by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 20, 2025 | New Blog
+ St. Eustace, Martyr+
Introduction
This is the last I will say on the Charlie Kirk matter. The hysteria being spread on the Internet about his death is disgusting. Some examples: he was wearing a blood bag and it blew up, making him appear to be dead. He is still alive and living in Valhalla, the island where the witness protection folks go, and I guess Kash Patel and his “Mossad girlfriend” (???) will see him there eventually. And the body in the casket that his wife was bending over, that was just a dummy. You can tell because the hands were yellow and rubbery-looking and “it was just so staged.” People are saying that Erica Kirk was wearing a Masonic necklace and a Masonic ring. Some believe she isn’t even Erika Kirk — just an actress — and has already joined her husband wherever he may be.
Come on people, grow up. Start acting like Catholics and stop acting like the people that give “dissident” Catholics a bad name, justifying the contention of their critics that they are just conspiracy theorists that base their beliefs and opinions on suppositions and half-truths. They classify them in the same category as those who also believe Elvis and JFK Jr. are alive (on Valhalla too?) and aliens will come to save mankind. Yes, we are being gaslighted; yes, we are being propagandized, but why play into their hands?
Now as far as Kirk looking waxy and his hands being rubbery and yellow, let me say this. I’ve seen more dead bodies than I would care to have seen in recent years, my own husband and my own grandson in particular and both of their bodies exhibited that rubbery, yellow look. If you go to the link HERE a mortician will explain why that happens. And I recently read an online report of a gentleman who says that he was with Kirk when he died. Now people out there will say I’m foolish, naive and even evil to believe that he is no longer alive and it wasn’t a plot to do whatever. I may be all those things. But what you’re saying publicly, online, when you are assuming these claims is that this man is a liar and other people around him are liars, including his wife. And that’s just not Catholic.
As for the Masonic ring and necklace, it is said to be a miniature of one that Erika Kirk’s grandfather reportedly received as a Swedish knight. It also closely resembles a piece of jewelry related to membership in the Knights of Malta, which some believe (those in the NO, as she was) is a legitimate Catholic organization. It isn’t of course, but she may not know that — IF that is what the necklace really is. We don’t know for certain and it is wrong to assume. The same can be said of the ring. Yes, it is a “G,” but is not representative of other typical Masonic rings, even for women. There could be other explanations of what it means to her. Is she portrayed by an actress? A double? Prove it; prove all the above. Because unless you can, you most likely are guilty of detraction and primarily rash judgment, both mortal sins.
Rash Judgment
Here is what the Moral theologians Revs. McHugh and Callan have to say on rash judgment from their work: Moral Theology a Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities; 1958.
1734. Sinfulness of Rash Judgment.– Rash judgment strictly understood, then, is a firm assent of the mind, based on insufficient data, and given to the view that a neighbor is or has been guilty of sin.
(a) From its nature this sin is mortal, for it consists in a contempt for, and an injury to, what is regarded as one of the chief goods of man, namely, the favorable opinion of him that is entertained by others. It is denounced in Scripture as an injury to the law itself (“He that judgeth his brother judgeth the law,” James, iv. 11), and as meriting condemnation (“Judge not, and you will not be judged, condemn not and you will not be condemned,” Luke, vi. 37).
1743 (b) It is lawful to suspend judgment in case of reasonable doubts, if there is no obligation of deciding one way or the other, for in so doing one does no injury either to one’s own intelligence (since the doubt is reasonable) or to the honor of another person (since, as supposed, there is no obligation of judging positively in his favor). Just as there is no duty of making acts of love of our neighbor on every occasion, neither is there a duty of deciding doubts to his advantage on every occasion, or of having any opinion about him whatever. Some authors do not admit this, but the common teaching is against them.
(c) It is not lawful to suspend judgment, but the reasonable doubt must be resolved in a favorable sense, if there is an obligation or a wish to decide one way or the other; otherwise one would decide in an unfavorable sense and be guilty of rash judgment. This is what is meant by the well-known maxim that doubts about the character of a neighbor should be settled in favor of the neighbor.
1744. The interpretation of doubts in a favorable sense does not mean that one may not take into consideration the possibility of danger or deception and use remedies or precautions. This course is not rash judgment, for even when one judges that another person is good, one knows that the judgment is possibly wrong and therefore cannot be entirely relied on for external guidance.
So basically, we can suspend judgment while warning others privately that we may not be getting the real story. But online and in public we should keep our mouths shut, simply saying we don’t know, which we don’t. And if we wish to voice an opinion, we must decide in favor of the neighbor. If Christ considered the Samaritans capable of good in the Good Samaritan parable, a sect hated by the Jews for worshipping idols alongside the true God, surely we can spare some charity for erring Protestants, even if we suspect they may somehow be drawn into Freemasonry or Zionism. We must also consider how hard those fomenting conspiracy theories work to disrupt our actual thinking processes, as one online writer recently pointed out below.
Mental Health: Pill Pushing?
During the psychedelic era of the 1960s and 1970s, people used LSD, mushrooms, and other street drugs to enter an altered reality.
Now 50 years later, a few people use LSD and mushrooms, but most of the mind-altering drugs are legal. Around 18% of women are on some type of antidepressant and about 7% of kids are on some type of behavior modifying (mind altering) drug.
Then there are the additives that companies place in food. Some of these additives are used because they impact the brain. Several studies have indicated that sweeteners, preservatives, and emulsifiers may trigger mental disorders including anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
And then there is a completely different reality conundrum. This reality shift can impact anyone, even people who are not taking pharmaceutical or illegal mind-altering drugs or eating food with additives or preservatives.
This is the “information” reality shift. Through extensive research, companies and governments discovered it is possible to control behavior with “information” that is delivered in special ways. This information can be delivered in audio, video, or written formats. It can be true. It can be false but made to appear true. It can be delivered to inspire fear or happiness.
When mind control techniques are used, it becomes very difficult to determine whether the “information” is real, partially real, or fake. In recent years, information controllers have used “experts” to sway people. And in the last couple of years, they paid “fact checkers” to “verify” information they wanted people to believe. In addition, universities sometimes push an agenda to keep low-cost employees or put forth half-truths that make it easier for them to obtain grants.
[In some states], we see people paying big money to make things appear different than they are. For example, on [one state’s] Amendment, the proponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to convince people that veterans could not vote. People have become wise to this type of manipulation.
