Refresher course on conditional baptism (not “rebaptism”)

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 4, 2026 | New Blog

February, Month of the Holy Trinity and the Holy Family

Prayer Society Intention: I adore the O Blessed Trinity, One God; have mercy on me now and at the hour of my death and save me. (Raccolta)

+St. Agatha, Virgin Martyr+

The following is posted after a reader revealed there is some confusion between conditional baptism and rebaptism, (baptizing as if the person has never been baptized before). Hopefully this will dispel any misapprehensions and better explain the reasons for administering conditional baptism.

© Copyright 2020, revised 2026; T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Introduction

In the Baptism of infants, as well as the baptism of adults who wish to become Catholic in these times, many have questioned what actually constitutes good reason to baptize someone who may already have been baptized before, but where certain circumstances prevent one from knowing the validity of that baptism. Therefore, it is essential to understand how and when we may determine these circumstances to the best of our ability and what to do when we can’t be certain about the need to baptize. Below we hope to examine all the reasons why both Novus Ordo and Traditionalist baptisms cannot be held as certainly valid, or, to be honest, valid at all, and why in the case of those coming to the pray-at-home position, any baptism in these sects should be conditionally repeated.

A look back

As William Strojie observed in the 1980s, the baptism of the Novus Ordo church cannot be trusted as true sacramental baptism, for many reasons. Some would argue that because even lay heretics and Jews can validly administer Baptism, then this means that we cannot question baptism as invalidly administered because the Church recognizes the baptism of these individuals. The caveat here is that the Church actually teaches that in baptizing others, even heretics and apostates must intend to “do what the Church does;” in other words even though they are not Catholics they must intend to do what true Catholics do in baptizing. Not so these Novus Ordo ministers. As Mr. Strojie notes, there is no mention of the bestowal of sanctifying grace or the removal of original sin in the new rite of Baptism, the sole purpose in every baptismal ceremony performed in the Church prior to the false Vatican 2 council. Instead the child is “initiated into the community” and is “empowered to sanctify creation.”

Strojie points out that the importance of the community is emphasized over and over again just as it was when eliminating the Latin Mass and promoting the NOM. We can relate this to a modernized form of communism — communitarianism — that has permeated society for decades, and as a form of heresy could scarcely be mentioned in the same breath as valid baptism. Also suspect here is the intent of using “Holy Spirit” vs. Holy Ghost. The Mormons use this form, but the “spirit” intended by them is Jesus’ “brother,” Lucifer! Strojie mentions the Theosophist Leadbetter’s baptism, identical to the Catholic form but intended to initiate the baptized into the mysteries of the Solar Deity.

The Church always has taught that one can never take chances where the Sacraments are concerned. If there is any doubt the Sacrament was invalid or would be invalid, it must either be performed again conditionally with the right intention or not performed at all until it can be performed validly. Those today who baptize, believing the NO is the true Church and intending to do what its ministers do, cannot convey the Sacrament to others. Traditionalists who believe that the juridical Church can exit on earth without a true pope and valid bishops and priests can issue from Her, cannot intend to make those they baptize members of Christ’s true Church on earth because they hold a conception of that Church that is heretical.  These craven ministers fraudulently baptize their subjects into what only APPEARS to be the Catholic Church, and as the canonists T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis explain: “SUBSTANTIAL ERROR INVALIDATES AN ACT… Error of law or a fact, if it is substantial, renders an act null and void.” It must be remembered that as Can. 22 teaches: “A more recent law given by competent authority abolishes a former law if the new law explicitly says so or if it is directly contrary to the old law or if it takes up and re-adjusts the entire subject matter of the former law.”

Some have objected that the teachings of Pope St. Stephen validate these baptisms. But what Pope St. Stephen and the Council of Trent forbade was to repeat baptism absolutely, as though it was certain it had never been administered in the first place. This is known as the rebaptism controversy, and that is what Pope St. Stephen was forbidding even in the early days of the Church. But doctrine has developed since his day. According to the Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Nor let anyone suppose that it is repeated by the Church when she baptizes anyone whose previous baptism was doubtful, making use of this formula: ‘If thou art baptized, I baptize thee, and not again; but if thou art not yet baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ In such cases baptism is not to be considered as impiously repeated, but as holily yet conditionally administered. According to the authority of Pope Alexander, the conditional form of baptism is to be used only when, after due inquiry, doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to administer baptism a second time, even conditionally” (Revs. McHugh and Callan, 1923). Later, in 1679, Bd. Pope Innocent XI condemned the notion that one can use a probable, not the safer, opinion to determine the value of the Sacraments, particularly the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Orders (DZ 1151).

The use of “spirit” in the Novus Ordo sect

Unfortunately, the Novus Ordo church has returned to those teachings about the Trinity condemned in the early centuries and now holds concepts concerning Three Persons in One God that calls even the validity of Baptism into question. In his The Emergence of Catholic Tradition, Jar Slav Pelican, commenting in 1971 on the teachings of the early Fathers in regard to the Trinity noted that the word spirit could be used for the Divine in Christ, effectively separating His Divinity from His humanity. This is a denial of the Incarnation, one of the heresies for which Antichrist will be specifically known. This heresy was condemned in 680 by Pope St. Agatho at the Roman Council, (DZ 288). As Pelican explains, Christ’s “spirit” and the Holy Ghost have nothing to do with each other. He cited such a distinction as suggestive of a “binitarian mode of thinking,” and ascribed it to “those early Christian writings, which still showed marks of the Jewish origins of Christianity.”

