by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 8, 2025 | New Blog
+St. Elizabeth of Portugal, Widow+
Introduction
In recent blogs as well as numerous articles on this site, it has consistently been pointed out that (a) it is the dogmatic teaching of the Church, not private revelations, on which we must base our assessment of the times in which we live; (b) the views and opinions of so-called experts in the fields of speculative, dogmatic and moral theology, eschatology and other Catholic sciences are without any value at all or are gravely flawed. This is because such supposed experts are either not validly ordained or consecrated, or in the case of secular “experts,” have not been educated in Catholic institutions. And (c) Those bishops who allowed the poison of Modernism to infiltrate their teachings and that of their seminaries abandoned the Catholic faith, and according to dogmatic Church teaching and Canon Law could never be restored to their positions. This occurred long before the death of Pope Pius XII and explains how and why the Church was successfully infiltrated by neo-Modernists, proving Angelo Roncalli could never have been elevated to the papacy.
Even secular writers decry the adverse influence of self-appointed experts, as can be seen in online comments and articles. One such writer recently observed that by introducing mind-altering drugs, both pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs, and food additives that affect brain chemistry, a mental state has successfully been created that more readily accepts a “reality shift” created by influencers and experts. She describes this as mind control tactics effecting an information reality shift, information which is delivered “in special ways, in audio, visual or written format.” The writer goes on to state that this information can be false while appearing to be true, making it difficult for the general population to determine just how much truth, if any, it might contain. We have seen this play out politically for decades.
She then goes on to note that it is the “experts” and “fact checkers,” who are to blame for this — those in the media and elsewhere who at one time were expected to hold public officials accountable, investigate any suspected corruption and collusion and expose it. She blames modern technology for occasioning this reality shift, advising people to stop relying on modern methods of information gathering and delivery. This is why articles on this site repeatedly warn that one must not depend on lengthy videos, podcasts, DVD’s and other non-traditional means of relaying information which LibTrad experts produce and disseminate as education in the Catholic faith. Such dissemination is, quite simply, neo-Modernism at its best, used to warp and redirect enquirers sincerely wishing to learn about the Catholic faith.
Had the election of Angelo Roncalli been investigated as it should have been long ago, the flood of information generated by the contentious LibTrad movements — propaganda intended to herd Catholics into the pre-designated channels — would never have been successful in confusing and deceiving so many of those exiting the Novus Ordo Church in the late 1960s, early 1970s. Roncalli’s disqualification for election on several counts became known in the 1970s, through public statements revealed in his biographies, works by respected Catholic authors and his actions as “pope,” but were suppressed or ignored. This is how clerical “experts,” who never trained in Catholic seminaries and never received valid ordination or consecration, along with the lay “experts” they endorsed, gained control of sincere Catholics.
Nothing illustrates this point better than the article reviewed below, written by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. An approved theologian or true expert, personally commended by Pope Pius XII, Fenton here examines a much-neglected document condemning Modernism, issued by Pope St. Pius X. And in examining its contents through his explanation, we see unfold precisely how the Church was infiltrated and subverted. Having just celebrated July 4 in this country, the beginning of a yearlong celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the following review also highlights the connection between Modernism and Americanism, something very familiar to Msgr. Fenton. For he and Rev. Francis J. Connell were the only ones to oppose the resurgence of Americanism at the first session of the Vatican Council, after Time/Life publisher Henry Luce, with the with the assistance of Connell’s and Fenton’s nemesis, John Courtney Murray, S. J., helped spread its doctrines throughout the world.
Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism
In this article, written for the The American Ecclesiastical Review in October, 1960, Msgr. Fenton translates and explains the introduction and conclusion of Pope St. Pius X’s Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, or Oath against Modernism, which Fenton terms “the most important, of the three main anti-Modernist pronouncements issued by the Holy See during the brilliant reign of St. Pius X” (the other two being Pascendi and Lamentbili). Fenton begins:
“Quite obviously the greatest danger to the faith of the members of the true Church of Jesus Christ exists when some members of this Church actually teach or even show sympathy for doctrine contradictory to or incompatible with the body of Catholic dogma without receiving any reproof from those whom God has commissioned and obligated to protect the purity and the integrity of the Catholic faith. St. Pius X was acutely conscious of the fact that many influential Catholics were teaching or encouraging erroneous doctrines opposed to the divinely revealed Catholic message long after those erroneous doctrines had been pointed out and condemned by the highest teaching authority within the Church… St. Pius X speaks out very clearly of the existence of a secret alliance or a foedus clandestinum among the Modernists of his day — (a clandestine alliance or secret pact) connected with and inherent in the Modernist movement.
“…The introduction to the Sacrorum antistitum takes cognizance of the fact that most of the genuinely dangerous supporters of the Modernist movement, the men against whose efforts the Sacrorum antistitum and its commands were particularly directed, were priests active within the Catholic Church itself. St. Pius X took cognizance of the fact that such priests were actually perverting their own ministry… No one has ever been as well placed to harm the true Church and to counteract its essential work as a Catholic priest in good standing. If such a man, by his preaching, his teaching, or his writing, actually sets forth the kind of teaching condemned in the Lamentabili sane exitu and in the Pascendi dominici gregis, or if he works to discredit the loyal defenders of Catholic dogma without receiving any repudiation or reproof from those to whom the apostolic deposit of divine revelation has been entrusted, the Catholic people are in grave danger of being deceived.
“The Bishops of the Catholic Church were bound in conscience by the obligations of their office to act energetically against this teaching that contradicted the divinely revealed truth proposed as such by the true Church. The “defence of the Catholic faith” and strenuous efforts “to see to it that the integrity of the divine deposit suffers no loss” are definitely not works of supererogation. These are the duties prescribed by Our Lord Himself for the leaders of the Church, which He has purchased by His blood.”
The danger spread by members of the clergy
Fenton quotes St. Pius X: “For it is no longer a case, as it was in the beginning, of dealing with disputants who come forward in the clothing of sheep. Now we are faced with open and bitter enemies from within our own household, who, in agreement with the outstanding opponents of the Church, are working for the overthrow of the faith. They are men whose audacity against the wisdom that has come down from heaven increases daily. They arrogate to themselves the right to correct this revealed wisdom as if it were something corrupt, to renew it as if it were something that had become obsolete, to improve it and to adapt it to the dictates, the progress, and the comfort of the age as if it had been opposed to the good of society and not merely opposed to the levity of a few men. To counter such attempts against the evangelical doctrine and the ecclesiastical tradition, there will never be sufficient vigilance or too much severity on the part of those to whom the faithful care of the sacred deposit has been entrusted.”
TSB comment: So what makes anyone believe that this war ever ended? LibTrads merely picked up where the neo-Modernists left off. They pretended to keep the Mass while abandoning the papacy, paying only lip service to Canon Law and papal teaching. They ”corrected” papal teaching on jurisdiction with their claim to epikeia and jurisdiction proceeding directly form Christ, in flagrant violation of Mystici Corporis Christi. And this, without ever validly possessing episcopal or priestly orders. Surely, they exceeded the Modernists’ wildest dreams.
Fenton comments: “It is quite obvious that, given the intimate connection between the Church and the faith, a connection so close and perfect that the Church itself may be defined as the congregatio fidelium, the repudiation of the Catholic faith would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Church. Yet, for the Modernists and for those who co-operated in their work, the immediate object of attack was always the faith itself. These individuals were perfectly willing that the Catholic Church should continue to exist as a religious society, as long as it did not insist upon the acceptance of that message which, all during the course of the previous centuries of its existence, it had proposed as a message supernaturally revealed by the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth. They were willing and even anxious to retain their membership in the Catholic Church, as long as they were not obliged to accept on the authority of divine faith such unfashionable dogmas as, for example, the truth that there is truly no salvation outside of the Church.
Both LibTrad and Novus Ordo pseudo-clergy equally responsible
What these men were really working for was the transformation of the Catholic Church into an essentially non-doctrinal religious body. They considered that their era would be willing to accept the Church as a kind of humanitarian institution, vaguely religious, tastefully patriotic, and eminently cultural. And they definitely intended to tailor the Church to fit the needs and the tastes of their own era… They sought to force or to delude the teaching authority of Christ’s Church into coming out with the fatally erroneous proposition that what is accepted by divine faith in this century is objectively something different from what was believed in the Catholic Church on the authority of God revealing in previous times.”
TSB comment: And both the Novus Ordo and LibTrad sects were wildly successful in doing just that. They abandoned doctrine and focused on the liturgy, each in their own way. LibTrads emphasized the preservation of Catholic culture, an Americanist-style patriotism and the Latin Mass. The Novus Ordoites “humanized” their sacrilegious liturgy, destroyed any meaningful traditions and embraced ecumenism, condemned by the Church. (Back to Fenton)
This Modernistic outlook is precisely what Pope Leo XIII condemned in his teaching on Americanism, Msgr. Fenton notes, quoting this pope: “The principles on which the new opinions We have mentioned are based may be reduced to this: that in order the more easily to bring over to Catholic doctrine those who dissent from it, the Church ought to adapt herself somewhat to our advanced civilization, and, relaxing her ancient rigor, show some indulgence to modern theories and methods. Many think that this is to be understood not only with regard to the rule of life, but also to the doctrines in which the deposit of faith is contained. For they contend that it is opportune, in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrines, as if of lesser moment, or so to soften them that they may not have the same meaning which the Church has invariably held.”
Americanism and Modernism work hand in hand
Fenton continues: “Thus, when we examine the actual texts of the Testimonium benevolentiae and of the Sacrorum antistitum, it becomes quite apparent that Pope Leo XIII and St. Pius X were engaged in combating doctrinal deviations that actually sprang from an identical principle, the fantastically erroneous assumption that the supernatural communication of the Triune God could and should be brought up to date and given a certain respectability before modern society. The men who sustained the weird teachings condemned by Pope Leo XIII, a document which, incidentally, did not denounce any mere phantom body of doctrine, and the men who taught and protected the doctrinal monstrosities stigmatized in the Lamentabili sane exitu and in the Pascendi dominici gregis, based their errors on a common foundation. The false Americanism and the heresy of Modernism were both offshoots of doctrinal liberal Catholicism.
TSB comment: Well we don’t call them LibTrads for nothing! In their own way the leaders of these LibTrad sects especially are just as heretically evil as the Novus Ordo sect they consistently condemn. They are merely flip sides of the same coin. Take the case of a LibTrad “priest” corrected by one of his parishioners about displaying an American flag on the altar — the parishioner’s objections were rebuffed and the flag remained. And of course there was the influence of the Americanist John Birch Society among Traditionalists, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. Some LibTrad clergy even preached Birch propaganda form the pulpit. Today, however, we know the Birch Society was founded and headed by Freemasons. (Back to Msgr. Fenton)
“The first components of liberal Catholicism, during the earlier days of the unfortunate Felicite De Lamenais, were religious indifferentism, some false concepts of human freedom, and the advocacy of a separation of Church and state as the ideal situation in a nation made up of members of the true Church. But, after these teachings had been forcefully repudiated by Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Mirari vos arbitramur, a new set of factors entered into this system. These were inserted into the fabric of liberal Catholicism because the leaders of this movement persisted in defending as legitimate Catholic doctrine this teaching, which had been clearly and vigorously condemned by the supreme power of the Catholic magisterium. Most prominent among these newer components of liberal Catholicism were minimism, doctrinal subjectivism, and an insistence that there had been and that there had to be at least some sort of change in the objective meaning of the Church’s dogmatic message over the course of the centuries.