On the other hand, it is harder to know when a doctor or hospital has the right motivations. Many people have started to wonder if a well check is sometimes just a way to find something wrong to generate income. Or if a free session with a personal trainer is really just a way to pressure you into a sale.
The worst part of a morphing reality is figuring out how to escape the mind control matrix, whether it is legal drugs, food additives, or information. Maybe a first step is to leave our phones, TVs, computers, and the slick marketing materials and escape into the beautiful outdoors. Then it is just you and nature. And no one seems to be trying to manipulate that experience yet. (southdakotavoices.substack.com/p/mental-health-pill-pushing; all emphasis added.)
A spiritual crisis
We know that Kirk’s teachings on the Church up to shortly before his death were definitely sinful. There is plenty of evidence for that. And we also know it is reported that he had a change of heart and was considering taking a different path. There is reliable evidence that this was indeed the case and it was a very recent development not reflected in some of his earlier comments. Some around Kirk have reported that he was in what we might call a state of spiritual crisis. He had discovered some things that were very devastating for him, things that would force him to make major changes to both his organization and possibly his religious affiliation. Whether he would have or not or to what extent we don’t know. But if he was attending what he believed to be a Catholic mass and praying the rosary as reported then perhaps he at least believed he was on a better path and we don’t know what would have happened from there. We’re simply not supposed to judge what we don’t know.
Can any of you remember how terribly painful it was for you to learn the Church you loved was gone, the confusion and sorrow you experienced? The first few stages of this process are described below:
“1. SHOCK & DENIAL – You will probably react to learning of the loss with numbed disbelief. You may deny the reality of the loss at some level, in order to avoid the pain. Shock provides emotional protection from being overwhelmed all at once. This may last for weeks.
“2. PAIN & GUILT -
As the shock wears off, it is replaced with the suffering of unbelievable pain. Although excruciating and almost unbearable, it is important that you experience the pain fully, and not hide it, avoid it or escape from it with alcohol or drugs. You may have guilty feelings or remorse over things you did or didn’t do… Life feels chaotic and scary during this phase.” (https://www.recover-from-grief.com/7-stages-of-grief.html).
Is it too much to ask for a little compassion and understanding here?
Liberal charity?
Some will say all the above is an example of liberal charity on my part. But it isn’t and I’ll tell you why. There is reason to believe that he could possibly have saved his soul based on reports from those close to him, not that he definitely did. That is all I said in my last blog. We can’t rule that possibility out if he was in a better place than he had been. I would say the same of some traditionalist, whether they be leader, pseudo-clergy or followers, if they passed away after exhibiting doubts that their position was not correct. And especially if they were praying about the situation and seemed to have begun to repent of their previous errors. Just as we can never say for certain that someone is in Hell, neither can we be certain any soul is in Purgatory or Heaven.
We have the teachings of the Church to direct our behavior, and yet even those considering themselves devout Catholics sinfully engage in this fantastical Internet guessing game rather than even consider what conduct the Church expects from us. Who else but the Church can we rely on for the truth? This little exercise has been a really good opportunity to assess where we are today. Turning Point could and should have been a Catholic endeavor if those exiting the Novus Ordo had followed the example of the Japanese and made certain that future generations were taught how to perpetuate their faith in a hostile environment. Instead, we’re all out there pointing fingers and criticizing each other while pretending to be Catholic.
Conclusion
You know, this is a wake-up call folks. Instead of tearing Charlie Kirk’s image down, maybe someone, preferably a young, home-schooled, pray-at-home Catholic male, could manage to replicate the zeal and energy he dedicated to his cause. Such a young man, on fire for the faith, could reap the harvest of some of these “Gen Zers” now showing an interest in religion, including many seeking out the Latin Mass. The harvest is great, the laborers few, and men are noticeably absent from the fields. It is my hope Kirk met his own “turning point” shortly before he died. And it is our responsibility to see that the youth he appealed to, so far as possible, have at least the option to find that same turning point presented from a truly Catholic perspective, not the Christian Nationalist framework Kirk advocated.
(Stay tuned for an announcement on the grand opening of our new business endeavor, St. Eustace Lodge and Family Retreat.)
Refresher Course on Salvation “Outside” the Church
Questions About Membership in the Church, by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton
(The American Ecclesiastical Review, The Catholic University of America Press, July 1961)
“Now it must be understood that the Church militant of the New Testament, as a supernatural entity, is not to be judged by ordinary human standards. Concretely, a man may pertain to this society or in some way or other be “within” it other than by membership in its ranks. In order to appreciate our question, and in order to realize the harm that has been done by careless and unscientific writing on membership in the Catholic Church, we must consider the other ways in which a man can be said to “belong” in some way to this organization… Far more involved is the case of that person who is not a member of the Catholic Church, but who is “within” the Church in such a way as to enjoy the life of sanctifying grace. It is absolutely imperative for the well being of contemporary theology that the situation of this individual be accurately analyzed.
“The Suprema haec sacra interprets this passage of the Mystici Corporis Christi as showing that people in this condition, that is, those who are ordered to the Church by an unconscious intention or desire, are not excluded from the possibility of attaining to eternal salvation… The Suprema haec sacra makes it completely clear that those who are in a position to be saved only by reason of the fact that they have at least an implicit intention or desire to enter the Church and to remain within it are not reapse or in reality members of the true Church… It is definitely a disservice to the cause of Catholic theology to insinuate that, in order to be saved, a man has to be in some way a member of the Church. But, by the same token, it is imperative that the difference between being in the Church as a member, and being “within” it by reason of a desire, a prayer, or an intention to enter this society be very well understood.
“The man who desires to be within the Church, and whose desire is such that it brings him “within” the true Church in such a way as to attain salvation “within” it, is one who intends and desires and prays for those objectives that are indicated in the text of the Pater noster and in the petitions of the Mass. And this remains true even though, through no fault of his own, the individual who is thus “within” the Church does not have a clear and explicit understanding of some of these individual objectives. Thus it is apparent that the man who is not a member or a part of the Church, but who has a salvific intention or desire to enter it and to remain within it, is actually praying and working along with the Church for the objectives of Jesus Christ. In this way he is truly “within” the Church. And, since the work of the Church is accomplished in the face of serious and never-ending opposition, the non-member of the Church who has a salvific intention to join it is actually fighting for Our Lord “within” His company. He is actually serving God with his whole mind and his whole heart, and thus he is joined to the Church even in his status as a non-member of this society.
