by both parties as the underpinnings of democracy is the credo of Freemasonry, and any seeming approval whatsoever of this pernicious system has been repeatedly condemned by numerous popes. Any support for an unworthy candidate should be a restrained and reluctant one, one not openly celebrated on the Internet. It must be viewed as a forced position taken reluctantly to avoid even greater evils.
Conclusion
Those more-or-less forced to vote for such a candidate who is then elected have the right to hold his feet to the fire on crucial issues and insist on upholding campaign promises and working for the moral good of the nation. Trump has claimed that election fraud is being committed on a large-scale basis, and there are reasons for believing that may well be the case. As a reporter I witnessed this first-hand and fought to put an end to it in the community in which I then lived. Trump also has promised to “drain the swamp,” to upend and reform the intelligence agencies and Department of Justice as well as other agencies, a task proposed by President John F. Kennedy that may well have led to his assassination. If this is truly his intent, let him begin with The Central Intelligence Agency, as it is said Kennedy intended to do.
If elected, it should immediately be brought to Trump’s attention that owing to election interference by the CIA, and a proven campaign to wage psychological warfare on Catholics via propaganda and public opinion tools — a campaign that makes the attempt to vilify Trump pale in comparison — an entire Church was destroyed and incalculable harm done to the religious liberty of hundreds of thousands of Catholics, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. As president, proof of this egregious act should be brought out in the open and every attempt should be made to remedy it — by exposing it, giving a voice to those affected by it and making amends to those who suffered such a tragic loss.What is sauce for the goose is sauce also for the gander; the elite should not be the only ones who are able to rectify the wrongs of election interference and its devastating consequences. Let him then live up to his claims as a victim and rectifier of election interference and fraud, a constitutionalist and a champion of religious liberty. Then, perhaps, he could be counted as a more worthy candidate.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 15, 2024 | New Blog
+Our Lady of Mt. Carmel+
It never fails to amaze me how LibTrads resort to the same fallacious arguments, over and over again, to try and convince people that valid priests and bishops still exist. They don’t care who or what is falsely characterized in the exercise of their mad obsession, and that would include St. Thomas Aquinas and his teaching. Certainly in this last foray they have once again proven their disregard even contempt for scholasticism, although of course they will insist that this is not the case and continue to promote error. But anyone who knows their true motives will understand their capacity for deception once the following is addressed.
One reader pointed out recently that some of those new to the pray-at-home position are suffering the excessive zeal that is common to new converts. They want to come into the fray and make their mark, make their point, render some sort of meaningful contribution. They think that they can make things better, fix things, rectify what has happened within the Church, unify the faithful and I understand that — I was there at one point myself. But when I was experiencing these things, I was in my 30s and that was several decades ago. This site may seem very daunting in the beginning but I want those new to betrayedCatholics to understand that it is really based on some pretty simple principles.
Those principles have been stated many times on this site, in many different places. First of all we do not owe obedience to anyone but lawful pastors and Canon Law and Church teaching insists that anyone claiming to be a lawful pastor must first prove that this is truly the case (Can. 200). Having said this we all know if we’re praying at home that the reason we’re doing it is because we cannot be certain that these men are valid and not only can we not be certain but those who wish to study and consider the matter can achieve total certitude regarding their invalidity if they would only accept and obey the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, particularly that of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, an infallible constitution written by Pope Pius XII in 1945. LibTrads cannot present proofs of their certain validity no matter how hard they try given the preamble and first three paragraphs of this constitution. To understand this more completely please see the explanation here and note that in presenting this explanation I am not interpreting anything; I am using other sources to interpret what this document says, sources that were imprimatured prior to the death of Pope Pius XII.
NO interpretation of papal documents on this site
What finally seasoned my over-zealousness and subdued my excessive zeal was dedication to study, meditation and prayer, also a heady and humiliating dose of experience with duplicitous LibTrads. Another reader contacted me recently, stating that those who accept sede vacante and pray at home are all basically interpreting papal documents, this author included, so all their (our) opinions could be more or less equally valid. I took issue with this immediately because as I have explained before on numerous occasions, I do not proceed in the same way these other individuals proceed in these matters but do my utmost to proceed only as the Church Herself has directed.
- Papal documents registered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis are considered binding on all the faithful. Numerous encyclicals and constitutions of the popes that pertain to both their liciety and their validity as well as their proper function are entered into the Acta. This teaching on binding documents was promulgated by Pope Pius XII in his infallible encyclical Humani generis, which itself is duly registered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.
- VAS, an infallible, hence binding document entered into the Acta, clearly states that all acts which violate Canon Law during an interregnum are null and void. This would include Canons 18, 20, 104, 147, 1812 and others, all of which provide the basis for determining the meaning of the law, the mind of the lawgiver, the possession of offices to which jurisdiction is attached and when acts constitute fraud. (See HERE.)