“This common basis of the false doctrinal Americanism and of the Modernist heresy is, like doctrinal indifferentism itself, ultimately a rejection of Catholic dogma as a genuine supernatural message or communication from the living God Himself. It would seem impossible for anyone to be blasphemous or silly enough to be convinced, on the one hand, that the dogmatic message of the Catholic Church is actually a locutio Dei ad homines, and to imagine, on the other hand, that he, a mere creature, could in some way improve that teaching or make it more respectable… The conclusion to the Sacrorum antistitum brings out more clearly than any other statement of the Holy See the fact that Modernism sprang from the same basic principle, as did the false Americanism pointed out and proscribed in the Testem benevolentiae of Pope Leo XIII.
TSB comment: “Catholic” Liberalism begat Americanism and Americanism evolved into Modernism, although both coexisted side by side before Pope St. Pius X’s condemnation of the Modernist heresy. We have commented at length on doctrinal minimism on this site, citing Rev. John F. Cronins as follows: “The great bulk of Church teaching is had through the normal channels of pronouncements by the popes, bishops, and theologians… A “minimist” attitude of accepting only infallible pronouncements is simply un-Catholic.” And as Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton wrote: “Ultimately theological minimalism was a device employed BY LIBERAL CATHOLICS to make the rejection of authoritative papal teaching on any point appear to be good Catholic practice. Sometimes it took the crass form of a claim that Catholics are obligated to accept and to hold only those things which had been defined by the explicit decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Holy See. This attitude… was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his letter Tuas Libenter (DZ 1683).” (“The Components of Liberal Catholicism,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, July 1958). (Back to Msgr. Fenton)
Investigation of candidates for ordination key
“These four directives are: (1) the strict carrying out of the legislation set down under n. 2 of the first section of the Sacrorum antistitum, (2) the submission by individual seminary professors to their Bishops at the beginning of the scholastic year of the textbooks they are going to use and of the theses they are going to propound, (3) the investigation (obviously by the competent and proper ecclesiastical authority), of the teaching offered in the various courses being given to the seminarians, and finally (4) the making of the Tridentine-Vatican profession of faith and the taking of the Oath against Modernism. The teacher is to sign his name to the Oath he has taken. The context would seem to indicate that it was the mind of St. Pius X that this Oath should be taken every year at the beginning of the academic term.”
Fenton then quotes Pope St. Pius X: “Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and selecting candidates for Holy Orders. Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty! God hates the proud and the obstinate mind. In the future the doctorate in theology or in canon law must never be conferred on anyone who has not first of all made the regular course in scholastic philosophy. If such a doctorate be conferred, it is to be held as null and void. The rules laid down in 1896 by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the clerics of Italy, both secular and regular, about the frequenting of universities, we now decree to be extended to all nations. Clerics and priests inscribed in a Catholic institute or university must not in the future follow in civil universities those courses for which there are chairs in the Catholic institutes to which they belong. If this has been permitted anywhere in the past, we order that it shall not be allowed in the future. Let the Bishops who form the governing boards of such institutes or universities see to it with all care that these Our commands be constantly observed.”
TSB comment: Here Pope St. Pius X recognizes the cause of the Modernist mindset: civil universities polluted with liberalism and Modernism. And yet how many among the LibTrad pseudo-clergy and their lay apologists put forth their credentials from these universities as something that places them above the laity and endows them with some sort of credibility?! Even those now calling themselves pray-at-home Catholics point to these credentials as academic achievements the Church would actually endorse. (Back to Fenton)
Catholic cardinals and bishops abandoned the faith
“All of these directives went against the liberal Catholic spirit, of which Modernism was the outstanding expression. All of them were likewise unpopular, as calculated to arouse the antagonism of the enemies who attacked the Church from the outside. All of them were duly denounced and regretted as obscurantist… It was and always will necessarily remain the duty of the bishop to see to it that any individual who teaches or who supports Modernism in any way be excluded from any co-operation in the apostolic task of teaching the divine message of Jesus Christ within His Church. In issuing this decree, St. Pius X was taking cognizance of the basic truth about the teaching work in the Church, which was afterwards brought out so clearly by Pope Pius XII in his allocution Si diligis. This document brings out more clearly than any other in recent years the tremendous responsibility of the bishop in the field of teaching the divine message.”
TSB comment: This definitely being the case, what would Pope St. Pius X have said of a bishop on the Modernist watchlist (Angelo Roncalli) elected as head bishop of the Church, in charge of delivering the divine message and guarding the Deposit of Faith?!!! This was precisely why Pope Pius XI listed him as a suspected Modernist in the first place. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio infallibly teaches that such a man could never become head bishop. (Back to Fenton)
Profession of faith for Catholics demands obedience to Pope, Councils, CANON LAW
“The Sacrorum antistitum likewise contains strict directives about the candidates for Holy Orders. Men who hold Modernistic teachings or who are sympathetic towards the Modernists are not to be ordained… Other dignitaries of the Catholic Church are ordered to take this Oath, along with the Tridentine Profession of the Faith. But it is something intended primarily and immediately for those who are called upon to teach or to direct candidates for Holy Orders. Thus the Oath itself is constituted as a Profession of the Catholic belief. The man who takes this Oath makes his solemn declaration in the sight of God Himself that he firmly accepts and receives all the teachings and each individual one of the teachings “that have been defined, asserted, and declared by the infallible magisterium of the Church, especially those points of doctrine which are directly opposed to the errors of this time.”
“The Oath against Modernism is undoubtedly, up until now, the most important and the most influential document issued by the Holy See during the course of the twentieth century. It is a magnificent statement of Catholic truth, in the face of the errors, which were being disseminated within the Church by the cleverest enemies the Mystical Body of Christ has encountered in the course of its history. “
We have posted on this site for many years now the updated version of the Profession of Faith and Abjuration of Error, (issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office for the U.S. in 1942 to replace the previous profession prescribed by the Holy Office in 1859; Canon Law Digest, T. Lincoln Bouscaren S.J., S.T.D, L.L.B, 1943.) We list it with the Oath against Modernism immediately following, recommending both be made before witnesses and notarized, if possible, when returning to the Church from error or on conversion. For those who dare to suggest that the Vatican Council be “revised,” that Canon Law has ceased to apply to us today, that the decrees of the Council of Trent can be manipulated or interpreted other than they have always been held by the Church, that one can follow LibTrad pseudo-clergy who attempt to interpret the teachings of the popes to justify their errors, need to review exactly what they must vow to believe in order to be considered a Catholic.
“I recognize the Holy Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church as the mother and teacher of all the Churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ… Besides I accept, without hesitation, and profess all that has been handed down, defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and by the General Councils, especially by the Sacred Council of Trent and by the Vatican General Council, and in a special manner concerning the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. At the same time I condemn and reprove all that the Church has condemned and reproved.”
No obedience to papal teaching, utter disregard for the Sacred Canons, no respect or reverence for what is taught by the General Councils as a whole and absolutely no acceptance of papal infallibility and the necessity of the papacy as taught by the Church — this is what LibTrad pseudo-clergy cultivate among their followers. Those making this profession of faith who are coming from non-Catholic sects as “Traditionalists” are no more Catholic than the Dalai lama. What they swear on the Gospels is a lie. As Pope Pius XII teaches in his infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, even during an interregnum NO ONE is permitted to change, even partially, or dispense from the Sacred Canons or usurp papal jurisdiction, which, as mini-popes, LibTrad pseudo-clergy have done for decades. Time is running out for those few individuals sincerely seeking the truth. War or natural disasters at any time could silence the Internet and prevent access to solidly reliable pre-1959 Catholic teaching, and we can see that these unfortunate events cannot be excluded from our immediate future.
Conclusion
A validly ordained Catholic priest who avoided involvement with LibTrad groups wrote to a follower as early as 1979: “At present, if one of us could perform miracles to prove the Church is in apostasy, the Catholics who have been blind since John the 23rd’s reign will claim the miracle is by power of Beelzebub. It has been actually about a year that I do not wish nor try to convert anyone because it is useless. Only at the extreme where I am asked for help do I waste my energy… I am convinced that if people did not see the light in 15 years of Paul 6, they never will… The devil has really had a holiday with private prophecies. Prophecies are vague notions — nothing definite — open to hundreds of interpretations. Satan has made prophecy become ridiculous and a laughingstock especially when the ignorant Catholics were basing their hopes not on the Bible and Bible prophecy but on what one might suspect: hysterics… that salvation would come out of France with the limping nobleman who would lead an army on a horse and subjugate all nations to the Church. How stupid and ridiculous!
“We must not look for chronological order in Bible prophecy especially in the Apocalypse where there is none. Hence the false prophet John 23rd set up the state statute that came alive — humanism and the ecumenism. He opened with the papal key the bottomless pit. Out of it came the beast Paul 6 who destroyed everything Catholic down to the seven sacraments. Tell me what another Antichrist could, if it is not Paul 6, do that would be worse than what Paul 6 did?” (Rev. Gabriel Sparacino, O.F.M, 1911-1987). And as readers well know, this has been my own position for over 40 years. Rev. Sparacino also commented that another validly ordained priest, Rev. John Gentakes, a Passionist, shared his opinions. I would like to remind readers that anything they find on this site is written first, as an obligation to defend the faith; second to create a record of the true teachings of the Catholic Church from papal and conciliar teachings, Canon Law and approved theologians and only third, as a way to lead others to the truth.
As stated here repeatedly, this third reason — that others embrace the truth — cannot be realized without the graces provided by the Holy Ghost. The operation of error has allowed nearly all calling themselves Catholic to believe lies, and Satan is the father of lies. We are all in God’s hands until he grants St. Michael permission to seize the Devil and cast him for all eternity into hell. Through the power of St. Michael, may God soon forever rebuke him we humbly pray!
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 29, 2025 | New Blog
+Sts. Peter and Paul+
Prayer Society Intention for July, Month of the Precious Blood of Jesus
“We therefore pray Thee, help Thy servants whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy Precious Blood.” — Raccolta
In our last blog, it was mentioned that only earlier reports regarding Sr. Lucy can likely be authentic, and that nothing after 1948 should be considered as trustworthy. This because it has been long suspected that an imposter took Sr. Lucy’s place and certain elements of the Fatima message may have been falsified. Even certain statements made by Sr. Lucy before 1948 (prior to the imposture) are suspect and indicate she may have been the victim of coercive persuasion. This is best illustrated by her nonsensical change of the prayer between the decades from “assist the poor souls in Purgatory,” to “lead all souls to heaven,” as if the Church considers this to be even a possibility. This change was conveyed by the seer to the Catholic author William Thomas Walsh during his July 1946 interview with Sr. Lucy. And judging by his description of her, it was most likely Sr. Lucy and not the imposter.
In 2017, Dr. Peter Chojnowski established a tax-exempt non-profit organization called Sister Lucy Truth to establish proof that the real Sr. Lucy was replaced by an imposter sometime during her existence as a Dorothean and/or Carmelite nun. The results of his investigation have been presented at https://www.sisterlucytruth.com/ since that time, and also have been covered at https://www.novusordowatch.org/. Recently, Novus Ordo Watch (NOW) reported that over 100 attendees at the Ohio State Coroners convention in Columbus have endorsed Chojnowski’s findings, stating in a letter later addressed to him: “The photographs of Sister Lucia, the Fatima visionary, showed a clear fraud. Pre-1960 Lucia, visionary, was replaced by an impostor in 1967. The evidence you presented was completely convincing as to this point.” But as pointed out previously, in 2020, and as NOW even mentioned in 2020 as well, some believe Chojnowski’s conclusions are misleading and incomplete. This author agrees.