Early Hebrew heretics rejecting Christianity taught that the Holy Ghost was the “life-giving” or creative principle of the Trinity, a notion condemned in 451 by the Council of Chalcedon. The Hindu teaching of Kundalini is responsible for this identification, teaching the “sacredness” of sex for its own sake and equating the creative power with the Divine creative principle in God the Father. Some heretics even described the Third Person as a female. This can be traced to the Egyptian “trinity” of Osiris, Isis and Horus, where Isis is revered as “God the Mother,” spouse of Osiris, (Fire of Creation, by J.J. Vander Leeuw). Vander Leeuw provided the missing factor in the androgyny equation: “It is by giving the worship of Our Lady the proper place in the Christian religion… that we can actively insist in bringing nearer that religion of the near future, which in its ideals will show us the unity that binds what we call the masculine and feminine aspect in all things… This precious heritage… the worship of God the Mother… (will), in the Christianity of the future, be a great and splendid religious ideal.”

So here we have the reason why Theosophy reveres Our Lady, and New Age priestess Annie Besant is even featured in one photo holding a rosary. The Church had grave reasons indeed for mandating the use of Holy Ghost in the English language, particularly in prayer and the Sacraments when administered in English: to eliminate the possibility of error in reference to this blasphemous and heretical idea of spirit. The use of Holy Spirit versus Holy Ghost began to creep into Catholic missals and prayer books in English in the 1940s, 1950s. In his work New Age Bible Versions, G.A. Riplinger contrasted newly translated biblical texts to the King James and (in some instances) the Douay-Rheims versions. He concluded that all these modern translations have replaced “Holy Ghost” with “Holy Spirit” in key passages, a change arising, he said, “from ecumenical practices.” He cited the rebuke from Job 26:4 to those who were moved, not of the holy Spirit of God, but by their “human spirit;” and also referred these changes to Gal. 3:5 and Cor. 2:11 which mention “unclean spirits.” This affords us further insight into what may be intended by the Novus Ordo usage.

In “returning” to the primitive usage of Holy Spirit on the ruse that this return reflected a greater faithfulness to Tradition, the Novus Ordo church failed to explain to its members why the usage was suppressed in the first place. The Kabbalistic Jews believed in an ever-generating (and incestuous) quatrinity. They even represented Christ as synonymous with the pagan god Metraton and Samauel, the evil principle in Kabbalism, (The Kabbala Unveiled). And the Gnostics who infiltrated first Jewish then Christian ranks taught man’s divinity. Protestant author Texe Marrs provided a more sinister explanation of the term Holy Spirit along these same lines in his work, Dark Majesty. Quoting Rex Hutchins’ A Bridge to Light, Marrs wrote: “There is a Life-Principle of this world, a universal agent, wherein are two natures and a double current of love and wrath…It is a ray detached from the glory of the Sun…It is the Holy Spirit, the universal Agent, the serpent…”

Since spirit can refer to the soul of Christ excluding the Holy Ghost from the Trinity, or even to Satan as a “necessary” component of that same Trinity, can this ambiguous usage, so suggestive of Manichaean dualism, be accepted as innocuous, particularly in the administration of the sacraments? In condemning the errors of Michael Molinos, Pope Innocent XI taught that a probable opinion could never be used in administering the Sacraments, the safer opinion being abandoned, (DZ 1151). So if it is a matter of mere opinion (which it cannot be, since the Church has suppressed the usage to avoid the danger of a wrong conception of the Trinity) the safer opinion and that adhered to traditionally by the Church must be preferred. Other errors of Molinos condemned by Bd. Pope Innocent XI include the use of ambiguous words, (DZ 1177). The Sacraments convey the graces necessary for salvation and the Church tolerates no possibility of error or a false intention in their administration.

Spirit is an ambiguous word that could be interpreted as man sharing literally in Christ’s divinity, Satan’s long-coveted ambition, and many today believe such a thing is possible. Such a conception of the Mystical Body is in direct contradiction of all Church teaching on the matter; for while Catholics are granted a share in the Church’s earthly, spiritual upbuilding, they are invited to heed only the call to be “other Christs,” not THE Christ. To avoid any confusion on this matter, Pope Pius XII specifically proscribed any idea of membership in the Mystical Body that passed “beyond the sphere of creatures and wrongly enter(s) the Divine, were it only to the extent of appropriating to themselves but one single attribute of the eternal Godhead,” (Mystici Corporis). As stated above, these heretics wish to limit the identification of the Holy Ghost with a “Christ-spirit” emanating from His soul — a spirit they say we share with Him. So in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII went to great lengths to identify the Holy Ghost as a separate person in one God, not an indistinct extension of Christ Himself. To pervert the Holy Ghost’s action in the Sacrament of Baptism or any of the Sacraments, or to omit His existence at all disfigures the intention requisite for sacramental validity. Depending on the minister and his understanding of theology, it could refer to the “holy spirit” of Christ indwelling (a heresy), which is entirely separate from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. The indwelling of the Holy Ghost is lost through commission of mortal sin, but this spirit referred to in Novus Ordo usage is bestowed on recipients as a constantly abiding principle. This would explain why the form in Novus Ordo baptism no longer refers to taking away original sin. For if all are divine by nature, who can sin?

The apostate priest Abbe Roca puts this usage into context by predicting, in his work Glorious Century, that “The convert of the Vatican…will rest content with confirming and glorifying the spirit of Christ, or Christ-spirit [divine humanity], seed of the Word, in the public mind.” The Catholic Encyclopedia under Holy Ghost explained that in the works of St. Paul the word spirit, particularly the use of the term “spirit of God, [can] signify at times the soul or man himself.” In denying the existence of the Holy Ghost as a Divine entity, some ranked Him among the highest choir of angels. Others identified Him as the female principle, or “feminine side” of God. And evidence that these heresies still exist is readily available.

