by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 24, 2025 | New Blog
+St. Raphael, Archangel+
Introduction
Readers are probably sick and tired of hearing about the dangers of Feeneyism and we are sick of addressing it. But times and circumstances now exist that did not exist when Feeney was excommunicated in 1953. Then we had a visible Church, a Church which has always taught in Her official documents throughout the ages, Suprema haec sacra most recent among them, that implicit desire could possibly apply even to pagan and non-Catholics in certain cases, not generally. The false dogma that it applied in all cases became the teaching of the Novus Ordo church following the election of John 23 and the official establishment of neo-Traditionalism. Feeneyism is the topic here once again because it must be understood that this heresy is being used as a cover operation for a more generalized campaign to totally discredit the papacy and Pope Pius XII in particular.
This should not surprise those who understand the level of infiltration by Modernists, Communists and secret societies that has taken place over the past 200 years. Their first targets were the Jesuits, the “Secret Service” for the papacy, because this order was closest to and most loyal to the Roman Pontiff. Modern-day conspiracy theorists have made Jesuits past and present the root of all evil, in an effort to deflect the extent of the damage done by secret societies as a loosely connected whole. This is certainly true of the Novus Ordo Jesuits of today. But over the centuries it is the secret societies, not the Jesuits, that have so fine-tuned the art of infiltration and dissemination of error that it now happens undetected under our very noses and not infrequently on a personal level.
Tracking those who insist on papal obedience
Because of my insistence on obeying the teachings of the Roman Pontiff as far back as 1981, I have been specifically targeted by various groups and individuals who took issue with my defense of the papacy and particularly my support for a papal election. The first challenge to my suggestion to elect a pope in 1982-83 came from a British group writing out of London. I was brought to this group’s attention by a Trad “priest” who I had recently left for teaching heresy. One of this British group’s members later became a well-known LibTrad apologist. They ran an actual Gnostic cult that preyed on families in the U.S. and Europe and I was one of its members for a short time — about nine months. They promoted papal teaching to some extent but adamantly opposed a papal election or imperfect council.
Their cruel treatment of children and parents was anything but Catholic and whatever they were they were not Catholic themselves. This experience and other life-changing events I was undergoing at that time made me perfect fodder for the ill-fated David Bawden papal election effort. Bawden was also briefly involved with the British group but later claimed to share my views on the papacy. This, I learned later, however, was only to further his own personal aspirations. He and his convert father, a former (?) Freemason and John Birch Society publicity director, planned his election all along, even though they knew I did not believe David was a fit candidate. They also used shaming techniques at the time of the election to coerce me and a fellow election supporter to “vote” for Bawden when no one else presented as a candidate.
I learned only later of the Masonic connection to the founding of every Traditionalist movement in the United States; of the confirmation of Marcel Lefebvre’s own membership in a Masonic group, (in addition to his ordination and consecration by Lienart) and of the Masonic makeup of the heads of the John Birch Society. I even had a former Bawden “cardinal” inform me that the Bawdens were actually working for and with the Society of Saint Pius X to make certain no validly ordained or consecrated priest or bishop would be elected as pope. For even if elected by the laity, it could appear that such a man was a true pope, even though today the canonical election necessary to validity is an impossibility.
During my time with Bawden, I worked as a reporter under two editors in two different states who identified themselves as ex-military intelligence officers. After leaving Bawden I was shadowed by someone who, unbeknownst to me, was connected with the British people that operated the cult. I later discovered he was indeed still in communication with them. After moving to yet another state, I was approached by someone who wanted to “give me a platform” and make videos and I agreed to this. Later they were taken down and the producer campaigned to discredit me. A reader informed me afterward that this person also was military intelligence.
I will always regret attempting to elect David Bawden as pope, but I will never regret defending the papacy at a time when nearly all LibTrads were demeaning it and questioning it. And if even a master theologian and logician such as St. Vincent Ferrer could err in supporting an antipope and still manage to be canonized, the demonization of those who made what St. Vincent’s biographers described as an error or “mistake” should be seen as nothing more than this: a manifestation of LibTrad fears that a true papacy might be restored.