This imposture was first brought to my attention in the early 1980s in an article written for the Francinta Messenger out of Boise, Idaho, edited by John Beauclair. So this suspicion has been around for decades now. The Francinta Messengerarticle showed John Paul 2 greeting a smiling fake Sr. Lucy and the caption noted that she looked nothing like photos of the real Fatima seer. A decade later, a Portuguese man also would question the imposter’s identity, as traditioninaction notes on its site. Some 40 years later, it is finally taken seriously. In 2019, Chojnowski issued a document entitled Fraud in Fatima presenting the rudiments of the case, but he did not limit his inquiry just to the Sr. Lucy imposture. One page reads:
Number 5 on this list is intriguing, for a truly OBJECTIVE evaluation of the actual validity of Angelo Roncalli’s election from a strictly legal standpoint — not the conclave events themselves — is what has been so desperately needed all along. But after six years, to the best of our knowledge, Chojnowski has not addressed these legal issues, at least not directly. Anything he has to say on the matter is through broadcasts available on the ISOC website (In the Spirit of Chartres) and of course this site is the home of ecumenical-minded LibTrads, as we have explained here before. ISOC also shamelessly promotes Gary Giuffre’s Siri fantasy, which Chojnowski seems to favor, in his presentation of a declassified document HERE. So somehow, they will probably try to link the Sr. Lucy truth business to some sort of revelation regarding Siri’s exclusion as papabile at the election and promote his purported election.
The Siri angle
This not only casts a shadow on the Sr. Lucy imposture investigation but makes it much easier to pinpoint why many of the correlations that explain Sr. Lucy’s fate have not been accepted by Chojnowski as relevant. Giuffre says he possesses declassified U.S. government documents proving conclusively that Siri was elected in 1958. But others have been unable to locate these same documents. It hardly needs saying that the reported collusion of various British and U.S. government agencies with the Novus Ordo church and especially with Giovanni Montini (Paul 6) — during and shortly after World War II as demonstrated in various modern historical works and biographies — place these declassified documents in serious doubt. This is especially true in this case since the Freedom of Information Act did not come into existence until after Vatican 2, (1966), so the true Catholic Church has never been able to determine if such documents were reliable or not, far less admissible as evidence.
While Can. 1814 states that civil documents are to be presumed genuine unless the contrary is proven by evident arguments, it would seem that the basis of such an argument can be found in the proofs of Montini’s covert operations, as described in The Phantom Church in Rome and other works; also his suspected collusion in poisoning Pius XII in 1952-53, (with such poisoning verified by his own physician at the time as “accidental”). Therefore it seems highly improbable that the true Church would willingly accept as solid evidence documents proceeding from espionage and intrigue, especially when such documents can easily be the product of falsehood, forgery and elicitation by force or sheer chicanery. (Read more on the Siri Fantasy HERE.) This, of course, is especially true considering Paul 6’s destruction of everything Catholic. So obviously such documents would be questionable at best and could not outweigh canonical proofs or those issuing from the pope or the Holy Office.
Canon 1813 §1 lists as principal ecclesiastical documents those acts of the Supreme Pontiffs, Roman Curia and Ordinaries. While reliable public documents may be admitted into evidence as Can. 1813, #2 states, documents of this nature are admissible only in the proper forum, i.e., in ecclesiastical courts over which the Roman Pontiff ultimately presides. “Proof to the contrary is not admitted against Letters of the Roman Pontiff bearing his signature,” (Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law, p. 626, ft. note). While we have no ecclesiastical courts today, we still are bound by Canon Law per the current interregnum. This is clear from Pope Pius XII’s papal election law, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS), an unquestionably infallible document entered into the AAS and binding on all Catholics. Only papal documents entered into the AAS are excluded from scrutiny by ecclesiastical courts (Can. 1819). So why would any educated Catholic pretend that other circumstantial evidence is equally compelling?
What constitutes proofs
Chojnowski states on his site: “Sister Lucy Truth, as an investigative enterprise, makes no attempt to draw theological conclusions from our findings. We simply wish to present the truth as it is uncovered.” This is all well and good and in the absence of an ecclesiastical court, where the forensic evidence only is considered as pertains to the actual case, there is little else that can be done. But we know that this is not a simple matter of determining the true identity of an individual; the implications of such an imposture are far reaching and definitely theological in nature. Chojnowski is already extending his investigation into the 1958 conclave by his own admission. And whether he presents his findings himself or under the auspices of Giuffre, Judith Sharpe or ISOC, makes little difference. He is entering matters definitely theological that deal with dogmas of faith.
As pointed out many times before, no man can become pope unless he is elected according to the papal laws and canons prevailing at the time of election. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, as testified to by Pope Clement VI (Super quibusdam, 1351), Pope Martin V (Inter Cunctas, Errors of Wycliffe and Huss, Council of Constance, 1418), Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559), Pope St. Pius V (confirming and strengthening Cum ex…, 1566), Pope St. Pius X (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904) and Pope Pius XII (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945). Martin V’s Const. Inter Cunctos decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, “Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.” Canon 109 states that only those “…legitimately elected and freely accepting the election receives jurisdiction by divine law.” Likewise Can. 219 declares: “The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains from the moment he accepts the election the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right.”
Dr. Chojnowski’s recent victory in confirming his investigation of Sr. Lucy’s imposture may serve as a way for him to establish greater credibility in the scientific and secular realm so that any later investigation into the 1958 conclave or other Church matters is more readily accepted. He already possesses a bachelor’s degree in political science and a Ph.D. in philosophy, having served in a teaching capacity at several Novus Ordo institutions. But that would count as nothing in the eyes of the Church if She yet existed on this earth today, because these degrees were received in the1980s. In fact, a re-education program would need to be undertaken to make certain that all previously taught errors were addressed then renounced. Were the Sr. Lucy findings to be presented today before an ecclesiastical court — which the Church requires because this is not a civil matter but definitely a Church matter — then there would need to be a determination made about the nature of the complaint or the investigation.
Because Fatima is an approved apparition and is so popular among the laity, it must be considered as a matter affecting the public welfare. What needs to be taken into consideration is that in the case of expert witnesses, the Church demands they be employed “…whenever a judge requires it, and the choice or designation of the experts pertains to the judge… In cases, however, in which the public welfare is concerned, the appointment of the experts must be done in consultation with the prosecutor or the defensor vinculi. It is left to the discretion of the judge to appoint one or more experts according to the nature of the case and difficulty of the affair may demand unless the law itself fixes the number of experts (Can. 1793). Other things being equal, those persons should be chosen as experts who have been declared capable by the authority of a competent board” (Can. 1795.)
All of this comes under the chapter in the 1917 Code regarding proofs; and what we need to know about proofs is: “No proof is required for the following:
- notorious facts, Can. 2197 numbers 2 and 3
- facts which are presumed by law and
- facts asserted by one of the contending parties and admitted by the other unless either the law or the judge nevertheless demands proof (Can. 1747).
“The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff with regard to the claims made in his bill of complaint. It rests on the defendant with regard to the exceptions and counter charges which he makes” (Can. 1748).
Papal election and the experts
Chojnowski’s self-appointed role as both plaintiff and prosecutor would need to be approved by the Church. The selection of experts to determine the facts at hand would also need to be approved both by an ecclesiastical judge and a competent board, all impossible today. So we should all be aware of the limitations of this investigation from the Church’s standpoint. It is reasonable to assume there was definitely a false Sr. Lucy. Many had already been able to determine this without the testimony of experts, just through photo examination. Confirmation by those skilled in forensics is a plus, but it does not tell the whole story. Nor does it admit evidence or observations made by others to the contrary; or consider that there may have been more than just one imposter, points brought to the attention of Chojnowski several years ago. Once a prosecutor and “experts” are endorsed by those running the show, any Catholics who may have valid points — even if they have degrees of their own — are edged out by the degreed “Catholic” elite. Is this what Christ would have wanted for the remnant Church?!
Before delving into some of the Sr. Lucy observations that have not been considered, the matter of the conclave investigation needs to be discussed regarding proofs. The case we have presented on this site and elsewhere regarding Roncalli’s invalid election is based almost entirely on notoriety of fact, public statements made in biographies and news publications, also Roncalli’s own public statements and actions both before and after his “election.” Simply producing these indicts him, and these statements have been available for decades. No further proof is necessary according to Can. 2197 (3): A notorious act must be known as criminal or morally imputable, impossible to conceal and “not to be excused by any excuse admitted in law”. The testimony of true experts — popes, doctors of the Church and approved theologians writing theses on these topics (to earn doctorates in Canon Law, prior to Pope Pius XII’s death) — confirm the indictment. You don’t top papal decrees with declassified documents. Any attempt to violate Canon Law regarding a papal election nullifies the attempt immediately under Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
Roncalli’s election was invalid. No verifiable proof can ever be produced at this late date that Siri or anyone else accepted the election. It is not simply a matter of “historical plausibility;” it is all about ascertaining a dogmatic fact. Under Canon 2391 §1, those responsible for electing an unworthy candidate are automatically disqualified from proceeding to a new election. The canonists, Revs. Woywod-Smith, define unworthy as “an excommunicated, suspended or interdicted person or one who has been punished with deprivation of a passive vote; a person branded with infamy of law or fact, a notorious apostate, heretic, schismatic or public sinner.” Roncalli fits this description perfectly, and any other “contender” such as Siri would be doubtfully elected, at best. For a bona fide expert long ago assured us that “A doubtful pope is no pope” (St. Robert Bellarmine).
Filling in holes in the Sr. Lucy investigation
An overview of the entire period during which all this took place will help put things into proper perspective and should provide stimulus for further research. There is evidence to suggest that Sr. Lucy actually passed away in 1949. A reader reported to Tradition in Action several years ago that official Carmelite records show Sr. Lucy listed as deceased. This evidence is strengthened by the fact that once the imposter Sr. Lucy died, and the Carmelite convent in Coimbra realized someone had reported this first listing, it was then changed to reflect the death of the imposter (see HERE).
What was transpiring during the critical period when Sr. Lucy was asked to write down the first two secrets in 1941? The great unknown light had already been seen across Europe in 1938, warning that WWII was about to begin. Pope Pius XI passed away in January 1939 without ever asking for the consecration of Russia, when it was most necessary. Pacelli was chosen to become Pope Pius XII, but the time for consecrating Russia had passed: it was “too late.” The world was at war, and the chaos was used as a cover to further the agenda of the Church’s enemies. In The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, Vol. III, written by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, we learn that one Fatima opponent, the Jesuit Fr. Edouard Dhanis, (said to lean towards Modernism), wrote in the mid-1950s: “The new history of Fatima, which rests on the accounts of Lucy, calls for more reserve. One may fear, without denying the sound judgment or sincerity of the seer, that certain fictitious elements slipped into the accounts… Thus, it hardly seems probable that Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia or that she attributed the provocation of the present war exclusively to the atheistic propaganda of this country.”
