by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 2, 2025 | New Blog
+Feast of All Souls+
Marcel Crozet
November, Month of the Poor Souls in Purgatory
Prayer Society Intention
“Have mercy Lord on all who wait, in place forlorn and lonely state outside thy peaceful palace gate, miserere Domine.” (Litany of the Faithfully Departed)
Introduction
The following excerpts are taken from the little book, The Consolations of Purgatory, by Rev. H. Faure, S.M., 1912, translated by a papal chamberlain to Pope St. Pius X. We have written in the past about the rigoristic teachings regarding the saved and the lost, stemming from the Jansenist heresy, and the despair it has wrought among those struggling today to save their souls. This rigorism also touches on the disposition of the dead and dying and could easily result in a false judgment about their fate, meaning prayers could be omitted for those actually in Purgatory but presumed to have lost their souls because of this false view. Especially in these times, when so many previous helps available to us are lacking, we believe it is more important than ever to rely completely on God’s mercy and do all in our power to relieve the suffering of the souls in Purgatory by our prayers, since they can no longer pray for their own salvation. We now begin Rev. Faure’s comments.
How a Christian should mourn the friends he has lost
“St. Francis of Sales tells us that if we have the misfortune to lose our relations or our friends, we should not give way to excessive sorrow, for this world is too poor a place for us to wish them to remain long in it, and it is so miserable that we ought rather to thank God than be distressed when He removes them from it. We too shall go in our turn, when it shall please God to call us ;and those who depart the first are the happiest, provided that during their lives they have thought of the salvation of their souls. It is the greatest consolation for the children of God, when their relations and friends die fortified by the Sacraments of the Church, and we ought always to take the greatest care that our sick friends are not deprived of this great blessing.
“Yet I do not tell you not to weep,” says the Saint, ‘for it is right that you should weep a little to show the sincere affection you had for the dear departed. In that you imitate Jesus Christ, who wept for his friend Lazarus. We cannot prevent our poor hearts from feeling the condition of this life, and the loss of those who were our dearly-loved companions on earth ; but there should be moderation in the outward expression of our grief, and the tears we shed should not be so much tears of regret as signs of love and compassion. Let us not weep like those who are wholly given up to this present life, and who forget that it is merely a prelude to eternity. Let us adore the secret designs of Divine Providence, and say often in the midst of our tears, “‘Blessed be Thou, O God, for all that pleases Thee is good.”
“Religion does not forbid us to feel the loss of those we have loved ; it does not require of us a callous stoicism which is but pride or indifference. Our Blessed Lord has consecrated affection, and blessed the kindly offices of friendship; in the Church, too, we mourn with all our hearts, but the tears that we shed are sweet, because they are poured out upon the breast of our Divine Master, with the resignation that comes from faith and hope and love. Listen to the plaintive cry of affection which burst from the heart of St. Jerome at the grave of his dear Nepotian: ‘To whom shall I henceforth devote my watchings and labours? To whose heart shall I confide my most secret thoughts? Where is he who used to encourage me in my work by the sound of his voice, which was sweeter to me than the last song of the dying swan? Nepotian can no longer hear me: all around me seems dead. If I try to write, I cannot see the paper for my tears, and my pen refuses to write, as if these inanimate things had a share in my grief. Every time I try to give it a free course, and to scatter a few flowers on the grave of my friend, my eyes are filled with tears, and my grief bows me down to the earth beneath which he lies.” …
“St. Francis of Sales writes to a person in mourning: “‘I have never been able to believe in the pretended indifference of those who do not wish us to be human; but at the same time, when we have paid tribute to the lower part of our soul, we must do our duty to the higher part, where, as on a throne, sits the spirit of faith which should console us in our afflictions, and by those same afflictions themselves. Happy are they who rejoice at being afflicted and thus change gall into honey! God be praised! It is always with tranquility that I weep, always with submission to the will of God; for since Our Lord loved death, and gave it to us as the object of our love, I cannot be angry with death for having taken away from me my sisters or any of my friends, provided that they die in the love of the holy death of Our Saviour. I value this mortal life so little that I never turn to God with more fervent love than when He has smitten me, or permitted me to be smitten.
“Is it not reasonable that the most holy will of God should be done in what we most cherish as in all else? Alas! I am but human; my heart is touched more than I should ever have thought: but I will never rebel against the providence of God, who does all things well, and disposes of everything for the best. What happiness for that soul to have been taken away from the world before malice could pervert its spirit, and to have been lifted from the mire of earth before it was soiled! Of what use is it to live long, asks the author of the Imitation of Christ, when we advance so little? Long life does not always amend us; nay, oftentimes it rather increases our guilt. Let us leave God to gather what He has planted; He takes all in due season.
“We must not only be willing that God should chastise us; but we must be willing that He should do it in the way He thinks best. Let us leave the choice to Him, for it belongs to Him. Moreover, God is a good Father; He knows why He afflicts us, and why He takes away those whom we love. Let us try to look at things as God looks at them and let faith help us in sacrifices which are impossible to nature. Let us say to God from the bottom of our hearts, Lord, let it be as Thou wilt; touch whatever cord Thou wilt in my heart it will make only a sweet harmony to Thee. O Jesus, Thy will be done without reserve, without exception, without limit, on father, mother, daughter, on all and everywhere! Ido not say we must not wish our friends a long life and pray for their preservation ; but we must never say to God, Leave this, and take the other. And if God takes away what is dearest, shall we not still have enough, if we have God? Is not that everything ? Alas! the Son of God, our dear Redeemer, had hardly as much as that, when, having left all for love and obedience to His Father, He seemed to be forsaken and abandoned by Him.”
We must pray for all the departed, and not despair for the salvation of any
“St. Francis of Sales would not have us despair of the conversion of a single sinner till he breathed his last sigh. He went still further and did not like to hear anyone pass an unfavourable judgment even on those who had died after living a bad life. His principal argument was that, as the first grace of justification is not merited by any precedent good work, the last grace, which is that of final perseverance, is not given us for any merit of our own. “For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor ?’’ (Rom. xi.34). Therefore he bade us hope for the dead person, even though we might have seen him die an unhappy death, because we can but conjecture from outward appearances, by which even the wisest persons may be deceived.
“His biographer, Mgr. Le Camus, Bishop of Bellez, tells us that one day someone was repeating in his presence those solemn words of the Gospel, ‘Many are called, but few chosen ”’ (St. Matt. xx. 16) and remarking that the elect were spoken of as a “little flock”’ (St. Luke xli. 32), and the number of the reprobate as infinite, and so on. The Saint replied: “‘I believe there will be very few Christians damned ” (he was speaking of those belonging to the Catholic Church), ‘because the root of the true faith which they had must sooner or later produce its fruit, which is salvation ; from being dead it becomes alive and works by charity.”
“When he was asked what was the meaning of the Gospel parable of the small number of the elect, he replied: “If we compare the number of Catholic Christians with the rest of the world, including heathen nations, their number is certainly very small, but of this number I believe very few will be lost ;’’ and in support of this opinion he appealed to the goodness of God, being confident that He, having begun a good work in a man — that is, by giving him the faith — would perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus. Was it possible, he asked, that the vocation to Christianity, which was a work of God and a perfect work, leading to the supreme end which is the glory of heaven, should very often fail to produce its effect?
“I added then, says the Bishop, the following reason, which he admitted to be a good one: the mercy of God being above all His works, and surpassing even His justice, it does not appear likely that He would have begun to build up the salvation of the true Christian by faith, which is the foundation, without putting on the crowning stone, which is charity. Although the Church has not pronounced upon this disputed question, the belief in the greater number of the elect seems nevertheless conformable to the true meaning of Holy Scripture. In the twentieth chapter of St. Matthew, the kingdom of heaven is likened to a householder who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. He went out again about the third hour, and again at the sixth, and the ninth, and even at the eleventh hour, and hired men, and sent them to work; and when evening was come, he ordered his steward to pay them their hire, giving to those who had worked but one hour the same as to those who had been engaged from the early morning. These last began to complain, and the Master reminded them that he had paid them the wage for which they had agreed to work and added: “So shall the last be first, and the first last, for many are called, but few chosen.”