“It is quite obvious that this condition can exist only as long as, for one reason or another, membership in the Church is impossible for this individual. When it becomes possible for a man to become a member of the Church, or when he becomes aware of the true status of the Catholic Church in the supernatural order, he can no longer work effectively for Our Lord except as a member of His Church… The men and women who have a salutary votum or desiderium of entering the Church are “within” it insofar as they are working and fighting within it for the attainment of the objectives of Jesus Christ. Yet they are definitely not parts or members of this society.” (End of the excerpts from Msgr. Fenton’s article).
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
This reminder is necessary because people seem to have forgotten what the Church teaches on this topic. We must remember that this teaching is for those outside the Catholic Church, be it the Novus Ordo or other non-Catholic sects. It is now impossible for most non-Catholics to distinguish the true Catholic Church from the false. If it is scarcely possible for mature Catholics who were once in the Church Herself — and knew what She taught — to recognize the Novus Ordo as false, how much more so for those outside the Church, especially the younger among them?! The important thing in the case we are considering above is that at one point Kirk (only 31) may have been considering the teaching on the Church’s authority regarding Scripture and the hierarchical order as correct. If he truly began to consider this, and reject his previous beliefs, regardless of whether he knew the church he was turning to was false, then he was beginning to turn away from his prior condemnations of things Catholic.
We end with this quote from Pope Pius IX: “Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only Ark of salvation, and that the one who does not enter it is going to perish in the deluge. But, nevertheless, we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that [ignorance] be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, who is there who would arrogate to himself the power to indicate the extent of such [invincible] ignorance according to the nature and the variety of peoples, regions, talents, and so many other things? For really when, loosed from these bodily bonds, we see God as He is, we shall certainly understand with what intimate and beautiful a connection the divine mercy and justice are joined together. But, while we live on earth, weighed down by this mortal body that darkens the mind, let us hold most firmly, from Catholic doctrine, that there is one God, one faith, one baptism. It is wrong to push our inquiries further than this.”
In his comment on the above quote, Msgr. Fenton writes: “It is not within the field either of our competence or of our rights to search out the way in which God’s mercy and His justice operate in any given case of a person ignorant of the true Church or of the true religion. We shall see how these divine attributes have operated in the light of the Beatific Vision itself… God is never outdone in generosity. The person who tries to come to Him will never be forsaken. As a matter of fact, the movement toward God, like all good things, originates from God Himself” (The Catholic Church and Salvation, Newman Press, 1958).
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 12, 2025 | New Blog
+Most Holy Name of Mary+
A note to readers
A few words here about the assassination of influencer/Christian activist Charlie Kirk. Kirk began his career at 18, refusing to attend college because of the liberal indoctrination tactics common to academia and counseling others in his generation to do the same. He married in 2020, claiming that he remained a virgin until marriage. Kirk’s wife was raised in a Novus Ordo household, and according to some reports, Kirk was considering joining what he believed to be the Catholic Church. In a day and age when Our Lady is continually blasphemed by Protestants, he asked fellow Christians to rethink their views regarding her. He also rejected the usurper Leo 14 as a Marxist and questioned Israel’s motives in its war against Gaza.
Six weeks ago, Kirk said in a podcast: “I think we as Protestants and Evangelicals under-venerate Mary. She was very important. She was a vessel for our Lord and Savior. I think that we, as Evangelicals and Protestants, we’ve overcorrected. We don’t talk about Mary enough. We don’t venerate her enough. Mary was clearly important to early Christians. There’s something there. In fact, I believe one of the ways that we fix toxic feminism in America is that Mary is the solution. Have more young ladies be pious, be reverent, be full of faith, slow to anger, slow to words at times. Mary is a phenomenal example, and I think a counter to so much of the toxicity of feminism in the modern era.”
This in a podcast that aired on July 16, Feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. We recently reported here that Kirk supported the NAR movement. Despite this fact, he was a zealous defender of Christ and believed America should be a Christian nation. He was a young person who may have eventually figured things out over time. He denounced the evils of abortion, gender identity and the plethora of immoralities plaguing this country today. It is our hope and prayer that, somehow, he saved his soul, even though we can never assume this. Certainly his death saved him from being sucked into an even greater evil.
Introduction
A self-declared hermit and Novus Ordo, “priest,” David Nix, writing under the name “Padre Peregrino,” recently stated in a post on Substack that: “The saints seem to delineate between ‘material heresy’ (small points) and ‘manifest heresy’ (obvious heresy). The latter is held by saints to be easily identified by your average faithful layman or lay woman living in sanctifying grace.” He claims the Novus Ordo (and LibTrad) pseudo-clergy scoff at this idea, stating only “true” Catholic clergy can decide such matters. This he rightly calls, “Gnosticism… the old and tired heresy that only a certain group of ‘enlightened elites’ have access to ‘secret’ divine knowledge.” While these statements on material and formal heresy are more or less true, Nix has not consulted the proper sources to best explain the definition of these two types of heresy. And it is important that Catholics understand that even material heretics are outside the Church until a canonically elected Pope and bishops in communion with him declare otherwise. But sadly, we have no pope and no valid hierarchy left to elect one.
So in their absence, we must do what the Church commands us to do: we are bound to hold the teaching of the Continual Magisterium on this matter, NOT the teaching of the saints and early Fathers, although their opinions on doctrinal matters certainly have great merit. We are bound to obey Canon Law, since the primary source of Canon Law is the Popes and the Councils. The Fathers and Doctors contribute much that is good, but their opinions do not reflect the entirety of papal decisions made since the time of their death. They Pope is infallible; they are not. Theologians and canonists are quoted below, but they only echo the most recent decisions of the Popes and Holy Office and the Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the (1917) Code. And we are bound by that same Code to follow more recent laws.
Canon 22 states: “A more recent law given by competent authority abrogates a former law if it expressly orders abrogation or if it is directly contrary to the former law or if it readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law. Archbishop Amleto Cicognani, in his 1934 work, Canon Law states that: “… Revocation is tacit when a new law is issued directly contrary to the former law or when a new law takes up and readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law… The competent authority means the Roman Pontiff, the Council, the Bishop, or the Ordinary in general.”