We must be careful here because the fictitious elements to which Dhanis refers may have come from the person impersonating Sr. Lucy and not Sr. Lucy herself. Dhanis also played a major role in Vatican 2, another red flag. But as further explained in the article HERE, there is good reason to believe that the reframing of the Fatima Message and coercion of Sr. Lucy began in 1941-42, if not before. And in the link just provided, information from various sources show that:
- Montini’s involvement with the OSS and CIA during and following WWII contributed to the Fatima message interpolations
- Montini, who arranged for Sr. Lucy’s transfer to the Carmelite Convent in Coimbra, Portugal, in 1948, also played a role in approving works containing the new format for the prayer between the decades (see the leaflet excerpts HERE).
- Montini was a supporter of the Dominican Felix Morlion, another suspected CIA operative. In 1939-1940, at the invitation of Goncalves Cardinal Cerejeira of Fatima fame, Morlion established his Center of Information Pro Deo press service in Lisbon, Portugal, later relocating to the U.S. in 1941. Morlion’s goal was to successfully influence and shape the opinions of the Catholic laity, and Fatima’s popularity provided an excellent vehicle for this endeavor. Cardinal Cerejeira went on to participate in the 1958 election and vote for the Vatican 2 reforms.
- Montini, also his great friend Jacques Maritain, were avid Pro Deo supporters according to author David A. Wemhoff (John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition, 2015). In Part XIV, Chapter 59 of his work,Wemhoff cites declassified documents in which a C.I.A. correspondent names Montini as co-founder of Pro Deo and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as being appointed in some way to participate in Pro Deo operations.
- Shortly before Pope Pius XII became ill in 1952, following the consecration of Russia, the pope reportedly commissioned the Austrian Jesuit Schweigl to present 31 questions regarding the conversion of Russia to Sr. Lucia, who possibly by that time was deceased. Schweigl later revealed his previously undisclosed mission to the Vatican 2 council fathers (according to Frere Michele, The Whole Truth About Fatima). He also told them that “…in 1952, the Archbishop of Coimbra demanded that the replies given by Sister Lucy not be published without authorization of the Holy Office.”And that authorization was never given.
- Following a series of grave revelations regarding Msgr. Montini’s misconduct and disobedience, Pius XII relieved him of his Vatican pro-secretary post and sent Montini to Milan as an Archbishop. After a near-death experience as the result of his initial poisoning, and a vison of Christ, Pope Pius XII practically shut down the operations of the Holy Office. He rarely mentioned Fatima publicly again. Did Pius suspect that Sr. Lucy had passed away? He obviously was suspicious of the Russia part of the Fatima message. And the mystery of the entire affair died with him.
The implications of the above revelations, in retrospect, confirm what we already know. And sadly it places much about Fatima in grave doubt. The earlier components, the earlier reports can be trusted with caution but anything after 1941 may be subject to interpolation. Many will remember that the La Salette seers Melanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud were subject to the same type of manipulation, and their messages compromised. Melanie’s own confessor added apocalyptic language to the message from Our Lady, causing that and other unauthorized versions of the La Salette secret to be proscribed by the Holy Office. This is why we do not accept private revelations with the firm assent we owe to truths of faith, and indeed we are not required to accept them at all. This being said, however, and the Sr. Lucy hoax being exposed, it is only fair to consider ALL the findings in the case and evaluate them.
Additional findings on false Sister Lucy
Because of the uncertainty regarding the authenticity of Sr. Lucy’s memoirs and interviews by various clergy and authors, the author quoted below,whose links are provided here wishes to include the following disclaimer:
“I came to understand the history of Fatima and its characters as a house of mirrors. Finding no sure guide myself and fearing lest I become a blind guide who leads others into a pit, I removed my articles and personal website diesilli.com from the Internet. However snapshots of these articles remain online at the Internet Archives so they remain part of the public domain. Let it be known that my opinion about the Sister Lucy truth investigation, the Coimbra convent and all other matters related to the history of the Fatima apparitions and the fake sister Lucy situation has changed since publishing the original articles in 2020. I prefer to keep my opinions to myself at this point and I offer my fervent prayers for everyone interested in these matters, rather than my own two cents. — Gratefully, Lauri Brown”
Following are the Internet links to Lauri’s articles:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034356/https://diesilli.com/some-questions/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034400/https://diesilli.com/more-questions/
https://web.archive.org/web/20201212002825/https://diesilli.com/timeline-srlucy/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034356/https://diesilli.com/the-1957-interview/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034349/https://diesilli.com/blog/
May the Holy Ghost grant us the light to know the truth and the grace to understand it.
ADDENDA
Fourth Sunday after Pentecost
I was unable to find the actual copy of the information on Sr. Lucy from an early 1980s edition of Francinta Messenger when this blog was first posted but have recently discovered it. This is a photo of Sr. Lucy that seems to be missing from the photo galleries available on the Internet, but one that once again raises questions. The archives of Vers Demain and LaPresse, such as they are, do not reveal any photos of Sr. Lucy. Was this photo provided by mistake? Was it yet another indication of an imposter? Why would Canadian papers print it without verifying it? These are additional questions which should be investigated and answered. Below are the photos and copy from Francinta Messenger; I apologize for the lack of readability of the last photo. Anyone wishing actual photocopies/prints of the article may contact me at answers@betrayedcatholics.com.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 16, 2025 | New Blog
+Feast of the Holy Trinity+
Introduction
In the past, I have expressed serious doubts about the Fatima message as concerns Russia, simply because Pope Pius XII himself expressed these same doubts in his final years, and with good reason. All that we know is that at some point Sr. Lucia dos Santos was replaced with an imposter, but exactly when is not known. Nor can we be certain she was not the victim of coercive persuasion (brainwashing) even before her replacement was installed, presumably upon her death, which might explain some inconsistencies in her statements. It seems best, then, to trust her earlier statements, some of which have either been altered, minimized, misrepresented or never properly assessed. Among these is her vision of the Trinity at Tuy, Spain. Little has been written on the possible meaning of this vision, even though it is striking in three respects. But before addressing these, we want to clear up some possible objections to the vision itself.
Some might object that the image in Sr. Lucy’s vision suggests that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father and not the Son, a heresy condemned by the Church. But this 1455 painting above by Francesco di Steffano (Pesselino), situated over the high altar of the Church of the Holy Trinity in Pistoia, a small city north-west of Florence, Italy, is proof that the Church did not condemn the illustration of the Holy Trinity represented in this fashion. Other such illustrations in Catholic church art worldwide attest to this. And some will object the wound of the lance was inflicted on Christs’ left side, but Holy Scripture does not tell us which side the lance pierced. The right side is more often portrayed, since Ezekiel 47 speaks of water flowing from the right side of the temple. From a tiny trickle of water it increases to become a mighty stream, healing all in its path. The Church treats this as a prophecy of the blood and water issuing from the pierced side of Christ, the true Temple, as it is expressed in the Easter liturgy.
The chalice and the Host
Having addressed these objections, we move on to the three notable qualities of the vision. The first of these, and what will stand out most to those seeing it for the first time, is the Host and chalice suspended under the wound in Christ’s side. From our Lord’s side issues the Sacred Blood and the water (bodily fluids) which symbolizes His union with the Mystical Body, the Church. Sister Lucy does not mention this fact, (stating that she sees only blood from Christ’s head and side dripping on to the Host), but there is most certainly a mingling of the water with the blood. For it is a teaching of the Church, as seen below, that both blood and water flowed from the wound of the lance.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, in his Summa Theologica, (III pars q 74, 6-8): “Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is offered in this sacrament. First of all, on account of its institution: for it is believed with probability that our Lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to the custom of that country: hence it is written (Proverbs 9:5): ‘Drink the wine which I have mixed for you.
“Secondly, because it harmonizes with the representation of our Lord’s Passion: hence Pope Alexander I says (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): ‘In the Lord’s chalice neither wine only nor water only ought to be offered, but both mixed because we read that both flowed from His side in the Passion.’
“Thirdly, because this is adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament, since as Pope Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can. 1): ‘We see that the people are signified by the water, but Christ’s blood by the wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people [are] made one with Christ.’
“Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament, which is the entering into everlasting life: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): ‘The water flows into the chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting life.'”
And from St. Cyprian: “For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people [are] made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated.
“Whence, moreover, nothing can separate the Church — that is, the people established in the Church, faithfully and firmly persevering in that which they have believed — from Christ, in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always abiding and adhering. Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament.”
St John Chrysostom wrote: “There flowed from his side water and blood.” Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy Eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, “the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Ghost and from the holy Eucharist.” The people were made one with Christ on the Cross, when the lance pierced His side, not just daily in the Holy Sacrifice when receiving Holy Communion, the renewal of Christ’s sacrifice. If actual Communion is what the vision was referring to, why didn’t Sr. Lucy’s vision take place above an altar where Holy Mass was being celebrated, with a priest and communicant at the altar rail? But no, the altar in the vision is bare, in all but a very few artistic depictions.
This is much like the vision of the Sacred Species the children saw when the Angel appeared to them before the Fatima apparitions occurred; the significance is unmistakable. Swiss Catholic author Michael Mottet commented in the 1980s: “The abolition of the Perpetual Sacrifice has clearly been predicted in Fatima in the apparition of the Angel of Peace carrying a Host and a Chalice and giving the Most Holy Communion to Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco. This is the clear prediction that a time will come when the Most Holy Communion will descend straight from Heaven and will only be possible under this form. The Faith tells us moreover that this communion of desire is not only possible, but highly desirable, which is indeed normal for the most spiritual of all sacraments, (sacrament meaning mystery),” (“Fatima: Apocalypse?,” Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes, Sept. – Dec., 1989).
Isn’t Sr. Lucy’s vision of the Trinity further confirmation of this?
Our Lady and the Rosary
The second aspect is the presence of Our Lady as she appeared at Fatima. In her vision, Sr. Lucy saw the Host, positioned above a chalice, into which the Sacred Stream flows. Under the Host and chalice, suspended in mid-air, stands Our Lady of Fatima, (the Sorrowful) and Immaculate Mother, but not with a sword piercing her heart. Our Lady, however, is standing on the right side of the Cross, just as she stood at the Passion. She is holding the Rosary and her body is slightly inclined, her hand extended, as if offering it for recitation. Again the Host and Chalice are just to the left of Our Lady. She points to her flaming heart burning with love for us and encircled with thorns, begging for reparation, just as the Head of Her Divine Son is encircled. This positioning and gesture are but further proof that the Holy Sacrifice will be suspended and the faithful will only have recourse to the rosary and the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary. The vision came with a request for reparation — the Five First Saturdays — filling up what is wanting to the Passion of Christ (Col. 1:24).
We read in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “By voluntary submission to His Passion and Death on the Cross, Jesus Christ atoned for our disobedience and sin. He thus made reparation to the offended majesty of God for the outrages which the Creator so constantly suffers at the hands of His creatures. We are restored to grace through the merits of Christ’s Death, and that grace enables us to add our prayers, labours, and trials to those of Our Lord “and fill up those things that are wanting…” Just as Christ made reparation to His Father, so also must we make reparation to Him and His holy Mother. We must atone for our disobedience and sin, but first we must understand what it has cost us.
Antichrist was given the power to take away the Holy Sacrifice and to destroy the papacy; this we read in the Book of Daniel. “And the little horn was magnified even unto the strength of heaven and it was magnified even to the Prince of the strength: AND IT TOOK AWAY FROM HIM THE CONTINUAL SACRIFICE AND CAST DOWN THE PLACE OF HIS SANCTUARY. And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice BECAUSE OF SINS: and truth shall be cast down on the ground, and he shall do and shall prosper” (Dan. 8: 9-12). Who is this Prince of strength? In his commentary on verses 10 and 12, Rev. Leo Haydock identifies them as the Jewish high priests: “…Many priests gave way to idolatry…The sacrifices were neglected… Ambitious pontiffs kept not their promises.” It was the sins of the Jewish hierarchy, but also the people, “the strength of heaven,” who Haydock refers to as the “army of the Jews, the people of God.” And so it was the faithless Catholic hierarchy, and those meant to be soldiers of Christ, who in our time likewise brought on the destruction of the Church.