“Now, if we wish to understand the meaning of the ‘ast words, we must not separate them from the context, but explain them by the rest oftheparable. Andwhat,asksalearnedtheo- logian, do we see in this parable? Are the majority of the labourers deprived of their wages at the end of the day, and are we to con- clude that the majority of men who work for God on earth will lose their reward in heaven? ‘No; all the labourers in the parable receive the same reward, and the only conclusion we can draw from the sacred text is the inequality of the wages and reward after the toils and hard- ships of life. But, far from being the expression of God’s anger, these words are the manifestation of His mercy towards sinners, and the marvellous efficacy of true repentance.
“In the twenty-second chapter of the same Gospel the kingdom of heaven is likened to a king who made a marriage for his son, but those who were invited—.e., the Jews—would not come. Then he sent his servants to go into the highways and call to the marriage all they could find ; and his servants gathered together all they could find, both bad and good. These are the Gentiles and barbarians called to the faith of Jesus Christ ;and among all this crowd only one man was rejected, because he had not on a wedding garment. Then the king said to the waiters:‘ “‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.” One only is excluded: here again, then, the number of the reprobate is the smaller number.
“Thus, concludes the learned Bergier (Dict. Theolog. Elect.), if the parables of the Gospel are to be admitted as proofs, we must believe that the greater number, and not the smaller number, will be saved. Jesus Christ compares the separation of the just from the wicked at the Last Judgment to the separation of the cockle from the wheat at the time of harvest (St. Matt. xiii. 24); but in a field that is cultivated with ordinary care, the cockle is never more abundant than the wheat. Again, He compares it to the separation of the fish caught in the net, of which the good were chosen into vessels, and the bad thrown away (ver. 47) ; but what fisherman is so unfortunate as to catch more bad fish than good? Of the ten virgins who went to meet the bridegroom and the bride (xxi. 1), five were allowed to go in with the bridegroom to the marriage; in the parable of the talents (xxv. 14), two servants were rewarded, and only one was punished; and, as we have seen, only one guest was sent away from the marriage feast.
“This is also the opinion of the profound and learned Suarez, the great commentator of St. Thomas: “ Under the name of Christians we may include all those who have the honour to bear the name of Jesus Christ, and profess to believe in Him, although among them many are heretics, apostates, and schismatics, and in this sense we may say it is probable that the greater number will be rejected; and it is thus I understand the more severe opinion. For as there have been always many heretics and apostates, if we add to their number those Catholics who die a bad death, it is evident that they will be far more numerous than those who die well. But if by Christians we understand those only who die in the Catholic Church, it seems to me more probable under the law of grace that the greater number will be saved. The reason is, first, that the greater number of those who die in infancy have been baptized ; and as to the adults, although the majority of men commit mortal sin, yet they repent of their sins and pass their lives alternately sinning and repenting.
“Moreover, there are few who are not prepared for death by the Sacraments, and who do not at least make an act of attrition in detestation of their sins, and that is enough to justify them at once; and the rest of their life is so short that it is easy for them to persevere without falling again into mortal sin. Thus, all things being considered, it is probable that the majority of Christians — that is to say (taking the word in its more restricted meaning), the majority of those who die in the Catholic Church — will be saved. Pensatis omnibus, verisimile est plures ex his Christianis salvari’’ (Suarez, book vi., chap. iii.).
“This distinction removes all difficulty in the interpretation of the sacred text. Many are called, because it is of faith that God will have all men to be saved (x Tim. ii. 4); few are chosen, if we consider the whole human race and the great number of those who do not belong to the Catholic Church. ‘“Vidi turbam magnam quam dinumerare nemo poterat,”’ says St. John in his visions of the Apocalypse (vii. 9). ‘‘I saw a great multitude which no man could number of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne, and in sight of the Lamb, with white robes, and palms in their hands.”’
“The belief in the greater number of the elect is more in harmony with the infinite goodness and mercy of God, and more likely to encourage and comfort us; but we must not make it an excuse for committing sin, which would necessarily draw down upon us the anger and the curse of God. Thus, then, even when those we mourn have not led very regular or Christian lives, even when they have died suddenly without time to receive the last Sacraments of Holy Church, let us not despair ;let us remember that the mercy of God is infinite — quoniam in saculum misericordia ejus. Who can tell that some good thought, some perfect act of contrition, did not find a place between the last word and the last sigh? Who knows all the secrets of that God who ‘“‘will have all men to be saved” (x Tim. il.4); who “desireth not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live”? (Ezech. xxxiii. 11) ? God Himself says by the mouth of the prophet Isaias: “‘Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? And if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee. Behold, I have graven Thee in my hands” (Isa. xliv. v.12)…
“St. Gertrude, in her revelations, tells us of a promise made by Our Lord, full of precious consolation in respect of those whose careless lives have given us reason to doubt of their dispositions at the hour of death, and the sincerity of their repentance. ‘While I was reflecting on the fact that many Christians at the hour of death seem to repent more from fear of eternal, punishment than from love of God — for I had heard that no one can be saved without so much love of God as will produce repentance and abandonment of sin — Our Lord said to me: ‘When I see in their agony persons who for My sake have done some good action deserving of reward, I will show Myself to them at the hour of death with a countenance so full of love and compassion that they will repent from the bottom of their hearts for having offended Me during their lives, and will be saved by that repentance. I desire that My chosen ones should recognize this mercy, and give thanks for it among the many gifts that men have received from Me’” (Life of St. Gertrude, book iii.chap. xxx).
“Hope, then, dear sorrowing souls; hope in that God whose mercy “exalteth itself above judgment” (St. Jas. 1i. 13). Trust in Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is so full of love and pity that He cannot bear to let anyone perish, but will go forth, like the Good Shepherd, to search for the lost sheep till His feet are torn and bleeding from the thorns and stones of the road, and when He has found it will lay it on His sacred shoulders, rejoicing. Have you ever heard of love so tender, so compassionate as His? The Gospel tells us He went through Judea doing good ;comforting the afflicted, healing the sick, raising the dead, and repulsed none who came to Him. The prophet Isaias says of Him: “Calamum quassatum non conteret, et linum fumigans non extinguet’’—The bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not quench (Isa. xlii. 3).
“He forgave the penitent Magdalene, and would not condemn the woman taken in adultery; and when His friend Lazarus died, He wept, for He loved him. He wept, too, over the guilty city, when from the summit of the neighbouring hill He contemplated it in its magnificence and its ingratitude, and those sad words showed the sorrow of His fatherly heart : “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not” (St .Matt. xxiii. 37). And as He cannot bear to live far away from those whom He had loved so much, and who put Him to death, He perpetuates the miracle of the Eucharist, and remains the prisoner of the tabernacle, always a victim and a friend, blessing us, and drawing us to Him, the clean oblation continually offered to appease the justice of His Father.
“Go, then, to Him, ye who weep ; go and throw yourselves at the feet of that Jesus who calls you and says: “Come to Me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you (St. Matt. xi. 28). Yes, come to this good Master, this loving and charitable Friend; pour out on His bosom your tears of anguish: He has words to console you, and He will fill your souls with hope that will lift you up, and love that will give you strength to endure all things.
“He awaits your prayers; He encourages and invites them. Perhaps in His merciful charity He has made the salvation of some departed friends depend upon the prayers that you will offer Him after their death: pray, then, pray with confidence, however discouraging may have been the lives of those you mourn. God is so good, so compassionate and merciful, that He will never refuse anything He is able to give; His heart cannot but be touched by your prayer. Pray, and perhaps soon the souls that you love, preserved by your prayers from everlasting fire, will come forth from the place of expiation full of gratitude, and wing their flight to heaven, there to enjoy the presence of God forever. (End of Rev. Faure excerpts)
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 24, 2025 | New Blog
+St. Raphael, Archangel+
Introduction
Readers are probably sick and tired of hearing about the dangers of Feeneyism and we are sick of addressing it. But times and circumstances now exist that did not exist when Feeney was excommunicated in 1953. Then we had a visible Church, a Church which has always taught in Her official documents throughout the ages, Suprema haec sacra most recent among them, that implicit desire could possibly apply even to pagan and non-Catholics in certain cases, not generally. The false dogma that it applied in all cases became the teaching of the Novus Ordo church following the election of John 23 and the official establishment of neo-Traditionalism. Feeneyism is the topic here once again because it must be understood that this heresy is being used as a cover operation for a more generalized campaign to totally discredit the papacy and Pope Pius XII in particular.