Rev. Leeming verified the Church’s condemnation of the above interpretation for spirit. “St. Irenaeus tells us that certain of the Gnostic sects taught that the ‘Father’ whom Christ revealed was different from the Creator of the Universe, and that the spirit who came upon Jesus was really Christ. They carried out their false beliefs in the ceremonies of Baptism, for Iranaeus says they baptized ‘in the name of the unknown father of all, truth, mother of all and in him who descended into Jesus,’” (#597). Others, St. Epiphanius says, baptized “’in the name of the uncreated God, the created Son and in the name of the spirit of sanctification, created by the Son.’” The Fathers were suspicious of the use of the names, Father, Son and Holy Spirit by these sects because they could be understood in a sense different than that of the true Trinity. The Paulinists used the above formula and were condemned by the Council of Nicaea, (DZ 56). The Sacraments of Baptism and Orders administered by the Paulinists were to be entirely repeated for this reason, since the correct Trinitarian formula must be  used for both Sacraments.

Illicit Baptism 

This topic, to the best of the author’s knowledge, has never been addressed. But it is important to address it because like all the other Sacraments, Baptism can be validly but illicitly given and/or received, and if this is the case then the graces it is meant to convey are absent. This is true anytime one who is not a priest (for whatever reasons, including invalid and/or illicit ordination) attempts to perform Solemn Baptism, not the simple baptism performed by the laity; or when one who may be validly and licitly (or illicitly) ordained and does not possess jurisdiction performs Solemn Baptism.

Rev. Stanislaus Grabowski, in his examination of St. Augustine’s idea of the Church, (“The Church,” 1957), notes: “Without the Holy Ghost are such as have been baptized in heretical and schismatic factions… Baptism so administered produces in the soul of the recipient an effect which Augustine calls a form or ‘forma,’ [the indelible mark?]. However, since it is produced outside the Church, it is irregular and illicit and consequently it does not convey a life of grace, it does not bring a rebirth of the soul, it does not effect a participation in the Holy Ghost,” and unfortunately this includes Traditional sects because they are not Catholic and not in communion with the pope. Grabowski says such a Sacrament from heretics and schismatics “is not worthless. Because it is valid it impinges a ‘form’ on the recipient… On account of the sacramental ‘form’ impressed on the baptized one, when such a person returns from heresy and schism… to the fold of the Church,” he becomes a member of the Mystical Body, returns to grace and receives the Holy Ghost.

“The sinner administering it in the Church does not hinder the Sacrament from producing that life which he himself does not have, for it is Christ who is the principal minister. The sacrament is not affected by the sinfulness of the dispenser,” and this is the entire thrust of the Donatist heresy fought by St. Augustine and mistakenly applied by Traditionalists to the situation today. Sinfulness is one thing; lack of membership in the Church quite another. “…The sacrament, however, does not produce the supernatural life it is intended to convey…[when] administered or received outside the pale of the Church of Christ. This Church is the sole legitimate possessor of the sacraments. Just as they are said to be the sacraments of Christ, they are the sacraments of the Church.”

“After irregular baptism, received at the hands of heretics or schismatics, the recipients should be reconciled to the Church and receive the baptism of the Spirit… Theodori Poenit. li. il. 13, a.d. 673, in Haddan & Stubbs, in. 192 : “If an ordained priest discovers he has not been baptized let him be baptized and reordained, and all whom he previously baptized be re-baptized. The same is repeated i. ix. 12, Ibid. in. 185, with this addition: It is stated that another decision has been given on this point by the Roman Pontiff, according to which the grace of baptism is not conferred by the man who baptizes, although he be a pagan, but by the Spirit of God. See note 110 above. Nicolaus l. a.d.865, ap. Gratian in. Dist. iv. c. 24: You say that many in your country were baptized by a Jew who may have been a Christian or may have been a pagan, and ask what ought to be done.

“If such have been baptized in the name of the Trinity… they ought not to be re-baptized…Theodori Poenit. li. ix. 3. 1. c. p. 197: Whoever has a doubt about his baptism let him be baptized. Alexander in. a.d. 1180, in Decret. Lib. in. Tit. xlii. c. 2 : Concil. Westminster, a.d.1200, Can. 3: We charge according to the holy canons that the sacraments of which there is a doubt be conferred. Const.1, Langton, a.d. 1223 ; Const. 11, Edmund, a.d. 1236: If he find by full evidence that baptism was given in the form of the Church let him approve the fact, whether he did it in Latin, French, or English. But if not let him baptize the child.” (From: The Complete Manual of Canon Law, by Oswald J. Reichel, M.A., B.CAL., F.S.A.; author of The See of Rome in the Middle Ages, 1923).

Traditionalists and intention

We have seen above how Traditionalists, in performing Solemn Baptism, not only baptize illicitly but fraudulently. For while a simple lay baptism by their pseudo-priests might be argued to be valid, given the right intention can be proved, a Solemn Baptism, to be administered only by validly ordained priests, is fraudulent and sacrilegious. And as taught in Can. 104, such acts by laymen pretending to be priests are therefore null and void, both under Can. 104 and Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. But does a Traditionalist, whether a pseudo-priest or not, even when baptizing privately, have the right intention to baptize? For they must intend to baptize the individual as a member of the Catholic Church in “the same sense and understanding” of that Church as it has always existed (Pope St. Pius X). They can call their baptism Catholic, and claim the church they are baptizing such a person in is Catholic, but is this the actual truth? No, because the clergy and faithful of the one, true Catholic Church must always be in communion with and obedient to a head bishop, the Pope, to be Catholic.

