by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 8, 2024 | New Blog
PADUA, ITALY – SEPTEMBER 9, 2014: Paint of Saint Ann and little Mary in church Santa Maria dei Servi by R. Maluta from end of 19. cent.
+Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary+
Some people seemingly have no shame and simply cannot admit they are wrong. We speak here of a certain “recusant” site that has publicly stated a document of the Roman Pontiff was not properly quoted on this site and an inference was drawn on this blog that contradicts what the pope intended. This is a classic example of projection, not to mention a matter potentially libelous, and this should be taken as a warning. Such a grievous accusation, common to LibTrads, is one that cannot be tolerated.
What the recusants say
The betrayedcatholics blog on modesty now in question was featured HERE. We will now quote here what the recusant blog posted regarding St. Nicholas’ instructions to the Bulgarians: “We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia [which is the Latin for “breeches” or “knee-length pants”]) TO BE IRRELEVANT; for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works. But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may.
“But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue. Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained by pants in which the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the first humans, when they felt illicit motions in their members after sin, ran into the leaves of a fig tree and wove loin cloths for themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are spiritual pants, which you still could not bear, and, if I may speak with the Apostle, you are not yet able; for you are still carnal.[I Cor. 3:2] And thus we have said a few things on this matter, although, with God’s gift, we could say many more.” (End of St. Nicholas I quote.)
What betrayedcatholics has said
- In our blog, we were not talking about “breeches” or what today would be called pedal-pushers (femoralia), but loose-fitting, full-length women’s slacks.
- They pretend we have misrepresented what the pope said because we did not quote him in full, (see full text of what the Pope wrote HERE, under Ch. LIX). These so-called recusants do this by placing emphasis on different parts of what the pope said and no emphasis on the language used in his opening statement or the final conclusion he arrives at in his remarks. First, Pope Nicholas I wrote: “We consider what you asked about pants TO BE IRRELEVANT…” Do they not know the meaning of this word? Taken from Merriam-Webster, relevant means: (1) having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand; (2) affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion. The same source notes that irrelevant means NOT relevant; inapplicable. So are they going to make a matter the pope clearly intends to have no bearing on the issue at hand a major issue, against his will and the introductory statement to the contrary?
Secondly, the pope writes: “Pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may.” They then claim that in saying this, and referring to ”putting on the new man,” (see above) the pope is stating he does not want women to wear pants. But the pope makes his own words clear in the succeeding paragraph of his instruction by stating that: “Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence.”
- Yet pay attention to what the pope says after commenting on “the new man”: “But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; BUT REALLY DO WHAT YOU PLEASE. FOR WHETHER YOU OR YOURWOMEN WEAR OR DO NOT WEAR PANTS (femoralia) NEITHER IMPEDES YOUR SALVATION NOR LEADS TO ANY INCREASE OF YOUR VIRTUE.” How can one possibly misread this sentence?!
Excommunication for falsifying papal documents
The above is further evidence of how LibTrads mislead Catholics, placing their own interpretation on the clear words of the popes! As we have repeatedly cited Msgr. Fenton as stating before, NO ONE may dare to interpret these documents contrary to their obvious meaning — Pope Nicholas I’s words are perfectly understandable, and he is not even talking about full coverage, loose women’s slacks, but form-fitting pedal-pushers! In their insistence on abiding by their own warped opinion of modesty in this regard, these Liberal-minded “Catholics” dare to misrepresent his very words and intent. THEY are the ones who are guilty of falsifying the meaning intended by Pope Nicholas I, not this author. But of course this was the very purpose of projecting blame — to deflect the guilt from themselves.