This should not surprise those who understand the level of infiltration by Modernists, Communists and secret societies that has taken place over the past 200 years. Their first targets were the Jesuits, the “Secret Service” for the papacy, because this order was closest to and most loyal to the Roman Pontiff. Modern-day conspiracy theorists have made Jesuits past and present the root of all evil, in an effort to deflect the extent of the damage done by secret societies as a loosely connected whole. This is certainly true of the Novus Ordo Jesuits of today. But over the centuries it is the secret societies, not the Jesuits, that have so fine-tuned the art of infiltration and dissemination of error that it now happens undetected under our very noses and not infrequently on a personal level.
Tracking those who insist on papal obedience
Because of my insistence on obeying the teachings of the Roman Pontiff as far back as 1981, I have been specifically targeted by various groups and individuals who took issue with my defense of the papacy and particularly my support for a papal election. The first challenge to my suggestion to elect a pope in 1982-83 came from a British group writing out of London. I was brought to this group’s attention by a Trad “priest” who I had recently left for teaching heresy. One of this British group’s members later became a well-known LibTrad apologist. They ran an actual Gnostic cult that preyed on families in the U.S. and Europe and I was one of its members for a short time — about nine months. They promoted papal teaching to some extent but adamantly opposed a papal election or imperfect council.
Their cruel treatment of children and parents was anything but Catholic and whatever they were they were not Catholic themselves. This experience and other life-changing events I was undergoing at that time made me perfect fodder for the ill-fated David Bawden papal election effort. Bawden was also briefly involved with the British group but later claimed to share my views on the papacy. This, I learned later, however, was only to further his own personal aspirations. He and his convert father, a former (?) Freemason and John Birch Society publicity director, planned his election all along, even though they knew I did not believe David was a fit candidate. They also used shaming techniques at the time of the election to coerce me and a fellow election supporter to “vote” for Bawden when no one else presented as a candidate.
I learned only later of the Masonic connection to the founding of every Traditionalist movement in the United States; of the confirmation of Marcel Lefebvre’s own membership in a Masonic group, (in addition to his ordination and consecration by Lienart) and of the Masonic makeup of the heads of the John Birch Society. I even had a former Bawden “cardinal” inform me that the Bawdens were actually working for and with the Society of Saint Pius X to make certain no validly ordained or consecrated priest or bishop would be elected as pope. For even if elected by the laity, it could appear that such a man was a true pope, even though today the canonical election necessary to validity is an impossibility.
During my time with Bawden, I worked as a reporter under two editors in two different states who identified themselves as ex-military intelligence officers. After leaving Bawden I was shadowed by someone who, unbeknownst to me, was connected with the British people that operated the cult. I later discovered he was indeed still in communication with them. After moving to yet another state, I was approached by someone who wanted to “give me a platform” and make videos and I agreed to this. Later they were taken down and the producer campaigned to discredit me. A reader informed me afterward that this person also was military intelligence.
I will always regret attempting to elect David Bawden as pope, but I will never regret defending the papacy at a time when nearly all LibTrads were demeaning it and questioning it. And if even a master theologian and logician such as St. Vincent Ferrer could err in supporting an antipope and still manage to be canonized, the demonization of those who made what St. Vincent’s biographers described as an error or “mistake” should be seen as nothing more than this: a manifestation of LibTrad fears that a true papacy might be restored.
A more personal surveillance
And the intrusion into my privacy did not end there. Several other people appeared on the scene of my new location, one an ex-law enforcement person and were welcomed into my home, introduced to my family and treated as guests, as a sign of good will. These were people I had corresponded with for a fairly long time over the Internet. They professed to be sincere stay-at-home Catholics, (but then some Feeney sect members do pray at home). Sure enough, over a period of time, all of them denounced the Church’s teaching on the papacy and left to join — you guessed it — the Feeneyites.
I’m sorry but I don’t believe all the above are coincidences. As I have mentioned before, in the majority of cases coincidences are messengers of the truth. Certainly this many coincidences cannot simply be dismissed as happenstance. The fact that Feeneyism has been used by these individuals as their way “out” is quite telling. Also suspicious is the timeline of the arrival and departure of these people. Just as one would depart, another would suddenly arrive. I refused to consider myself a victim but I do believe that all this demonstrates a pattern of deceit, infiltration, an attempt to obtain personal information and to discredit anything presented on this site.
Feeneyism is only a convenient excuse to join the ranks of those bent on destroying the Church’s teaching on the supreme jurisdiction granted by Christ to St. Peter, just as Feeney himself — the first neo-Traditionalist — set out to do. No matter how it manifests, whether from sedevacantist quarters, other LibTrad groups, recusant “Catholics” or the recognize and resist sector — at the top, all are secretly if indirectly linked to an effort to destroy the idea of an infallible papacy possessing supreme jurisdiction. They especially zero in on Pope Pius XII because he put the ax to the root of the tree and brought a screeching halt to everything that attempted to violate papal jurisdiction or Church law during an interregnum.
What to do if approached
Beware of them in your own dealings. They often present as Greeks bearing gifts (the Trojan horse) and present a sad story of some sort. Do not judge rashly but simply distance yourselves, pray and watch. We are entering times when we must protect ourselves and our families from every possible threat to our faith, no matter how innocent it may seem. The devil is a raging lion seeking whom he may devour, and his time is growing shorter. This blog has been difficult to write, but I don’t know how else to warn people of what is fast approaching.
As noted before, if baptism of desire does not exist, this jeopardizes the belief in confession of desire (a Perfect Act of Contrition) and the reception of the Eucharist by desire (Spiritual Communion). Both these beliefs are solidly grounded in the constant teaching of the Church. It must be remembered that Feeney himself headed up a destructive personality cult (see HERE and HERE). Also, shortly before his death, his excommunication was lifted by no less than Paul 6, which tells us where he issued from in the first place. Baptism by desire, (in some cases where water baptism cannot be received by a trustworthy person) and Church membership by desire are crucial to our existence in these times. Those who were busy destroying the Church were certainly aware of this. So Feeney played the dual role of labeling Pius XII as a heretic and casting doubt on the very means of salvation that would remain once the destruction of the Church was accomplished.
We should remember that these infiltration tactics are common practice. In her 2023 work, When the Sickle Swings, Kristen Van Uden quotes one Cuban refugee who explained that “Due to [an] atmosphere of distrust and uncertainty, many Cubans who felt called to resistance preferred to take renegade individual action rather than become entangled with [a] group… It may not have been as effective a strategy as organized resistance but it was safer… This strategy is still employed today as the culture of informing and infiltration still reigns supreme in Cuba.” And sadly it is practiced today even by those pretending to be Catholic.
Conclusion
This is enough about Feeney, an angry little man who served as a prototype for the early Traditionalist groups in this country. If we omit his name from what we see as the result of his teachings concerning the authority of the papacy — the same teachings basically espoused by LibTrads — we can dismiss his stance as a straw man fallacy, something that “…doesn’t accurately reflect the stance that it was originally meant to address… [and] is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand” (effectiviology.com). What IS directly relevant is the demeaning of Pope Pius XII and papal authority modeled by Feeney, not his rejection of implicit desire or his pitiful cult. Those hiding behind the EENS distortion he promoted are really, at heart, deniers of infallibility and supreme papal jurisdiction, just as Feeney himself was.
Just because they adopt this heretical stance doesn’t mean they get to hide behind the hype that now surrounds him, websites that promote Feeney as a sort of folk hero and warning bell for Vatican 2, despite his return to this sect. Take Feeney out of the equation and you have the Pope St. Pius V Society that refuses to accept the changes in the ritual for Holy Week, the promoters of the ridiculous material-formal hypothesis and all the other LibTrad sects. They all operate invalidly, denying that Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis nullified their very reception of Orders during an interregnum and strips them of any and all vestiges of authority.
