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.

The Catechism alone will definitely NOT save your soul

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 26, 2024 | New Blog

+St. Gabriel Possenti+

The topic of the “catechism only” as a source of instruction for Catholic adults is one that has prevailed for several months now and certain points need to be resolved in order to understand this issue properly. It has been stated that without learning the catechism you cannot save your soul, and while this is true, it needs to be pointed out that the truths found in the catechism come from a common source, and that without obedience to that entity, above and beyond anything found in the catechism, authored under the direction of the bishops, salvation cannot be had. For as Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libentur: “Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith.” And among these truths are the following.

Pope Boniface VIII: “We declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they, by necessity for salvation, are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

The Vatican Council: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”

Humani generis: “History teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion… Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me,” and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians” (Pope Pius XII, 1950).

Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton: Those documents “…sent to the episcopate of one country or region, [and] promptly entered into the Acta of the Holy Father, are thus indirectly sent, as normative documents, to the faithful of the entire world… We must not lose sight of the fact that, in the encyclical Humani generis, the Holy Father made it clear that any doctrinal decision printed in the pontifical Acta [Apostolica Sedis] must be accepted as normative by all theologians. This would apply to all decisions made in the course of the Sovereign Pontiff’s ordinary magisterium… 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 Generishas put an end to this dangerous minimism.” (American Ecclesiastical Review, “Infallibility in the Encyclicals”).

And now we will see how the above is applied to the catechism issue.

The Catechism Controversy

The actual teaching method used and structure of the catechism itself was a much-disputed topic beginning in the late 19^th century. This can be gleaned from reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on catechesis. This heated discussion continued up to the death of Pope Pius XII. It even continued after his death, when the old catechisms were gutted and Vatican 2 versions substituted. One of the last approved directives written on catechetical teaching was authored by the esteemed theologian, Canadian Bp. Emile Yelle, who Msgr. Fenton praised as “…one of the outstanding theologians of our time.”  Bp. Yelle’s little work, The Teaching of Catechism, was written in September 1958. In this gem of a work he emphasizes the fact that rote catechetics had long been a failure because the authors of the catechisms themselves and those teaching from them were not properly disposed, either in their writing of the catechism or their teaching.

He advises those writing catechisms to better illustrate and explain the text, to use “language understood by the child… [for] without preliminary explanation the child understands little or nothing of the text of the catechism. Nevertheless, he is obliged to memorize these formulas and to remember them so as to be able to recite them as a prayer: a tiresome task, the purpose of which he cannot understand, in which he is not interested; an effort which disgusts him with religious instruction and which perhaps without his being aware of it, and the teacher too, all unconscious of it, is fostering in the soul of the child religious indifference for the years to come… We taught mere words without explaining anything. We simply touched the surface without every reaching the life-giving spirit. We merely grazed the child’s faculties, never touching the intelligence and the heart. We taught a verbally correct doctrine, but its vivifying force has remained merely on the surface of the soul. Word for word method without explanation is certainly not the correct method of teaching catechism. It is simply the tyranny of the memory over the intelligence…

“The child can easily repeat wise sayings and yet for all that be not more learned, nor better educated. A great and needless fatigue has been imposed on him if indeed we have not contributed to create in him a secret desire to rid himself as soon as possible of this unassimilated burden. This first tedious contact with truth is a very poor introduction for any explanation. One might fancy that his work is done when the child has answered correctly that he has attained his goal and that the child ‘knows his catechism.’ No. It is no proof whatsoever that the child knows his catechism because he easily repeats stereotyped formulas… Instead of enlightening the mind of the child by some rays of light adapted to its capacity we have plunged it into darkness — vague ideas scarcely intelligible because insufficiently suitable — and the little that has been understood has left the impression of a world that is unreal and that has no connection with that in which the child lives and moves and sees. No attraction to religious acts, no invitation to the practice of Christian life: ideas suspended in mid-air like soap bubbles that break when they come in contact with the least speck of dust or explode under the slightest breeze. Terrible danger! And it may well be the explanation for that disheartening gap between the theoretical faith of our people and their actual way of life.”

