+The Epiphany+
We hear much these days about political conservatives and their connections to white supremacy ideology, also known as Christian Identity or British Israel (BI). British Israel is the belief that the people of the British Isles, genetically, racially and linguistically are the descendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel. In other words, the people of Great Britain (and by way of descent, the U.S.) have become the “new Israel,” or chosen people and are basically blood descendants also of the Davidic line. Many believe that the rulers of England are blood relations of King David, and that the throne on which the English kings are consecrated sits over the same stone used to consecrate the Israelite kings. Christian Identity beliefs in America later evolved from this theory.
While politicians and Christian clerics deny white supremacy is linked to this belief, it may well be true to an extent few would be willing to believe. Certainly not all Christian Conservatives embrace this belief system. But many of those who do have gone to great lengths to conceal their true beliefs in order to pass as everyday Christians. Sadly, this applies to Traditionalists every bit as much as it does to Protestants. And In fact, the name Traditionalists chose for themselves long ago itself may be a clue to who and what they truly are.
But first, a brief personal history of my experience with white supremacy as a Traditionalist. The very first (and only) Trad group I joined, the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement, had its own branch, so to speak, which promoted these White Supremacist beliefs. I handled mail for a Traditionalist ORCM “priest,” Dan Jones, from 1980 until 1982, and also wrote for his newsletter, Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes. Anyone who subscribed to that newsletter into the 1990s knows Jones was advocating for and posting advertisements from (Protestant) Christian Identity groups and individuals, and he received mail criticizing him for this. He also printed a long series promoting the “Siri” theory, beginning in the late 1980’s. Certain members of the Siri group also promoted British Israel.
I left Jones’ group in 1982, after a showdown with him over an article he had instructed me to write for his newsletter, sympathetic to Identity beliefs. I pulled the article before it went into print and for this and other disturbing reasons, friends and I left Jones at about the same time. The next group I would become involved with also espoused Identity-related and other Gnostic beliefs, and after nine months I left them as well. I would run into yet another Trad group in the early 2000s that promoted British Israel (synonymous with Christian Identity), and by then I understood this belief was somehow intertwined with the Traditionalist movement, so I quickly rejected the ideas presented in their literature.
This tendency in Traditionalism had been evident from the beginning, following the publication of the book ghostwritten by a fellow Mexican for the Mexican dissident priest Rev. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga in the early 1960s (The Plot Against the Church). It was Saenz who helped establish the ORCM in the U.S. He also was patronized by the publication Veritas, which was notorious for its anti-Semitic bias. This periodical, published every other month, was quite popular among Traditionalists. It seems that for the most part, then, Traditionalists seemed to willingly assimilate Identity teaching — at least insofar as they blamed the Jews for dismantling their Church — into their own brand of Catholic belief.
But that belief contradicts Catholic teaching. In his encyclical Mit Brenunder Sorge, written in 1937 shortly before the beginning of World War II in Europe, Pope Pius XI wrote: “Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the state, or a particular form of state, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the community… above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God… He is far from the true faith in God.” In a later address to Belgian pilgrims on Sept. 6, 1938, Pius XI said: “Abraham is called our patriarch, our ancestor. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham… No, it is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism… [For] Spiritually, we are Semites.”
Let’s then compare the beliefs of “Christian” Identity, defined by Pope Pius XI as a contradiction in terms, with his teaching on this subject. Christian Identity began as British Israel. One source quotes John Henry Cardinal Newman as commenting that he became a Catholic precisely because the BI philosophy had totally taken over the Anglican church! This tells us there is no affinity between Catholic belief and BI/ ”Christian” Identity. The earliest book on BI appeared in England in 1590 and another work was published there in 1649.They hold the white race as the only race chosen by God to rule the nations and by and large have always discriminated against people of color.
The Ku Klux Klan has been associated with Identity beliefs. These proliferated in America in the 20th century, and were promulgated by Henry Ford, Fr. Charles Coughlin and others. Fr. Coughlin was asked by the Vatican to stop preaching BI on the radio in the 1930s by none other than Pius XII, then acting as Pius XI’s cardinal Secretary of State. He personally came to the U.S. to speak to Coughlin. Some claim the deal Pius XII cut with Coughlin was entirely political, but in reality it reflected everything later taught doctrinally by Pius XI in Mit Brenunder Sorge.