One cannot claim to possess hierarchy and constitute the Catholic Church without the pope. Is it different than any other heretics or schismatics baptizing people into their sects, meaning if the proper matter and form is used it could be valid? Yes, it is different; for never before have sects such as the Novus Ordo and Traditionalists insisted they were CATHOLIC and possessed valid hierarchy and Sacraments. Again, their very insistence constitutes fraud and nullifies and invalidates all their acts.

We have “Solemn Baptism,” (irregular) received at the hands of heretics and schismatics (Traditionalists, Novus Ordo ministers) and we are not sure if they had the intention of baptizing “in the name of the Trinity.” Or if, in the case of Traditionalists, they intended to baptize into the true Catholic Church which, if it claims to possess bishops, must always be under obedience to a head bishop, a canonically elected pope. One cannot proceed on doubt concerning a matter involving the Sacraments. When possible, one must always be certain to have received Baptism by water. It is not lawful or prudent to ever rely on Baptism of desire when valid water Baptism is available.

Conclusion

Because Baptism is a Sacrament necessary for salvation, there cannot be any doubt concerning its validity for it to take effect. It is the common opinion of theologians that any time there is any question in our minds about the validity of any of the Sacraments, we are not to partake in them or presume they are valid if we have done, without realizing the dangers. Since the Novus Ordo and Traditionalists are non-Catholic sects just like any other sect, and because we have no bishops or pope to put this question to, in my opinion it is wise to conditionally baptize anyone who has been baptized in the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects. This since the minister’s right intention cannot be proved.

We should inquire carefully concerning any previous “baptisms,” but when inquiry fails to prove validity, we should not hesitate to baptize conditionally. Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey writes in his Dogmatic Theology: “In case of necessity, anyone who has the use of reason can baptize, even licitly. This is certain: first, from the declaration of the Lateran Council IV (‘The sacrament of baptism, rightly performed by anyone in the form of the Church, is useful unto salvation for little ones and for adults’ — DZ 430); from the Council of Florence (“In the case of necessity, however, even…a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan or a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing as the Church does.’ — DZ 696); also Canon 742; secondly, from the practice of the Church…thirdly, it is most fitting that Baptism, so necessary for salvation, be able to be easily conferred — hence that it be able to be conferred by all.”

The following on Baptism is taken from A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod and revised by Rev. Callistus Smith, Vol. 1, (Imprimatur and Copyright 1943, pages 353 and 354):

“Of the Time and Place of Baptism”

“668. Infants shall be baptized as soon as possible. Pastors and preachers shall often remind the faithful of this grave obligation.” (Canon 770) …It is considered to be within the power of the Bishop to demand that the Baptism be conferred within eight days after birth, making due allowance for circumstances where that regulation would impose undue hardship.In an Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, July 31, 1902, to the missionaries among the Nestorians, it states that Baptism shall be conferred on the infants at least within eight days after birth, and if necessary, Private Baptism should be given rather than wait longer for Solemn Baptism.

“669. … One may hold with Noldin and Vermeersch-Creusen that one cannot delay Baptism over a month without sinning gravely against the law. If circumstances are such – and they certainly exist in the scattered districts of the United States — that the priest cannot be had within a month — some layperson should be asked by the parents to baptize the child, rather than delay the Baptism. The Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda approved an Instruction given to the catechists and other well-instructed Catholics to baptize any of the infants of the Christians, though they are in good health, if the priest is absent or it is difficult to go to him. We saw that the Instructions to the missionaries among the Nestorians insisted that Baptism should be conferred within eight days, and that, when necessary, the infants should be baptized privately rather than delay Baptism and expose the infants to the danger of dying without it.

“670.Private Baptism may, in case of necessity, be given at any time and in any place (Canon 771).

One further note

All baptisms by Catholic adults when no priest is available are valid as long as the intention to baptize the child into the Catholic Church as she existed up to pope Pius XII’s death is present and the proper form is used.  This is a matter of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and has been for centuries. In his Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics (Catholic University of America Press, Sacred Theology Dissertation, 1943), Rev. John Bancroft, C.S.S.R., J.C.B, S.T.L, notes that the approved theologian Lemkuhl believes that heretic, apostate and schismatic priests are the equivalent of vitandi. Merkelbach and several others are quoted as believing that to allow anyone but a Catholic layman, that is a heretic, infidel, apostate, or vitandus to baptize is a mortal sin. Bancroft quotes a decision of the Holy See that seems to indicate that even when there is a question of Baptism by either lay Catholics or even lay non-Catholics versus a non-Catholic priest, the lay Catholics or non-Catholics are to be preferred! He concludes: “What has been said has referred to the administration of Baptism by a [valdily ordained] non-Catholic priest. The doctrine applies a fortiori to a non-Catholic [non-ordained] minister. He has no consecration to act as a minister of the Sacraments [so is] really only a layman.”

LibTrad pseudo-clergy and the perennialist heresy

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 17, 2025 | New Blog

+St. Patrick, Bishop Confessor+

Fr. Doyle’s Reflections on the Passion, Pt. 2

“We should,” writes Father Degnam, S.J., “go through the different circumstances of the Passion, and compare them with the occasions of sufferings we meet with in life. They are the drops of the chalice which our Lord asks us to drink with Him. His sufferings of the scourging, our physical pain; He is treated as a fool by Herod; He was rejected for Barabbas; are we not sometimes rejected for another – set aside for someone who is certainly more worthy than ourselves? Is not the gall they gave Him to drink like the bitterness we receive when we are longing for consolation? As we look at the dead body of our Lord hanging on the Cross, we see that His Passion was one long act of submission.”