A more personal surveillance
And the intrusion into my privacy did not end there. Several other people appeared on the scene of my new location, one an ex-law enforcement person and were welcomed into my home, introduced to my family and treated as guests, as a sign of good will. These were people I had corresponded with for a fairly long time over the Internet. They professed to be sincere stay-at-home Catholics, (but then some Feeney sect members do pray at home). Sure enough, over a period of time, all of them denounced the Church’s teaching on the papacy and left to join — you guessed it — the Feeneyites.
I’m sorry but I don’t believe all the above are coincidences. As I have mentioned before, in the majority of cases coincidences are messengers of the truth. Certainly this many coincidences cannot simply be dismissed as happenstance. The fact that Feeneyism has been used by these individuals as their way “out” is quite telling. Also suspicious is the timeline of the arrival and departure of these people. Just as one would depart, another would suddenly arrive. I refused to consider myself a victim but I do believe that all this demonstrates a pattern of deceit, infiltration, an attempt to obtain personal information and to discredit anything presented on this site.
Feeneyism is only a convenient excuse to join the ranks of those bent on destroying the Church’s teaching on the supreme jurisdiction granted by Christ to St. Peter, just as Feeney himself — the first neo-Traditionalist — set out to do. No matter how it manifests, whether from sedevacantist quarters, other LibTrad groups, recusant “Catholics” or the recognize and resist sector — at the top, all are secretly if indirectly linked to an effort to destroy the idea of an infallible papacy possessing supreme jurisdiction. They especially zero in on Pope Pius XII because he put the ax to the root of the tree and brought a screeching halt to everything that attempted to violate papal jurisdiction or Church law during an interregnum.
What to do if approached
Beware of them in your own dealings. They often present as Greeks bearing gifts (the Trojan horse) and present a sad story of some sort. Do not judge rashly but simply distance yourselves, pray and watch. We are entering times when we must protect ourselves and our families from every possible threat to our faith, no matter how innocent it may seem. The devil is a raging lion seeking whom he may devour, and his time is growing shorter. This blog has been difficult to write, but I don’t know how else to warn people of what is fast approaching.
As noted before, if baptism of desire does not exist, this jeopardizes the belief in confession of desire (a Perfect Act of Contrition) and the reception of the Eucharist by desire (Spiritual Communion). Both these beliefs are solidly grounded in the constant teaching of the Church. It must be remembered that Feeney himself headed up a destructive personality cult (see HERE and HERE). Also, shortly before his death, his excommunication was lifted by no less than Paul 6, which tells us where he issued from in the first place. Baptism by desire, (in some cases where water baptism cannot be received by a trustworthy person) and Church membership by desire are crucial to our existence in these times. Those who were busy destroying the Church were certainly aware of this. So Feeney played the dual role of labeling Pius XII as a heretic and casting doubt on the very means of salvation that would remain once the destruction of the Church was accomplished.
We should remember that these infiltration tactics are common practice. In her 2023 work, When the Sickle Swings, Kristen Van Uden quotes one Cuban refugee who explained that “Due to [an] atmosphere of distrust and uncertainty, many Cubans who felt called to resistance preferred to take renegade individual action rather than become entangled with [a] group… It may not have been as effective a strategy as organized resistance but it was safer… This strategy is still employed today as the culture of informing and infiltration still reigns supreme in Cuba.” And sadly it is practiced today even by those pretending to be Catholic.
Conclusion
This is enough about Feeney, an angry little man who served as a prototype for the early Traditionalist groups in this country. If we omit his name from what we see as the result of his teachings concerning the authority of the papacy — the same teachings basically espoused by LibTrads — we can dismiss his stance as a straw man fallacy, something that “…doesn’t accurately reflect the stance that it was originally meant to address… [and] is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand” (effectiviology.com). What IS directly relevant is the demeaning of Pope Pius XII and papal authority modeled by Feeney, not his rejection of implicit desire or his pitiful cult. Those hiding behind the EENS distortion he promoted are really, at heart, deniers of infallibility and supreme papal jurisdiction, just as Feeney himself was.
Just because they adopt this heretical stance doesn’t mean they get to hide behind the hype that now surrounds him, websites that promote Feeney as a sort of folk hero and warning bell for Vatican 2, despite his return to this sect. Take Feeney out of the equation and you have the Pope St. Pius V Society that refuses to accept the changes in the ritual for Holy Week, the promoters of the ridiculous material-formal hypothesis and all the other LibTrad sects. They all operate invalidly, denying that Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis nullified their very reception of Orders during an interregnum and strips them of any and all vestiges of authority.