Pius XI forbade Catholics to exalt any one race or people over the other. That means Identity groups could not teach that they alone were destined to rule over other races based on their “divine” Davidic bloodline, or any other pagan ideal of racial supremacy (some claim “Atlantean” descent and its superior technological knowledge, reminiscent of Sir Francis Bacon’s work). Pius XI also condemns the idolatry of a particular form of state or government, (National Socialism, or for that matter what we see today as the positive idolatry of democracy as the only acceptable form of government, a concept rejected by the Church). And finally he condemns anti-Semitism outright in his radio address to the Belgians. He then goes on to announce that it is Catholics, (not Protestant Identity groups) who are descended from the Israelites and explains that such a descendance is not in the physical or any other sense but is strictly spiritual. The Jews were the physical descendants and Catholics are the spiritual descendants, encompassing both Old and New Testaments. Christ spiritualized everything, fulfilling all foretold regarding His birth, life and death in the Old Testament. Holy Scripture tells us to “avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings about the law” (Titus 3:9).
It appears there may have been (and most likely still is) a so-called “Catholic” secret society known as the Priory of Sion which Marcel Lefebvre and other clerics belonged to that embraced a philosophy similar to Identity. Lefebvre’s various religious establishments went by the name of “priories.” He is said to have resigned from the Priory in 1981. This society may have promoted the belief that certain members of the Catholic clergy are descended from Christ Himself and Mary Magdalene, reviving the old Gnostic heresy that Christ somehow did not die during His Crucifixion and escaped with Mary Magdalene to France, or some other location, there to father children. Another version of this blasphemous heresy would have the clergy and faithful descended from the family of Our Lady pre-eminent by blood in the Church, a heresy proposed by a faction of the Judaizers which was condemned in the early centuries by Pope St. Sylvester. This heresy also involved the descendants of Jesus’ family, who claimed that Jerusalem, not Rome was the intended center of Christianity.
Regardless of what any of these revolting beliefs might be, we know that no one could possibly adopt them and remain Catholic. But apparently, this has not stopped Traditionalists from joining forces with Identity groups and thus automatically resigning any Church membership they may have once possessed. That this occurred either before, or at the very establishment of Traditionalism is demonstrated by the name ‘Traditionalist’ itself, as we have commented in other places. The name was used to lure dissident Catholics unhappy with Vatican 2, who believed Tradition referred to the preservation of the Latin Mass and the supposed continuation of the Catholic Church.
They were largely ignorant of the earlier error by this same name (Traditionalism) as it was proposed by Lammenais, Bonald and Bonetty. Nor did they understand that it was condemned as a heresy and why it was condemned by the Church, although those “clerics” establishing and heading various sects across the U.S. and internationally were obligated under Canon Law and papal teaching to warn the faithful of such dangers. (See the article on the heresy of Traditionalism at http://catholicencyclopedia.newadvent.com/cathen/15013a.htm. This condemned belief holds that universal agreement is the rule of certitude as well as the rule of faith and must be trusted because man cannot rely on his reason, which totally contradicts the Vatican Council’s teaching on reason. And it is absolutely the principle adopted by supposedly “Catholic” Traditionalists.
In examining the various meanings of Traditionalism in all its varieties, as demonstrated on Wikipedia, we discover that none of them are Catholic and several can be classified as corresponding to some “Traditional Catholic” beliefs. Identity believers actually refer to themselves as Traditionalists supposedly of the political/conservative variety and this comes closest to what is identified as the Traditionalist School. But this is only a revival of the old Traditionalism condemned by the Church, with connections to dangerous far right movements today. There is also Spanish Traditionalism with its attempt to revive the Bourbon monarchy of Spain, referred to on some Siri sites as affiliated with the Great Monarch and “Catholic Restoration.” It is a broad, all-inclusive term that can mean a number of different things, none of them Catholic.