Gratitude should fill our hearts at the thought of God’s goodness in giving us His own adorable Son as a model to imitate, so that we have only to look at Him to know what we have to do. Hear Christ Himself say: “I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you also should do” (Jn. 13:15). Christ is the only way we must follow, especially in the practice of virtue, and it was during the Passion that His practice of the virtues was strikingly sublime and heroic. In the most trying circumstances our Lord gave us during the Passion examples of those virtues we somehow seem to lack – meekness, mercy, charity, silence, patience, abandonment, and obedience to His Father’s will – even to death.

Well did St. Bonaventure say: “He who desires to go on advancing from virtue to virtue, from grace to grace should constantly meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ.” …

Try to see the virtue practiced by the Master and resolve to imitate that virtue. Strive to find some lesson in each of these daily considerations and resolve to put it in practice during the day. In your examination of conscience at night, examine yourself on how you kept the resolution taken that morning. Little good will result from the study of the Passion unless such a study results in our imitation of Christ. “O foolish Galatians!” cried out St. Paul, “who has bewitched you [that you should not obey the truth], before whose eyes Jesus has been depicted crucified?” (Ga. 3:1)

At the Last Supper, Christ gathered the Apostles around Him and they set out together for Gethesemani, the Garden of the Agony. The name “Gethsemani” is interesting in that it means “oilpress”; in other words, it was a place where the fresh olives were pressed and the oil extracted. What a symbolic spot chosen by the Sacred Redeemer of Mankind for the initial and awful beginning of the Passion! Here He was to take upon Himself the sins of the world and be so crushed under their terrible weight that his precious blood flowed from every pore of His body.

With reverence, then, and with contrite hearts let us begin our contemplation of the passion of our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemani and pray that your heart and soul will be inflamed with love and aroused to imitate all the virtues practiced by the Savior in His Passion. Decide now on one positive act of mortification to be practiced this very day, recalling these words of the Imitation of Christ: “The more thou dost violence to thyself, the greater thy progress will be.” Tomorrow we shall see our Lord separating Peter, James, and John from the other apostles and taking them with Him into the midst of the garden. Thus shall we begin our study of the Passion” (end of Fr. Doyle quotes).

Introduction

We often feel we are crushed under the weight of the betrayal we must witness among those who should be Christ’s greatest supporters, and if we further continue to expose this betrayal here it is only to fulfill our obligation to defend the faith. In a past blog, I had mentioned how certain recognize and resist sects and other entities — some who claim to pray at home — were somehow connected with the In the Spirit of Chartres Committee (ISOC), a non-profit organization promoting “traditional” Catholicism. Featured on the ISOC interviews list is one Dr. E. Michael Jones, who will be discussed below. Jones is listed on this site along with Siri pope fantasizer Gary Giuffre, also Jim Condit, Robert Sungenesis, Cornelia Ferreira (all major contributors) as well as Gerry Matatics, (one known DVD; some are not tagged). To discover what they are saying, one must purchase and listen to numerous DVD’s.  As  pointed out in the past, this is not only expensive but a waste of time. A six  or seven-page  article requires a little over 20 minutes for the average person to read, while some of these DVDs can last for hours.

The 2020 link provided here on Dr. E. Michael Jones from the Fitzpatrick Informer does not need to be read in its entirety; a quick scan will confirm what is said there. Mr. Fitzpatrick has bought into the Fatima/aliens hoax, presenting “proofs” of a so-called connection from a “Catholic” author, but no good Catholic could state categorically, with any degree of certitude, that Fatima was indeed a hoax. This I also have addressed in previous blogs at length. So this is definitely NOT a recommended site.

Fitzpatrick’s site also focuses primarily on the Jews (and Russia) as the enemies of the Church and all humanity, something I have described as both dangerous and unCatholic in the past where the Jews are concerned. This because the popes condemn any persecution of the Jews and such emphasis only excites ideas of such persecution in certain individuals. Nor does the Church officially name the Jews as the head and common denominator of Freemasonry. It was Pope Pius IX who actually called Freemasonry the Synagogue of Satan, although certainly this does not exclude the Jews from inclusion as contributing members, even leading members.

This brings us to Andy Sloan’s and Timothy Fitzpatrick’s ’s expose on E. Michael Jones as a KGB agent HERE and HERE. According to Jones own comments in this article, Jones also is a Communist collaborator and denier of Catholic dogma, something far more serious than being a secret agent. The reasons we are addressing the E. Michael Jones issue is because most of those surfing the net out there, like the reader who wisely alerted us to this long blog on Jones, may well run across Fitzpatrick. If those who frequent ISOC and see Jones’ articles there, then read what Sloan and Fitzpatrick have revealed about him, they might rightly wonder why anyone would recommend his works to those believing themselves to be Catholic. Sloan’s article explains it well, and other articles on Fitzpatrick’s site are critical of some traditionalists.

Why would ISOC sell Jones’ DVD’s? There is a good explanation for this, one that most have not fully put together but which needs to be comprehended if one is to prepare for what may well materialize in the future. Fitzpatrick’s and Sloan’s vision is not too far removed from what I posted HERE a few years ago. In this essay I noted: “In her review of Craig Heimbichner’s work, Blood on the Altar, often quoted by this author, Cornelia Ferreira writes: ‘Freemasonic leaders hope to finally fulfill their THIRD-DEGREE RITUAL by rebuilding Solomon’s Temple so that blood may again flow upon Jerusalem’s altar, defiantly reversing and nullifying, in the Talmudic and occult mind, the blood of Christ.’” My question here is, seeing that Ferreira is a registered member of ISOC, why would anyone cooperate with someone like Jones, who himself collaborates with communists (Dugin and associates) who praise Satan?