And as for teachers, Bp. Yelle quotes from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical on education: “’That they be thoroughly prepared and well-grounded in the matter they have to teach [and] possess the intelligence and moral qualifications required by their important office; who cherish a pure and holy love for the truths confided to them, because they love Jesus Christ and His Church, of which these are the children of predilection; and who have therefore sincerely at heart the true good of family and country… It is necessary that the teacher understand the meaning of the text and the knowledge of the profound ‘truth’ that the words express to be able to distinguish the central point of the doctrines in order to revert to them in his explanations and in order to captivate the minds of the children by these beacons: Our Lord, the state of grace, prayer, faith Divine Providence, the Holy Eucharist and the spirit of sacrifice. It is evident that to do this requires more than a mere knowledge of words.”

“The teacher must know what the doctrine is and be able at the same time to express it in other words than those of the text. He must know the doctrine before teaching it; he must learn the Gospel by meditating upon it thus entering into all the details of the life of Our Lord in such a way [as to] be able to teach catechism in a truly Catholic way.” Please tell me who is it who will train us as catechists? Who has offered the means for such training from approved works? Where would we find these things? And even if we possessed them, how could we adapt it successfully to what Bp. Yelle so wisely suggests, when the rote method is all that anyone knows today? The little children’s catechism by Fr. Heeg, (my first catechism), posted on this site thanks to the tireless work of a kind benefactor, was chosen precisely to comply with Bp. Yelle’s suggestions. For it tells a story as well as offers questions to be answered and provides memory aids to help children better remember the lessons.

If those adults teaching and quoting the catechisms do not know or accept the doctrines on which they are based, and those doctrines that flow from what the popes later teach, how can they possibly impart the full scope of truths to their children or adult converts? How can they possibly claim to be obedient to the Roman Pontiffs or to love Our Lord when they are not accepting or teaching the whole truth, integral and entire?? For only from Christ’s Vicars themselves, not the bishops or the theologians, many of whom had long abandoned the true faith even before Vatican 2, can we be assured of infallible truth. Below we will rely on those yet faithful to the truth to explain the importance of what is known as doctrinal development.

How doctrine develops

As Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolante and Salvatore Garofalo write in their Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology (1951): “According to Catholic doctrine, a dogma cannot undergo intrinsic and substantial changes. There is an evolution, however, on the part of the faithful as to understanding and expressing a dogma (extrinsic and subjective evolution). This legitimate progress appears in the history of the dogmatic formulas defined by the Church as gradually the meaning of the truths contained in the sources of divine revelation came to be more profoundly and clearly understood.”

And this is also stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia under dogma: “The full meaning of certain revealed truths has been only gradually brought out; the truths will always remain. Language may change or may receive a new meaning; but we can always learn what meaning was attached to particular words in the past.” The full meaning here under discussion is the binding nature of the pope’s encyclical letters and other documents entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, the intrepid Abbot of Solesmes in his book, Pontifical Monarchy, explained authentic doctrinal development in these words: “It is a fundamental principle of theology, that all revealed truths were confided to the Church at the beginning; that some were explicitly proposed for our belief from the start, whereas others, although contained implicitly in the first set of truths, only emerged from them with the passage of time, by means of formal definitions rendered by the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, through Whom she is infallible.”

“May understanding, knowledge and wisdom progress as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.” — St. Vincent of Lerin. Msgr. Joseph. C. Fenton, commenting on this statement by St. Vincent points out:

“The Vatican Council has used the words of Saint Vincent of Lerin to declare as a matter of faith that the understanding of one man as well as that of the Church as a whole can progress and grow in its grasp of the revealed truth and that this growth always takes place in one and the same sense and meaning (DZ 1800). There can be no question, of course, of new doctrines or propositions which the ancient Church did not recognize as revealed but which the same Church in later years accepted as having been communicated by God. Neither can there be a question of some statement which God added to the deposit of faith after the death of the last apostle. As a matter of fact, there has been no addition whatever to the content of public revelation since the death of Saint John the Evangelist.

“The Church is, and has been since Her inception, perfectly infallible in Her teaching of the revealed truth. Since She first came into being, She has taught the entire doctrine which God gave to the world through Jesus Christ our Lord without error. Then the definite progress in dogma and in sacred theology has come in the process of resolving problems and questions in such a way that the true and objective meaning which was contained in the divine teaching is set forth continually in answer to attacks against Catholic doctrine and for the enlightenment of the piety of the faithful throughout the ages” (The Concept of Sacred Theology, 1941).