Three questions raised in this article must be addressed. The first concerns the matter of who can judge heresy and whether such heresy must be formal. The second addresses whether said heresy is to be considered material or formal. And the third regards the invalid election of Angelo Roncalli in 1958.
Canon 1325 and heresy
Canon 1325 tells us: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly whenever silence, subterfuge or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God or scandal to their neighbor.” If LibTrads only revered and followed Canon Law, they would know the answer to the questions they pose. But they cannot afford to do this, because to do so would be their undoing. This canon would not be written as it is, if the faithful were not obligated by law to judge heresy. Furthermore, Can. 1935, under the heading “Criminal Trials,” states: “The faithful may, AT ALL TIMES denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” Neither of these canons exempt the clergy from these obligations laid on the faithful.
Heresy, to be judged as such, need not involve other members of the faithful pronouncing any judgment of the person who professes it. THE LAW ITSELF judges them and places them outside the Church, even if their heresy is only material, and those observing their errors need only state that FACT. For all who belong to the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects belong to non-Catholic sects and therefore have incurred the excommunication in Can. 2314 §3 for communicatio in sacris. Material or formal, it doesn’t matter. Even material heretics remain in heresy because we have no pope to lift their infamy of law and their latae sententiae excommunication. And for this same reason, a new pope cannot be elected.
The Church’s teaching on material heresy
Revs. McHugh and Callan
- Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it. But for formal heresy it is not required that that a person give his consent out of malice, or that he continue in obstinate rejection for a long time, or that he refuses to heed admonitions given him. Pertinacity here means true consent to recognized error, and this can…be given in an instant and does not presuppose an admonition disregarded,” (#829b).
- Circumstances that aggravate the sin include: its external and manifest nature, manifestation to a large number of people joined with apostasy and adhesion to an heretical sect, denying several articles or defined truths at the same time, (#832b&c).
- Faith…must be firm assent, excluding doubt, (#840). Real, voluntary but especially positive doubt, deliberately entertained with full knowledge, also constitutes heresy, (#s841-45).
Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey
Rev. Tanquerey’s works were used as seminary texts internationally for decades. He holds the same position as McHugh and Callan. “Apostates, heretics and schismatics incur, on the ordinary conditions of full guilt, knowledge, etc., an excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See…” Tanquerey then points out that, “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching of the authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, EVEN IF THEIR HERESY IS ONLY MATERIAL HERESY,” (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II).
Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton
As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton notes in his “The Teaching of the Theological Manuals,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963: “If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of ‘the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages,’ then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error by the men whom Our Lord had constituted as the guardians of His revealed message.”
In another article Msgr. Fenton wrote: “[Cardinal] Franzelin popularized the process of distinguishing between material and formal heresy in treating of conditions for membership in the Church. He thereby did a definite disservice to the cause of theology,” (“The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine’s Teaching About the Membership of occult heretics in the Catholic Church,” AER, March 1950).
Rev. Ignatius Szal
In his Canon Law dissertation, “The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics” (1948), Rev. Szal rightly states that those raised in heresy or schism who convert to the true faith, even if no obstinacy was involved on their part, must be absolved from the censure for schism if they convert after reaching the age of 14. This has been confirmed by several decisions handed down by the Holy See and the Sacred Congregations. It is based on the rule expressed in Can. 2200 §2, (1917 Code) that they are bound by the censure of excommunication for schism or heresy given the external violation of the law.
Rev. Reginald Garrigou LaGrange
Rev. Garrigou LaGrange, O.P. states in his The Theological Virtues, Vol. I, (On Faith; written before V2 but translated afterwards): “The one thing that suffices for formal heresy is an obstinate denial of any truth which has been infallibly proposed by the Church for belief. It is not necessary that the individual believer realizes that the truth in jeopardy has been revealed.”
Canonists Revs. Stanislaus Woywod and Callistus Smith
Based on decisions issued by the Holy Office, Revs. Woywod-Smith observe: “Nevertheless, in the external forum they are not free [from the penalties of Can. 2314] for, according to Can. 2200, when there is an external violation of Church law, malice is presumed in the external forum until its absence is proved. The Holy See insists that converts from heretical or schismatic sects be not received into the Church until they have first abjured the heresy or schism and been absolved from the censure, (Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, July 20, 1859). Children converted before the age of puberty need no absolution from the excommunication (cfr. Can. 2230) and, instead of abjuration, need only make the profession of faith, (Holy Office, March 8, 1882” (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1957).
Revs. Woywod-Smith on Can. 731: “All canonists and moralists agree that those who are heretics or schismatics and know they are wrong cannot be given the Sacraments of the Church unless they renounce their errors and are reconciled with the Church. Numerous decrees of the Holy Office put this point beyond controversy.”
Canonist Dom Charles Augustine
“Charity does not require mental gymnastics in order to excuse what is manifest, [evident, obvious, not obscure]… Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man” (Dom Charles Augustine: A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. 8, pg. 335; 1908).
Canon E. J. Mahoney
In his work Questions and Answers: The Sacraments (1946), Canon E.J. Mahoney comments: “The LIBERAL VIEW [is that] baptized non-Catholics in good faith are members of the body of the Church precisely because they are not excommunicated…The view diametrically opposed to this is [that] the excommunication of heretics applies to material as well as formal heretics…If a choice had to be made between theses two views…, there is no question that the second fits in best with Catholic discipline, and, in particular, with our practice in reconciling converts…
The solution which I think is the correct one consists in perceiving a distinction which the Code itself supplies. The Sacraments are to be denied both to material and formal heretics but for different reasons; to formal heretics because they merit punishment, the censure of Can. 2314 §1; to material heretics because they are excluded by Can. 731 §2, which is a necessary deduction from the concept of the Church: [basically, the Church is a society of men professing the same Christian faith, participating in the same worship, receiving the same Sacraments, from lawful pastors in communion with the Pope, etc…] Those who reject the rule of faith proposed by the Church are not members of the Church and may not lawfully share in the privileges of members, as, for example, the reception of the Sacraments.”