Whatever nonsense they believe, it is not the teaching of the Roman Pontiffs, as demonstrated above. Catholics do not listen to the teachings of men, only the teachings of the Church. No pope in history has ever approved Catholics persecuting Jews or anyone of another race or religious belief. And the Church has always identified Freemasonry, not Jewry, as the primary corrupting force in the Church (see the articles about the Jews at the top of our recent articles page.) One of the most dire consequences of this entire falsification of true Catholic Faith is that all those wishing to obey the Roman Pontiffs and keep the faith at home are now tarred with the same brush as those professing Identity beliefs. If they dare to defend the many contributions made by the Church to civilize the world, with the majority of those making these contributions of the white race, they are branded — even though this is an historical fact. If they object to the current trend of racial intermarriage on grounds that the Church has always supported — that the partner is not Catholic, their families may not be entirely happy about the union as a whole, the general climate of racial tension today deliberately created by the far left — they are branded.
If they strongly uphold the traditions of the Church and her teachings on the family, the rule of civil law, moral and social matters and embrace Catholic culture, they are branded, because those presenting as Catholic profess the same. They are racist if they oppose the unrestrained immigration of those from Mexico, a good number of whom are cartel members, gang members and seasoned criminals. Forget the common good of all who have every right to expect their government to protect them from such dangers. And although the Catholic Church has for centuries repelled the invasion of Muslim infidels (but has never approved the persecution of Muslims by Catholics), it is racist to even express the opinion this is unwise from a religious standpoint. So when they begin to hunt down the White Supremacists, no distinction will be made between Traditionalists and those simply trying to honor the teachings of Divine Revelation as confirmed by the continual magisterium. This even though this author has, since the 1980s, condemned BI/Identity as anti-Catholic, written books explaining this pernicious error, and posted articles to this website denouncing the Traditionalist position.
But maybe that was the plan all along — to get rid of the chaff along with the wheat. God, however, knows His own. In the end the message is the same: Those not obeying the laws and teachings of the Church are not Catholic. Traditionalism has been condemned by the Church, and all that issues from it, whether it calls itself Catholic or not. They are every bit as non-Catholic as any Protestant sect. We are not Traditionalists; and this is one of the primary reasons we long ago abandoned their ranks. Every effort has been made to warn the unwary of falling into this heretical trap, and we are done. The end of Traditionalism has arrived; no longer can it be considered Catholic IN ANY WAY, no more so than the Anglicans — who for decades following the Reformation insisted on calling themselves Catholics — or the Old “Catholics” of Germany who rejected the definition of papal infallibility.
What we see before us is the second Protestant Reformation, engineered by the Modernists and ultimately Freemasonry, gathering everything up that was once Catholic and twisting it into a bigoted, generic sort of “Christianity.” And this to fit their political purposes and the sick emotional needs of those they wish to deceive. We have no intention to continue beating this dead horse, and so the horse is buried here today. The epitaph on this spot reads: “Therefore God shall send them the operation of error to believe lying, that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity” (2 Thess. 2: 10-11).
Although I agree with much, perhaps most, of the often informative and edifying work published on this website, I must disagree with some of the analysis in the present paper. In particular, I object to the use of the weaponized and etymologically inaccurate term “antisemitism”: not only does it exclude other Semitic peoples, to which belongs only a minority of those who call themselves Jews, from discussion, but it also precludes criticism of those who, as is well-documented, rule us.
I don’t dispute the fact that layman Lefebvre’s organization promotes a sort of histrionic Nazism, not unlike the activities of Frank Collin, the Jewish founder of the American Nazi Party. But this, at least to the trained eye, is a mark of controlled opposition.
Indeed, layman Williamson, despite his notoriety for “denying” the sacrilegiously named “Holocaust”, once invited a rabbi to speak at the so-called seminary in Winona. How could this be otherwise interpreted than a traitorous act of subversion? But then his father was employed as a buyer at Marks and Spencer. I will not belabor the obvious implication.