Secret societies, the Modernists the Communists — the founders of neo-Traditionalism among them — all were working from their inception to destroy Catholic monarchies and the papacy, and they have openly declared as much. Strip the Feeney shroud from those pretending to be “ultra-Catholic” — believing they are cleverly one-upping those already insisting on obedience to everything the popes taught — and you simply have a denial that the Church has the power to determine how Her own age-old teachings on implicit desire are to be believed and understood. From here on out these deniers should simply be recognized as the LibTrad heretics and schismatics they truly are, not Feeneyites.
And if some claim that they are rightly acting on an erroneous conscience, then we should pray for them and recommend them to God’s mercy, all the while condemning everything they teach and do. For this is the teaching of Canon Law under Can. 2200: They are to be judged as heretics and non-members of the Church until the contrary is proven. Therefore pray, watch, and hit out with the stick whenever necessary.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 13, 2025 | New Blog
+St. Edward the Confessor+
Introduction
If some basic Catholic principles were better understood, how much easier our life as Catholics would be. We keep returning to the matter of invincible ignorance and the Church’s true meaning regarding this term. In the minds of some, the meaning of this phrase has been unduly expanded as a blanket excuse for the assumed salvation of any and all non-Catholics. Certainly this is the case with the Novus Ordo teaching on the topic and a lax view of invincible ignorance had even come into vogue before the death of Pope Pius XII in some quarters.
The question here is, did what Pope Pius XII taught in this letter issued in the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney differ dogmatically from what had been taught by the Church previously? Fr. Leonard Feeney maintained that the doctrine as taught by Pope Pius XII was unknown as stated prior to the issuance of Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) and Suprema haec sacra (1949). There has even been a question raised regarding the pope’s health and possible mental acuity at the time these documents were written, although Pius XII’s health issues did not manifest themselves until August of 1952 through December of 1953, while Suprema haec sacra was written in 1949. It is true that Feeney was excommunicated in February 1953 during the course of Pope Pius XII’s illness, but this was a natural consequence of his refusal to retract his false interpretation of the salvation doctrine following the release of Suprema haec sacra.
Instead Feeney responded by calling Cardinal Cushing a heretic and accused the Holy Office of scandal and heresy, which implicitly included Pope Pius XII, who was head of the Holy Office. Was Feeney excommunicated solely for his disobedience to the Roman Pontiff? It is assumed that he was, but he actually held as true a heresy which had been condemned by Pope St. Pius V, so it well could be that he also was guilty of heresy. Holy Office proceedings and the full nature of excommunications are protected by secrecy, so it is impossible to know the details of his excommunication. It is enough to know that it is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and therefore must be accepted as binding on the faithful.
So let us review below what older catechisms and theologians taught regarding invincible ignorance, which must exist if one is to be considered capable of possessing the desire to be baptized. Hopefully this will help those still struggling with the poison of Feeneyism to finally understand that to champion him as a martyr for truth is to forfeit their membership in the Mystical Body.
Invincible ignorance
Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas
and the Best Modern Authorities, Revs. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, 1929
- With reference to the responsibility of the person who is ignorant, there are two kinds of ignorance.
(a) Ignorance is invincible when it cannot be removed, even by the use of all the care that ordinarily prudent and conscientious persons would use in the circumstances. Thus, a person who has no suspicions of his ignorance, or who has tried in vain to acquire instruction about his duties, is invincibly ignorant.
Invincible ignorance, even of what pertains to the natural law, makes an act involuntary, since nothing is willed except what is understood. Hence, no matter how wrong an act is in itself, the agent is not guilty of formal sin (see 249), if he is invincibly ignorant of the malice involved.
356. (b) Christians may be in invincible ignorance of the Law of Christ. For, just as want of a preacher causes a pagan to be invincibly ignorant of the necessity of Baptism, so a lack of instruction in Christian doctrine might leave a baptized person inculpably ignorant.
(b) Subjectively speaking, there may be a just cause for leaving or not entering the Church, namely, the fact that a person, ignorant in this matter but in good faith, believes that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. For one is obliged to follow an erroneous conscience, and, if the error is invincible, one is excused from sin (see 581-583). Examples: A Protestant taught to believe that the teachings of the Church are idolatrous, superstitious and absurd, is not blamed for not accepting them. A Catholic, poorly instructed in religion and thrown in with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic associates, might become really persuaded, and without sinning against faith itself, that it was his duty to become a Protestant.
Instructions on the Commandments and the Sacraments
by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, 1846
“So then, in reality, can he who has not received baptism reach heaven? To this I reply that he also can be saved if he has conceived an ardent desire to be baptized and believes in Jesus Christ as happened to many who when unable to receive baptism supplied its place by their desires… If he is an adult and in the possession of reason, he must have the intention of being baptized and feel sorrow for the sins he has committed.”
“Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptized by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things ACCOMPANIED BY AN EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT DESIRE FOR TRUE BAPTISM OF WATER, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character OR AS TO THE REMOVAL OF ALL DEBT OF PUNISHMENT. It is called ‘of wind’ [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, ‘de presbytero non baptizato’ and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it” (St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7).
TSB comment: Those reading the above must not forget that the Church ascribes to St. Alphonsus a place in moral theology similar to that which She grants to St. Thomas Aquinas. If he pronounces that the belief in Baptism of desire is de fide, it is without doubt this is the case. Also, it is noted by St. Alphonsus that those thus saved may well be consigned to purgatory. What in this explanation of Baptism of desire differs in any way from the teachings of Pope Pius XII on this matter?
The Sincere Christian, Rt. Rev. Dr. George Hay, 1871
“For invincible ignorance to exist, three things are necessarily required:
“1) That a person have a real and sincere desire of knowing the truth. For if he be cold and indifferent about an affair of so great concern as his eternal salvation; if he be careless whether he be in the right way or not; if being enslaved to this present life, he take no note about the next, it is manifest that an ignorance arising from this disposition is a voluntary ignorance and therefore highly culpable in the sight of God…
“2) For one to be in invincible ignorance it is required that he be sincerely resolved to embrace the truth wherever he may find it and whatever it may cost him. For if he be not fully resolved to follow the will of God, wherever it shall appear to him, in all things necessary to salvation; if on the contrary, he be so disposed that he would rather neglect his duty and hazard his soul than correct an ill custom, or disoblige his friends, or expose himself to some temporal loss or disadvantage. Such a disposition must be highly displeasing to God and an ignorance arising from it can never excuse him before his Creator…
“3) He must sincerely use his best endeavors to know his duty, and particularly that he recommend that matter earnestly to Almighty God and pray for light and direction. For whatever desire he may pretend of knowing the truth, if he do not use the proper means for finding it, it is manifest that his ignorance is not invincible but voluntary; for ignorance is only invincible when one has a sincere desire to know the truth with a full resolution to embrace it, but either has no possible means of knowing it or, after using his best endeavors to know it, yet cannot find it.” Nor does a formal doubt excuse, for all are expected to resolve such doubts.
“A person brought up in a false faith, which the Scripture calls sects of perdition, doctrines of devils, perverse things, lies and hypocrisy; and who has heard of the true Church of Christ, which condemns all these sects, and sees the divisions and dissensions which they constantly have among themselves, has always before his eyes the most cogent reasons to doubt of the way he is in.”
Rev. Hay goes on to remind his readers that many are called and few are chosen, and that broad is the path to destruction and narrow is the way to salvation. When asked if he is saying that none who are in heresy and invincible ignorance can be saved, he answers, “God forbid that we should say so! All the above reasons only prove that if they live and die in that state they will not be saved… No man knows or can know what may have passed between God and the soul in his last minutes.”
TSB comment: The means of truly knowing if the Catholic Church is the one true Church today are so complicated and interspersed with rabbit holes, speculation and error, it makes it impossible for many to separate the flyspeck from the pepper, despite their best endeavors.