This image is a representation of the Passion of the Church, for any who have eyes to see. Christ entrusted the Church to His mother at the foot of the Cross. Her presence in this vision is a warning that the Sacrifice will be suspended because of sins, unless reparation is made for them. It is a virtual invitation to participate in Christ’s Passion. It is also a warning that if a significant number of the faithful would not make this reparation during Pius XI’s reign, as requested, then the Pope would not consecrate Russia, and Russia would spread its errors. It is my belief that the last sentence purportedly conveyed to the children during the third apparition was later added to the original locution received by the children. Remember, this message was not revealed until Dec. 8, 1941. By then, WWII had already begun, with its ensuing chaos. Enemy agents already had infiltrated the Church.
That message read: “IF MY REQUESTS ARE HEARD Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, she will spread her errors throughout the entire world fomenting wars and persecution of the Church. The good will suffer martyrdom; the Holy Father will suffer much; different nations will be annihilated. But in the end my Immaculate Heart shall triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, which will be converted, and some time of peace will be granted to humanity.” This last sentence is suspect, and I believe that Pope Pius XII considered it suspect as well. The time for the consecration and Russia’s conversion ended with the reign of Pope Pius XI, for before his death, already the “night illumined by an unknown light” had appeared on Jan. 25, 1938. The pope died in 1939. Also, the last sentence contradicts what our Lord later told Sr. Lucy in 1943. This will be addressed below.
Graces and mercy
The third aspect of the vision is the graces and mercies descending in crystalline rivulets to the left of the Cross, the water flowing from the right side of the Temple in Ezekiel 47. We also are put in mind of the verse in Apocalypse 21: 6-7: “And he said to me: It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. To him that thirsteth I will give of the fountain of the water of life gratis. He that shall overcome shall possess these things and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Rev. Haydock comments on this as follows: “The state of Christ’s Church on earth and in this world is now finished and the time is come to reward the good and punish the wicked. The living water is God himself of which the Saints shall be inebriated at the source…” The vision is of Christ’s Sacred Body hanging from the cross following His death. Yet He continues to provide sustenance to His Church on earth through the merits of His Body and Blood — Blood mingled with water.
We find reference to this “inebriation at the source” in Rev. Henry Semple’s Heaven Open to Souls, where he cites Rev. Von Driesch: “To give you confidence in your ability to make acts of perfect contrition, you must be reminded that for many thousand years before the time of our Lord, in the old law, perfect contrition was the only means whereby men could obtain forgiveness of sins and enter heaven. And, at the present time, there are many millions of heathens and heretics, and all of these who are saved will be saved only and entirely by perfect contrition.” Semple then comments: “The great Dominican theologian, Melchior Cano, was present in the Council of Trent and took a leading part in its discussions…He writes: ”In the Sacraments of the old law, there was no other merit but that of faith… [this] by itself was enough for the remission of sins.” The living water is the inebriating symbol of that source.
The graces and mercies we receive can be likened to this image found in a Roman church. Salvation comes from Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross into the Church, founded on the Rock of St. Peter. And from this Rock flow the rivers of salvation from which the faithful drink. Sister Lucy’s vision of the Trinity reminds us that while the earthly renewal of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross may be suspended, the means of salvation are yet available to the faithful. In the words of St. Cyprian, “…nothing can separate the Church — that is, the people established in the Church, faithfully and firmly persevering in that which they have believed — from Christ, in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always abiding and adhering.” The Church’s time on earth is ”done.” It is left to us remaining to be those overcomers mentioned in Apoc. 21 and to drink of the living water of graces and mercy that is now the Perfect Act of Contrition and Spiritual Communion.
The Fatima Consecration was “TOO late”
Sister Lucy related that she also received “an intimate communication” from our Lord shortly after the Tuy vision occurred. “Our Lord complained to me saying: “They did not wish to heed my request, like the King of France. They will repent and do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars, and persecutions of the Church; the Holy Father will have much to suffer.” This is the translation of that message printed in every book I have ever examined regarding Fatima and in every Internet translation. In their recent works on Fatima, Robert Sungenis and Taylor Marshall both report that the actual wording is “TOO late” (see HERE). Why after all these years would they report differently? Well there is a very good answer to that question, and it applies to more than one of the Fatima iterations as conveyed by Sr. Lucy. This is just one of the mistranslations referred to above.
The actual reference, however, appears in yet another mistranslated text. The Portuguese words as relayed by Sr. Lucy in letters to Rev. Fr. José Bernardo Gonçalves May 18, 1936, were at one time reported on a website page that is now no longer accessible. They read in Portuguese: [Lucy] Nas cartas para o Rev. P. José Bernardo Gonçalves, S. J. , afirmou ela, em 18-5- 1936: “Mas, meu Deus, o Santo Padre não me há-de crer, se Vós mesmos o não moveis com uma inspiração especial.” [Jesus]: “O Santo Padre: Ora muito pelo Santo Padre. Ele há-de fazê-la, (a consagração da Rússia), mas será tarde.”
The English translation of these letters to Rev. Gonçalves, S.J. reads:
Sister Lucia: “But, my God, the Holy Father will not believe me if you yourself do not move him with a special inspiration.”
Jesus: “The Holy Father… Pray much for the Holy Father. He will do it (the consecration of Russia), but it will be late.”
Yet these Portuguese words, when entered into numerous translation programs, (ImTranslator, Translitz, Translationly, Online translation pro, Translate, Free translations) all translate these last two words as “TOO LATE.” And if anyone would think for one moment about the translation of the words of Our Lord regarding the King of France, they immediately would know that this communication also was deliberately mistranslated. The King of France, Louis XIV, refused to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart, as Christ requested through St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in 1689. King Louis XV also ignored the request and died of smallpox after traveling with his mistress to participate in a hunt. One hundred years after St. Margaret Mary Alacoque’s request, Louis XVI, having never performed the consecration, lost both his kingdom and his life during the French Revolution. It was definitely too late for her kings to save France as a Catholic country. And it boded ill for the kings of the Church as well.
Pope Pius XI died under suspicious circumstances without ever making the consecration. And the purpose of that consecration died with him. Poor Pope Pius XII tried to make good on his predecessor’s omission, but he had much to suffer. He fought Communism up to the time of his death, but the damage had already been done; it was too late. As reported on this site a few years ago, there is very little about Fatima that can be trusted after about the mid-1940s, when it is thought that the real Sr. Lucy passed away, to be replaced by a series of imposters. And even some of her comments before then are suspect. It is most likely that, relatively uneducated and therefore more vulnerable, Sr. Lucy was expertly subjected to coercive persuasion, especially since she was indeed a simple peasant girl and wished only to be obedient to her superiors. And to be fair, it is most likely that she knew nothing of the mistranslations.
Pope Pius XII suspected there was something amiss about the Russia consecration and was most likely poisoned after discovering the imposture and possible additions/alterations to the Fatima message, among other troubling revelations regarding Montini (see HERE). Perhaps, seeing his firm stance against ecumenism, he was alerted by the alleged change in the prayer between the decades. For this too was the victim of mistranslation and, it would appear, deliberate alteration.
Fatima prayer between the decades
This is from yet another website, no longer available for viewing: “We have been alerted to the fact of a troubling alteration in the prayer given by Our Lady to the three seers of Fatima, to be recited after each decade of the Rosary. The most common form of this prayer today is the following: “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.”
“This form of the prayer, however, is very different from that given in the earliest book on the Fatima apparitions, written by Fr. Manuel Nunes Formigão, under the pseudonym of\Visconde de Montello, Os episodios maravilhosos de Fátima (1921), and subsequently in many novenas and devotional works approved by ecclesiastical authorities through the 1950s. Fr. Formigão was in charge of interrogating the seers, including Lucia dos Santos, who received the prayer from Our Lady on July 13, 1917. According to Formigão’s account, the prayer should read: “O my Jesus, pardon us, deliver us from the fire of Hell, and relieve the souls in Purgatory, especially the most abandoned.” We have also found a letter, written by Lucia, giving the original text of the prayer below.
“According to this letter, the original words of the prayer are as follows in Portuguese: O meu Jesus, perdoai-nos e livrai-nos do fogo do inferno, levai as alminhas todas para o Ceu, principalmente aquelas que mais precisarem.” In English, this may be translated as: O my Jesus, forgive us and save us from the fire of Hell, lead all little souls toward Heaven, especially those who are most in need.” It is our understanding, that the word “alminhas”, literally, “little souls,” is an idiom in Portuguese for the souls in Purgatory, similar to the phrase in English, “Poor Souls.” This interpretation is supported by the fact that the priest responsible for questioning Lucia, Fr. Formigão, a native speaker of Portuguese, transcribed this part of the prayer as a petition for the relief of the souls in Purgatory (see scan from Formigao book below).
“It is alleged that Lucia, long after the fact, corrected the wording of the prayer to refer to “all souls,” rather than to the souls in Purgatory. The earliest first versions of the prayer with the revised wording, to our knowledge, began to appear twenty to thirty years after the apparitions.”
And of course that would fit in with the timeline for the appearance of the Sr. Lucy imposters. According to his work, Our Lady of Fatima, on July 15,1946, the author William Thomas Walsh interviewed Sr. Lucy in her convent in Vilar and it was at this time that she corrected the prayer to read: “Oh my Jesus, pardon us and save us from the fire of Hell. Draw all souls to heaven, especially those in most need.” Sr. Lucy told Walsh she “corrected” it in her memoirs because it had previously been misreported. But what about her letter then to Rev. Goncalves?! And if that, then what else? Was she persuaded to change it? Ordered? Threatened? Certainly the sudden appearance of her “replacement” suggests something was afoot. Can we still recite the original prayer that she recited to Rev. Formigao?
It seems we can, for it is duly imprimatured and indulgenced, according to this 1947 booklet, available online HERE. Perhaps the question should be asked why, if it was not accurate, that the prayer was ever indulgenced in the first place, and why the author felt both prayers should be included in his booklet? If Pope Pius XII approved the booklet, wouldn’t that be enough to assure the recitation of the original version? And given that G. B. Montini issued the announcement of the pope’s blessing, might it not have served his own purposes well, seeing that the prayer between the decades was “corrected”?
Now more than ever, it is important that we say this prayer between the decades, since the most powerful means of freeing the souls in Purgatory in the past, Holy Mass, has been lost to us. It seems right to assume that this is the reason that it was given to the seers in the first place. And since the Rosary is one of the most indulgenced prayers we can offer, it is the best choice for freeing our loved ones from Purgatory or relieving their suffering there.
If we had never known what we know now about Fatima and the destruction of the Church, these discrepancies wouldn’t matter. But we can’t very well “unknow” it. We know what the changing of one word did to the consecration of the wine in the Latin Mass, and what the omission of qualifying adjectives can accomplish. The La Salette message was similarly attenuated, and the seers harangued and harassed for years. Melanie Calvat’s own confessor even added to and twisted her accounts of the message and printed them; at least one of these accounts was condemned by the Holy See. So why should anyone be surprised now, with the enemy fully in control of things, that these deceptions have become so obvious?