Secret societies, the Modernists the Communists — the founders of neo-Traditionalism among them — all were working from their inception to destroy Catholic monarchies and the papacy, and they have openly declared as much. Strip the Feeney shroud from those pretending to be “ultra-Catholic” — believing they are cleverly one-upping those already insisting on obedience to everything the popes taught — and you simply have a denial that the Church has the power to determine how Her own age-old teachings on implicit desire are to be believed and understood. From here on out these deniers should simply be recognized as the LibTrad heretics and schismatics they truly are, not Feeneyites.
And if some claim that they are rightly acting on an erroneous conscience, then we should pray for them and recommend them to God’s mercy, all the while condemning everything they teach and do. For this is the teaching of Canon Law under Can. 2200: They are to be judged as heretics and non-members of the Church until the contrary is proven. Therefore pray, watch, and hit out with the stick whenever necessary.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 13, 2025 | New Blog
+St. Edward the Confessor+
Introduction
If some basic Catholic principles were better understood, how much easier our life as Catholics would be. We keep returning to the matter of invincible ignorance and the Church’s true meaning regarding this term. In the minds of some, the meaning of this phrase has been unduly expanded as a blanket excuse for the assumed salvation of any and all non-Catholics. Certainly this is the case with the Novus Ordo teaching on the topic and a lax view of invincible ignorance had even come into vogue before the death of Pope Pius XII in some quarters.
The question here is, did what Pope Pius XII taught in this letter issued in the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney differ dogmatically from what had been taught by the Church previously? Fr. Leonard Feeney maintained that the doctrine as taught by Pope Pius XII was unknown as stated prior to the issuance of Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) and Suprema haec sacra (1949). There has even been a question raised regarding the pope’s health and possible mental acuity at the time these documents were written, although Pius XII’s health issues did not manifest themselves until August of 1952 through December of 1953, while Suprema haec sacra was written in 1949. It is true that Feeney was excommunicated in February 1953 during the course of Pope Pius XII’s illness, but this was a natural consequence of his refusal to retract his false interpretation of the salvation doctrine following the release of Suprema haec sacra.
Instead Feeney responded by calling Cardinal Cushing a heretic and accused the Holy Office of scandal and heresy, which implicitly included Pope Pius XII, who was head of the Holy Office. Was Feeney excommunicated solely for his disobedience to the Roman Pontiff? It is assumed that he was, but he actually held as true a heresy which had been condemned by Pope St. Pius V, so it well could be that he also was guilty of heresy. Holy Office proceedings and the full nature of excommunications are protected by secrecy, so it is impossible to know the details of his excommunication. It is enough to know that it is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and therefore must be accepted as binding on the faithful.
So let us review below what older catechisms and theologians taught regarding invincible ignorance, which must exist if one is to be considered capable of possessing the desire to be baptized. Hopefully this will help those still struggling with the poison of Feeneyism to finally understand that to champion him as a martyr for truth is to forfeit their membership in the Mystical Body.
Invincible ignorance
Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas
and the Best Modern Authorities, Revs. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, 1929
- With reference to the responsibility of the person who is ignorant, there are two kinds of ignorance.
(a) Ignorance is invincible when it cannot be removed, even by the use of all the care that ordinarily prudent and conscientious persons would use in the circumstances. Thus, a person who has no suspicions of his ignorance, or who has tried in vain to acquire instruction about his duties, is invincibly ignorant.
Invincible ignorance, even of what pertains to the natural law, makes an act involuntary, since nothing is willed except what is understood. Hence, no matter how wrong an act is in itself, the agent is not guilty of formal sin (see 249), if he is invincibly ignorant of the malice involved.
356. (b) Christians may be in invincible ignorance of the Law of Christ. For, just as want of a preacher causes a pagan to be invincibly ignorant of the necessity of Baptism, so a lack of instruction in Christian doctrine might leave a baptized person inculpably ignorant.