Jones has stated (see Sloan/Fitzpatrick article) that: “Russia is not a problem in the world, the US is the main problem in the world. Russia is officially Christian, in the way the United States is not… There is no Soviet Union anymore, communism has gone.” And yet research polls show that very few Russians report Russian Orthodox church attendance and many profess to be atheists. Jones even endorses Nostra Aetate, the false Vatican 2 document that denied any collective blame for the Jews in Christ’s death and called for an end to the evangelization of the Jews. The consequences of what Jones’ and others endorse are discussed below.

ISOC and its imaginary church

Canon Law considers those professing Communism, collaborating with Communism or sympathizing with Communists as apostates. True “Catholics” who associate with those who (a) are Novus Ordo recognize and resist types (b) run of the mill LibTrads and (c) types such as Jones who veer far from anything Catholic yet present are denying infallible Church teaching by their manner of acting (Can. 1325). For the Church infallibly teaches: “We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi).  In this same encyclical, we read that Pius XII defines Church membership as “…the cooperation of all its members… [made] externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws.”

So we have this imaginary church, where both a Latin Mass in a Novus Ordo church and a Latin Mass in a LibTrad church are adjudged equally “Catholic,” (along with Uniate masses either Novus Ordo in character or those celebrated by Uniate clergy who operate independently); or one can refrain from “mass” altogether and pray at home, as long as one accepts LibTrad clergy as valid. It is a church where one can accept all Vatican 2 popes (but Francis, perhaps), reject all but John  23, or accept none after the death of Pope Pius XII. How wonderfully democratic! We are frequently criticized for measuring the Church by juridical means, (Canon Law), particularly when it involves the matter of heresy. And LibTrad pseudo-clergy and their minions generally are quite contemptuous when any proofs from canon law are produced showing they are operating invalidly and deceiving their followers. We are constantly chastised for failing to practice charity by those insisting that, contrary to Catholic teaching, all are in “good faith,” or invincibly ignorant, and must be given the benefit of the doubt.

But the “charity” extended by ISOC and others to those who yet regard the current Roman usurpers as true (if evil) popes and participate in services clearly shown to be idolatrous — worshipping mere bread as Christ’s true Body and Blood — is liberal, not Catholic charity, as demonstrated here countless times. The stated aims of ISOC, as pointed out before, is to “unite the clans” and organize a papal election to regulate everything. This in violation of infallible papal teaching, and we have written enough on this for readers to know such an election is now impossible given the invalidity of LibTrad clergy per Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

It is the insistence on this validity, and the absurd propagation of the material-formal heresy, that ties all the groups under the ISOC umbrella together. Because the key to uniting seems to be the endorsement of a “compromise” candidate for the papacy, someone from the conservative Novus Ordo sector who would “renounce” any previous heresy and return the Church to is pre-1958-status. That is the gist of the material-formal insanity, which contradicts both Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Pope St. Pius V’s motu proprio, Inter Multiplices, where, in the first year of his pontificate, Pope St. Pius V confirmed everything in Pope Paul IV’s bull.

The heresy of Traditionalism — again

The teachings of both popes forbid the admittance of public heretics, apostates or schismatics to any future office in the Church. After the death of Pope Pius XII any attempting ordination or consecration were automatically invalidated and incapacitated for obtaining any offices under Canon Law and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. Only by their continuing contempt for Canon Law and papal teaching throughout the centuries — TRUE tradition as defined by the Church Herself — can these pseudo-clergy and their followers continue to pursue this “papal election” course and realize the establishment of their condemned imaginary church, which is really only the creation of a “traditional” version of the Novus Ordo church! It is interesting to note that in the Jones article, tradition is defined differently than it is understood by most LibTrads. It is ”perennialism” that actually reduces to the condemned heresy of Traditionalism, as mentioned in footnotes 13 and 14 to the Jones article.

In other Jones article footnotes we also find:

(170) Dugin – satanist Aleister Crowley is a traditionalist (2nd paragraph: https://arcto.ru/article/384

(171) Jones propaganda – “Western civilisation will not survive and we need to return to tradition.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the heresy of traditionalism (DZ 1649-1652) as follows: “According to traditionalism, human reason is of itself radically unable to know with certainty any truth or, at least, the fundamental truths of the metaphysical, moral, and religious order. Hence our first act of knowledge must be an act of faith, based on the authority of revelation. This revelation is transmitted to us through society, and its truth is guaranteed by tradition or the general consent of mankind.” Perennialism is the belief that this “general consent of mankind” can be found in “Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism (including the Kabbalah), Orthodox Christianity and Islam,”  which the Novus Ordo also teaches by its concessions to these rother religions. Perennialism is best explained by the link below, but beware: this is a site associated with the very individuals found at ISOC — a decidedly LibTrad sedevacantist site quoting Cekada and Sanborn — and is definitely NOT recommended by this author (https://truerestoration.org/what-is-perennialism-and-why-should-we-know-about-it/).

Three things should be noted here. One, traditionalism is the type pf perennialism peculiar to  “Latin Mass Catholics” because Perennialists consider only the orthodox” or more ancient expression of the Catholic faith as true; they reject modernism, scientism, secularism and syncretism so their beliefs appear to be Catholic when in reality they are in line with Novus Ordo teaching and practice. Secondly, the same can be said of the truerestoration site that is said about ISOC. Peel back the layers of the onion and you will find the very things they are allegedly advocating for and promoting are secretly contaminated with what they also profess to condemn! And these are contaminated in such a way that only those who know or uncover the true background of LibTrad pseudo-clergy can pick up on this fact. The truerestoration link explains the perennialism of Rama Coomeraswamy, but it fails to track this heresy back to those who imbibed it in the very seminary training they received under Marcel Lefebvre.