As you likely know, Gibson suspected that Lefebvre was a Freemason. Perhaps so. There is some circumstantial evidence indicating that he was also a Jew. Lefebvre father owned a textile factory and worked for the French Resistance and British intelligence. I need not emphasize that textiles is a Jewish industry. But I will note that the children of intelligence agents are themselves often recruited into intelligence. In fact, as can be gleaned from genealogical databases, there are Jewish Lefebvres in the same region of France in which Marcel was born, although I’m unable to find any direct link.
Castro Mayer? Well, I won’t insult your readers intelligence…
In sum, it is axiomatic to any student of recent history, of the daily fictional dramas falsely called “news”, that those who promote “antisemitism” are, as a rule, actors, and more often than not, Jewish. The SSPX and its splinter groups, who together form the self-appointed representatives of “traditional Catholics” (a term used in defiance to the teaching of Benedict XV in Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum), are controlled opposition in service to the Judeomasonic Novus Ordo.
Daniel,
Your point is noted, and in other places I address what you have mentioned. But really all that matters here is the wrongful assignment of the destruction of the Church to the Jews, whoever these people may interpret them to be, to the exclusion of Freemasonry which the Church has clearly identified as the primary source of this destruction.
Yes the Jews played their part. So did apostate Catholics, heretic and schismatic Catholics and all the other heretics, apostates and schismatics of whatever color out there. Without the help of those traitors no one could have succeeded in pulling down the Church.
I am not sure it matters who are or are not Semites; and yes many of those inhabiting the Middle East have more Jewish blood per se than those calling themselves Jews from a religious standpoint. We are instructed by the popes not to persecute them and presume ourselves superior to them from a racial standpoint. That is what British Israel/Identity does, and it is contrary to Catholic faith.
The reason those calling themselves Traditionalist “Catholics” have abandoned their faith is because they allow themselves to be sidetracked by this anti-Semitism nonsense and neglect to learn the truths of Faith. Let God sort this business out. Holy Scripture tells us there were those who “say they are Jews and are not but are the Synagogue of Satan” (Apocalypse. 2:9) and they are with us today. The popes identify the Synagogue of Satan as Freemasonry.
We must follow only the popes; we may not affiliate with those claiming authority in the Church’s name that they never possessed and will never possess. That is the only real message here. I know many of those claiming anti-Semitism are phonies; I have known it for years.
But the beliefs of BI/Identity prove that they DO exist, and I do not need convincing — I have seen it firsthand. I only related a fraction of what I know about this belief system and the rest is far darker and much more disturbing. Thank you for commenting.
Thanks for your thorough response. It is a rare opportunity to interact with someone who is civil, intelligent, and Catholic. I understand if you prefer to continue in private or perhaps not at all. On the other hand, and at the risk of presumption, I believe your readers might benefit from this exchange (at the very least, I think the aforementioned circumstantial evidence implicating the SSPX as Jewish controlled opposition could “break the spell” on those traditionalists whose hearts are not yet completely hardened).
To be clear, I have no sympathy with those who promote hatred between the races or have an inordinate esteem for their own race. Racial division is but an instance of the Talmudic strategy of divide-and-conquer: foment antipathy between the races, the sexes, the ages, the classes, etc., and thereby tip the numerical balance in their favor.
I say “Talmudic” since that is a more accurate religious description than either “Jewish” or “Semitic” of those who so identify themselves: for they are clearly not spiritual heirs to those Hebrews of antiquity who adhered to the salvific Mosaic religion. Nor are they biological heirs: from the biological perspective, Japhetic is more accurate than Semitic since the majority of “Jews” are Ashkenazim, followed by Sephardi, and then only a vanishingly small number of actual Semites.
Finally, I’m afraid that I must press you for a citation for the implicit claim that the “Synagogue of Satan” is infallibly interpreted to mean Freemasonry. The Freemasons are but useful idiots in service to the Talmudists.