The Catholic Dogma, Rev. Michael Mueller, pgs. 217-218, 1888:
“Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’ (De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1).
“It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation… Hence Pius IX said ‘that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord who knows the heart and the thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer anyone to be lost forever without his own fault.’ Almighty God, who is just condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, EITHER BY NATURAL OR SUPERNATURAL MEANS.”
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, on Ignorance
So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of “moral diligence”. This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance…
Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. (Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); Joseph Rickaby, Ethics and Natural Law (London, 1908); Slater, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); Ballerini, Opus Theologicum Morale (Prato, 1898); Tapparelli, Dritto naturale (Rome, 1900); Zigliara, Summa Philosophica (Paris, 1891).
What most of those questioning Pope Pius XII’s teaching in Suprema haec sacra are saying is that he added implicit desire to the formula for obtaining salvation, when even St. Alphonsus mentions it in his writings above. They also seem to think that Pius XII is contradicting the constant teaching of the Church by teaching that one can be saved OUTSIDE the Church. But that is not what the pope is teaching either. While insisting that those saved without water baptism are not Church members, so per se are “outside” the Church, the authors above and Pius XII also are quick to note that they belong to the Church in some other way. Yet they are considered to be within Her fold by desire, owing to invincible, ignorance, IF that ignorance is also joined to belief in the primary truths of faith and a sincere love of God obedience to his will.
Documents contained in the Sources of Catholic Dogma cited below further prove that the teaching on Baptism of desire issues from ancient sources. Please remember that their listing there qualifies them as DOGMA, to be believed without any quibbling, not picked apart as though they were never listed there. Coming from the popes and the councils approved by the popes, they need no further comment. These documents are quoted here to demonstrate the Church’s own sense and understanding regarding Baptism of either desire or blood.
-
Council of Trent, 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: – (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.” (Author’s note:Notice this is not limited only to catechumens.)
Decree on Justification – (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God” (John 3:5) (Editor’s note: Feeneyites argue that the translation of the Trent documents was badly made or falsified, a ruse often used also by heretics past and present. I personally own a copy of the first reliable English translation of the Council of Trent decrees published to correct a previous anonymous translation, “…unfaithful and even ludicrously absurd.” The translator promises in his preface to correct any errors pointed out to him in this second translation attempt, noting: “The edition of the Council used is Le Plat’s copy of the authentic edition published in Rome 1564. Neither time nor labor has been spared to render the translation as faithful a transcript as possible” (J. Waterworth, translator; published May 22, 1848).
-
Pope Innocent III, Apostolicum Sedem
“[Regarding] the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) who had died without the water of baptism: Because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, he was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned” (Denzinger 388).
De baptismo flaminis (presbyteri non baptizati) ‘. [Ex ep. “Apostolicam Sedem» ad episc. Cremonensem,” temp. incerti.]
Inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus: Presbyterum, quem sine unda baptismatis extremum diem clausisse (litteris tuis) significasti, quia in sanctae matris Ecclesiae fide et Christi nominis confessione perseveravit, ab originaU peccato solutum, et coelestis patriae gaudium esse adeptum (ex auctoritate sanctorum Patrum Augustini atque Ambrosii) asserimus incunc- tanter. Lege (frater) super octavo hbro Augustini de civitate Dei, ubi inter cetera legitur: «Baptismus invisibihter ministratur, quem non contemptus rehgionis, sed terminus necessitatis excludit.» Librum etiam beati Ambrosii de obitu Valentiniani idem asserentis revolve.Sopitis igitur quaestionibus doctorum Patrum sententias teneas, et in ecclesia tua iuges preces hostiasque Deo offerri iubeas pro presbytero memorato. (Denzinger/Bannwart edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1911).
COELESTINUS II 1143-1144. LUCIUS II 1144-1145
(Editor’s note: Did the two popes mentioned here also confirm this dogma? This is the de fide teaching mentioned above by St. Alphonsus. One Feeneyite site denounces this teaching, claiming that all men becoming priests must be confirmed as validly baptized and denies that St. Augustine or St. Ambrose ever taught baptism of desire. But what if this priest’s parents lied about his baptism and he only learned of it later before he could be baptized? Other explanations are also possible. This site even states the letter is a forgery. So if that was truly the case, and a dogma was presented as early as St. Alphonsus’ time and even before as de fide, should we assume that nothing in the Sources of Catholic Dogma can be trusted and simply choose what we wish to believe? Would that not mean the gates of hell had long ago prevailed against the Church?!)
-
Pope St. Pius V 1566-1572
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567: Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
– Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
– That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
– A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained” (DZ 1031, 1032, 1033). Editor’s Note: This is the condemnation by St. Pius V that Feeney violated, with his “water baptism only” take on salvation.)
4. Pope Pius IX
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863:
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.” Editor’s Note: How could they “know” this about invincible ignorance unless it was the result of constant Church teaching?)
5. Catechism of St. Pius X, 1911, Father John Hagan
But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.
-
Pope Pius XII
…Those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church… even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.” (Editor’s note: Three things must be fully understood here: 1) Pius XII excludes such people from Church membership; 2) He identifies them as unsuspecting, i.e., invincibly ignorant and 3) he says they are related to the Mystical Body by desire and resolution but does not explain the exact nature of this relationship.)
Conclusion
If the Trent documents on justification were read clear through, it would soon be evident that the main problem with Feeney’s false doctrine on no salvation outside the Church was basically grounded in the nature of grace and how it is received. This is apparent from the condemnation of Michael du Bay by St. Pius V but also is reflected in the dogmatic Bull Unigenitus. There Pope Clement XI in 1713 condemned the proposition by the Jansenist Quesnel which falsely stated that: ‘Outside the Church, no grace is granted,’ (DZ 1379).
In 1690, Pope Alexander VIII had already condemned the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld that “Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ,” (DZ 1295). And of course this is the very grace that Feeney would deny could ever be obtained in sufficient amounts for salvation by those outside the Church. Feeney was denying that God would provide those graces sufficient for the remission of sins to non-Catholics. He was denying the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, that “(A) man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly” (Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68).
How many Church teachings and authorities must we dismiss to make Feeney the martyr for “Outside the Church, no salvation” his fawning devotees claim him to be? Clearly enough has been presented here (and even more could be provided) to satisfy the rational man regarding the sense in which the Church intended us to understand the requirements for obtaining baptism of desire. And it is that very sense, reiterated by Pope St. Pius X in his oath against Modernism that we must adopt as our own: “Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same sense. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”
Feeney was a Modernist. His teaching was that the sense of what the Church taught had changed over time, that it had never taught but now taught that one could be saved by implicit or explicit desire. The Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus Liguori prove him a liar. St. Thomas contradicts him. But we are supposed to abandon the teachings we are bound to believe and follow those who champion him, men never even trained or approved by the Church? What sort of madness is this?
Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton references an article he terms as excellent, Opinions Concerning Doctrinal Development, by Rev. Charles Sheedy, C.S.C., published in the January 1949 edition of The American Ecclesiastical Review. Rev. Sheedy wrote: “Thus it is clear that there has been progress, development in the dogmatic teaching of the Church, not merely in precision of terms but in actual content and subject matter. Doctrines are taught today as divinely revealed which were not explicitly taught 100 years ago and after the Council of Trent, a whole galaxy of truths entered into the dogmatic teaching of the Church, proposed to the faith of Catholics, not as new dogmas, BUT AS CONTAINED IN THE ANCIENT DEPOSIT.” This was the case with implicit desire and Church membership, as clarified by Pope Pius XII.
“May understanding, knowledge and wisdom progress as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.” — St. Vincent of Lerin. Msgr. Joseph. C. Fenton, commenting on this statement by St. Vincent points out: “The Vatican Council has used the words of Saint Vincent of Lerin to declare as a matter of faith that the understanding of one man as well as that of the Church as a whole can progress and grow in its grasp of the revealed truth and that this growth always takes place in one and the same sense and meaning (DZ 1800).” It never evolved, nor did Pope Pius XII ever intend it to grow to include any hint of ecumenism; that was the work of the Modernists. And Feeney the excommunicated Jesuit, the founder of modern-day Traditionalism, was one of them.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 3, 2025 | New Blog
Prayer Society Intention for October, Month of the Queen of the Holy Rosary
“Queen of the Holy Rosary, in these times of such brazen impiety, manifest thy power with the signs of thine ancient victories.” (Raccolta)
.