Mahoney then cites Billot, who explains that formal heresy and schism cannot be excluded as a possibility in these cases. “…In reconciling converts…it is difficult in the first place to say with certainty that a given convert has not incurred the censure. It is not amongst those which crass ignorance excuses, and it is not unlikely that, during a given period previous to his submission, there was sufficient knowledge for incurring a censure. Therefore absolution from censure is given at least ad cautelam… Moreover, the important distinction between the internal and the external forum must always be remembered. The external government of the Church regards the external actions of people…It is open to the authority of the external government of the Church to regard the members of heretical sects as excommunicated, even though, in the internal forum of conscience, they may be guiltless of any act meriting punishment.”
The Jurist, 1948
We read also from The Jurist, volume 132, page 405: “Irregularity Arising from Sect Affiliation”: “Question: A young man in my parish joined the Methodist Church at the age of 15. He was baptized in it in infancy. At 16, through association with Catholic young men in high school, he became a convert to the Church. Does he labor under any irregularity from which a dispensation should be obtained? (signed, Pedagogous)
“Answer: Since the young man joined the Methodist Church after he had attained the age of puberty, he does not escape the penalties which the Code visits upon his act. Clearly it may be assumed that he has been absolved from the excommunication in accordance with the provisions of Canon 2314 §2, since it is apparent from the statement of the case that he is a good Catholic and proposes to study for the priesthood. It is very likely, however, that he has not been dispensed from the vindictive penalty of infamy of law (infamia juris).
- Only the Holy See can dispense from this penalty.
- One who labors under it is irregular ex defectu, not ex delicto. Of course, even considered as an irregularity ex defectu, its presence is prevented, in the internal forum, by the good faith of the party affected: that is,good faith prevents the incurring of the vindictive penalty of infamy of law, and in the absence of the latter, there is an irregularity ex defectu. In the external forum, however, the dispensation should be duly sought from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments.
“The young man also is subject to the impediment arising ex delicto from this heresy in accordance with canon 985, 1°. In the internal forum, good faith would excuse him; in the external forum, however, a dispensation should be sought from this irregularity also from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments. (I Cf. can. 2314, § 1, 3°. Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adhaeserint, ipso facto infames sunt et, firma praescripto can. 188, n. 4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur. Can. 2295. Infamia iuris desinit sola dispensatione a Sede Apostolica concessa).”
“All the above heresies are so-called silent heresies. No declaration of their individual existence is ever made by an ecclesiastical authority — except in the general way that all heresies have been condemned by the continual magisterium at some time, in one place or the other — and there is a record of this. To insist that one 14 and older cannot be held guilty of censures is to deny the Church’s right to establish and enforce censures. This teaching of the Jansenist heretics is condemned by Pope Pius VI:
“ ‘Likewise, the proposition which teaches that is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect, — false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.’
“ ‘Likewise, the proposition which says, “useless and vain is the formula introduced some centuries ago of general absolution from excommunications into which the faithful might have fallen, — false, rash, injurious to the practice of the Church,’” (“Auctorem Fidei,” August 28, 1794).”
The 1958 papal election
Nix ends his article by commenting: “Indeed, the Catholic Church has always taught that a Papal Conclave electing a heretical man is certainly and without doubt an invalid Conclave. And yes, you do have the ability to recognize heresy in such a man…” Of course, Nix will not take the invalid election Idea clear back to the “election” of Roncalli because he can’t afford to. That would defrock him as a Novus Ordo priest/hermit. So here he is talking about Leo, and before that, it was Bergoglio. Yet proofs clearly show it was Roncalli, and that afterwards, all other elections were automatically invalid.
Most LibTrad adults living in the 1980s know full well that the first exposition of Roncalli as a heretic and the proofs necessary to show the invalidity of his election were published in the book, Will the Catholic Church Survive…? by T. Stanfill Benns and David Bawden in 1990. The problem here is that their children and grandchildren, now following such figures as Nix, most likely do not know this. Regardless of Bawden’s co-authorship, there were many Catholic truths presented whole and entire in the book (although I have withdrawn it from circulation). Since the 1980s to the present time, these fully developed and incontrovertible proofs been expanded upon and restated so many times, in various places, that it is preposterous for those now writing to pretend they have not seen or considered them. This is certainly true of “Padre Peregrino,” who traipsed across the same stomping grounds and frequented the same seminary library I myself frequented — St. Thomas Seminary, now renamed Abp. Urban Vehr Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He must, at some point, have been aware of this website and the proofs presented here. But no one seems to believe these proofs or value them. And if mentioned at all, they frequently quote them completely out of context and without attribution.
To pretend to reinvent the wheel at this late date is nothing short of a travesty. Unless something recognizably credible can be added to already existing proofs of Roncalli’s invalid election, it is both a waste of research hours and a waste of time for readers, when such demonstrations were long ago drawn out and publicized. In reality, Roncalli would have been ineligible for election even as a material heretic, for then he was no longer a member of the Church as pointed out above. And a non-Catholic cannot become pope. For as Can. 2200 states, those suspected of such heresy must first be cleared of all guilt. And St. Robert Bellarmine writes: “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and others” (De Romano Pontifice,
lib. II, cap. 30).
A material heretic’s heresy has already become manifest in some way, either in speech, writing or actions. It is material only in the sense that it may be, but has not yet, been denounced. Far from denouncing such heresy, Roncalli compounded it when he usurped the papal see, proving that his suspicion of heresy notice filed with the Holy Office was indeed justified. Of course the canons would later clarify how material heretics are to be viewed nearly 500 years after St. Bellarmine wrote, for even prior to any denouncement, they are presumed to be heretics. This topic has been much misrepresented and misunderstood. This is something Bellarmine himself anticipated, when he wrote in the same chapter:
“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. FOR ALTHOUGH LIBERIUS WAS NOT A HERETIC, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, et al).”
Quite simply, Liberius was suspected of heresy. And Bellarmine quotes several notable Fathers, not just the few Nix cites in his article, quoting the author Paul Kramer. With this consensus of the ancient Fathers, in addition to Bellarmine’s own teaching as a Doctor of the Church, the saint has resolved the entire issue singlehandedly. After all, Bellarmine was a teenager during the reign of Pope Paul IV, so Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was fairly recent when he wrote. Here, however, the lapse of Liberius did not happen before his election, as in the case of Roncalli. The issue in Roncalli’s case is resolved by Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.