(b) Subjectively speaking, there may be a just cause for leaving or not entering the Church, namely, the fact that a person, ignorant in this matter but in good faith, believes that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. For one is obliged to follow an erroneous conscience, and, if the error is invincible, one is excused from sin (see 581-583). Examples: A Protestant taught to believe that the teachings of the Church are idolatrous, superstitious and absurd, is not blamed for not accepting them. A Catholic, poorly instructed in religion and thrown in with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic associates, might become really persuaded, and without sinning against faith itself, that it was his duty to become a Protestant.
Instructions on the Commandments and the Sacraments
by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, 1846
“So then, in reality, can he who has not received baptism reach heaven? To this I reply that he also can be saved if he has conceived an ardent desire to be baptized and believes in Jesus Christ as happened to many who when unable to receive baptism supplied its place by their desires… If he is an adult and in the possession of reason, he must have the intention of being baptized and feel sorrow for the sins he has committed.”
“Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptized by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things ACCOMPANIED BY AN EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT DESIRE FOR TRUE BAPTISM OF WATER, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character OR AS TO THE REMOVAL OF ALL DEBT OF PUNISHMENT. It is called ‘of wind’ [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, ‘de presbytero non baptizato’ and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it” (St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7).
TSB comment: Those reading the above must not forget that the Church ascribes to St. Alphonsus a place in moral theology similar to that which She grants to St. Thomas Aquinas. If he pronounces that the belief in Baptism of desire is de fide, it is without doubt this is the case. Also, it is noted by St. Alphonsus that those thus saved may well be consigned to purgatory. What in this explanation of Baptism of desire differs in any way from the teachings of Pope Pius XII on this matter?
The Sincere Christian, Rt. Rev. Dr. George Hay, 1871
“For invincible ignorance to exist, three things are necessarily required:
“1) That a person have a real and sincere desire of knowing the truth. For if he be cold and indifferent about an affair of so great concern as his eternal salvation; if he be careless whether he be in the right way or not; if being enslaved to this present life, he take no note about the next, it is manifest that an ignorance arising from this disposition is a voluntary ignorance and therefore highly culpable in the sight of God…
“2) For one to be in invincible ignorance it is required that he be sincerely resolved to embrace the truth wherever he may find it and whatever it may cost him. For if he be not fully resolved to follow the will of God, wherever it shall appear to him, in all things necessary to salvation; if on the contrary, he be so disposed that he would rather neglect his duty and hazard his soul than correct an ill custom, or disoblige his friends, or expose himself to some temporal loss or disadvantage. Such a disposition must be highly displeasing to God and an ignorance arising from it can never excuse him before his Creator…
“3) He must sincerely use his best endeavors to know his duty, and particularly that he recommend that matter earnestly to Almighty God and pray for light and direction. For whatever desire he may pretend of knowing the truth, if he do not use the proper means for finding it, it is manifest that his ignorance is not invincible but voluntary; for ignorance is only invincible when one has a sincere desire to know the truth with a full resolution to embrace it, but either has no possible means of knowing it or, after using his best endeavors to know it, yet cannot find it.” Nor does a formal doubt excuse, for all are expected to resolve such doubts.
“A person brought up in a false faith, which the Scripture calls sects of perdition, doctrines of devils, perverse things, lies and hypocrisy; and who has heard of the true Church of Christ, which condemns all these sects, and sees the divisions and dissensions which they constantly have among themselves, has always before his eyes the most cogent reasons to doubt of the way he is in.”
Rev. Hay goes on to remind his readers that many are called and few are chosen, and that broad is the path to destruction and narrow is the way to salvation. When asked if he is saying that none who are in heresy and invincible ignorance can be saved, he answers, “God forbid that we should say so! All the above reasons only prove that if they live and die in that state they will not be saved… No man knows or can know what may have passed between God and the soul in his last minutes.”
TSB comment: The means of truly knowing if the Catholic Church is the one true Church today are so complicated and interspersed with rabbit holes, speculation and error, it makes it impossible for many to separate the flyspeck from the pepper, despite their best endeavors.
The Catholic Dogma, Rev. Michael Mueller, pgs. 217-218, 1888:
“Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’ (De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1).
“It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation… Hence Pius IX said ‘that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord who knows the heart and the thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer anyone to be lost forever without his own fault.’ Almighty God, who is just condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, EITHER BY NATURAL OR SUPERNATURAL MEANS.”