Perhaps they would be interested in knowing that there is an excommunication especially earmarked for misrepresentations of this kind, which states as follows: “All persons who forge or falsify letters, decrees or rescripts of the Apostolic See or with full knowledge of the forgery make use of the letters, decrees or rescripts, automatically incur EXCOMMUNICATION RESERVED IN A SPECIAL MANNER TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE” (Can. 2360 §1). Revs. Woywod-Smith comment on this canon: “The law of the code protects the official acts or documents not only of the Supreme Pontiff himself, but also of the Sacred Congregations and the Tribunals and Offices of the Holy See against forgery and mutilation and the willful use of forged or mutilated documents of the Apostolic See.”
Msgr. Fenton on honoring papal decisions on doctrinal matters
Surely even the recusants would agree that the wearing of pants by women is a matter of morals. Is it really necessary to remind them that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals?! It is imperative that Catholic women know whether or not they are committing sin in wearing “breeches,” (women’s slacks). And the pope provided it above but the Puritanical LibTrads insist on distorting his words. This might not amount to an actual forgery, but we are forbidden to even attempt to interpret papal documents, so it would most likely qualify as a falsification. The serious nature of matters such as these is stressed below by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, in his “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Allocutions,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, February 1956:
“Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved. Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided. A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth. Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his Acta, has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine. It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church. This holds true always and everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.
“The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published Acta when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it. The Humani generis reminded its readers that “this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals.” Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and “to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See.’ In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.
“We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his Acta. The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself. The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the Humani generis. This information is contained in the text of that document. The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:
“And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith — that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition — to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore “to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,” is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks.”
“Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church. And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his Acta, he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice. There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings. They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities. These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements. The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the Acta” (end of Msgr. Fenton quote).
And such individuals, obviously, still exist today. We remember another instance of this where a definite decision regarding the bishops as receiving their power from Christ only indirectly, but directly from the Roman Pontiffs. This was infallibly declared in Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentum and even by the Vatican Council. Two years ago it was called into question by an especially impertinent LibTrad who tried to refute it with a quote from a German theologian whose translated works were known to contain errors of the sort Msgr, Fenton mentions above (see HERE). This definition was even recognized as such by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who Msgr. Fenton documented as testifying to this fact. This same individual once aligned himself with the recusant position but according to unconfirmed reports, later left the group.
Conclusion
The Acta did not exist in the time of Pope Nicholas I. It came into existence later when, as Msgr. Fenton explains, it was necessary to silence those “deliberately flouting” the teachings of the Holy See. This, however, does not lessen the authority of what Pope Nicholas I teaches. For as Msgr. Fenton also notes, “The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these documents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian” (Msgr. J.C. Fenton,“The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Pt. II, ” Sept. 1949, AER). As Revs. Pohle-Preuss write in The Sacraments, Vol. IV: “It matters not what the private opinions of…theologians [are]. It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided.”
The recusants are scarcely theologians. They cannot produce one document from the Magisterium that specifically and unquestionably condemns the wearing of modest slacks by women. Do they really think that if this was such an important matter and that women were truly sinning by wearing slacks, something they already were doing in the 1940s and 1950s, the popes would not have been perfectly clear in their instructions concerning this? What a slap in the face to the Roman Pontiffs by insinuating they were remiss in not issuing such a prohibition! No one here is suggesting anyone switch to wearing slacks versus dresses or skirts, but we absolutely refuse to condemn others for wearing slacks when a pope has said it is “irrelevant” and no sin.
These recusants cannot and must not be allowed to interpret Pope Nicholas I as stating that pants are forbidden when he clearly does not do so. A better understanding of the English language and its usage would be helpful here, since this is what the Church instructs us to do whenever there is a doubt about any law or teaching (Can. 18), but they are not interested in that. They insist on acting as theologians when no one may dare to do so today, in believing as they wish to believe, for whatever reason. We may only quote those theologians loyal to the papacy writing on these topics, but most importantly it is the words and teachings of the popes that must always hold sway. We have no right to our own opinion when a pope has clearly stated otherwise.
We have said it before and will continue to repeat it for as long as necessary: We follow the popes and those scholastics loyal to them, not the opinions of men. We are to obey God not man, and the Vicar His Son set over us to be the never-failing source of His Truth.