Conclusion
For the sake of people such as Charlie Kirk, we cannot let the delusions of Novus Ordo and LibTrad sect leaders predominate without protest. Truth mattered to Kirk — by all accounts, he was sincere in his beliefs, erroneous though they were. He opposed liberal indoctrination, and yet it appears he was about to become indoctrinated in the biggest lie of all. God spared him that. But what about all the others he fought for and loved who are now left behind?
Nix and others believe that if they can just “elect a true pope,” then the real Church will be vindicated and the evil purged. I thought the same thing myself at one point and was foolishly misled by a liar. Twenty years of additional research helped uncover the carefully woven layers of heresy implanted by the Modernists (and other secret societies) that have been so cleverly embedded into the fabric of modern-day “Catholic” belief. Traditionalist sects were one of their greatest weapons, just as Protestant sects helped spread error far and wide 500 years ago.
If the lying visions now guiding the world could ever be dispelled, it could only come from the admission of the fact that evil became most prevalent following the death of Pope Pius XII, although it was fomenting long before his demise. The real betrayal began with Roncalli, and until his election is investigated and publicly recognized as invalid, and the entire façade that has prevailed in Rome for 67 years is ripped away, there is no hope of leading others to the truth. Pseudo-clerics such as Padre Peregrino and LibTrads in general are the obstacle to recognizing that truth, a necessity for them if they wish to stay in business. But it is as Christ meant it to be, for as Louis Cardinal Pie of Poitiers (1815-1880) wrote:
“It is certain that as the world draws towards its end the wicked and the seducers will increasingly have the upper hand. Faith will hardly be found any longer on earth; that is to say that it will have all but completely disappeared from the institutions of the world. Even believers will scarcely dare to profess their beliefs publicly and collectively… The Church, though of course still a visible society, will be increasingly reduced to individual and domestic proportions… And finally the Church on earth will undergo a true defeat: ‘…and it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them’ (Apoc. 13:7) The insolence of evil will be at its peak.” And this, he says will last until the very end. The Church already has seen the defeat he mentions. We yet exist that She remain visible on earth until the Second Coming.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 2, 2025 | New Blog
+Feast of St. Stephen, Martyr+
Introduction
One must wonder if those who try to search out what is happening to us in these days ever think to credit and be grateful for the great Catholic minds who went before us and so eruditely plotted out what might happen to us and what we could expect in these times. But it seems that very few people really examine these things very closely because so many of the commentaries are hard to understand and also seem to mischaracterize the things that we’ve experienced as far as the destruction of the Church goes. Some commentators get most of it right, but spin-off at some point on one issue that falsely colors everything else they write. Others are wrong on most points but then are surprisingly clear on others. So most people read a little bit and tend to give up or maybe decide that, well, after all, it’s not that important. But it IS important, as we learned in our last blog, because if we don’t understand who we are and where we are in time, we’re not going to be doing what Christ expected us to do as overcomers and witnesses in this time prior to Christ’s Second Coming.
The prophet Daniel speaks of these times in the following verses in chapter 12 of the Old Testament:
“1 But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people: and a time shall come, such as never was from the time that nations began, even until that time. And at that time shall thy people be saved, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always.
3 But they that are learned, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: and they that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time appointed: many shall pass over, and knowledge shall be manifold.
5 And I, Daniel, looked, and behold as it were two others stood: one on this side upon the bank of the river, and another on that side, on the other bank of the river.
6 And I said to the man that was clothed in linen, that stood upon the waters of the river: How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
7 And I heard the man that was clothed in linen, that stood upon the waters of the river, when he had lifted up his right hand, and his left hand to heaven, and had sworn by him that liveth forever, that it should be unto a time, and times, and half a time. And when the scattering of the band of the holy people shall be accomplished, all these things shall be finished.
8 And I heard, and understood not. And I said: O my Lord, what shall be after these things?
9 And he said: Go, Daniel, because the words are shut up, and sealed until the appointed time.”
And as We quoted Rev. Haydock in our last blog on verse 9 above: “The vision will not be understood till the event. It is not to be interpreted by human wit but by the spirit of God wherewith the Church is enlightened and governed.” And this is also the opinion of St. Jerome, who likewise commented on Dan. 8: 26: “Thou therefore seal up the vision, because it shall come to pass after many days.” Having explained the vision which we have examined above to the best of our ability, the angel Gabriel adds at the end: “Thou therefore seal up the vision, because it shall come to pass after many days.” By the mention of a seal, he showed that the things spoken were of a hidden character and not accessible to the ears of the multitude, OR SUSCEPTIBLE OF COMPREHENSION PRIOR TO THEIR ACTUAL FULFILMENT BY THE EVENTS THEMSELVES.” (See full text HERE.)
St. Jerome’s commentary on the Book of Daniel
St. Jerome is adamant that nearly all of the book of Daniel refers directly to the coming of Antichrist. He writes against the pagan philosopher Porphyry who denied this, claiming the book of Daniel was not canonical. St. Jerome points out how, in almost every verse, the Jewish antichrist Antiochus can only be seen as the archetype of Antichrist. What he says about Antichrist is everything that we have experienced in watching the destruction of the Church. And it is interesting that in this commentary on Daniel he twice refers to Antichrist coming at the end of the age of the Church, and not at the end of the world, as B. E. Strauss has already pointed out (although Strauss takes his quotes from a different source). But not only St. Jerome says this, but St. Bede also. “Antichrist, who is to reign AT THE END OF THE AGE, because of the unity of the body of the ungodly of which he is the head, pertains to the number of the kingdoms of the world” (Apoc. 17: 11).
In later comments, St. Jerome elaborates on Dan. 12: 1-3 as follows: “And so after the Antichrist is crushed and destroyed by the breath of the Savior’s mouth, the people written in God’s book shall be saved; and in accordance with the merits of each, some shall rise up unto eternal life and others unto eternal shame. But the teachers shall resemble the very heavens, and those who have instructed others shall be compared to the brightness of the stars. For it is not enough to know wisdom unless one also instructs others; and the tongue of instruction which remains silent and edifies no one else can receive no reward for labor accomplished. This passage is expressed by Theodotion and the Vulgate edition [of the Septuagint] in the following fashion: “And those who understand shall shine forth like the radiance of the firmament, and many of the righteous like the stars forever and ever.”