A tainted pool

LibTrad pseudo-cleric Rama Coomeraswamy, was the “converted” son of Hindu philosopher Ananda Coomeraswamy, who also professed perennialism. Ananda was a personal friend of Aleister Crowley’s, and the two men even “shared” Ananda’s wife. This is a known fact published in certain books as well as online. Rama’s father also mixed with many other leading occultists of the 20th century. Why a person with this familial background would be found among “catholic traditionalists” can only be explained by the meaning of tradition and traditionalism itself as stated above — it is not the Latin Mass tradition, or tradition as taught and understood by the Church. No, it is that tradition explained by John 23^rd’s biographer, Meriol Trevor, as follows: “[Roncalli] thought of himself as representing a different tradition” (Pope John, p. 206). In his Blood on the Altar, Craig Heimbichner warned that Crowley and his OTO had infiltrated the Church in ways Catholics could not comprehend. The two Coomeraswamys can be linked to that Satanic pathway into the remnant Church via LibTrad pseudo-clergy. The following on Cekada, Dolan, Sanborn and McKenna from Wikibin and Wikipedia explains why truerestoration is actually a part of the very problem this link addresses.

“Prior to his declaration as a Sedevacantist, Coomaraswamy had become close to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The former was appointed a Professor of Church History at the New England seminary of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). It was in that capacity that he successfully influenced a significant number of students to subscribe to Sedevacantism, resulting in the separation of nine SSPX priests, among them Clarence Kelly, Daniel Dolan, Donald Sanborn, [William] Jenkins, Anthony Cekada. The group then formed the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV). When Dolan, Sanborn, Cekada and most of the other priests of the SSPV began to dissent from the rigorist leadership of Kelly, Coomaraswamy again joined them in departing from the SSPV. They then united in a loose manner as the Instauratio Catholica. Over time, even this loose confederation frayed and ceased to exist” (https://www.wikibin.org/articles/rama-p.-coomaraswamy.html). “[“Bishop”] Robert F. McKenna participated in a number of exorcisms and worked for many years with demonologist Dave Considine and Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McKenna). Need we say more?

Masonic origin of the term ‘traditionalist’

The term traditionalist came into use in 1965 when Rev. Gommar DePauw founded the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM) in New York. This was done under the auspices of a Masonic organization, The Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, (OSJ), also known as the Shickshinny Knights. (This group is not to be confused with the “Catholic “ order, the Knights of Malta, (SMOM), investigated under Pope Pius XII for Masonic infiltration and its status as a Catholic knighthood indefinitely suppressed. Pius XII died before the investigation was concluded, but Roncalli reinstated the order.) On its official letterhead, the OSJ itself claims regarding CTM: “During the Second Vatican Council, our members attending the council as Cardinals, Bishops, with their ‘periti’ priests realized there was going to be a great deal of confusion and disturbance afterwards. So under the brilliant and cogent leadership of our Grand Prelate Bishop Blaise S. Kurz and with the support of Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York, WE started the Catholic Traditionalist Movement” (document available on request).

As always maintained here, this proves that an alternative organization to sweep up those exiting Vatican 2 was deliberately created beforehand to deceive the elect. The ambiguous use of the word traditionalist or tradition, misapplied to the liturgy only and not used as the Church Herself defines it, was unquestionably accepted and adopted by Catholics who did not even know, far less understand, its origins and connection to an actual heresy condemned by the Church. In a 1981 article for The Roman Catholic publication, entitled “Light on the OSJ,” sedecvacantist Anthony Cekada wrote:

“In the mid-1960’s, the head of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM) in Westbury, New York, Father Gommar De Pauw, became involved with the OSJ. In a telegram to Mr. Pichel [OSJ co-founder] dated June 23, 1968, Father De Pauw (a Doctor of Canon Law and former seminary professor) said that: “I have today informed His Holiness Pope Paul VI that, in virtue of the perpetual privileges granted by his predecessors to the Sovereign Order, we have today offered the first public traditional Latin Mass in the Ave Maria Chapel of the Greater New York Priory located in the Catholic Traditionalist Center in Westbury… The red and white flag of our Order once again waves in American skies. Father De Pauw signed himself as “Knight-Commander of Justice, Prior, Chaplain.”

“OSJ literature published in 1968 noted that Father De Pauw was “Coordinator and Dean of the Roman Catholic Section” of the OSJ’s “Ecclesiastical Tribunal” and that the Westbury Chapel was the “Roman Catholic Church of the Order for the Official Investiture of Knights in the Greater New York Priory.” (The Coordinator of the “Old Roman Catholic Section of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal” was listed as “The Rev. Dr. Gerard G. Shelley.”) Other OSJ literature published that same year notes that: “From the very beginning, all the speeches and writings of the Rev. Dr. Gommar A. De Pauw established his eagerness and true feeling of the spirit of sane Ecumenism [???-Ed.] as opposed to insane ecumania in the following words: “The time is overdue when Traditionalist Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants join hands and forces to save whatever is left of Christianity.” Father De Pauw later left the OSJ and continued to celebrate the traditional Mass for the CTM.” (End of Cekada quotes). Cekada ends his article by advising Traditionalists not to join the OSJ.

In the article HERE, it is explained how Marcel Lefebvre was later identified with the OSJ and even acted as its Grand Master. Since Coomeraswamy was an avid Lefebvrist at one point and Cekada, Sanborn and others mentioned above were his admiring students, it is not a far leap to conclude Coomeraswamy was at least a sympathizer if not an actual OSJ member. Certainly the type of ecumenism professed by the OSJ tallies with his accursed perennialism. And what is practiced by associations such as ISOC and other LibTrad organizations is simply a “catholic” variety of ecumenism — uniting the fractured LibTrad clans claiming the name Catholic with no common doctrinal basis whatsoever for their beliefs. The Church is ONE in belief; apostolicity of DOCTRINE is superior to that of mission, for without teaching the true doctrines Christ taught His apostles, there could be no mission. True belief must precede practice, or nothing can be Catholic.