- In determining the applicability of any law whenever there is doubt, Can. 18 must be followed. This law states one must have recourse to the meaning of the terms of the law considered in their context, parallel passages of the Code, the purpose of the law and the intention of the lawgiver.
- Any attempt to present one’s analysis, opinion or interpretation of any papal document regardless of the value it is assigned is presumptuous to say the least but cannot be admitted because it does not follow these rules. VAS declares such attempts to presume the mind of the Roman Pontiff as null and void and this is clearly stated. After all, everything that issues from the Roman Pontiff amounts to papal law or papal legislation.
- Even then, no personal opinion save those of the approved canonists and theologians can be admitted. And if the document is entered into the Acta, all that is left is for the faithful to obey.
And from this second reader also came a request that proof be provided to help refute
LibTrads who say, based on the commentary of one Spanish writer, a Fr. Scio, that the Holy Sacrifice will never cease because St. Thomas Aquinas indicates it will last till the Second Coming. No direct reference to the St. Thomas Aquinas text was given unfortunately, so exactly which of his writings — and these are voluminous as we well know — was a mystery. So a search had to be conducted and there was some indication that it might have referenced a particular scripture quote, so this was used as the basis for the search. An English commentary was found in the Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura — Commentary On the First Epistle to the Corinthians by Saint Thomas Aquinas, translated by Fabian Larcher, O.P. There St. Thomas writes on 1 Cor. 11: 26:
“686. – Then when he says, As often as, he explains the Lord’s words, which said: “Do this in memory of me,” saying: For as often as you eat this bread. He says bread on account of the appearances that remain. He says this on account of the numerically same body signified and contained. And drink the cup, you will proclaim the Lord’s death, namely, by representing it through this sacrament. And this, until he comes, i.e., until His final coming. This gives us to understand that THIS RITE OF THE CHURCH will not cease until the end of the world: “I am with you always to the end of the world” (Matt 27:20); “This generation,” namely, of the Church, “will not pass away, till all has taken place” (Lk. 21:32).” This is St. Thomas’ own commentary, and no interpretation of what he is saying is offered by the translators of this text.
A rite of the Church and the Holy Sacrifice itself is not necessarily synonymous. If the rite is interpreted as the Holy Sacrifice itself, it would refer to only on rite when the Church recognizes several as valid. And in another place, St. Thomas states that the world will not end immediately on the death of Antichrist but will continue on for an indefinite time. So the end of the world could mean at any time during or even after Antichrist’s appearance, since the majority of the Fathers and Doctors teach the Final Judgment comes shortly after Antichrist’s death. Time, of course, is measured differently by God than by man. Notice that St. Thomas does not say until the consummation here, although he does in other places. And while he first says that the Lord will be proclaimed in the Sacrament “until the final coming,” he later says this sacramental rite itself will not actually cease until the end of the world.
Now saying that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world cannot be interpreted as meaning or implying there will be those available to administer that rite. We have the St. John’s Mass and every time we recite the prayers of the Consecration we, as Catholics, commemorate Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. Having said our Perfect Act of Contrition prior to reciting these Mass payers, we participate in Spiritual Communion as many of us have for decades and will do until we die. That the sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation was denied by Saint Thomas! So if he denies the sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation it would be difficult to understand how and why he would teach that there must be priests and bishops until the very end to administer them; this is a contradiction in terms, as St. Thomas shows in his Summa below, Pt. III, Q. 73, Art. 3.
Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said (Jn. 6:54): “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” But Christ’s flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But bodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this sacrament, for spiritual health.
Objection 3: Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord’s Passion, without which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:26): “For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come.” Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is this sacrament.
On the contrary, Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): “Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ.”
I answer that, Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above (A[1], OBJ[2]) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the Mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Pet. 3:20,21. And it has been said above (Q[68], A[2]), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (Q[68], A[2]).
Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (Q[63], A[6]): for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says, explaining Jn. 6:54, “This food and this drink,” namely, of His flesh and blood: “He would have us understand the fellowship of His body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified, His holy and believing ones.” Hence, as he says in his Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in 1 Cor. 10:17): “No one should entertain the slightest doubt, that then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member of Christ’s body; nor is he deprived of his share in that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the unity of Christ’s body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice.”
Reply to Objection 2: The difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the person nourished, and consequently it cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he heard the voice of Christ as it were saying to him: “Nor shalt thou change Me into thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be changed into Me.” But one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacrament. And consequently the comparison does not hold.