“Many people often ask whether a learned saint and an ordinary saint shall both enjoy the same reward and one and the same dwelling-place in heaven. Well then, the statement is made here, according to Theodotion’s rendering, that the learned will resemble the very heavens, whereas the righteous who are without learning are only compared to the brightness of the stars. And so the difference between learned godliness and mere godly rusticity shall be the difference between heaven and the stars.” Verse 11:33 also mentions the learned, and St. Jerome comments: “And they that are learned among the people shall teach many and they shall fall by the sword and by fire and by captivity and by spoil for many days.” The books of Maccabees relate the great sufferings the Jews endured at the hands of Antiochus… [L]et no one doubt that these things are going to happen under the Antichrist, when many shall resist his authority and flee away in various directions.”
And on Dan. 12: 4 he writes: “He who had revealed manifold truth to Daniel now signifies that the things he has said are matters of secrecy, and he orders him to roll up the scroll containing his words and set a seal upon the book, with the result that many shall read it and inquire (p. 577) as to its fulfilment in history, differing in their opinions because of its great obscurity. And as for the statement, “Many shall pass over” or “go through,” this indicates that it will be read by many people. For it is a familiar expression to say: “I have gone through a book,” or, “I have passed through an historical account.” Indeed this is the idea which Isaiah also expressed in regard to the obscurity of his own book: “And the sayings of that book shall be like the words of ‘I do not know how to read.’
“But if they give it to a man who does know how to read and say, ‘Read the book,’ he will reply, ‘I cannot read it, because it is sealed up’ ” (Isa. 39:11). Also in the Revelation of John, there is a book seen which is sealed with seven seals inside and outside. And when no one proves able to break its seals, John says, “I wept sore; and a voice came to me, saying, ‘Weep not: behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the book and break its seals’ “(Apoc. 5:4). But that book can be opened by one who has learned the mysteries of Scripture and understands its hidden truths, and its words which seem dark because of the greatness of the secrets they contain. He it is who can interpret the parables and transmute the letter which killeth into the spirit which quickeneth.
And in this same vein, on verses 8-10: “And if the prophet himself heard and did not understand, what will be the case with those men who presumptuously expound a book which has been sealed, and that too unto the time of the end, a book which is shrouded with many obscurities? But he comments that when the end comes, the ungodly will lack comprehension, whereas those who are learned in the teaching of God will be able to understand. “For wisdom will not enter the perverted soul, nor can it impart itself to a body which is subject to sins.” For in Ch. 9, verses, 13-14, St. Jerome already had commented: “’All this evil has come upon us, and we have not entreated Thy face, O Lord our God, that we might turn back from our iniquities and consider Thy truth.'”
“Their obduracy was so great that even in the midst of their toils they would not entreat God, and even if they had entreated Him, it would not have been a genuine entreaty, because they had not turned back from their iniquities. Yet to consider the truth of God is equivalent to turning back from iniquity (v. 13)…. “And the Lord hath kept watch over the evil and hath brought it upon us.'” Whenever we are rebuked because of our sins, God is keeping watch over us and visiting us with chastisement. But whenever we are left alone by God and we do not suffer judgment but are unworthy of the Lord’s rebuke, then He is said to slumber.”
And exactly what are these iniquities? They are repeated again and again in the book of Daniel. St. Jerome comments: “And as for the statement, “And he glorified himself even against the Prince of Power,” this means that he lifted himself up against God and persecuted His saints. He even took away the endelekhismos or “continual offering” which was customarily sacrificed in the morning and at even, and he prevailed to the casting down of the “place of His sanctuary.” And he did not do this by his own prowess, but only “on account of the sins of the people.” And thus it came to pass that truth was prostrated upon the ground, and as the worship of idols flourished, the religion of God suffered an eclipse.” (Dan. 8: 11, 12).
For “…the Antichrist shall come, and according to the Apostle [reading apostolum for apostolorum] he is going to sit in the temple of God (II Thess. 2) and be slain by the breath of our Lord and Savior after he has waged war against the saints. And thus it shall come to pass that the middle of the week shall mark the confirmation of God’s covenant with the saints, and the middle of the week in turn shall mark the issuing of the decree under the authority of Antichrist that no more sacrifices be offered. For the Antichrist shall set up the abomination of desolation, that is, an idol or statue of his own god, within the Temple. Then shall ensue the final devastation and the condemnation of the Jewish people, who after their rejection of Christ’s truth shall embrace the lie of the Antichrist” (Ch. 9: 24-27).
Idol worship among the NO and LibTrads
And not only those of the Novus Ordo and LibTrad sects, but also those calling themselves Recusants, in order not to be totally rejected by their fellow sedevacantists, will pay this tribute to idols. They do this whenever they take it upon themselves to determine that some or another “worthy” priest can Pope Pius XII’s infallible papal constitution — Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis — is only an “ecclesiastic” or disciplinary law and therefore does not bind them; the same they claim for Pope Paul IV’s infallible Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. That when these papal constitutions irrefutably teach that the attempts to simulate the Sacraments by all those pretending to act on behalf of the Church are null, void and invalid. And those calling themselves “Traditionalists” can only be classified as those same heretics condemned by Pope Pius IX in 1855 (DZ 1649); for the real meaning of Tradition, as pointed out here many times before, is not what they pretend.
Commenting on 2 Thess. 2:14, the Most Rev. John Macevilly D.D., wrote in 1898: “By “tradition,” he [St. Paul] means doctrines and institutions of the Christian religion, whether appertaining to faith or discipline. Of the latter kind he spoke — chap. 11. Ep. 1 to Cor.—“Cetera, cum venero, disponam.” From this latter verse it is clear, that Tradition was intended to be a channel of divine revelation no less than the sacred Scriptures. Traditions may be committed to writing in after times; but still they are said to be the unwritten word of God, because, not written by the Apostles, like the SS. Scriptures, but merely delivered by the word of mouth…
“Hence, God wished that the great certain means of conveying His divine truth, independent of every species of casualty, was to be the tradition of His Church, which He has constituted the indefectible oracle of his heavenly truth, unto the end of time. On this account, it is, that the Gospel is called, a testimony, to be handed down by witnesses” (An Exposition of the Epistles of Saint Paul and of the Catholic Epistles: Vols. 1 & 2). That all those official edicts of the popes, including those on discipline, are to be unquestionably observed is a matter of Church teaching and practice.