Great quote from a reader by Fr. Charles B. Garside
(Writing more than a century ago [presumably during WW I -Ed.], Fr. Charles B. Garside was reacting to the Modernism that was already infiltrating the Holy Church. False doctrine had already entered “high place” in society and the Church. In his commentary on the life of St. Elias, he challenges Catholics of all times to take the correct position of active resistance in the face of error: The war must be waged on all fronts until the victory is achieved.)
“The world and the devil were never so successful as they are now in pretentiously disguising error under the garb of truth. Vices are enshrined as virtues in the attractive temple of falsehood. Immorality is idealized. Debased views of God and His creation, of the soul and the body, are openly processed in circles of rank and intellect.
“False doctrine is not only tolerated in the “high places” of social life; it is termed, as if in satire, “sound learning.” Presumptuous skepticism is canonized by popular acclamation, as not only a right but a duty, and the very perfection of mental and moral freedom. These are some of the hostile elements with which our present life is perilously charged.
“How can this array of foes be successfully met without a clear-sighted and persevering courage and how can this courage be obtained? Every Catholic is bound, according to his means and opportunity, to confront, denounce and resist the enemies of God. The war has to be waged by speech, by writing, by protests, by authority, by active and passive opposition, by sufferings, and by various other modes which need not be mentioned in detail.
“No class is exempt from military service in the great conflict which is perpetually raging. All are called to the ranks, no matter what may be their individual temperament or temptations. The contest is as unavoidable as it is difficult, but with the grace of God we shall succeed if we are “strong in faith.” “This is the victory that overcomes the world, even your faith.”
“Our adversaries may surpass us in station, talent and accomplishments. They may be clothed in them from head to foot, and we may, like Elias, be alone and unarmed, but we shall be the real “men of God.” We shall deliver our message without quivering; and though our personal Achab – whoever he may be – may refuse to believe in our words, we shall nevertheless, have borne testimony to the true God.”
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 2, 2024 | New Blog
+Pope St. Pius X+
Prayer Society Intention for September, Month of The Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary
“Dear Mother, by thy heart sunk in the bitterness of desolation, obtain for me the virtue of diligence and the gift of wisdom.”
Introduction
There are those who have objected that the Jews are not cited here as the primary founders of Freemasonry and do not today function as the main movers and shakers in this organization. We have never denied they had a hand in founding Freemasonry, but only questioned their active participation in the role of all secret societies today. And there are theologians and Catholic authors who do not blame them directly, but only indirectly for Freemasonry’s emergence. So below we will assay Catholic writers and historians on this topic.
Here we are speaking of Freemasonry which began as an underground current following the disbanding of the Templars in 1312, during the reign of the Avignon popes. Supposedly some of these Templars disbanded, perhaps bearing grudges against the Church, but continued under other names and in secret. In his Freemasonry and the Vatican, quoting from several sources, Comte Leon de Poncins states that “In reality, there was an ancient Catholic Masonry, about which little is known, which gradually fell into abeyance” (p. 115). He here seems to refer to a Catholic Masonry in existence that was centered around the masonry, or brick and stone laying guilds. But he also quotes another source that claims the Stuarts and Irish/Scottish aristocracy also belonged to a type of Catholic Masonry, in the 1600-1700s, which was later infiltrated by Protestant Freemasons. Today there is no such thing as “Catholic Masonry,” and this will be explained below.
Quoting from what he claims to be the most comprehensive and well-documented history of Freemasonry ever written, by one N. Deschamps, de Poncins relates that: “In the Middle Ages and at the time of the Renaissance, the Freemasons in Germany and Italy were overwhelmed with favors by the sovereign pontiffs and there is not a trace of heresy or hostility against the Church in the statutes of Stroudsburg of 1462 or as revised in 1563. However, in 1535 we come across a document which reveals the existence of an order under the name of Freemasons whose anti-Christian principles are absolutely in harmony with those of modern Masonry, and this time it is no longer a question of builders protecting their arts… The oldest and most authentic document of the Masonic Lodge, known as the charter of Cologne, dates back to the year 1535. It reveals the existence already going back sometime perhaps even two centuries of one or several secret societies which eked out a clandestine existence throughout the various states of Europe in direct antagonism with the religious and civil principles that formed the basis of their constitutions.