Our Lord’s last message
The last known communication of our Lord to Sr. Lucy occurred in 1943. He expressed his joy at Pope Pius XII’s 1942 consecration but said it was not complete. World War II would end, He told her, but Russia would not yet be converted. In this last message He defined exactly what type of penance and reparation Fatima demanded. “The sacrifice demanded of everyone is the fulfillment of his duties in life and the observance of My law. This is the penance that I now seek and require.” Our Lord complained bitterly to Sr. Lucy that so few would be willing to make whatever sacrifices the observance of His law would require. (From the book Fatima or World Suicide, Rt. Rev. Wm. C. McGrath, P.A., 1950). And if this is the true message of Fatima, the real secret to fulfilling Our Lady’s wishes and those of her Son, then it is no wonder we have lost the visible Church. God’s law can only translate as the 10 Commandments and the laws enacted over the centuries by His vicars, for “He who hears you, hears Me.” And of course Christ already knew how few would obey these laws and fulfill the duties of their chosen vocations.
This final message seems to indicate that a rough road lay ahead for the faithful. It almost sounds as though Catholics were being called to white martyrdom, which indeed was the case. This final communication, coupled with the vision at Tuy, has been scarcely mentioned and never explained, unlike the rest of the message regarding the consecration and Russia’s conversion. And of course there is a reason for this — they do not wish to consider the real import of the message or its consequences.
Conclusion
In this author’s opinion, the Holy Trinity is portrayed in the Tuy vision as a pictorial presentation of the third secret. The Trinity will always be with us, just as the Three Persons were with the people of Israel prior to their defection — God the Father, Christ the (coming) Messiah and the Shekinah, or Holy Ghost. If we truly keep the faith, the Holy Trinity will send the streams of grace and mercy we need to save our souls, just as they did in Old Testament times, before there was a pope, a Mass or the sacraments. Sr. Lucy may have been granted this vision because God knew that the message of Fatima would be derailed and corrupted by the enemies of the Church. As St. John Chrysostom says, in the blood and water flowing from Christ’s side, we have Baptism and the Eucharist (Perfect Contrition and Spiritual Communion); these means of salvation cannot be taken from us. Lucy saw only the blood; she did not see (or did not mention) the water. Could it be that this signifies that now only Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross suffices, because there can be no mingling of the water in the absence of Holy Mass?!
I have no idea who the artists were that painted the vision of Tuy. But in one of the older ones, the one that I have included above, something strange can be seen when it is printed out. Just past the graces and mercy on the left side of the Cross, a faint image can be seen of what appears to be a priest dressed in alb and surplice, his head down, leaving the altar. Go in peace, the Mass has ended. The Church’s time on earth is done. The prince of strength’s sanctuary has been cast down; he who withholdeth has been taken out of the way. “I will strike the Shepherd” and disperse the flock, Christ announces in Matt. 26: 31. And after the pattern of Our Lord, the Holy Father, Pius XII, had much to suffer. God has given us so many indications of the times in which we live, if we only read the signs.
Fatima is merely a private revelation, and as such can be taken as true on human faith or ignored entirely. Many have hijacked and perverted its true meaning for decades. But if it is stripped of its dross, this seemingly prophetic representation of the Holy Trinity may yet be able to confirm what we should already know.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 8, 2025 | New Blog
+Feast of Pentecost+
June, Month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus — Prayer Society Intention: “Divine Heart of Jesus, convert sinners, save the dying, deliver the holy souls in Purgatory.” (Raccolta)
In a previous blog on the false accusation against the Jews regarding ritual murder, it was reported that: “Research shows the majority of Jews consider themselves such in ethnicity, but not primarily in religion.” This is backed by Pew Research statistics, as cited in that blog entry. What few realize is that the decline in the practice of Judaism began long before the 20th century, a phenomena some believed the Church could have used as an opportunity to gain Jewish converts. Those most zealous for the conversion of their people were the Jewish twin brothers Joseph and Augustin, who converted to Catholicism in 1854 at the age of 18.
Little is known generally about these notable Jewish converts, who later became priests. Rev. Denis Fahey quotes Augustin ’s eschatological work on Antichrist at length in his The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953) but provides little information on the two brothers’ background and proselytizing activities. Fortunately, a recently discovered work by Murray Watson, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Theology, Huron University College (Western University, London, Ontario, Canada), has shed some much-needed light on the brothers — their lives, their work, and their interaction with Pope Pius IX and the bishops attending the Vatican Council.
Lémann brothers — early years
Watson relates in his The Brothers and the Postulatum Pro Hebræis at Vatican I that the brothers’ conversion was kept secret from their Jewish relatives, and for good reason. Once the family discovered they had converted, the twins suffered physical violence at the hands of their uncles and feared for their lives. Their Jewish relatives appealed to the civil authorities in Paris, but to no avail. The brothers were then disowned and disinherited by their family.
Watson writes: “In Paris, the young men… were put in contact with two other high-profile Jewish converts to Catholicism, the brothers Marie-Alphonse and Théodore Ratisbonne (founders, respectively, of the Fathers and Sisters of Notre-Dame de Sion), who would take the s under their wings, mentor them, and support their newfound Christian faith; Théodore would become a de facto spiritual director to the two young men, as they discerned what path God might be calling them to. Within a few months, the two brothers had both enrolled in the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice, in Issy-les-Moulineaux, where they pursued five years of spiritual and theological formation, before being ordained to the priesthood.
“In December 1861 they received permission from Cardinal de Bonald and Father Reuil to leave parish ministry, and to join Father Théodore Ratisbonne in his work at the Catechumenate he had established in Paris, to educate young Jews who wished to become Catholic, and thus to facilitate the process of their conversion. They would remain there, sharing in Ratisbonne’s work, until the end of 1865. Although (for health reasons) they never become formal, canonical members of the nascent Fathers of Sion, they continued to be closely linked to that congregation, and many people assumed that they were, in fact, Fathers of Sion. In their preaching, they actively raised funds for the work of Father Alphonse Ratisbonne in the Holy Land, and Ratisbonne referred to them in his correspondence with the French superlative “Chérissimes frères” (My most dear brothers).
“In 1866, the two men returned to Lyon, the place of their baptism twelve years earlier, and settled at an institution that cared for the deaf and the mute. They were relieved of normal parish duties, in order to be able to devote themselves more completely to the cause of converting Jews to Christianity… A few months later, it became clear that their efforts were being followed at the highest echelons of the Church: a papal brief (Gratulamur vobis) arrived, dated February 6, 1867, in which the Pope offered his personal endorsement of their evangelistic apostolate:
“We are very gratified by your devotion to this Holy See, upon which Catholic unity finds its solidity, and we ask God that, just as His grace has already shone upon you, so, by means of your zeal and your work, it may similarly enlighten the minds of your brothers, and lead them all to us, as soon as possible, so that, at last, there might be only one flock and only one shepherd. For this reason, as a foretaste of heavenly favours, and as a sign of our fatherly tenderness, we most affectionately grant you the apostolic blessing.”
Declining belief in Judaism
According to Watson: “Augustin would go on to become a distinguished professor of Hebrew and Scripture in Lyon’s faculty of theology, writing extensively in the fields of theology and Biblical studies, apologetics and history, and publishing nearly 150 books and articles over his lifetime. His brother Joseph would also author a number of theological volumes, although his output did not match that of his twin. Quoting from Joseph and Augustin ’s La question du Messie et le concile du Vatican (Lyon: Pitrat Aîné, 1869; 126-29) Watson includes the words of the famous preacher, Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet:
“There is among [the Jewish people] a type of drought which is unique to the Israelites, a drought which has been kept secret, and resisted for a long time, but which is no longer unspoken today and—what is even more serious—which no one is resisting anymore. In speaking of this drought, we mean to designate the disappearance—which is already very far advanced—of the traditions, customs and practices which essentially make up Jewish life… , just as initially, after the fall of Jerusalem, Mosaism had degenerated into Talmudism, so now Talmudism itself, with its remnants of Mosaism, is degenerating into rationalism or indifference—that is to say, into nihilism …”
“However, let us remember that in the Synagogue there is still a conservative or orthodox faction, which tries hard to battle many of the trends that we are going to enumerate. Generally speaking, however, this party is no longer gaining new members and is weakening, as those who are called “the elders” disappear. If things continue on as they are, it will have ceased to exist within two to three generations.”
The Lémanns then comment on Bossuet’s words, observing there was: “…a growing decadence in European Jewry, largely flowing from the French Revolution’s emancipation of the Jews, and leading to a gradual, corrosive infiltration of “modernist” ideas into traditional Judaism, a slow but inevitable dilution of the truths of its own heritage, such that it was hardly recognizable as the Judaism of earlier centuries. Here they pointed to a number of 19th-century trends that had, they argued, dramatically and deleteriously changed the very fibre of Jewish life:
- a rejection of the supernatural generally;
- a denial of the divine inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures;
- calls for “free inquiry” in theological questions;
- taking pride in having no altar and no sacrifices;
- a refusal to acknowledge the traditional priesthood;
- contempt for the teachings of the Talmud;
- a refusal to engage in proselytizing or seeking converts to Judaism;
- a lack of respect for the kosher food laws;
- forgetfulness of the obligation to observe Shabbat;
- re-writing (“mutilating”) traditional Jewish prayers, to remove references to the Messiah, to Jerusalem, and to any type of national Jewish hopes.”
Apply changes made during the false Vatican 2 council and the removal of any idea of a true sacrifice by instituting the Novus Ordo Missae and this same formula was implemented to destroy the Church. This after decades of preparation by the enemy working among the laity to diminish the idea of the supernatural, dilute Catholic truth, champion lay rights, minimize dogma, desecrate Holy Scripture and demean the papacy. Similar changes occurred in more conservative Protestant denominations.
The brothers saw this watering down of the Jewish belief system as a perfect opportunity to draw their Jewish brethren to the Catholic faith. After the announcement that the Vatican Council preparations were underway, they wrote a new book, The Question of the Messiah and the Vatican Council. With the encouragement of several bishops and Pope Pius IX, they then attended the Vatican Council and presented their case to request an official appeal from the Church for the Jews’ conversion. They then were tasked with developing the right approach to win converts from Judaism Watson chronicles their efforts as follows.
The tone of the Postulatum
“At a time when Jews were still the object of scorn (and sometimes violence) in many European countries, the s and their supporters proposed a “theological rehabilitation” which, although it obviously presented Christianity as the ideal and superior faith, nevertheless would seek to present Judaism as honourably and respectfully as possible… Here is how they phrased the petition for which they sought the bishops’ endorsement:
‘To the Holy Vatican Ecumenical Council:
‘The undersigned Fathers, in a spirit of humble yet urgent prayer, ask the Holy Vatican Ecumenical Council to deign to address an entirely paternal invitation to the very unfortunate nation of Israel —that is, to express the wish that, finally exhausted by a wait no less vain than long, the Israelites might hasten to acknowledge the Messiah, our Saviour Jesus Christ, truly promised to Abraham and foretold by Moses, thus completing and crowning, not changing, the Mosaic religion.
‘On one hand, the undersigned Fathers possess the very firm confidence that the holy Council will have compassion on the Israelites, because they are still very dear to God on account of their fathers, and because it is from them that Christ was born according to the flesh.