Catholic Encyclopedia on Canon Law
“The Sovereign Pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole Church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his heart (“in scrinio pectoris“; Boniface VIII. c. i, “De Constit.” in VI). From the earliest ages the letters of the Roman Pontiffs constitute, with the canons of the councils, the principal element of canon law, not only of the Roman Church and its immediate dependencies. but of all Christendom; they are everywhere relied upon and collected, and the ancient canonical compilations contain a large number of these precious “decretals” (decreta, statuta, epistolae decretales, and epistolae synodicae).
“Later, the pontifical laws are promulgated more usually as constitutions, Apostolic Letters, the latter being classified as Bulls or Briefs, according to their external form, or even as spontaneous acts, “Motu proprio”. Moreover, the legislative and disciplinary power of the pope not being an in communicable privilege, the laws and regulations made in his name and with his approbation possess his authority: in fact, though most of the regulations made by the Congregations of the cardinals and other organs of the Curia are incorporated in the Apostolic Letters, yet the custom exists and is becoming more general for legislation to be made by mere decrees of the Congregations, with the papal approval. These are the “Acts of the Holy See” (Acta Sancte Sedis), and their object or purpose permitting, are real laws (see ROMAN CURIA).
“Whatever may be said about the forms used in the past, today the promulgation of general ecclesiastical laws is effected exclusively by the insertion of the law in the official publication of the Holy See, the “Acta Apostolical Sedis“, in compliance with the Constitution Promulgandi of Pius X, dated 29 September, 1908, except in certain specifically mentioned cases. The law takes effect and is binding on all members of the community as soon as it is promulgated, allowing for the time morally necessary for it to become known, unless the legislator has fixed a special time at which it is to come into force.” And Rev. S. B. Smith, D.D., in his Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1881; endorsed by both Henry Cardinal Manning and John Cardinal Newman), wrote the same in his work below.
Of the Nature of the Power of the Roman Pontiffs
“The decrees of the Roman Pontiffs constitute the chief source of canon law; nay, more, the entire canon law, in the strict sense of the term, is based upon their legislative authority. Hence it is that heretics have ever sought to destroy, or at least to weaken, this legislative power. The following are the chief errors on this head : the Roman Pontiff has legislative power over the entire Church ; that the Pontifical laws bind both de jure and de facto, independently of their acceptation by anyone, even bishops…
“Are Pontifical laws obligatory on the faithful or the Church, even when not accepted by anyone? We reply in the affirmative. The proof is : Papal laws are binding, even without being accepted by anyone, if Popes (a) have the power to enact laws independently of such acceptation; (b) if, de facto, they wish their laws to be binding without such acceptation. But this is the case; therefore, etc. The Sovereign Pontiff can, if he chooses, enact laws obligatory on the entire Church independently of any acceptation. This is indubitable — nay, according to Suarez, de fide.
“The Roman Pontiff de facto wishes that his laws should bind independently of their acceptation by anyone. This is evident from the fact that the wording of the Papal laws, as of laws in general, is mandatory. Now, a command given absolutely does not oblige merely on condition of its being accepted, but unconditionally or absolutely ; otherwise the supposed law or command would be no law at all, but merely a counsel… We therefore reject the following opinion, advanced by Bouix and Craisson, (and followed by us in the first and second editions of this work, n. 22, 26, 32): The opinion of those who hold that it is the will of the Roman Pontiffs that, certain Papal laws pertaining to discipline should not, de facto, bind before being accepted, is lawful and sustained by many Catholic doctors. IN FACT, THE AUTHORS ALLEGED BY BOUIX AND CRAISSON FOR THIS OPINION EITHER DO NOT MAINTAIN IT OR SUSTAIN THE VERY OPPOSITE.”
So we see that those rejecting these decrees are only reiterating the objections posited by the Modernists and Liberals who were already plaguing the Church in the 19th century. It was simply yet another manifestation of the Gallicanist heresy, a rejection of the authority of the papacy. But we have gone over this many times before, and as St. Jerome notes above, “…when the end comes, the ungodly will lack comprehension.”
Conclusion
It is only because we have been blessed with the Internet and our own Catholic library books that we have any understanding of religious matters, ourselves. We provide only a restatement of the truths gifted us by these saints and holy people — a reflection of those great lights who shone so brightly in the past and warned us so frequently and fervently. Without them we would be totally in the dark regarding our seeming abandonment by God, an abandonment rightly understood only by Christ Himself on the Cross.
Many of them we must mention here: the Popes first of all, then the Fathers and Doctors of the Church; all the sainted theologians; scriptural commentators such as Rev. Leo Haydock, and Rev. Leonard Goffine, Rev. E. S. Berry, Rev. H.B. Kramer; members of the hierarchy including Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Louis-Edouard Cardinal Pie, Louis Cardinal Billot, Rev. Frederick Faber, Rev. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Rev. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton and Rev. Francis J. Connell; the laymen Juan Donoso Cortes, Louis Veuillot and Peter Allies; all the many canonists and those writing Canon Law dissertations whom we have cited here — and there are so many others, they would fill yet another page. But all work together to help us better understand our role in these times. Little appreciated is the role that St. Michael has played in protecting those of us who do our best to preserve the faith. Without his assistance and protection, we would not even exist.
Commenting on Apoc. 12:7, St. Bede writes: “Michael, with his angels, fights against the devil, for that, according to the will of God, he contends for the Church in her sojourning, by praying and ministering help; of whom Daniel also said, that he would come to the aid of the Church in the last and most grievous affliction.” Those of us devoted to him, who each day recite the prayers given us by Pope Leo XIII, know his power and must not fail to thank him for his continued assistance. Rev. Haydock, commenting on Daniel 12: 8, tells us that when the scattering of the band of holy people has been accomplished, then they will be miraculously delivered. And we can be sure that the deliverer will be St. Michael, standing up for his people. We salute you dear St. Michael, whose feast day is this month, for truly without you as our guardian, we would long ago have been snatched up by the Evil One. May we always pray to be worthy of thy continuing patronage!
A shout out
Kudos to Laura Wood for a great blog on the need for wisdom in old age, contrary to the insane model provided by the world. Read it HERE. The video on Communism featured on her site is also an excellent if grisly reminder of where we are headed.