+Feast of St. Therese of Lisieux+
Introduction
This isn’t the blog I intended to post — I said there would be no further remarks about the Kirk assassination. But given the air of uncertainty and even dread that seems to linger following recent events, I felt perhaps that some reminders are in order. It seems really strange that some who ordinarily are the first to point out the dangers of Zionism suddenly are very quiet when it comes to the mysterious circumstances surrounding the death of Charlie Kirk. Certainly I am not trying to lionize Kirk or portray him as a martyr. But neither will I allow others to ignore the facts that are emerging regarding his assassination that confirm the renouncement of his pro-Israel stance and his journey to what he believed was Catholicism.
That being said, it is interesting to note that FBI director Patel has apparently broken the agency’s ties with the ADL after they listed Kirk’s Turning Point USA as an extremist organization. They then “retired” the extremist list, making it unavailable to those whose names might appear there unofficially. The ADL is a cover organization for B’nai B’rith (Sons of the Covenant), a Masonic Jewish organization which according to Lady Queenborough’s Occult Theocracy “…is the supreme body shaping and directing, for the attainment of its own ends, the policies, whatever they may be, of all Freemasonry, beginning with the Grand Lodge of England, the Grand Orient and Scottish rites and ending in [Aleister Crowley’s] OTO, which is the Illuminati under another name.” An Irish Catholic publication (The Fiat, letter 38) described the aims of the 12 men guiding B’nai B’rith as “the fulfillment of ‘the Covenant,’ the supposed Messianic promise of rulership over all peoples… under a one-world government.”
The recent rush to identify anti-Semitic hate speech and activities and punish offenders coincides with Netanyahu’s outreach to American social media personalities and the recent acquisition of TikTok by pro-Israel buyers. This is especially of note since Netanyahu described social media as a new weapon to prop up Israel’s flagging image in the U.S. Some are questioning whether a May 2, 2025, letter Kirk sent Netanyahu, released to the public earlier this week, is the actual letter Kirk wrote. But Kirk’s disillusionment with Israel and Netanyahu did not peak until the last few months of his life, so would not necessarily have been reflected there.
All these developments are only the culmination of what we were warned about by two Catholic politicians, Pres. John F. Kennedy and Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who, like Kirk, would die for being identified as Catholic and for warning Americans about the enemy. (McCarthy wasn’t assassinated, but his death is often attributed to the alcoholism that was exacerbated by the opposition to his stance against Communism.) McCarthy learned too late that Communism was not the enemy he was fighting after all, but only one of its many tentacles. This he revealed in a speech given just six months before his death.
George Washington’s Surrender
“And many of the people of the land became Jews” (Esther 9:17). The confession of General Cornwallis to General Washington at Yorktown has been well hidden by historians. History books and textbooks have taught for years that when Cornwallis surrendered his army to General Washington, American independence came and we lived happily ever after until the tribulations of the 20th century.
“Jonathan Williams recorded in his Legions of Satan ,1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington that, “A holy war will now begin on America and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown.” Cornwallis went on to explain what would seem to be a self-contradiction: “Your churches will be used to teach the Jew’s religion and in less than 200 years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry.” And indeed George Washington himself was a Mason and he gave back through a false religion what he had won with his army.
“Cornwallis knew that his military defeat was only the beginning of world catastrophe that would be universal and that unrest would continue until mind control would be accomplished through a false religion. What he predicted has come to pass. A brief sketch of American religious history and we have seen Masonry infused into every church in America with their veiled phallic religion. Darby and the Plymouth brethren brought a Jewish Christianity to America. Masons Rutherford and Russell started Jehovah’s Witness Judaism which is now worldwide, with their message of the Divine Kingdom. Mason Joseph Smith started Mormon Judaism with its Jewish teaching of millennialism. At the turn of the 20th century there appeared the Scofield Bible with a Jewish interpretation of the prophecies. With a wide use of this “helpful” aid, all the American churches have silently become synagogues.
“We now have Baptist Jews, Methodist Jews, Church of God Jews, apostate Catholic Jews and many Protestant Jews throughout America. We are aliens in our own country because of false religion. All are praying for divine deliverance into the Divine Commonwealth which Cornwallis knew to be the British Empire. A false religion has been used to deceive us into allegiance to our enemies of Yorktown and Bunker Hill. No! Not a gun has been fired but the invisible and malignant process of conquering America with the Jews’ religion has gone on unabated. The Union Jack has been planted in our hearts with religious deception. All has happened legally, constitutionally, “freely” and completely within our most sacred trust — our churches. Religious deception is painless inoculation against truth. It cannot be removed in the conscience with surgery yet it is the motivator of our actions and directly controls our lives. Once man gives over to false religion he is no longer rational because he originates no thought. His life is controlled by whomever controls his religion.
“The veil of false religion is the sword of Damocles and its power to control humanity defies even the imagination of tyrants who use it.
“This is not to say that George Washington was a traitor willingly or knowingly. He was beguiled into a satanic religious order that insidiously controls man’s minds. So have American statesman and military leaders down through the years given aid and allegiance to the enemies of the United States because they did not have knowledge of the invisible subterfuge that stalks this land. My eyes were opened the day my colleagues from Ohio handed me Wagner’s Freemasonry: an Interpretation. If every American would read it they would no longer ask why and how it has happened.” (End of McCarthy speech, given some time in October 1956).
It should be noted that according to the Feb. 24, 1957 edition of the Denver Catholic Register, George Washington converted to Catholicism on his deathbed (the website referenced is not Catholic and is used only for purposes of attribution). And of course McCarthy did not live to see the destruction of the Church by the very forces he unmasked. His speech and the following excerpts from a speech to members of the press given by Pres. John F. Kennedy should be read very carefully and digested slowly. When this is done, their implications for our own times are all too clear.
President John F. Kennedy, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961
“My purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary… My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
“I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future — for reducing this threat or living with it — there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security — a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
“This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President — two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
“But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
“Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
“It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions — by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
“Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security — and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
“For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
“The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
“The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.” (End of Kennedy excerpts)
Conclusion
Does this put readers in mind of print and TV media misinformation, leaks, cherry-picked facts, remarks taken out of context, biased reporting and even the publication of outright lies? If it doesn’t, it should, for certainly it is rife even among those who present as “conservative” journalists. And the restricted form of reporting happening now in the investigation of various assassinations, murders and attempted murders is exactly what Kennedy warns against above, for certainly no one can claim that such a lack of transparency on the part of the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies is a matter of national security. For the very enemies we should worry about the most, according to Sen. MacCarthy, are welcomed with open arms. And they were the ones who, Pres. Kennedy notes, were busily infiltrating the ranks long ago. McCarthy warned us. Bella Dodd warned us, and several others. Now we pay the price for ignoring them.
So are we going to drown ourselves in half-baked conspiracy theories and once again ignore what is really going on around us today? This war is a psyops operation alright, but it isn’t about politics. This war has been spiritual from the beginning — principalities, powers and the rulers of this world of darkness — so why would it not continue to intensify along spiritual lines? If you controlled a worldwide web of secret operations that would one day lead to your proclamation as a one-world leader, what would you do if an intelligent and charismatic young person capable of energizing the youth so important to the future (as the Alta Vendita reveals) — a person who had once been a major asset to your operation — did an about face and threatened to head these youths and others around him in a different direction, one diametrically opposed to all you had worked for? Why did Netanyahu feel compelled to publicly announce he was not involved in Kirk’s assassination? And why are so many ignoring the obvious implications and failing to consider alternative sources as the reason for discrepancies in the investigation?