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, on Ignorance
So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of “moral diligence”. This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance…
Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. (Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); Joseph Rickaby, Ethics and Natural Law (London, 1908); Slater, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); Ballerini, Opus Theologicum Morale (Prato, 1898); Tapparelli, Dritto naturale (Rome, 1900); Zigliara, Summa Philosophica (Paris, 1891).
What most of those questioning Pope Pius XII’s teaching in Suprema haec sacra are saying is that he added implicit desire to the formula for obtaining salvation, when even St. Alphonsus mentions it in his writings above. They also seem to think that Pius XII is contradicting the constant teaching of the Church by teaching that one can be saved OUTSIDE the Church. But that is not what the pope is teaching either. While insisting that those saved without water baptism are not Church members, so per se are “outside” the Church, the authors above and Pius XII also are quick to note that they belong to the Church in some other way. Yet they are considered to be within Her fold by desire, owing to invincible, ignorance, IF that ignorance is also joined to belief in the primary truths of faith and a sincere love of God obedience to his will.
Documents contained in the Sources of Catholic Dogma cited below further prove that the teaching on Baptism of desire issues from ancient sources. Please remember that their listing there qualifies them as DOGMA, to be believed without any quibbling, not picked apart as though they were never listed there. Coming from the popes and the councils approved by the popes, they need no further comment. These documents are quoted here to demonstrate the Church’s own sense and understanding regarding Baptism of either desire or blood.
-
Council of Trent, 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: – (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.” (Author’s note:Notice this is not limited only to catechumens.)
Decree on Justification – (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God” (John 3:5) (Editor’s note: Feeneyites argue that the translation of the Trent documents was badly made or falsified, a ruse often used also by heretics past and present. I personally own a copy of the first reliable English translation of the Council of Trent decrees published to correct a previous anonymous translation, “…unfaithful and even ludicrously absurd.” The translator promises in his preface to correct any errors pointed out to him in this second translation attempt, noting: “The edition of the Council used is Le Plat’s copy of the authentic edition published in Rome 1564. Neither time nor labor has been spared to render the translation as faithful a transcript as possible” (J. Waterworth, translator; published May 22, 1848).
-
Pope Innocent III, Apostolicum Sedem
“[Regarding] the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) who had died without the water of baptism: Because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, he was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned” (Denzinger 388).
De baptismo flaminis (presbyteri non baptizati) ‘. [Ex ep. “Apostolicam Sedem» ad episc. Cremonensem,” temp. incerti.]
Inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus: Presbyterum, quem sine unda baptismatis extremum diem clausisse (litteris tuis) significasti, quia in sanctae matris Ecclesiae fide et Christi nominis confessione perseveravit, ab originaU peccato solutum, et coelestis patriae gaudium esse adeptum (ex auctoritate sanctorum Patrum Augustini atque Ambrosii) asserimus incunc- tanter. Lege (frater) super octavo hbro Augustini de civitate Dei, ubi inter cetera legitur: «Baptismus invisibihter ministratur, quem non contemptus rehgionis, sed terminus necessitatis excludit.» Librum etiam beati Ambrosii de obitu Valentiniani idem asserentis revolve.Sopitis igitur quaestionibus doctorum Patrum sententias teneas, et in ecclesia tua iuges preces hostiasque Deo offerri iubeas pro presbytero memorato. (Denzinger/Bannwart edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1911).
COELESTINUS II 1143-1144. LUCIUS II 1144-1145
(Editor’s note: Did the two popes mentioned here also confirm this dogma? This is the de fide teaching mentioned above by St. Alphonsus. One Feeneyite site denounces this teaching, claiming that all men becoming priests must be confirmed as validly baptized and denies that St. Augustine or St. Ambrose ever taught baptism of desire. But what if this priest’s parents lied about his baptism and he only learned of it later before he could be baptized? Other explanations are also possible. This site even states the letter is a forgery. So if that was truly the case, and a dogma was presented as early as St. Alphonsus’ time and even before as de fide, should we assume that nothing in the Sources of Catholic Dogma can be trusted and simply choose what we wish to believe? Would that not mean the gates of hell had long ago prevailed against the Church?!)