And in another essay, “The Church and Catholic Dogma,” written for the American Ecclesiastical Review in February 1949, Msgr. Fenton comments further:

“When he began his preparation for the definition of the Immaculate Conception, Pope Pius IX made it completely clear that he relied upon the assistance of divine grace to enlighten his mind on the project he was about to undertake. In an encyclical letter, dated Feb. 2, 1849, the great pontiff begged the bishops of the Catholic world to have the faithful entrusted to their care pray publicly for him. Yet Pope Pius IX certainly did not consider that this divine help in any way exempted him from examining the properly theological evidence about this doctrine. In this same encyclical he announced the appointment of a pontifical commission to study this evidence and to report to him.

“The commission appointed at that time by Pope Pius IX applied itself first of all to a consideration of the characteristics in function of which a truth or a proposition is said to be definable as Catholic dogma. It indicated no less than nine principles which must be employed in evaluating a proposition as definable. The first four among these principles dealt with the type of evidence not absolutely necessary in order that a proposition should properly be judged as definable.

“(1) The fact that, in the past, there have been conflicting teachings on this subject within the Catholic Church, or the fact that all have not hitherto agreed on this teaching, does not render a doctrine incapable of definition.

(2) The fact that even authoritative writers can be quoted in opposition to a teaching does not render that teaching incapable of being defined.

(3) In order that a doctrine be definable, it is not necessary that there should be explicit, or even implicit, testimony to this doctrine in Sacred Scripture, since it is certain and manifest that the scope of revelation is wider than that of Scripture.

(4) In order to show that the doctrine to be defined belongs to Tradition, it is not necessary to adduce a series of Fathers and of other witnesses reaching back to apostolic times.

“All of these negative principles imply the commission’s conviction that, in order that a doctrine should be considered as definable, there must be real evidence that this teaching is actually to be found in the apostolic deposit of divine public revelation. The commission manifested not the slightest trace of willingness to content itself with a conviction about the definability of a doctrine based upon some corporate religious sense within the Church or upon any other so-called “non-intellectual” factor. This concern of the commission shows itself even more clearly in the positive principles it delineates.

“(1) In order that a statement may be considered as definable, there must be a certain number of solemn testimonies directly pertinent to it.

(2) A proposition is capable of being defined if there can be found one or more revealed principles containing it.)

(3) A proposition is capable of being defined if it shows a necessary connection with dogmas. In other words, a proposition ought to be accepted as revealed when, from the denial of this proposition, there follows by logical and immediate necessity the denial of one or more revealed principles.

(4) A proposition may be defined as Catholic dogma if it is preached as a part of divine public revelation in the concordant teaching of the actual episcopate. (T. Benns comment: Found in all Catholic Catechisms, duly authorized by diocesan bishops, beginning with the Catechism of the Council of Trent.)

(5) A proposition is capable of definition when it is shown to be a part of divine public revelation by the practice of the Church.

“In calling for a theological examination of the question he considered defining and for a study of the conditions that rendered a truth capable of definition, Pope Pius IX stated clearly that he was following the precedent established by his predecessors on the pontifical throne.” Msgr. Fenton references another article he terms as excellent, Opinions Concerning Doctrinal Development, by Rev. Charles Sheedy, C.S.C., published in the January 1949 edition of The American Ecclesiastical Review,  that places what is said above in perfect perspective. Rev. Sheedy wrote: “Thus it is clear that there has been progress, development in the dogmatic teaching of the Church, not merely in precision of terms but in actual content and subject matter. Doctrines are taught today as divinely revealed which were not explicitly taught 100 years ago and after the Council of Trent, a whole galaxy of truths entered into the dogmatic teaching of the Church, proposed to the faith of Catholics, not as new dogmas, BUT AS CONTAINED IN THE ANCIENT DEPOSIT.