Applying a sort of preemptive defense, I note that the Catholic Encyclopedia article on infallibility states: “before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive” and “not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible.” Yes, so-called traditionalists have shown a diabolical contempt for papal authority; nevertheless, as Gibson correctly perceived, infallibility was one of the few doctrines the Judeomasonic impostors did not hesitate to preserve. The “Second” Vatican Council was a sure bet, a stage play put on to deceive those Catholics who, unfortunately the greater number, all but welcomed the deception. The point is that the Great Apostasy did not happen in a moment but was engineered for at least a century. That engineering included the de-emphasis of those doctrines hampering and the parallel overemphasis of those doctrines conducive to the designs of the infiltrators. To that end, an exaggerated view of papal infallibility, not at all in harmony with the dogma as defined at the Vatican Council and understood by Catholics such as Cardinal Manning (whose works you do well in promoting).
In passing, I recall that Pierleoni, who usurped the papal throne six centuries prior to the official founding of Freemasonry, was a “Jew”.
Daniel,
Here is the quote I referenced that you requested — from Pope Pius IX’s Etsi Multa:
“28. Some of you may perchance wonder that the war against the Catholic Church extends so widely. Indeed each of you knows well the nature, zeal, and intention of [these] sects, whether called Masonic or some other name. When he compares them with the nature, purpose, and amplitude of the conflict waged nearly everywhere against the Church, he cannot doubt but that the present calamity must be attributed to their deceits and machinations for the most part. For from these the synagogue of Satan is formed which draws up its forces, advances its standards, and joins battle against the Church of Christ.” (http://www.virgo-maria.org/references/references_pdf/Pie_IX/1873-11-21_SS_Pius_IX_Etsi-Multa_EN.pdf).
Here the pope is defining a passage from Scripture, something the Pontiffs did very infrequently. The way it is explained here indicates that Freemasonry is the main source of this drawing up of forces. Why would the pope describe it this way if he intended it to be the Jews, who have always been a more or less united force opposed to the Church? I say the popes have approved the use of this term because Pope Leo XIII confirmed all previous condemnations of Freemasonry, this encyclical included, in his encyclical Humanum Genus.
And is not British Israel one of the very sects Pope Pius IX speaks of, being itself one of those sects called “by some other name?” In my opinion, while some but not all the Jews funded these pernicious efforts to destroy the Church, they could not have succeeded without the help of many Protestants and lapsed Catholics. These were the foot soldiers who actually completed the malicious deed and brought the Church to Her knees: “I was wounded in the house of them who loved Me.”
Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton points out in his “Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” (American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1953) that Christ’s Vicar speaks to the faithful “in a way that they can understand.” Therefore, it is obvious that if the pope is proposing something that is only morally certain, he will make it clear by the very nature of his statement that what he says is conditional. Likewise, when he makes an absolutely unqualified statement on any matter, the definitive and irrevocable nature of such a statement is equally obvious.
Really, Fenton notes, there is “no such thing as a teaching issued by the Holy Father in his capacity as the spiritual ruler and teacher of all the followers of Jesus Christ which is other than authoritative.” He cites Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura to demonstrate that the Church condemns the teaching that “without sin and without any damage to a man’s profession as a Catholic, assent and obedience can be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See which have as their object a reference to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, as long as this refusal does not affect dogmas of faith and morals.”
Msgr. Fenton relates this to the Vatican Council teaching in Dei Filius that not just heresy is to be avoided but also those errors which more or less approach it, (DZ 1820). Pope Leo XIII also taught in Immortale Dei: “It is necessary to hold whatever the Roman Pontiffs have taught or are going to teach as accepted with firm assent and to profess these things openly whenever the occasion requires it.” And this is something that Catholics should take to heart. (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/1-what-constitutes-the-papacy/judging-their-infallible-nature-and-the-assent-they-are-due/).
Fenton then goes on to explain in the article that teachings of the ordinary magisterium, (as stated in the Vatican Council documents and in Canon Law), are binding even when they are only indirectly addressed to the Church militant and even when they are only secondarily concerned with matters of faith and morals.