-
Pope St. Pius V 1566-1572
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567: Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
– Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
– That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
– A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained” (DZ 1031, 1032, 1033). Editor’s Note: This is the condemnation by St. Pius V that Feeney violated, with his “water baptism only” take on salvation.)
4. Pope Pius IX
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863:
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.” Editor’s Note: How could they “know” this about invincible ignorance unless it was the result of constant Church teaching?)
5. Catechism of St. Pius X, 1911, Father John Hagan
But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.
-
Pope Pius XII
…Those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church… even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.” (Editor’s note: Three things must be fully understood here: 1) Pius XII excludes such people from Church membership; 2) He identifies them as unsuspecting, i.e., invincibly ignorant and 3) he says they are related to the Mystical Body by desire and resolution but does not explain the exact nature of this relationship.)
Conclusion
If the Trent documents on justification were read clear through, it would soon be evident that the main problem with Feeney’s false doctrine on no salvation outside the Church was basically grounded in the nature of grace and how it is received. This is apparent from the condemnation of Michael du Bay by St. Pius V but also is reflected in the dogmatic Bull Unigenitus. There Pope Clement XI in 1713 condemned the proposition by the Jansenist Quesnel which falsely stated that: ‘Outside the Church, no grace is granted,’ (DZ 1379).
In 1690, Pope Alexander VIII had already condemned the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld that “Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ,” (DZ 1295). And of course this is the very grace that Feeney would deny could ever be obtained in sufficient amounts for salvation by those outside the Church. Feeney was denying that God would provide those graces sufficient for the remission of sins to non-Catholics. He was denying the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, that “(A) man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly” (Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68).
How many Church teachings and authorities must we dismiss to make Feeney the martyr for “Outside the Church, no salvation” his fawning devotees claim him to be? Clearly enough has been presented here (and even more could be provided) to satisfy the rational man regarding the sense in which the Church intended us to understand the requirements for obtaining baptism of desire. And it is that very sense, reiterated by Pope St. Pius X in his oath against Modernism that we must adopt as our own: “Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same sense. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”
Feeney was a Modernist. His teaching was that the sense of what the Church taught had changed over time, that it had never taught but now taught that one could be saved by implicit or explicit desire. The Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus Liguori prove him a liar. St. Thomas contradicts him. But we are supposed to abandon the teachings we are bound to believe and follow those who champion him, men never even trained or approved by the Church? What sort of madness is this?
Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton references an article he terms as excellent, Opinions Concerning Doctrinal Development, by Rev. Charles Sheedy, C.S.C., published in the January 1949 edition of The American Ecclesiastical Review. Rev. Sheedy wrote: “Thus it is clear that there has been progress, development in the dogmatic teaching of the Church, not merely in precision of terms but in actual content and subject matter. Doctrines are taught today as divinely revealed which were not explicitly taught 100 years ago and after the Council of Trent, a whole galaxy of truths entered into the dogmatic teaching of the Church, proposed to the faith of Catholics, not as new dogmas, BUT AS CONTAINED IN THE ANCIENT DEPOSIT.” This was the case with implicit desire and Church membership, as clarified by Pope Pius XII.
“May understanding, knowledge and wisdom progress as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.” — St. Vincent of Lerin. Msgr. Joseph. C. Fenton, commenting on this statement by St. Vincent points out: “The Vatican Council has used the words of Saint Vincent of Lerin to declare as a matter of faith that the understanding of one man as well as that of the Church as a whole can progress and grow in its grasp of the revealed truth and that this growth always takes place in one and the same sense and meaning (DZ 1800).” It never evolved, nor did Pope Pius XII ever intend it to grow to include any hint of ecumenism; that was the work of the Modernists. And Feeney the excommunicated Jesuit, the founder of modern-day Traditionalism, was one of them.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 3, 2025 | New Blog
Prayer Society Intention for October, Month of the Queen of the Holy Rosary
“Queen of the Holy Rosary, in these times of such brazen impiety, manifest thy power with the signs of thine ancient victories.” (Raccolta)
.