Rogue Templars and Socinus
Deschamps then goes on to quote from Michelet regarding the hotbed of Jewish influence and heresies existing in the Languedoc region of southern France. De Poncins concludes his quotes from this author with the following: “Sixteenth century Freemasonry arose out of the ruins of the Knights Templar…” The Languedoc area of France was where some of the Templars had congregated, a largely Jewish region and source of the Cathar and Waldensian heresies. On the orders of King Phillip IV, several member of the Knights Templar were arrested on Oct. 13, 1307, and put to death in1307-1308. Pope Clement V formally disbanded the order in 1312. This would account for one or more secret societies “already going back sometime perhaps even two centuries” as Deschamps reports above. And the seedbed for this, as will be seen below, were the rogue Templars and Gallicanists.
Comte de Poncins’ observations were confirmed by Msgr. George E. Dillon in his work Freemasonry Unmasked, several decades prior to the publication of de Poncin’s book. Dillon’s book was first released in 1885 under the title, The War of Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization. Msgr. Dillon dedicated the work to Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Leo XIII personally reviewed Msgr. Dillon’s work and ordered the Italian edition to be printed in Rome at the Holy See’s own expense. (This according to the publisher’s note to the fifth edition, revised and enlarged.) In discussing the origins of Freemasonry, Msgr. Dillon cites the studies of Mgr. Segur, the Bishop of Grenoble France, who dates the founding to a Laelius Socinus of Siena, Italy, founder of the Unitarian sect, and his nephew Faustus, around the year 1547. According to Segur, the aim of both Laelius and Faustus was “not only to destroy the Church but to raise up another temple into which any enemy of orthodoxy might freely enter. It was called Christian but was without Christian faith or hope or love.” One Abbe Franc believed that Oliver Cromwell was a Socinian, Dillon relates.
According to Msgr. Dillon, Mgr. Segur, “…connects modern Freemasonry with the Jews and Templars as well as Socinus. There are reasons which lead me to think he is right in doing so. The Jews for many centuries previous to the Reformation had formed secret societies for their own protection and for the destruction of the Christianity which persecuted them and which they so much hated. The rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon was the dream of their lives. It is unquestionable that they wished to make common cause with other bodies of persecuted religionists. They had special reason to welcome with joy such heretics as were cast off by Catholicism. It is therefore not at all improbable that they admitted into their secret conclaves some at least of the discontented Templars burning for revenge upon those who dispossessed and suppressed the order. The fact would account for the curious combination of Jewish and conventional allusions to be found in modern Masonry.”
“The era of the so-called Reformation was a sad epoch… It was an era of church demolition rather than of church building. Wherever the blight of Protestantism fell, the beauty and stateliness of church architecture became dwarfed, stunted and degraded whenever it was not utterly destroyed. The need of brother Masons [builders] had passed and succeeding Masons began to admit men to their guilds who won a living otherwise than by the craft. In Germany their confraternity had become a cover for the Reformers and Socinus, seeing it as a means for advancing his sect a method for winning adepts and progressing stealthily without attracting the notice of Catholic government, would desire, no doubt, to use it for his purpose. We have to this day the statute the genuine Freemasons of Strausbourg framed in 1462 and the same revised as late as 1563 but in them there is absolutely nothing of heresy or hostility to the Church.