“In other words, the Holy Father is empowered, not only to obligate the disciples of Jesus Christ to accept, on faith or as certain, statements within the sphere of the Church’s doctrinal competence, but also to impose the duty of accepting other propositions within the same sphere as opinions…Humani Generis reasserts the right of the Roman Pontiff to demand an opinionative assent. When, in his encyclicals or in any other documents or utterances of his doctrinal office, he imposes a teaching upon the members of the universal Church militant with anything less than his suprema magisterii potestas, he is calling for such an opinionative judgment…The theologians of the Catholic Church have always recognized the fact that an intention on the part of the Holy Father is requisite if the faithful are to be bound by the teaching contained in his official Acta. Hitherto, however, there has been too much of a tendency to consider that such an intention would have to be manifested by some sort of formula, as for instance, the use of such terms as ‘define’ or ‘declare.’ The Humani Generis has put an end to this dangerous minimism.”
Catholicism is about the teaching of all that is true. Whatever the Roman Pontiffs tell us in their many directives is undoubtedly true and cannot be gainsaid by any pre-V2 theologian not “agreeing” with the Holy Father, far less any two-bit Traditionalist passing as a cleric. The above observations by Msgr. Fenton are not an “exaggerated view” of papal infallibility, as I went to great pains to show in my most recent article Material-Formal Hypothesis Condemned As Heresy (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/material-formal-hypothesis-condemned-as-heresy/ listed under recent articles — read the other two starred articles featured with it as well).
What happened is that Catholics grossly underestimated the Gallicanists’ influence that led to the calling of the council and this heresy’s insidious inroads that continued to undermine the faith long after the council. Eventually these individuals joined forces with the Modernist movement and we know what happened from there on out. Cardinal Manning explained in his work on Civil Allegiance that it was the political and religious Gallicanists, also the Old Catholics who conspired to limit the scope of papal infallibility and never once does he intimate that it was so limited.
I agree with your observations regarding the Talmud, but today many calling themselves Jews do not follow the Talmud or even the Torah. And I long ago read Koestler’s 13th Tribe, so understand the difference between the various types of Jews. I tend to agree that the SSPX is controlled Jewish opposition, which is why they embrace a form of BI mixed with the Gnostic heresy. But I would like to distinguish here that Msgr. Jouin, commended by so many pontiffs, calls the conspiracy Judeo-Masonry, explaining it is “the concentration and mobilization of all evil forces” (Dec. 8, 1930 speech on the papacy and Freemasonry). This only echoes what Pope Pius IX taught in Etsi Multa.
He further explains that the Zionists are the financial impetus behind Masonry, but that is not all of the Jews. Other popes quoted in Jouin’s work refer to Freemasory as the “abysmal well,” referenced in the Apocalypse and the Mystery of Iniquity. They also refer to Masons as “firstborn of the Devil,” and so there is no doubt that what they are referring to was specifically foretold in Holy Scripture.
I hope this addresses everything.
Not wishing to overstay my welcome, I’ll make this reply to the above article my last. Again I thank you for a thorough response, the better part of which is commendable. As, however, I anticipated above, no proof, notwithstanding Fr. Fenton’s opinion, is advanced in favor of the thesis that Pius IX infallibly interpreted “synagogue of satan” to mean Freemasonry. Paragraph 28 of Etsi Multa is here the relevant one:
“Some of you may perchance wonder that the war against the Catholic Church extends so widely. Indeed each of you knows well the nature, zeal, and intention of sects, whether called Masonic or some other name. When he compares them with the nature, purpose, and amplitude of the conflict waged nearly everywhere against the Church, he cannot doubt but that the present calamity must be attributed to their deceits and machinations for the most part. For from these the synagogue of Satan is formed which draws up its forces, advances its standards, and joins battle against the Church of Christ.”
There is nothing here to indicate that His Holiness “intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority… that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense” (Toner, Patrick. “Infallibility”, Catholic Encyclopedia).
You will say that Fenton was an approved theologian and his works were not wanting of ecclesiastical approbation. But then the encyclopedia article also was granted an imprimatur by John Cardinal Farley in 1910. Both were safe, i.e., contained nothing against the faith; in other words, as perhaps a logician would put it, nothing therein is inconsistent with the Catholic faith. But that is far different than saying that everything therein is true.