+Feast of St. Therese of Lisieux+
Introduction
This isn’t the blog I intended to post — I said there would be no further remarks about the Kirk assassination. But given the air of uncertainty and even dread that seems to linger following recent events, I felt perhaps that some reminders are in order. It seems really strange that some who ordinarily are the first to point out the dangers of Zionism suddenly are very quiet when it comes to the mysterious circumstances surrounding the death of Charlie Kirk. Certainly I am not trying to lionize Kirk or portray him as a martyr. But neither will I allow others to ignore the facts that are emerging regarding his assassination that confirm the renouncement of his pro-Israel stance and his journey to what he believed was Catholicism.
That being said, it is interesting to note that FBI director Patel has apparently broken the agency’s ties with the ADL after they listed Kirk’s Turning Point USA as an extremist organization. They then “retired” the extremist list, making it unavailable to those whose names might appear there unofficially. The ADL is a cover organization for B’nai B’rith (Sons of the Covenant), a Masonic Jewish organization which according to Lady Queenborough’s Occult Theocracy “…is the supreme body shaping and directing, for the attainment of its own ends, the policies, whatever they may be, of all Freemasonry, beginning with the Grand Lodge of England, the Grand Orient and Scottish rites and ending in [Aleister Crowley’s] OTO, which is the Illuminati under another name.” An Irish Catholic publication (The Fiat, letter 38) described the aims of the 12 men guiding B’nai B’rith as “the fulfillment of ‘the Covenant,’ the supposed Messianic promise of rulership over all peoples… under a one-world government.”
The recent rush to identify anti-Semitic hate speech and activities and punish offenders coincides with Netanyahu’s outreach to American social media personalities and the recent acquisition of TikTok by pro-Israel buyers. This is especially of note since Netanyahu described social media as a new weapon to prop up Israel’s flagging image in the U.S. Some are questioning whether a May 2, 2025, letter Kirk sent Netanyahu, released to the public earlier this week, is the actual letter Kirk wrote. But Kirk’s disillusionment with Israel and Netanyahu did not peak until the last few months of his life, so would not necessarily have been reflected there.
All these developments are only the culmination of what we were warned about by two Catholic politicians, Pres. John F. Kennedy and Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who, like Kirk, would die for being identified as Catholic and for warning Americans about the enemy. (McCarthy wasn’t assassinated, but his death is often attributed to the alcoholism that was exacerbated by the opposition to his stance against Communism.) McCarthy learned too late that Communism was not the enemy he was fighting after all, but only one of its many tentacles. This he revealed in a speech given just six months before his death.
George Washington’s Surrender
“And many of the people of the land became Jews” (Esther 9:17). The confession of General Cornwallis to General Washington at Yorktown has been well hidden by historians. History books and textbooks have taught for years that when Cornwallis surrendered his army to General Washington, American independence came and we lived happily ever after until the tribulations of the 20th century.
“Jonathan Williams recorded in his Legions of Satan ,1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington that, “A holy war will now begin on America and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown.” Cornwallis went on to explain what would seem to be a self-contradiction: “Your churches will be used to teach the Jew’s religion and in less than 200 years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry.” And indeed George Washington himself was a Mason and he gave back through a false religion what he had won with his army.
“Cornwallis knew that his military defeat was only the beginning of world catastrophe that would be universal and that unrest would continue until mind control would be accomplished through a false religion. What he predicted has come to pass. A brief sketch of American religious history and we have seen Masonry infused into every church in America with their veiled phallic religion. Darby and the Plymouth brethren brought a Jewish Christianity to America. Masons Rutherford and Russell started Jehovah’s Witness Judaism which is now worldwide, with their message of the Divine Kingdom. Mason Joseph Smith started Mormon Judaism with its Jewish teaching of millennialism. At the turn of the 20th century there appeared the Scofield Bible with a Jewish interpretation of the prophecies. With a wide use of this “helpful” aid, all the American churches have silently become synagogues.
“We now have Baptist Jews, Methodist Jews, Church of God Jews, apostate Catholic Jews and many Protestant Jews throughout America. We are aliens in our own country because of false religion. All are praying for divine deliverance into the Divine Commonwealth which Cornwallis knew to be the British Empire. A false religion has been used to deceive us into allegiance to our enemies of Yorktown and Bunker Hill. No! Not a gun has been fired but the invisible and malignant process of conquering America with the Jews’ religion has gone on unabated. The Union Jack has been planted in our hearts with religious deception. All has happened legally, constitutionally, “freely” and completely within our most sacred trust — our churches. Religious deception is painless inoculation against truth. It cannot be removed in the conscience with surgery yet it is the motivator of our actions and directly controls our lives. Once man gives over to false religion he is no longer rational because he originates no thought. His life is controlled by whomever controls his religion.