“In a genuine development, a doctrine is presented by the Church as pertaining to faith which did not enter into the explicit faith of Christians of earlier times, perhaps a truth which did not even occur to them. Or again, a truth which was not universally accepted but which was thought to lie in the area of free theological disputation is later taken out of that area and formally recognized as part of the original deposit.” This is true regarding the “implicit desire” of the Suprema haec sacra, for example, which inspires so much venom from Feeneyites, and was first contradicted by Leonard Feeney. That contradiction was definitively condemned by Pope Pius XII.

Errors in the catechisms

Can the ignorance of later developments of dogma, decisions of the Roman Pontiffs entered into the Acta, contribute to actual errors or inaccuracies in the catechisms many are using today? They can and they have. Two examples are listed below:

Bishop Louis Morrow, My Catholic Faith, 1958, 1961: In his section on The Sphere of Infallibility, Morrow writes: “The Pope… must speak as the Vicar of Christ in his office as Pope and to the whole Church; to all the faithful throughout the world. In his capacity as private teacher, for example in his encyclical letters, he is as any other teacher of the Church. We accept what he teaches not on faith but in obedience to his authority, out of respect for his experience and wisdom.” Morrow states that Rev. Francis J. Connell “painstakingly reviewed” his work, and yet Connell’s own statement in a previous article and later in his catechism on this subject does not read the same.

Fr. Francis J. Connell’s 1949 Baltimore Catechism: “

In an article for The American Ecclesiastical Review, (November 1947) Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.S.S.R. wrote: “Besides the infallible teachings of the Church on matters contained in Revelation or connected with it, there also are pronouncements of Her official teachers which are authoritative though not infallible. . Such are decisions of the Roman Congregations or Commissions, and also doctrines taught by the pope officially, but without the intention of using the fullness of his authority and of giving a definitive decision. The statements of the Sovereign Pontiff are usually in this category. The faithful are obliged in conscience to accept such decisions internally, for even though their correctness is not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, those who formulate and promulgate them are undoubtedly aided by the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, every natural precaution is taken before such declarations are published, particularly the meticulous supervision of men who are specialists in the matters involved, [see also DZ 2008]. The acceptance of these decisions is not an act of Divine faith, but is rather an act of obedience, known as religious assent…The general rule is that all Catholics, learned and unlearned, clergy and laity, must acquiesce wholeheartedly to these authoritative (though not infallible) decisions of the Church…”

Bishop Morrow cannot be excused for his statement since it was written 10 years after Humani generis was released in 1950. He went on to accept Vatican 2, while Connell did not. Rev. Connell’s remarks, however, were written prior to 1950 and doubtlessly were adjusted once Humani generis was released, (although one wonders why he would have passed over Bp. Morrow’s statements, given what he says above.) So those using the 1949 Connell and Morrow catechisms are misinformed on this topic because they trust what a priest and a bishop say over what the pope has taught. So how could these catechisms be considered infallible? Msgr. Fenton shows how some tried to pretend that Pius XII never intended to admit that encyclicals could be infallible in the first place by mistranslating one word in Humani generis(Msgr. Fenton’s article on this is available on request). And clearly this belief dichotomy continued into Vatican 2 as Fenton further notes and I have explained from an historical perspective HERE.

Conclusion

It is true that catechisms contain infallible truths; they simply do not generally contain ALL the truths we as Catholics today must know and understand to make sense out of the nightmare we have endured for the past 65 years. Fr. Connell’s 1949 catechism was written for ninth graders. If anyone thinks we were intended to remain at the level of a ninth-grade education to accomplish anything else in life, far less save our souls in these troubled times, they must be mad. As Bp. Yelle pointed out, it is a lack of understanding the catechism and putting it into practice that destroyed the faith of young Catholics and led to Vatican 2. Those believing the catechism is enough to know about their faith obviously have not read the many papal allocutions on Catholic Action or catechesis, and they certainly should heed the words of Peter Michaels, who wrote: “If all Catholics have a moral duty to understand their faith at their level of secular education few of us are going to be saved. A college graduate for instance ought to have a pretty good understanding of Saint Thomas and of the natural law. He ought to see the major issues involved in restoring society to God. Do you by any chance think he does? Pope Pius XI said in another connection: ‘In our day and age, an unenlightened heroism is not enough’” (This Perverse Generation, 1949).

Those advocating “the catechism only” theory have not been honest in pointing out the dangers of their thesis. It is our responsibility to see that those they are misinforming know the truth.