Yet further proofs Trad pseudo-clergy are invalid

Although there should be no need for additional proofs that LibTrad pseudo-clergy are indeed invalid, the above information should be added to the list. And here we also wish to add the following statement by the then Archbishop of Nicaea, Raphael Merry del Val, later to become Pope St. Pius X’s Secretary of State. In his 1902 refutation of the Protestant Dr. Oxenham, The Truth of Papal Claims, Abp. del Val proves that the idea that the juridic Church cannot exist without the Pope is not novel at all but was well understood in the early part of the 20th century, having already been taught by Pope Pius IX. Abp. del Val wrote:

“The Church is built upon the Apostles but upon the Apostles as Christ ranked them with their Prince at their head, who was endowed by Him with special prerogatives… Accordingly, St. Paul speaks of the Apostles collectively and he couples them with the Prophets as authorized teachers of divine truth. In doing so, Paul does not exclude but includes Peter with whatever powers Christ gave him. That special office must last as long as the Church herself remains, namely to the end of time… The Apostolic Office, therefore, remains in the Church in the person of St. Peter’s successor and in the Catholic episcopate when united to its divinely constituted head, the rock of the whole edifice. FOR WITHOUT HIM THERE CAN BE NO CATHOLIC EPISCOPATE AND NO SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTLES ACCORDING TO THE MIND OF CHRIST. And thus it is not correct to say, as Dr. Oxenham says, that ‘All bishops alike are successors of St. Peter as an apostle.’

“Bishops have power and jurisdiction in their own right, for the Holy Ghost hath placed them to rule or feed the Church of God and accordingly the Pope, the chief Bishop, addresses them as his ‘venerable brethren’. But the actual exercise of that power and jurisdiction which the bishops hold from God is BY THE WILL OF GOD united with and DEPENDENT UPON the Apostolic Office centered and living in the Rock, the chief Ruler, the Chief Shepherd of the whole flock. Unlike the individual apostles, the individual Bishop has not received from God a universal mission in the world.”  And Abp. del Val is not alone. Rev. J. Tixeront, in his Holy Orders and Ordination: A Study in the History of Dogma,(1928), quotes medieval canonists as far back as 1125 to the effect that for orders to be considered valid, they must be conveyed with the accompanying (papal) approval necessary to jurisdiction (i.e., papal mandate for episcopal consecration).

As Pope Pius IX, Abp. del Val and Pope Pius XII, (in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis) — all teach such presumed jurisdiction cannot exist without the pope. Rev. Tixeront insists that if there is any doubt regarding ordination or consecration, it must be conditionally repeated. And as the most recent practice of the Church shows: “(Nov. 18, 1931 Holy Office decision): “A Catholic who lapses from the Church and receives orders from a schismatic bishop can be received back into the Church only on the understanding that such ordinations, even if valid, will be completely disregarded,” (Dr. Leslie Rumble, Homiletic and Pastoral Review: “Are Liberal Catholic Orders Valid?” 1958).

Conclusion

Much more could be said on this topic and may be explored later, but the themes above only reinforce what I have tried to expose for over three decades. The neo-Modernist LibTrads are working in plain sight, if one only points out their covert affiliations, to bring about a LibTrad ecumenical version of the Novus Ordo church headed by yet another false pope. Their proponents may present as valid clergy, or even as laypeople praying at home. But their aim is the same — hide their true affiliations and beliefs in order to deceive, if possible, even the elect. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning warned us in his work The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (p. 111, 115-116) that the Old Catholics were planning a coup to topple the Church; one of the reasons that the Vatican Council was convened. And as Cekada quotes from an OSJ circular: “In a long program designed for the unity of all the Christian Churches, the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem recognizes and accepts both the Old Roman Catholic Church and the papal Roman Catholic Church as one and the same Universal Church.”

The more things change, the more they remain the same. In his encyclical Quartus Supra, Pope Pius IX wrote:

“Long ago Christ warned that many would come in His name, stating that they were the Christ, and as a result, seduce many; this has proved true. For by means of the new schism which arose three years ago among the Armenians in Constantinople, the common enemy of the human race is wholly engaged in undermining faith, destroying truth and disrupting unity by worldly wisdom, heretical discussion, subtle, clever deceit, and even, where possible, by the use of force. While exposing the pretenses and plots of this enemy, St. Cyprian lamented that ‘he snatches human beings out of the very church and while they think they have already drawn near to the light and escaped from the night of the world, he brings darkness over them once more in ways of which they are unaware. Thus, although they do not observe Christ’s gospel and His law, they call themselves Christians and judge that they possess the light while they walk in darkness, attracted and deceived by the adversary. For he transfigures himself like an angel of light, as the Apostle says (2 Cor 11.14) and disguises his ministers as ministers of justice who present night as day, ruin as salvation, hopelessness in the guise of hope, faithlessness under the pretext of faith, the antichrist with the title of “Christ.” Thus while telling lies which resemble truths, they make vain the truth by their subtlety… (para. 5)

“The chief deceit used to conceal the new schism is the name of “Catholic.” The originators and adherents of the schism presumptuously lay claim to this name despite their condemnation by Our authority and judgment. It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error… For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny their very rank… They are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority” (paras. 6 and 12).

We have quoted this many times before; it never grows old. And as many times as we discover that it is necessary, we will no doubt quote it again. This blog is written for the further education of those who already believe and understand, as well as for those laboring to understand. But FIRST AND FOREMOST, it is written to defend the truths of Faith and promote God’s honor and glory. So even if no one reads it at all, it will be printed here as God wills and for as long as He wills.