“But there is a curious document called the Charter of Cologne dated 1535, which if it be genuine, proves to us that there existed at that early date a body of Freemasons having principles identical with those professed by the Masons of our own day. It is to be found in the archives of the Mother Lodge of Amsterdam which also preserves the act of its own constitution under the date of 1519. It reveals the existence of lodges of kindred intent in London, Edinburgh, Vienna, Amsterdam, Paris, Lyons, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Madrid, Venice, Goriz, Koenigsburg, Brussels, Danzig, Madgeburg, Bremen and Cologne and it bears the signatures of well-known enemies of the Church at that. Namely Hermanas, or Herman de Weir, the immoral and heretical Archbishop elector of Cologne, placed for his misdeeds under the ban of the empire; Doctor Coligny leader of the Huguenots of France; Jacob d’ Anville, prior of the Augustinians of Cologne, who incurred the same reproaches as Archbishop Herman Melancthon, the reformer… etc., etcetera.”
This leads us directly back to the Avignon papacy and the advent of the Gallicanist heresy, dedicated to eroding papal authority. Disbanded and frustrated, it appears the remaining rogue Templars and those wishing to eliminate or mitigate papal authority managed somehow to join forces with and influence those amongst the hierarchy in the Church. These members of the clergy most likely took them for good Catholics and trusted them, and it is into their ears they began to whisper doubts regarding papal supremacy and early ideas of democracy such as Marsilius of Padua taught. In short, they began the campaign to democratize and modernize the Church, to align Her with the state once they had toppled the monarchies, to strip the Church of Her rightful power. If their efforts are viewed over time with the hindsight afforded by history, it can easily be seen that this is what they did gradually over the centuries until the time of the Vatican Council.
Masonry’s Jewish origins
Did the Jews first instigate and fund Freemasonry and its many satellites? That appears to be the case. And it is still funding and supporting its efforts. But is it the primary source behind Freemasonry? It is hard to believe that it is any longer the driving force that propels it for two reasons. One, Protestant and atheistic hatred of Catholics has mushroomed to such an extent that active participation by the Jews is no longer necessary, although there may be supervisory forces at the upper levels of the Masonic pyramid directing certain groups. Secondly, Pope Leo XII, in his 1825 encyclical Quo Graviora, observed: “What is definitely ascertained is that those different sects, despite the diversity of their names, are all united and linked by the similarity of their infamous plans.”
Later Pope Pius IX would teach: “We have resolved, Venerable Brethren, to raise our Apostolic voice therefore, and We hereby confirm before you the constitutions of our predecessors and in virtue of our Apostolic authority We hold up to reprobation and we condemn this Masonic society and all other societies of the same order, which although different in appearance but pursuing the same aim against the church or legitimate civil power, are constantly being formed” (Allocution of Sept. 15, 1875). He further noted in this same allocution: “The Masonic sect has developed to such an extent that in these days of great difficulty it shows itself everywhere and with impunity and raises a more audacious countenance.”
Pope Leo XIII taught in Humanum Genus that: “There are several organized bodies which, though differing in name and ceremonial, in form and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions as to make in fact one thing with the sect of the Freemasons, which is a kind of center whence they all go forth and whether they all return.” As Pope Pius IX observed above, even in his day these sects had greatly grown in number and become commonplace. They have now grown to such great proportions today that it would be almost impossible for such societies to be directly governed by Jewish entities. From the beginning, Freemasonry was populated primarily by Protestant heretics, both clerical and lay — renegades from the faith during the Reformation and the French Revolution. The majority of these individuals were baptized Catholics. Without their hatred of the papacy, the Mass, Catholic governments and Catholic culture, propelling them to destroy the Church, their efforts would have been in vain.
The Kabbala and the Talmud
And it is these same Protestants today who seek to replace the Catholic Church, particularly in this country, now that the usurpers rule in Rome. Quoting the Jewish author Joshua Jehouda in his Judaism and the Vatican, Vicomte Leon de Poncins tells us that: “The Renaissance, the Reformation and the Revolution of 1789 constitute three attempts to rectify Christian mentality by bringing it into tune with the progressive development of reason and science.” The discovery of the Jewish Kabbalah, imparted by Pico de Mirandola to various enlightened Christians, contributed much to the spiritual blossoming known as the Renaissance. About half a century later the rehabilitation of the Talmud was to lead to the Reformation… Laicism, to which the Revolution gave birth, confers on the Jew his dignity as a man but Christian theology has not yet abolished its spiritual contempt for him. This accounts for the twofold attitude of the modern world with regard to the Jew and for the successive outburst of anti-Semitism. Although the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution which followed it liberated the Jew in the social and political fields they both hold the monotheistic religion of Israel in the same contempt as Christian theology.”