Moreover, mid-20th century imprimaturs have but dubious value as these were granted who were soon to manifest their heresies before all who had eyes to see. (From many possible, one example, the coarseness of which I hope you’ll pardon, must suffice: Jone’s “Moral Theology” claims that spousal sodomy is neither grave sin nor even sodomy if done with the intention of natural consummation. Whatever true theology he might have taught elsewhere in the text, that teaching makes it fit only for kindling.). Did not Pope St. Pius X lament the nearly complete infiltration of the Church? Did not Cardinal Rampolla, a Freemason, win or almost win the election that, thanks be to God, went ultimately to Sarto?
Even if infallibility of the above passage were admitted, it still does not mean what you seem to think it means. The “these” of the final sentence refers to “sects, whether called Masonic or some other name”. Thus, it cannot be maintained that Etsi Multa contradicts the fact that Talmudists (or Jews, if you prefer) run Freemasonry as a sort of pyramid scheme for Gentiles. Perhaps Msgr. Jouin published what some popes wish they could have, if not for fear of the Jews?
Returning to Fenton: before his death, he, as we know from his diaries, intended to reconcile the “Second” Vatican Council with Catholicism. That may not be heresy in itself, but Pope Liberius was condemned for not much worse.
In the ultimate analysis, however, it hardly behooves today’s Catholic remnant to argue about what does indeed amount to opinion and, if you’ll pardon the cliche, rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic (another hoax, by the way). If we had but a pope, such disputes could be settled at once. And in the interest of charity, I won’t argue this matter further (although I do hope that you’ll publish this reply).
By the way, if you have any documentation, not published on this website, concerning the occult or Jewish origins of the so-called traditionalism, I’d be happy to reimburse you for the time, effort, and expense in forwarding those to me.
In Christ and Mary.
Daniel,
There is something familiar in this reply that I cannot quite put my finger upon. It seems to me we have corresponded/debated before, perhaps many years ago. The name does not tally with what I remember, but then many people do not always like to use their actual names on these sites for various reasons.
I think you missed a point that would have become clear had you read Msgr. Fenton’s many articles on the nature of papal infallibility. The point I refer to is that what Pope Pius IX is saying does not have to be judged infallible per se in order to command, at the very least, a firm assent to all he has written (although clearly Etsi Multa is an infallible document since it treats of matters of faith).
You argue beside the point when you quote the Catholic Encyclopedia on this matter, since the very point at issue here is what constitutes the use of a pope’s Supreme Apostolic authority. Fenton says no special indication of this is needed and Pope Pius XII confirms this in Humani Generis (in condemning that what is taught in official papal documents is not binding, para. 20).
All normative documents listed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis are binding, as are those previously included in the Acta Sancta Sedis. What Fenton teaches about this would not be remarkable, were it not for the papal and conciliar sources he produces to document his articles. And his works would not be so reliable, had not Pope Pius XII personally commended Msgr. Fenton, his colleagues and his publication for faithfulness to the Holy See. He also bestowed upon him the title of domestic prelate and appointed him a Papal Chamberlain. Few other theologians can boast these honors. So really it has nothing to do with imprimaturs.
As far as Msgr. Fenton writing about “reconciling” the teaching of Vatican 2 with Catholic belief, I don’t think it is exactly clear what he intended to do. He had to speak carefully, surrounded as he was by enemies on all sides. This is clear from his diaries. So I don’t think anyone can say for certain where he was taking this.
And I also feel it is unfair to paint him as going over to the side of the enemy when he had been literally tormented by his colleagues for so long, including his own bishop, later implicated in sexual abuse scandals. Fenton had suffered many serious heart attacks and had been diagnosed with congestive heart failure. I know for a fact, having seen it firsthand, that this condition diminishes one’s mental capacities since it restricts oxygen flow to the brain. So one cannot say that he was firing on all eight cylinders, so to speak. Even so, one source reports he continued to attack the Vatican II reforms until his death.