“The veil of false religion is the sword of Damocles and its power to control humanity defies even the imagination of tyrants who use it.
“This is not to say that George Washington was a traitor willingly or knowingly. He was beguiled into a satanic religious order that insidiously controls man’s minds. So have American statesman and military leaders down through the years given aid and allegiance to the enemies of the United States because they did not have knowledge of the invisible subterfuge that stalks this land. My eyes were opened the day my colleagues from Ohio handed me Wagner’s Freemasonry: an Interpretation. If every American would read it they would no longer ask why and how it has happened.” (End of McCarthy speech, given some time in October 1956).
It should be noted that according to the Feb. 24, 1957 edition of the Denver Catholic Register, George Washington converted to Catholicism on his deathbed (the website referenced is not Catholic and is used only for purposes of attribution). And of course McCarthy did not live to see the destruction of the Church by the very forces he unmasked. His speech and the following excerpts from a speech to members of the press given by Pres. John F. Kennedy should be read very carefully and digested slowly. When this is done, their implications for our own times are all too clear.
President John F. Kennedy, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961
“My purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary… My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
“I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future — for reducing this threat or living with it — there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security — a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
“This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President — two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
“But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
“Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
“It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions — by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
“Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security — and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
“For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
“The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
“The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.” (End of Kennedy excerpts)
Conclusion
Does this put readers in mind of print and TV media misinformation, leaks, cherry-picked facts, remarks taken out of context, biased reporting and even the publication of outright lies? If it doesn’t, it should, for certainly it is rife even among those who present as “conservative” journalists. And the restricted form of reporting happening now in the investigation of various assassinations, murders and attempted murders is exactly what Kennedy warns against above, for certainly no one can claim that such a lack of transparency on the part of the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies is a matter of national security. For the very enemies we should worry about the most, according to Sen. MacCarthy, are welcomed with open arms. And they were the ones who, Pres. Kennedy notes, were busily infiltrating the ranks long ago. McCarthy warned us. Bella Dodd warned us, and several others. Now we pay the price for ignoring them.
So are we going to drown ourselves in half-baked conspiracy theories and once again ignore what is really going on around us today? This war is a psyops operation alright, but it isn’t about politics. This war has been spiritual from the beginning — principalities, powers and the rulers of this world of darkness — so why would it not continue to intensify along spiritual lines? If you controlled a worldwide web of secret operations that would one day lead to your proclamation as a one-world leader, what would you do if an intelligent and charismatic young person capable of energizing the youth so important to the future (as the Alta Vendita reveals) — a person who had once been a major asset to your operation — did an about face and threatened to head these youths and others around him in a different direction, one diametrically opposed to all you had worked for? Why did Netanyahu feel compelled to publicly announce he was not involved in Kirk’s assassination? And why are so many ignoring the obvious implications and failing to consider alternative sources as the reason for discrepancies in the investigation?
If Kennedy’s own assassination and its well-orchestrated coverup didn’t convince Americans that everything must be immediately documented following such an event, and with the right persons, nothing will. The further away we journey from all these mass shootings and supposed lone gunmen; the longer the investigation is allowed to be “ongoing,” and protected from intense media scrutiny (by conscientious members of the media), the further we stray from the truth.
One day it will be illegal to mention the Jewish religion in anything that could be interpreted in a negative manner. Before that happens, maybe responsible journalists need to make some really objective enquiries and stop sending people down rabbit holes.
Addenda
This observation on Netanyahu’s involvement goes to motive, nothing else — there are indications that other entities, perhaps military and foreign, may have been complicit or working together towards eliminating Kirk. There has been much pushback from Evangelicals — particularly Kirk’s former (NAR) pastor Rob McCoy — over reports Kirk was leaning toward Catholicism, confirmed by email exchanges. And some believe that the recent decision by Kirk to conduct an audit and track donations to TPUSA may have set off alarms in some quarters. Kirk’s wife was a cradle Catholic but later embraced evangelical beliefs while continuing to attend the Novus Ordo.