Freemasonry uses the Kabbala as its bible. In a 1914 work written by Rabbi Elie Benamozegh, Israel et l’Humanite, the Rabbi writes: “What is certain is that Masonic theology corresponds well enough to that of the Kabbalah. Moreover a profound study of rabbinical works in the first centuries of the Christian era provides abundant proof that the Haggada was the popular form of a secret science whose methods of initiation bore the most striking resemblances to Freemasonry.” And in an editor’s note to this work it is written: ”To those who may be surprised by the use of such an expression Masonic theology we would say that there is a Masonic theology in the sense that there exists in Freemasonry a secret philosophic and religious doctrine which was introduced by the gnostic Rosicrucians at the time of their union with the Freemasons in 1717. The secret doctrine or gnosis belongs exclusively to the high or philosophic degrees of freemasonry (Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Freemasonry and the Vatican).
De Poncins next quotes the anti-Semitism authority Bernard Lazare, who relates: “it is true of course that there were Jews connected with freemasonry from its birth students of the Kabbalah as is shown by certain rites which survive. It is very probable too that in the years preceding the outbreak of the French Revolution they entered in greater numbers than ever into the councils of the secret societies, becoming indeed themselves the founders of secret associations. There were Jews in the circle around Weishaupt and a Jew of Portuguese origin, Martinez de Pasquales, established numerous groups of illuminati in France and gathered around him a large number of disciples whom he instructed in the doctrines of reintegration.” De Poncins then quotes another English source to the effect that: “Although I have not by any means dealt with the Hebraic influences on all the symbolism of Masonry, I hope I have given sufficient illustrations to support the deduction that Masonry as a system of symbolry rests entirely on a foundation which is essentially Hebraic” (Hebraic Influences on Masonic Symbolism, B. Shillman). De Poncins then goes on to show the affinity between Jewish and Masonry’s doctrines and their conception.
There can be no doubt, then, that Freemasonry was founded on the Kabbala and the Talmud. That being said, it cannot be used as an excuse to exhibit hatred toward Jews today or engage in anti-Semitism, for surely the popes knew that this was the case before they ever forbade us to engage in such persecution. Are they using ignorant non-Catholics to help them rebuild their temple? Yes. Have they managed to convince them that their Christian roots are Jewish? That is true of at least some Protestant sects, who believe they are helping the Jews to fulfill biblical prophecy in advancing their cause. Can they then claim to march as Christian soldiers in the cause of Christ the King? Absolutely not. For Christ alone is the King of Zion and He it is who at His Second Coming will reclaim the throne of David.
No “Catholic” Masonry
It is no coincidence that the usurpers John 23 and Paul 6 embraced Freemasonry, as de Poncins explains, and along with it the ecumenism that brought both the Jews and all non-Catholic sects into their New World Order fold — Novus Ordo Missae, Novus Ordo Saeculorum. Some say they have seen articles claiming that Francis intends to dissolve the papacy, and this would be consistent with what was reported in the article HERE. Some Protestant evangelists even claim that Protestantism is dissolving into an amorphous mass of “believers.” The stage has been set, and we are being propelled headlong into the vortex. Traditionalism has played its part in the advancement of this process by their involvement in Freemasonry, as indicated in site articles and recent blogs. And no specious objection of what they belong to as being permitted under the title of “Catholic Masonry” can be tolerated. This according to the Holy Office itself, as we see below.