If Kennedy’s own assassination and its well-orchestrated coverup didn’t convince Americans that everything must be immediately documented following such an event, and with the right persons, nothing will. The further away we journey from all these mass shootings and supposed lone gunmen; the longer the investigation is allowed to be “ongoing,” and protected from intense media scrutiny (by conscientious members of the media), the further we stray from the truth.
One day it will be illegal to mention the Jewish religion in anything that could be interpreted in a negative manner. Before that happens, maybe responsible journalists need to make some really objective enquiries and stop sending people down rabbit holes.
Addenda
This observation on Netanyahu’s involvement goes to motive, nothing else — there are indications that other entities, perhaps military and foreign, may have been complicit or working together towards eliminating Kirk. There has been much pushback from Evangelicals — particularly Kirk’s former (NAR) pastor Rob McCoy — over reports Kirk was leaning toward Catholicism, confirmed by email exchanges. And some believe that the recent decision by Kirk to conduct an audit and track donations to TPUSA may have set off alarms in some quarters. Kirk’s wife was a cradle Catholic but later embraced evangelical beliefs while continuing to attend the Novus Ordo.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 20, 2025 | New Blog
+ St. Eustace, Martyr+
Introduction
This is the last I will say on the Charlie Kirk matter. The hysteria being spread on the Internet about his death is disgusting. Some examples: he was wearing a blood bag and it blew up, making him appear to be dead. He is still alive and living in Valhalla, the island where the witness protection folks go, and I guess Kash Patel and his “Mossad girlfriend” (???) will see him there eventually. And the body in the casket that his wife was bending over, that was just a dummy. You can tell because the hands were yellow and rubbery-looking and “it was just so staged.” People are saying that Erica Kirk was wearing a Masonic necklace and a Masonic ring. Some believe she isn’t even Erika Kirk — just an actress — and has already joined her husband wherever he may be.
Come on people, grow up. Start acting like Catholics and stop acting like the people that give “dissident” Catholics a bad name, justifying the contention of their critics that they are just conspiracy theorists that base their beliefs and opinions on suppositions and half-truths. They classify them in the same category as those who also believe Elvis and JFK Jr. are alive (on Valhalla too?) and aliens will come to save mankind. Yes, we are being gaslighted; yes, we are being propagandized, but why play into their hands?
Now as far as Kirk looking waxy and his hands being rubbery and yellow, let me say this. I’ve seen more dead bodies than I would care to have seen in recent years, my own husband and my own grandson in particular and both of their bodies exhibited that rubbery, yellow look. If you go to the link HERE a mortician will explain why that happens. And I recently read an online report of a gentleman who says that he was with Kirk when he died. Now people out there will say I’m foolish, naive and even evil to believe that he is no longer alive and it wasn’t a plot to do whatever. I may be all those things. But what you’re saying publicly, online, when you are assuming these claims is that this man is a liar and other people around him are liars, including his wife. And that’s just not Catholic.
As for the Masonic ring and necklace, it is said to be a miniature of one that Erika Kirk’s grandfather reportedly received as a Swedish knight. It also closely resembles a piece of jewelry related to membership in the Knights of Malta, which some believe (those in the NO, as she was) is a legitimate Catholic organization. It isn’t of course, but she may not know that — IF that is what the necklace really is. We don’t know for certain and it is wrong to assume. The same can be said of the ring. Yes, it is a “G,” but is not representative of other typical Masonic rings, even for women. There could be other explanations of what it means to her. Is she portrayed by an actress? A double? Prove it; prove all the above. Because unless you can, you most likely are guilty of detraction and primarily rash judgment, both mortal sins.
Rash Judgment
Here is what the Moral theologians Revs. McHugh and Callan have to say on rash judgment from their work: Moral Theology a Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities; 1958.
1734. Sinfulness of Rash Judgment.– Rash judgment strictly understood, then, is a firm assent of the mind, based on insufficient data, and given to the view that a neighbor is or has been guilty of sin.
(a) From its nature this sin is mortal, for it consists in a contempt for, and an injury to, what is regarded as one of the chief goods of man, namely, the favorable opinion of him that is entertained by others. It is denounced in Scripture as an injury to the law itself (“He that judgeth his brother judgeth the law,” James, iv. 11), and as meriting condemnation (“Judge not, and you will not be judged, condemn not and you will not be condemned,” Luke, vi. 37).
1743 (b) It is lawful to suspend judgment in case of reasonable doubts, if there is no obligation of deciding one way or the other, for in so doing one does no injury either to one’s own intelligence (since the doubt is reasonable) or to the honor of another person (since, as supposed, there is no obligation of judging positively in his favor). Just as there is no duty of making acts of love of our neighbor on every occasion, neither is there a duty of deciding doubts to his advantage on every occasion, or of having any opinion about him whatever. Some authors do not admit this, but the common teaching is against them.
(c) It is not lawful to suspend judgment, but the reasonable doubt must be resolved in a favorable sense, if there is an obligation or a wish to decide one way or the other; otherwise one would decide in an unfavorable sense and be guilty of rash judgment. This is what is meant by the well-known maxim that doubts about the character of a neighbor should be settled in favor of the neighbor.
1744. The interpretation of doubts in a favorable sense does not mean that one may not take into consideration the possibility of danger or deception and use remedies or precautions. This course is not rash judgment, for even when one judges that another person is good, one knows that the judgment is possibly wrong and therefore cannot be entirely relied on for external guidance.
So basically, we can suspend judgment while warning others privately that we may not be getting the real story. But online and in public we should keep our mouths shut, simply saying we don’t know, which we don’t. And if we wish to voice an opinion, we must decide in favor of the neighbor. If Christ considered the Samaritans capable of good in the Good Samaritan parable, a sect hated by the Jews for worshipping idols alongside the true God, surely we can spare some charity for erring Protestants, even if we suspect they may somehow be drawn into Freemasonry or Zionism. We must also consider how hard those fomenting conspiracy theories work to disrupt our actual thinking processes, as one online writer recently pointed out below.
Mental Health: Pill Pushing?
During the psychedelic era of the 1960s and 1970s, people used LSD, mushrooms, and other street drugs to enter an altered reality.
Now 50 years later, a few people use LSD and mushrooms, but most of the mind-altering drugs are legal. Around 18% of women are on some type of antidepressant and about 7% of kids are on some type of behavior modifying (mind altering) drug.
Then there are the additives that companies place in food. Some of these additives are used because they impact the brain. Several studies have indicated that sweeteners, preservatives, and emulsifiers may trigger mental disorders including anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
And then there is a completely different reality conundrum. This reality shift can impact anyone, even people who are not taking pharmaceutical or illegal mind-altering drugs or eating food with additives or preservatives.
This is the “information” reality shift. Through extensive research, companies and governments discovered it is possible to control behavior with “information” that is delivered in special ways. This information can be delivered in audio, video, or written formats. It can be true. It can be false but made to appear true. It can be delivered to inspire fear or happiness.
When mind control techniques are used, it becomes very difficult to determine whether the “information” is real, partially real, or fake. In recent years, information controllers have used “experts” to sway people. And in the last couple of years, they paid “fact checkers” to “verify” information they wanted people to believe. In addition, universities sometimes push an agenda to keep low-cost employees or put forth half-truths that make it easier for them to obtain grants.
[In some states], we see people paying big money to make things appear different than they are. For example, on [one state’s] Amendment, the proponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to convince people that veterans could not vote. People have become wise to this type of manipulation.
On the other hand, it is harder to know when a doctor or hospital has the right motivations. Many people have started to wonder if a well check is sometimes just a way to find something wrong to generate income. Or if a free session with a personal trainer is really just a way to pressure you into a sale.
The worst part of a morphing reality is figuring out how to escape the mind control matrix, whether it is legal drugs, food additives, or information. Maybe a first step is to leave our phones, TVs, computers, and the slick marketing materials and escape into the beautiful outdoors. Then it is just you and nature. And no one seems to be trying to manipulate that experience yet. (southdakotavoices.substack.com/p/mental-health-pill-pushing; all emphasis added.)