‘On the other hand, the same Fathers share the sweet and intimate hope that this ardent desire of tenderness and honour will, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, be well received by many of Abraham’s children, since the obstacles that have held them back until now appear to be disappearing more and more, the ancient wall of separation now having fallen.
‘May Heaven grant, therefore, that they would as speedily as possible acclaim Christ, saying “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord.”
‘May Heaven grant that they would run and throw themselves into the arms of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, who is already their sister according to the flesh, and who wishes likewise to be their mother according to grace, as she is ours’ (end of Postulatum quote).
Watson continues: “In an audience afterward, they presented the Pope with the text of the Postulatum; he read it, pressed it to his heart and gave his enthusiastic blessing to their project. Immediately, the s began a frenetic campaign, crisscrossing Rome on foot, in order to meet with each bishop individually, and to secure their signature—and their support—for the Postulatum… In just over two months… they accumulated 510 signatures on their petition to the council.”
This is a very interesting fact, since In his work The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, Ch. VII (1955), Rev. Denis Fahey wrote: “When the Fathers were petitioning the bishops assembled in Rome for the Vatican Council for their signatures to the Postulatum pro Hebræis, many of their lordships smilingly put the objection that, ‘To work for the conversion of the Jews was to bring on the end of the world.’ The two fathers gave several answers to this objection and their argument seemed to go far towards proving that there will be a considerable lapse of time between the conversion of the Jewish nation and the last judgment.” But it appears that regardless of these objections, the large majority of bishops were in favor of the Postulatum.
An uncompleted work
But like other postulatums, it would never receive the council’s final approval. Following the definition of papal infallibility, war broke out, Pope Pius IX suspended the council indefinitely and the bishops fled back to their dioceses. Two months later, Italian soldiers seized control of Rome. THE Vatican Council was never reconvened, and the false Vatican 2 council, far from inviting the Jews to join the Church, invited them, as well as Protestant clergy, to participate in Her demolition. Watson observes: “By the time Vatican II was called, almost 90 years later, the world had changed dramatically, and the earlier document seems to have vanished from people’s memory and the Church’s consciousness…
“Would the twentieth century, with its history of both bitter and sweet Jewish-Christian relations, have taken a different path in any significant way? … When Vatican II was called by Pope John XXIII, there do not seem to have been calls for a “tidying-up” of all of the conciliar “loose ends” left over from Vatican I—which would presumably have included a renewed discussion of the Postulatum pro Hebræis. Whether by intention or by accident, it had effectively vanished from the Catholic theological radar screen, and I am not aware of efforts, even by groups of traditionalist bishops who opposed Nostra Æetate, to dust it off and re-introduce it. It seems simply to have been forgotten.” Forgotten, yes, after the triumph of Modernism and the false council’s adoption of ecumenism.
Watson concludes his work with an account of the the brothers activities following the Vatican Council: As for the brothers themselves: “In their post-Vatican I lives, they continued their pastoral and intellectual efforts, writing, teaching and preaching throughout France. In 1892, the Fathers jointly founded the “Stella Maris” Carmelite monastery of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (in Haifa), which still exists there today. They were jointly honoured across France, being named honourary canons of the cathedrals of Beauvais, Bourges, Langres, Montpellier and Reims.
“In April of 1908, Pope Pius X conferred on both of them the honorific of “monsignor” (as Domestic Prelates of His Holiness); during the ceremony celebrating their promotion, the dean of the Catholic faculty of Lyon said that the title was the reward for “the generous sacrifices that your courageous passage from the Synagogue to the Church have entailed for you, and the reward for a half-century of distinguished service to your brothers, whom your conscience compelled you to leave, without, however, ceasing to foster love for them”.
“Augustin died on June 16, 1909, and Joseph died on February 8, 1915, but the detailed story of the Postulatum, and of their vision for it, was made public in a 330-page book they had written together, which was published in 1912 — three years after Augustin’s death, and more than 40 years after Vatican I’s unexpectedly abrupt ending.” (End of Watson quotes.)
The Postulatum and the end times
Is it possible that the Lémann brothers’ efforts qualify as the conversion of the Jews towards the end of the world? In our opinion it is not only possible but highly probable. We have explained HERE how there is good reason to believe that Jews who emigrated to Mexico during the Babylonian Captivity and intermarried with the Mexican natives there constituted the eight million converts to Catholicism, over a seven-year period, following the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Coupled with the efforts of the Ratisbonne brothers but especially the Lémann brothers, it seems that these conversions could well be the fulfillment of Scriptural prophecy concerning the conversion of the Jews.
Could that indicate the Lémann brothers were Enoch and Elias? An interesting quote from Pope Pius IX, cited by Watson, could be suggestive of this. During a visit to France, while hosting a banquet for bishops at which the Lémanns were in attendance, Pius IX said: “These are the antiquities of the ancient Law” (emphasis the pope’s.) But then some believe that Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X were themselves the Two Witnesses. Personally, I have gone back and forth on the subject of Enoch and Elias for decades. The deciding factor for my present (and I believe) final take on this scriptural prophecy is that: given the fact there are no valid bishops remaining to restore the Church — and the in light of the decision by Pope Pius XII on the danger of teaching there will be even a spiritual Millennium — these two men have to be figures who have already come and gone.
The Great Apostasy began with Luther’s Revolt, followed by the King Henry VIII’s apostasy and the Protestant Reformation. When the reformers styled the popes as Antichrist, Pope Paul IV defined exactly who the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place would be — a heretic or one suspect of heresy, invalidly elected pope (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559). Notable events before, during and after the Vatican Council made it clear that the end times were fast approaching. The Council Fathers themselves believed that this was indeed the case, notable among them St. Anthony Mary Claret who warned: “May the Council prove the portal to shelter in the midst of the tempest which, already upon us, is increasing…(otherwise) woe to earth!” But following the Council, the Modernists would successfully erode papal authority and infiltrate the Church.
St. Anthony’s autobiography reveals that he had a wonderful revelation from Our Lord, who audibly informed this holy prophet he would become the eagle with the three woes in St. John’s Apocalypse, (Ch.8, vs.13), and would fly across the world to preach the coming chastisements. Our Lord made St. Anthony understand that these woes would be: 1) Communism and Protestantism; 2) “the four archdemons” — pleasure, money, reason and independence of will and 3) the world wars with all their terrible consequences. In a speech made at the Vatican Council, he proclaimed: “The Supreme Roman Pontiff is infallible…The truth of papal infallibility would be clear to all men if Scripture were understood.” St. Anthony then gave three reasons why it is not understood: 1) Because men do not truly love God; 2) Because they are not really humble; and 3) Because they do not want to understand what God has taught or want to be good.” And is this not precisely what we see today?!
The 19th century was the last great century of the Church. And already, as Henry Cardinal Manning notes in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See, the Church was in sad shape even then: “When, I ask, was the Church of God ever in a weaker condition, in a feebler state in the eyes of man and in this natural order than it is now? And from whence, I ask, is deliverance to come? Is there on earth any power to intervene? Is there any King, Prince or potentate that has the power to interpose either his will or his sword for the protection of the Church? Not one, and it is foretold that it should be so. Neither need we desire it, for the will of God seems to be otherwise. But there is one Power which will destroy all antagonists, there is one Person who will break down and smite, small as the dust of the summer threshing floor, all the enemies of the Church…”
Conclusion
If the Jews’ identity as a religious faction and a race was already in question in the 1800s, how is it possible that they could be identified and converted today? With the Church in ruins, to what ? As Our Lady of La Salette told the two children in 1846, “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist.” Did she mean the pope would lose the faith? Even before the Vatican Council definition it was impossible to believe that this could happen — Pope Paul IV taught such a man could only appear to be a pope. No, what she indicates here is that the Roman clergy, including the cardinals, would lose the faith, making an invalid election possible. This could happen only shortly before the advent of Antichrist. Pope Leo XIII’s long St. Michael’s prayer, to be recited privately by the clergy, confirmed that the abomination had already made inroads into the Holy Place and were preparing to install a false pope. Why else assign its recitation to the clergy if they were not in danger of being recruited by the enemy?
It seems that Enoch and Elias could come only during a miraculous restoration of the Church. But this is not indicated anywhere in Scripture and is contraindicated by Pope Pius XII and nearly all the older Scriptural commentators. It is possible, but only barely, that they could appear briefly during the time assigned for repentance following the chastisement and the physical destruction of Rome, but even this is very unlikely. While we don’t believe in assigning absolutes in such cases, neither can we ignore the fact that certain Scriptural prophecy in Apocalypse has already been fulfilled, such as the wholesale destruction of the Church and the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice. And this of course occurred under Paul 6. Nor has that Sacrifice been “restored” by Traditionalists, who never became clergy to begin with.
Once Antichrist has reigned — and all reading this site know that this author believes Giovanni Battista Montini, Paul 6, was Antichrist — all that remains is the Second Coming. His system continues on in the meantime. How long after his death the Final Judgment will occur is not indicated, but St. Thomas Aquinas believes this interval could amount to a considerable period of time. It appears that we live in that time, when all will believe they have destroyed the Church and no consequences are forthcoming. Here is the faith and the patience of those saints we hope and pray to be, that we may persevere until the very end. On this Pentecost Sunday, we await Christ’s return, for an angel told the Apostles and the Blessed Virgin that he would come again just as He left this earth. Even then, come Lord Jesus!
by T. Stanfill Benns | May 31, 2025 | New Blog
.
+Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary+
(The following article is in response to readers who have requested a brief and concise summary of what happened to the Church for those among the younger set just now realizing the errors of the Novus Ordo or Traditionalism. While it is difficult to try and distill almost 67 years of heartbreak down to a few pages, I feel I have done my best.)
Introduction
Especially with the election of Leo 14t, the Novus Ordo church and so-called “Traditionalist” sect members alike are beginning to wonder what lies ahead. This is especially true considering a recent influx of young converts among the Novus Ordo church — converts with a longing for the Latin Mass and a return to more traditional ways. But will such a return really remedy what has happened to the Church? A return to the Latin Mass certainly has not been any solution for Traditionalists. Rocked by repeated scandals and continuing schisms, they almost seem to have become an anachronism. What remains is an increasing level of unease among all the various sects, and a persistent sense of impending doom.
To help navigate this diabolical maze of uncertainty, some perspective is desperately needed. While it is true that the demise of the Church was largely facilitated by Zionist Jews, the secret societies, the Protestants and Modernist infiltrators, these groups were not the primary cause of the Church’s destruction; they were only the means used to completely gain control of an already greatly weakened Catholic laity. Those just now waking up to the true state of affairs in the Church who are investigating Traditionalist sects may be resorting to online videos explaining how we lost the Mass and the Church, the errors of Vatican 2 and the need to return to the Latin Mass. Those producing and narrating these videos will attempt to educate them on the errors of the false Vatican 2 council, the heresies found in the new “mass,” etc.
This information may be interesting and to some extent helpful but at best these videos provide only partial answers. Except as they touch on the Mass, doctrinal matters are generally not addressed, and failure to understand Catholic teaching as an integral whole is why we find ourselves in this predicament today. Sincere enquirers should be listening to the popes, (St. Peter to Pope Pius XII), the teachings of the ecumenical councils and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not those promoting these videos, who have little or no training in doctrinal matters. At their conclusion, these videos usually direct viewers to one or more conservative Novus Ordo groups or Traditionalist organizatIons. But this denies a basic premise of the Catholic faith, one which every Catholic must believe to be saved. And that is the primacy of jurisdiction enjoyed by the Roman Pontiff.