1950 instruction from the Holy Office
“Among the things which are springing up again with renewed vigor and not only in Italy is Freemasonry with its ever-recurring hostility to religion and to the Church. What appears to be a new feature in this Masonic renaissance is the rumors circulating in various social classes that a particular rite of Masonry might no longer be in opposition to the Church whereby even Catholics can enroll at their ease in the sect without fear of excommunication and reproach. Those responsible for propagating these rumors must surely know that nothing has been modified in the Church’s legislation relative to Freemasonry and if they continue this campaign, it can only be in order to profit from the naivete of simple folk. The bishops know that Canon 684 and especially Canon 2335 which excommunicates those who have given their names to Masonry without any distinction between rights are as full in force today as they always have been; all Catholics ought to know this and remember it so as not to fall into this snare and also so as to know how to pass due judgment on the fact that certain simpletons believe they can call themselves both Catholics and Freemasons with impunity. This, I repeat, applies to all Masonic rites, EVEN IF SOME OF THEM IN VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES DECLARED THAT THEY ARE NOT HOSTILE TO THE CHURCH” (Most Reverend Mario Cordovani, Master of the Sacred Palace; printed in Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1950, as quoted by de Poncins. https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/what-happened-to-the-church/
Later Masonic indicators
In 1985, Christopher Shannon of Arizona and one Ely Jason (Dennis D’Amico) proposed to found an International Society of Catholic Scholars. David Bawden was working with Jason on this. But Jason wanted this to be a “Catholic” secret society and Shannon and Bawden later disassociated themselves from each other and from Jason for this and various other reasons. In 1989, Bawden wrote a letter to this author saying he had “doubts” about “Fr.” Peter Tran Van Khoat, whom he was then assisting in his ministry in Texas, because Khoat had also proposed a Secret Society of Catholics, based on the Essenes, a group that seems to have been neither entirely Jewish nor Christian. (The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Essenism: “Freemasons pretended to find in Essenism pure Christianity.”) At that time Khoat, who in the 1980s served as a priest for the Gibsons and the Traditionalist chapel St. Jude’s Shrine, was working with Hutton Gibson and Gary Giuffre to validate the Siri “papacy.” In January 2023, with research help from a friend, I exposed Khoat in a blog as a complete fraud, con man and married man who had never even been a priest. Shortly before this blog was released, Hutton Gibson dropped completely off the radar. A Gibson apologist who later denounced the Siri theory had earlier questioned whether Khoat was a reliable source of information, but never investigated him fully.
So it seems that the infiltration of the secret societies did not stop with the Birchers, but went even deeper still, as Blood on the Altar author Craig Heimbichner and others have attested, even descending to the OTO, or Order of the Oriental Templars, associated with Aleister Crowley’s order of the Golden Dawn. Is it mere coincidence that Crowley was once friends with Rama Coomeraswamy’s father, the Buddhist Ananda Coomeraswamy? Is it coincidence that the “Catholic” convert, Rama Coomeraswamy, was a married “monsignor” who belonged to the Society of St. Pius X? Coincidence is a messenger to the truth, so it seems highly unlikely. Masonic involvement, however, was not limited to the Lefebvre bunch and the Priory of Zion they were obviously connected with, as other sources have proven. The Knights of St. John Jerusalem was home to the SSPX as well as other Traditional organizations. How deeply their involvement ran will never be known, as the secrecy of these groups hides all from view.
Conclusion
What we now know is that a certain number of LibTrads were participants in the very forces that destroyed the juridic Church, and their leaders’ ready access to unlimited funding may well be explained by their affiliation with certain secret societies. Excommunication for Masonic membership means nothing to them since they do not recognize the supremacy of papal jurisdiction. Gallicanism is their game and abandonment of papal teaching is the tool used to ready those who still value the ritualistic element of Catholicism for the eventual dissolution of the papacy. By avoiding all contamination with any secret society, we hope and pray, even if only by desire, to still count ourselves members of Christ’s Mystical Body,— the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant — of which He is the supreme Pontiff. The gates of hell shall never prevail against that Body, which Christ has promised us will last unto the consummation.