A spiritual crisis
We know that Kirk’s teachings on the Church up to shortly before his death were definitely sinful. There is plenty of evidence for that. And we also know it is reported that he had a change of heart and was considering taking a different path. There is reliable evidence that this was indeed the case and it was a very recent development not reflected in some of his earlier comments. Some around Kirk have reported that he was in what we might call a state of spiritual crisis. He had discovered some things that were very devastating for him, things that would force him to make major changes to both his organization and possibly his religious affiliation. Whether he would have or not or to what extent we don’t know. But if he was attending what he believed to be a Catholic mass and praying the rosary as reported then perhaps he at least believed he was on a better path and we don’t know what would have happened from there. We’re simply not supposed to judge what we don’t know.
Can any of you remember how terribly painful it was for you to learn the Church you loved was gone, the confusion and sorrow you experienced? The first few stages of this process are described below:
“1. SHOCK & DENIAL – You will probably react to learning of the loss with numbed disbelief. You may deny the reality of the loss at some level, in order to avoid the pain. Shock provides emotional protection from being overwhelmed all at once. This may last for weeks.
“2. PAIN & GUILT -
As the shock wears off, it is replaced with the suffering of unbelievable pain. Although excruciating and almost unbearable, it is important that you experience the pain fully, and not hide it, avoid it or escape from it with alcohol or drugs. You may have guilty feelings or remorse over things you did or didn’t do… Life feels chaotic and scary during this phase.” (https://www.recover-from-grief.com/7-stages-of-grief.html).
Is it too much to ask for a little compassion and understanding here?
Liberal charity?
Some will say all the above is an example of liberal charity on my part. But it isn’t and I’ll tell you why. There is reason to believe that he could possibly have saved his soul based on reports from those close to him, not that he definitely did. That is all I said in my last blog. We can’t rule that possibility out if he was in a better place than he had been. I would say the same of some traditionalist, whether they be leader, pseudo-clergy or followers, if they passed away after exhibiting doubts that their position was not correct. And especially if they were praying about the situation and seemed to have begun to repent of their previous errors. Just as we can never say for certain that someone is in Hell, neither can we be certain any soul is in Purgatory or Heaven.
We have the teachings of the Church to direct our behavior, and yet even those considering themselves devout Catholics sinfully engage in this fantastical Internet guessing game rather than even consider what conduct the Church expects from us. Who else but the Church can we rely on for the truth? This little exercise has been a really good opportunity to assess where we are today. Turning Point could and should have been a Catholic endeavor if those exiting the Novus Ordo had followed the example of the Japanese and made certain that future generations were taught how to perpetuate their faith in a hostile environment. Instead, we’re all out there pointing fingers and criticizing each other while pretending to be Catholic.
Conclusion
You know, this is a wake-up call folks. Instead of tearing Charlie Kirk’s image down, maybe someone, preferably a young, home-schooled, pray-at-home Catholic male, could manage to replicate the zeal and energy he dedicated to his cause. Such a young man, on fire for the faith, could reap the harvest of some of these “Gen Zers” now showing an interest in religion, including many seeking out the Latin Mass. The harvest is great, the laborers few, and men are noticeably absent from the fields. It is my hope Kirk met his own “turning point” shortly before he died. And it is our responsibility to see that the youth he appealed to, so far as possible, have at least the option to find that same turning point presented from a truly Catholic perspective, not the Christian Nationalist framework Kirk advocated.
(Stay tuned for an announcement on the grand opening of our new business endeavor, St. Eustace Lodge and Family Retreat.)
Refresher Course on Salvation “Outside” the Church
Questions About Membership in the Church, by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton
(The American Ecclesiastical Review, The Catholic University of America Press, July 1961)
“Now it must be understood that the Church militant of the New Testament, as a supernatural entity, is not to be judged by ordinary human standards. Concretely, a man may pertain to this society or in some way or other be “within” it other than by membership in its ranks. In order to appreciate our question, and in order to realize the harm that has been done by careless and unscientific writing on membership in the Catholic Church, we must consider the other ways in which a man can be said to “belong” in some way to this organization… Far more involved is the case of that person who is not a member of the Catholic Church, but who is “within” the Church in such a way as to enjoy the life of sanctifying grace. It is absolutely imperative for the well being of contemporary theology that the situation of this individual be accurately analyzed.
“The Suprema haec sacra interprets this passage of the Mystici Corporis Christi as showing that people in this condition, that is, those who are ordered to the Church by an unconscious intention or desire, are not excluded from the possibility of attaining to eternal salvation… The Suprema haec sacra makes it completely clear that those who are in a position to be saved only by reason of the fact that they have at least an implicit intention or desire to enter the Church and to remain within it are not reapse or in reality members of the true Church… It is definitely a disservice to the cause of Catholic theology to insinuate that, in order to be saved, a man has to be in some way a member of the Church. But, by the same token, it is imperative that the difference between being in the Church as a member, and being “within” it by reason of a desire, a prayer, or an intention to enter this society be very well understood.
“The man who desires to be within the Church, and whose desire is such that it brings him “within” the true Church in such a way as to attain salvation “within” it, is one who intends and desires and prays for those objectives that are indicated in the text of the Pater noster and in the petitions of the Mass. And this remains true even though, through no fault of his own, the individual who is thus “within” the Church does not have a clear and explicit understanding of some of these individual objectives. Thus it is apparent that the man who is not a member or a part of the Church, but who has a salvific intention or desire to enter it and to remain within it, is actually praying and working along with the Church for the objectives of Jesus Christ. In this way he is truly “within” the Church. And, since the work of the Church is accomplished in the face of serious and never-ending opposition, the non-member of the Church who has a salvific intention to join it is actually fighting for Our Lord “within” His company. He is actually serving God with his whole mind and his whole heart, and thus he is joined to the Church even in his status as a non-member of this society.
“It is quite obvious that this condition can exist only as long as, for one reason or another, membership in the Church is impossible for this individual. When it becomes possible for a man to become a member of the Church, or when he becomes aware of the true status of the Catholic Church in the supernatural order, he can no longer work effectively for Our Lord except as a member of His Church… The men and women who have a salutary votum or desiderium of entering the Church are “within” it insofar as they are working and fighting within it for the attainment of the objectives of Jesus Christ. Yet they are definitely not parts or members of this society.” (End of the excerpts from Msgr. Fenton’s article).
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
This reminder is necessary because people seem to have forgotten what the Church teaches on this topic. We must remember that this teaching is for those outside the Catholic Church, be it the Novus Ordo or other non-Catholic sects. It is now impossible for most non-Catholics to distinguish the true Catholic Church from the false. If it is scarcely possible for mature Catholics who were once in the Church Herself — and knew what She taught — to recognize the Novus Ordo as false, how much more so for those outside the Church, especially the younger among them?! The important thing in the case we are considering above is that at one point Kirk (only 31) may have been considering the teaching on the Church’s authority regarding Scripture and the hierarchical order as correct. If he truly began to consider this, and reject his previous beliefs, regardless of whether he knew the church he was turning to was false, then he was beginning to turn away from his prior condemnations of things Catholic.
We end with this quote from Pope Pius IX: “Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only Ark of salvation, and that the one who does not enter it is going to perish in the deluge. But, nevertheless, we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that [ignorance] be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, who is there who would arrogate to himself the power to indicate the extent of such [invincible] ignorance according to the nature and the variety of peoples, regions, talents, and so many other things? For really when, loosed from these bodily bonds, we see God as He is, we shall certainly understand with what intimate and beautiful a connection the divine mercy and justice are joined together. But, while we live on earth, weighed down by this mortal body that darkens the mind, let us hold most firmly, from Catholic doctrine, that there is one God, one faith, one baptism. It is wrong to push our inquiries further than this.”
In his comment on the above quote, Msgr. Fenton writes: “It is not within the field either of our competence or of our rights to search out the way in which God’s mercy and His justice operate in any given case of a person ignorant of the true Church or of the true religion. We shall see how these divine attributes have operated in the light of the Beatific Vision itself… God is never outdone in generosity. The person who tries to come to Him will never be forsaken. As a matter of fact, the movement toward God, like all good things, originates from God Himself” (The Catholic Church and Salvation, Newman Press, 1958).