One video falsely states that a validly ordained priest is all that is necessary to offer a valid Latin Mass. The Mass is dependent for its efficacy on the one offering it. It cannot be offered by just anyone who presents as a member of the clergy. Pretending that the Mass is the most precious possession we lost is presuming there yet exists valid and licit clergy to provide valid and licit sacraments and effect the consecration of the Eucharist. But for any of this to exist, the Church has always taught that such clergy first must be in communion with a canonically elected Pope. Both Orders AND jurisdiction, not just Orders, are necessary to be a valid successor of the Apostles. Jurisdiction is entirely dependent on the existence of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff who alone can provide the permission necessary for the consecration of those nominated as bishops. This was first written into law by the Council of Trent. And without such permission no one nominated as bishop who is not approved by the Pope can be validly consecrated or ordain or consecrate other bishops.
Pre-election heresy in a papal candidate
Many have doubted for decades that the popes after Pius XII were true popes and some openly maintain that the papal see has been vacant for 67 years. Many doubted Francis was a true Pope as well. And until these doubts are resolved, as Bd. Pope Innocent XI infallibly teaches (DZ 1151), all must remain in limbo and no one may receive Sacraments, attend liturgical functions or yield obedience to a doubtful pope (St. Robert Bellarmine). An infallible papal bull, Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, clearly shows how a man could appear to become pope for the very purpose of destroying the Church. That man would have to be a heretic before his election, although this might not be known at the time, (and no man who is not a Catholic could ever become pope). But the fact that such a man would later promote heresy during his supposed pontificate would alert the faithful to the fact that he was a heretic pre-election and never became pope in the first place. For Christ has guaranteed, and the Vatican Council teaches, that no true pope could ever speak or promote heresy from the Chair of Peter.
For nearly 1400 years, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass stood untouched. That alone speaks volumes. Holy Scripture tells us that the Continual Sacrifice will disappear one day when Antichrist, the abomination of desolation, stands in the Holy Place. It is the unanimous opinion of the Early Fathers that this indeed will occur in the last days and both the Council of Trent and the (only) Vatican Council infallibly teach that we must believe this on faith. What exactly is the abomination of desolation? Pope Paul IV’s bull teaches that it is either a heretic or one suspected of heresy. St. Bernard of Clairvaux stated that antipope Anacletus was an antichrist owing to his invalid election. The Council of Florence also called antipope Felix V an antichrist.
No man can become pope unless he is elected according to the papal laws and canons prevailing at the time of election. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, as testified to by Pope Clement VI (Super quibusdam, 1351), Pope Martin V (Inter Cunctas, Errors of Wycliffe and Huss, Council of Constance, 1418), Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559), Pope St. Pius X (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904) and Pope Pius XII (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945). These laws are not limited to papal elections but are also mirrored in the laws of nations. Those countries electing their leaders by popular vote necessarily determine who may be elected and what invalidates an election. This has been openly discussed at length in this country and should come as no surprise: American law, as that of the Catholic Church, is based on Roman law. And certainly as a Divine institution, it applies far more stringently to the Church than to any nation.
The abrogation of the Latin Mass was the canary in the coal mine warning the faithful that the abomination of desolation, the Man of Sin, was standing in the Holy Place.
Had the bishops insisted, as Pope St. Pius X ordered in Acerbo nimis, that Catholics truly study and know their faith, they would have understood this. Had encyclicals been read from the pulpit at the order of the bishops and explained to the faithful, at least some of them would have understood from the beginning. But this was not the case, because the cardinals along with the bishops led them into heresy and schism. They followed the path of Judas, one of the apostles, who betrayed Christ; once-Catholic bishops of the East who embraced schism; and the priest Luther and Catholic King Henry VIII, fathers of the Reformation. And those priests who did not go along with the changes after Pope Pius XII’s death were no better. For they did nothing to educate the laity and investigate the true status quo of the Church, uncovering the root cause for Her destruction, or discover whether the pope had provided for such a crisis.
These early “traditional” priests pretended that in an emergency all could be swept aside to accommodate the wants of those believing themselves to be Catholic. They did not remember that Christ said first to go and TEACH all nations, then baptize — that His doctrine was to go before the ministration of the Sacraments — especially given the ignorance of the faithful and their clerical obligation to them. One of the videos mentioned above, treating of the new “mass” and the Vatican 2 changes, suggests that the faithful had no right to correct the Novus Ordo hierarchy for their faithlessness in signing Vatican 2 documents, implementing changes to the Sacraments and celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae. This in direct contradiction to Can. 1325, that unless the faithful publicly speak out against such heresies, they will be branded as heretics themselves. These ignorant priests had every opportunity to discover and translate from the Latin the infallible papal document that would have resolved and explained everything.
John 23 never eligible for election
But that translation was not rendered until 2012, by a layperson, and by then it would be too late to prevent the idiolatry that already had been committed and continues today.
This was no accident, because that papal document contained many things that neither the Novus Ordo nor Traditional pseudo-clergy wished to hear. Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS), was that document. It was a careful restatement of the original constitution promulgated in 1904, Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica, with only a few additions. Pope St. Pius X’s constitution was a thorough codification of all papal election law throughout the centuries as Pope Pius XII explains in his preface to VAS. It infallibly declared, as had papal election law for centuries, that no one who is guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism can be validly elected; that no one can usurp papal jurisdiction during the interregnum (such as lifting censures reserved to the pope alone, or approving men nominated for consecration as bishops, which can be done only by the pope); and that no one can change the papal election law or any of the Sacred Canons even in part, or dispense from them.
It is a matter of public record that Angelo Roncalli, John 23, was a suspected heretic at the time of his election. He also was disqualified as a papal candidate for violating other prohibitions in Pope Pius XII’s constitution. Roncalli himself later publicly confirmed he was a suspected heretic and even joked about it. It is also a matter of public record that a massive campaign was conducted to prepare Catholics for the acceptance of ecumenism in the 1950s by no less than the CIA. Proof also exists that lay interference by the CIA took place before and during the conclave that “elected” Roncalli, something that Pope Pius XII, in VAS, cites as invalidating the election. All of these facts have been documented. Pope Pius XII infallibly declares that if anyone even attempts to usurp papal jurisdiction, interfere in anyway with the election or change or dispense from the election law or Canon Law in any way that such an attempt is null, void and invalid. All was to be left to the future pope.
Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis teaches, (paras 1-3):
- During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff. Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.
- Likewise we command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the laws of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church,nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy. On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.
- The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff. In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, WE DECLARE IT, BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY, TO BE NULL AND VOID.
The consequences of all this are that John 23 never became pope; he was disqualified for election. Nothing he or any of his successors did ever really happened — it was all null and void. Canon Law teaches that a college that elects an unworthy candidate cannot proceed to another election, invalidating the election also of Paul 6 (Can. 2391 §1, 1917 Code). There was no John 23 missal (1962), no second Vatican Council (1963-65), there were no changes in the rites of the Sacraments (1968), the Latin Mass remained intact (1969), Canon Law was never changed (1983) — everything remained just as it was when Pope Pius XII died. It reminds one a little bit of the fairy tale Sleeping Beauty where once Sleeping Beauty falls asleep, the hedges grow around the castle and hide it. She remains asleep until her Prince (and we can interpret the Prince here as Christ Himself) beats down the hedge and kisses her awake again.
Most importantly, those who ordained priests and consecrated bishops following Pope Pius XII’s death such as Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin ngo dinh Thuc, also all those they ordained or consecrated, never became clerics because the interregnum never ended. Lefebvre’s and Thuc’s valid pre-1958 consecrations could not be removed, (although they ipso facto lost their offices as bishops for recognizing the false popes, signing Vatican 2 documents and offering the New “mass” — see Can. 2314 §3). But their right to VALIDLY EXERCISE THEIR ORDERS was stripped from them by Pius XII in VAS. The Traditionalist movement was just another non-Catholic, schismatic hiccup in the Church’s history. They did not “save” the Latin Tridentine Mass because they were not clerics and could not offer it or administer the Sacraments validly,
It was the papacy, not just the Mass that mattered
Logic is a collection of rules based on the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas which guide the mind to think correctly in its attainment of truth. There is an error in logic known as Non causa pro causa (Latin meaning “non-cause for cause,” or false cause). “It is a catch-all term that describes any type of fallacy in which we mistake a false cause of an event for the real cause… Reverse causation fallacy occurs when the direction of cause and effect is reversed. In other words, we assume that A causes B, without realizing that B actually causes A.” St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there must be a cause for every effect but that cause must be rightly identified. Unbelievably, the cause of the crisis in the Church was wrongly identified as the loss of the Latin Mass, as though the entire Catholic faith was founded on the Mass itself, and not St. Peter, the rock, and his successors. And this even though those condemning the Novus Ordo Missae, Patrick Henry Omlor included, publicly stated that this new liturgy was heretical.
And yet that liturgy and all that went before and after it was engineered and made law by men who Catholics were bound to believe could never err, as the Church infallibly teaches. Nearly half the faithful left the Novus Ordo in the late 1960sw and 1970s. This was an act of schism, unless that departure was based on the firm knowledge that the church they left was not the true Church. They at least implicitly acknowledged the heresy existed but failed to identify and condemn its actual cause: the Great Apostasy, consisting of false popes and apostate cardinals and bishops. VAS demanded a true pope be elected, but there was no one left to canonically elect a true pope — the shepherd had been struck and the flock successfully dispersed into the hands of the enemy. No one seemed able to decipher the fact that it was the papacy that had perpetually cemented the Mass into its Latin form and protected it for nearly 1400 years. But once he who withholdeth — the pope — was taken out of the way, it was fair game.
We live in that time foretold by St. Thomas Aquinas that would exist between the death of Antichrist and Christ’s second coming. This may be a frightening revelation, a hard saying, but it is one that must be accepted and dealt with because it is the only one that is consistent with the entirety of Catholic truth. God long ago determined some would have to live through these times, although few would retain their faith. We cannot run and hide as Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden. We know how deplorable the times we live in truly are and how offensive they are to God and worthy of damnation. They are deplorable precisely because we have lost the papacy and with it the Mass. We were long ago warned by the saints and theologians that when the Holy Sacrifice ceased, Satan would be loosed upon the earth. Is this not what we are seeing today? Antichrist alone could have accomplished this, as Holy Scripture and infallible papal teaching tell us, so we cannot deny it and remain Catholic.
An alternative reality
Holy Scripture predicts Antichrist will come in all signs and lying wonders, show himself in the temple as though he were God and deceive, if possible, even the elect. St. Paul describes the operation of error to believe lies that will afflict all but a few believers in that time (2 Thess. 2). What greater delusion could exist than the reign of seven usurpers pretending to be true popes to all the world and representing the Catholic Church while systematically destroying it? What greater deception could be imaginable? Both Novus Ordo and Traditional sect members believing or at least partially accepting this imposture live in an alternative reality, defined as: A state of things that does not really exist, (Cambridge Dictionary); or any[thing] that deviates from the [Catholic-Ed.] perception of reality” (VocabDictionary). Their own vulnerability to brainwashing can be chalked up to their ignorance of the faith. Only immediate departure from these sects and constant prayer to the Holy Ghost can bestow on those so deceived the grace necessary to learn the truth.
There is still time but time is running out, for no one knows the day nor the hour. May God grant you the light to see and the miracle of grace necessary to save your souls. “Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities” (Apoc. 18: 4-5).
(See the homepage and current articles page HERE for the proofs mentioned above.)