I did not say that what Pope Pius IX stated in Etsi Multa contradicts the fact that Talmudists “run” the sects he refers to. It remains to be seen who actually runs them, since the secret nature of Masonic organizations precludes any in-depth examination of their operations. I said only that it is wrong to limit the membership of these sects to Jews/Talmudists, or indicate they are operated primarily by this group, or place the entire blame for the destruction of the Church on the Jewish nation. I am not alone in maintaining this; the best sources on Freemasonry prior to Vatican II also concur. According to Comte Leon de Poncins, whose work on Freemasonry is quoted by Rev. Fahey (The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society, p. 233):
“Today Jews are numerous in Freemasonry, and in many places their influence is held to be predominant, especially in Central Europe. We find then an alliance and close collaboration between the two forces, with the Jewish influence in the ascendant in places, but it would be an exaggeration to conclude that Masonry is a Jewish creation… Jewish influence at the origin of Freemasonry was rather of an indirect character, arising from the Jewish Cabala… If we desire to go to the root of the matter, we are forced to conclude that the supreme guiding force of Freemasonry is neither English, nor German, nor even Jewish. The guiding force is not corporeal, but spiritual.” Rev. E. J. Cahill, in his Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement, also wrote that “Freemasonry is essentially an Anglo-Saxon institution.”
Referring to statistics printed in the London Times in October 1928, Cahill informs his readers that “thirteen-fourteenths” of all Masonic members at that time were either American or British. This directly contradicts the claim that it was the Talmudists/Jews alone who destroyed the Church. The more accurate term would be Cabbalists, and this would embrace all the Masonic and other sects as well as the Talmudists. Therefore, what is stated above entirely corroborates what the popes as a sum total have said regarding these sects, Pope Pius IX included.
So no, I don’t believe we are arguing about opinions, here or rearranging deck chairs, for that matter. We have well over 20 encyclicals and other papal documents naming over and over again the intent of the secret societies — not the Talmudists/Jews — to destroy the Church, overthrow the papacy and topple governments worldwide. Little mention here of Talmudists/Jews. It is clear from the demeanor of these documents that they are binding on the faithful, some of them in perpetuity. Several pontiffs confirmed the decrees of their predecessors in issuing their own prohibitions and warnings.
So how can Traditionalists twist so many papal directives to read “Jews” versus secret societies? This is a matter of what the popes actually taught, and it cannot be construed to mean something most of them never even alluded to in those teachings. The fact that it has been so misconstrued is proof that Trads could care less about what the popes teach unless it suits their purposes.
Christ came into this world to save sinners. He was constantly heckled by the Pharisees and His words were even questioned by His own disciples. The Jews portrayed Him as a devil, a liar, a charlatan and eventually succeeded in crucifying Him, even though Pilate could not find him guilty of anything. Everything He said — everything — must be believed simply because He said it. He set up in St. Peter a perpetual line of successors invested with the power to rule in His name. He granted them the power to teach in His name, without fear of error. He promised to bind in Heaven what they bound on earth and loose what they loosed.
Who was it who challenged what He taught and tried to make it appear He was not the Christ? Who is it who challenges what the Roman Pontiffs, His Vicars, teach, quibbling as did the Pharisees over trifles and watering down the meaning of what He intended? Are not these the “new” Jews?! If Christ were to come today, He would receive even worse treatment. And as He Himself said, when He comes, He will not find faith on this earth.
I will email you the only article I have written proving the Masonic — not Jewish — connections of some of the top leaders of Traditionalism.
T. Benns
Dear Teresa,
Oh, my gosh! How wonderfully you present this most important truth that Freemasonry, and not the Jews alone, were and are the enemies of the Catholic Church, and how the Popes warned us of this so many times.
I don’t see how anyone cannot understand and accept the words of our Popes in this regard.
I pray that Daniel could just stop and think for a moment how all our American Founding Fathers, except for John Adams, were Masons, and none of them, except perhaps Alexander Hamilton (I think), were Jews. So even on a purely historical level, can’t we all agree that Freemasons, not the Jews, are at the top of the pyramid?
God bless,
Irene