Reply to Objection 3: Baptism is the sacrament of Christ’s death and Passion, according as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Passion; but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ’s Passion according as a man is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered. Hence, as Baptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of the spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed the sacrament of Charity, which is “the bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14). (End of Summa quote)
The importance of cross-referencing
The above underscores the necessity of further study or cross-referencing St. Thomas’ teaching to discover what else he may have taught on these topics. This is very important because it helps the student to better understand the specifics of what the author himself understands about the subject and other points that must be taken into consideration to completely comprehend what the author is saying. Failure of LibTrads to do this in the case of St. Robert Bellarmine was what initially led early traditionalists to think that he taught that an heretical Pope could be deposed, which was never the case. Bellarmine later clarified his views, stating that no, a Pope could never commit heresy in office and could not be deposed as explained in the article HERE. LibTrads’ failure to cross reference what they’re trying to prove has resulted in making it appear that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that we will have Mass hence the Eucharist until the Second Coming and that Christ will remain with the hierarchy until the very end. It implies that Catholic standing themselves minus the hierarchy as is the actual reality cannot constitute the church and that the promise was given only to the hierarchy and not the faithful but that is not true.
As can be seen in the above, St. Thomas denies the statement of the author making the third objection, which is basically the position of LibTrads. And that third objection is based on the very scripture text in question here: 1 Corinthians 11: 26. So if St. Thomas really thought that that scripture quote meant that this sacrament had to be received from the hands of the hierarchy till the very end, he certainly would not have replied as he did above to this question regarding the necessity of the Eucharist for salvation. And if actual reception of the Eucharist is not required, how can LibTrads twist the meaning of 1 Cor. 11:26 to mandate the existence of the hierarchy to consecrate and administer it, a moot point, since Traditionalist pseudo-clergy never became members of the hierarchy in the first place! But of course Traditionalists are not going to refer you to that particular part of the Summa; they’re only going to quote St. Thomas’s commentary on the Vulgate regarding this text. For from what St. Thomas says on the Eucharist, this rite can also exist spiritually in the desire for receiving the Eucharist especially when we are reciting the words of the Consecration, having made a Perfect Act of Contrition and Spiritual Communion. And in the absence of the Eucharist all the theologians teach that such a desire suffices just as St. Thomas teaches it here. The same is true of confession regarding the Perfect Act of Contrition when there is no priest available.
We see the same problem with Feeney and his insistence that baptism by water only be received — it’s the same type of thing, just a different variation. And as stated before, I believe that Feeney was the prototype traditionalist. Another text not quoted here which directly addresses the problem is found in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Catena Aurea. There St. Thomas teaches Christ promised to be with ALL the faithful, not just the apostles and the disciples, just as stated in previous refutations of those who erroneously teach “there will always be bishops” (see HERE).
Catena Aurea (Matt. 28:20)
Chrys.: And because what He had laid upon them was great, therefore to exalt their spirits He adds, “And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” As much as to say, Tell Me not of the difficulty of these things, seeing I am with you, Who can make all things easy. A like promise He often made to the Prophets in the Old Testament, to Jeremiah who pleaded his youth, to Moses, and to Ezekiel, when they would have shunned the office imposed upon them. And not with them only does He say that He will be, but with all who shall believe after them. For the Apostles were not to continue till the end of the world, but He says this to the faithful as to one body.
Raban.: Hence we understand that to the end of the world shall not be wanting those who shall be worthy of the Divine indwelling.
Chrys.: He brings before them the end of the world, that He may the more draw them on, and that they may not look merely to present inconveniences, but to the infinite goods to come. As much as to say, The grievous things which you shall undergo, terminate with this present life, seeing that even this world shall come to an end, but the good things which ye shall enjoy endure forever.
Bede, Beda in Hom., non occ.: It is made a question how He says here, “I am with you,” when we read elsewhere that He said, “I go unto him that sent me.” [Jon 16:5] What is said of His human nature is distinct from what is said of His divine nature. He is going to His Father in His human nature, He abides With His disciples in that form in which He is equal with the Father. When He says, “to the end of the world,” He expresses the infinite by the finite; for He who remains in this present world with His elect, protecting them, the same will continue with them after the end, rewarding them.
Jerome: He then who promises that He will be with His disciples to the end of the world, shews both that they shall live forever, and that He will never depart from those that believe.
Leo, Serm., 72, 3: For by ascending into heaven He does not desert His adopted; but from above strengthens to endurance, those whom He invites upwards to glory. Of which glory may Christ make us partakers, Who is the King of glory, “God blessed forever,” AMEN. (End of Catena quote).
Truth matters here, and in order to prove that the Holy Sacrifice will NOT cease at the time of Antichrist, those misquoting St. Thomas need to ante up and present proofs that overcome the authoritative truth professed by approved authors — the unanimous opinion of the Fathers which both the councils of Trent and the Vatican state must be accepted as a rule of faith — that indeed the Mass will cease at the time of Antichrist. They try to cunningly wrest this interpretation from St. Thomas because they have no other proofs but even then, his opinion would be that of only one doctor regarding the Sacrament of the Eucharist. While even the opinion of one doctor as great as St. Thomas is enough to make an opinion truly probable, we are forbidden to follow a probable opinion regarding the valid reception of the Sacraments, which LibTrads try to infer as a necessity in interpreting this verse. What these pseudo-clergy teach on the cessation of the Sacrifice would never be accepted as proof of anything by the Catholic Church or even in classes of logic on secular campuses.
Fallacies in logic — again
Rev. Joseph B Walsh S.J., in his Fordham philosophy series on Logic, (imprimatured in 1940) lists several types of false arguments under the heading of ignoratio elenchi. And among these are “an appeal to the ignorance of the hearers, tricking them by statements they are unable to test.” Not everyone knows how to cross-reference the Summa, even online, to find out what else St. Thomas might have to say on this topic. And even if they do find it, not everybody is able to put together what it takes to disprove what these LibTrads are saying, and they trade on this. this can be easily seen as a deliberate attempt to take advantage and misinform. And there are other forms of ignoratio elenchi LibTrads use to make it appear that they are presenting proofs from a credible source when in fact they are assuming as proven that which they have yet to proven or assuming that a certain proposition is implicitly contained in the one to be proved.
LibTrads assume St. Thomas proves their case when in fact they have yet to prove (a) that the rite Saint Thomas refers to in his Vulgate commentary references the Holy Sacrifice, not the Eucharist; (b) that the unanimous opinion of the Fathers on the meaning of Holy Scripture, determined to be a rule of faith at Trent and the Vatican Council and hence a matter for belief by the faithful, is not binding in this case or can be overturned by other discoveries they have made; (c) that they are indeed validly able to confer the sacraments even if what Saint Thomas said was applicable in this case, for to do this they would need to overturn Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis which is impossible, because the Pope has the last word in all these things; (d) that Saint Thomas teaches Christ spoke only to the hierarchy in promising to be with dialect unto the consummation. This of course we have already shown above they will not be able to do.
LibTrads have managed to create yet another distraction, another perversion of the truth and that’s all that’s happened here. They wished to make themselves indispensable and to create fear in the faithful that unless they receive the sacraments from their hands, they cannot possibly acquire the graces necessary to attain eternal salvation. This very concept is contradicted by Saint Thomas Aquinas above so we know that they are not presenting all of the truth to their followers and to those that they may be discussing this was on the Internet. They would even go so far as to falsify the teachings of the Church on what Christ said about including the elect in the promise to be with them unto the consummation. And that is a truly sad thing to contemplate because it demonstrates that truth does matter to them, only retaining their power, position and followers. What St. Thomas says matters and what the Church teaches and has always taught must take precedence over any of this nonsense that is bandied about through e-mail, on the Internet, over the telephone, whatever.
The one thing that causes them to continually gnash their teeth is the fact that in the absence of the hierarchy Pope Pius XII taught that the laity must take up all their responsibilities and duties. And this is what we have tried to do. But until they admit the full implications of this statement, which is duly registered in the Acts of Apostolica Sedis, there will be no unity among those praying at home and there will be no admission of guilt or cooperation among traditionalists regarding what has happened since the death of Pope Pius XII.
Conclusion
We may be a rag-tag bunch, those brought to the marriage feast from the ditches and the highways, but WE are the Church. LibTrad pseudo-clergy, too, were called to obey the laws and teachings of the Church but they had better things to do; they had hidden agendas, they had dreams of creating a need for their services that would result in a tidy little income. They also are laity, but because of their disobedience and their refusal to accept the supreme jurisdiction of the papacy, they are laypersons who exist outside the Mystical Body. For they have not only refused to obey the Church they professed to love — they have betrayed Christ and his vicars every bit as much as the Novus Ordo church they love to hate.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 11, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Elizabeth of Portugal+
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 5, 2024 | New Blog
+Sts. Peter and Paul+
+ Prayer Intention for the Month of July, dedicated to
the Most Precious Blood of Jesus+
“Eternal Father, by the most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, glorify His most holy Name according to the desires of his adorable Heart.” (Raccolta, 1936)
Please forgive the lateness of this post which can be attributed to technical difficulties with the website that have now been resolved. I still wish to honor Saints Peter and Paul with this post so I have retained the date of their feast day. I hope to be back at work soon and will then address some issues that have arisen recently overseas and here at home that have been called to my attention. I should be able to get to these things no later than the end of July if not sooner. Thank you for your patience and wishing you a blessed summer vacation season.