Viva Cristo Rey!
by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 22, 2024 | New Blog
+Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary+
Sweet Heart of Mary, be my salvation!
In my early 20s, I read a book that later would send me indirectly to the doors of Traditional “Catholicism.” That book was None Dare Call it Conspiracy, by Gary Allen. It helped me make sense of a world that was suffering a moral and religious crisis at the time, a crisis that officially began with usurpation of the throne of St. Peter but had actually been in the making for over a century. When I discovered that the Church I was baptized in, the one I had left after the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae, was being “revived” by Traditionalists, I investigated them. It was then I discovered this particular sect supported a right-wing group whose philosophy was based on Allen’s book, and everything seemed to finally come into focus. I became a member of the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement headed by Fr. Francis E. Fenton and briefly, the John Birch Society.
Four years spent in the movement, after writing for four Traditionalist publications, I realized that the goal of all these interrelated but separate sects was to maintain the status quo, not move forward to advocate for doctrinal unity which could be had only by electing a true pope. I resigned membership in the Birch society in 1982 and was done with the ORCM by 1983. I began actively advocating for a papal election in 1986-87. Readers know the rest. I have since discovered and exposed the founding and infiltration of the Traditionalist movement by Freemasons, and recently a reader has kindly advanced my knowledge regarding the Birch Society’s role in that infiltration. It further strengthens what is written HERE regarding Traditionalism’s Masonic origins and should leave Catholics with no doubt regarding the true motives and intent of LibTrad pseudo-clergy.
In that article I wrote: “Early in the Traditionalist game (1975), Catholic writer William Strojie, in his Letters, commented on De Pauw’s beliefs and affiliations and found them wanting. Strojie and Mary Lejeune, who wrote Sword of Truth were apparently the first among writers at the time to link DePauw’s Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM) to the Old Catholics and Gnostics. They also identified Fr. Francis E. Fenton’s John Birch Society-affiliated Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM) as not only linked to the Old Catholics, but also to the Americanists, (the initials for the Old Roman Catholic Church are ORCC and Fenton’s group functioned in the U.S. much as that church functions both in Britain and here).”
What Lejeune and Strojie didn’t know is that the John Birch Society’s own council members directing the society were peppered with Freemasons and Communist sympathizers. This is confirmed by former JBS members in the article found HERE. Much of the information comes from Who’s Who in America and other sources. Below the implications of this find will be discussed.
Masonic Birchers, their associates and British Israel
Most interesting about the Birch expose article is that it lists as one of their council members a Dr. [John] Grady, founder of the Shickshinny Knights (Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, SOSJ) but does not refer to his Masonic membership in this order. The Shickshinny Knights were taken to court and denounced as a legitimate order. They also were investigated by the FBI for neo-Nazi and terrorist-type connections in the 1990s (https://barthsnotes.com/2012/05/24/patcon-and-the-investigation-of-a-sovereign-order/). Wikipedia rightly reports that Fr. Fenton founded the ORCM on the suggestion of and with the support of Rev. Joaquin Saenz- Arriaga, a Mexican canonist and theologian. The translator for Arriaga’s work frankly admits, in a dedication for The New Montinian Church, that Arriaga was a member of the Order of St. John Jerusalem, an order that also tracks back to Marcel Lefebvre. Below is the preface to Saenz-Arriaga’s book.
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE
“Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, S.J., Ph.D. was born October 12, 1899, ordained a Jesuit priest in April, 1930, and died in April, 1976. An acclaimed sentinel and guardian of the Rock of St. Peter, he held doctorates in philosophy, theology and Canon Law. An active and prodigious traditionalist writer, he authored or co-authored more than fifty books exposing the neo-gnosticism of the Post-Conciliar Church, including such well-known texts as Sede Vacante (The Vacant Chair), For Christ and Against Christ, The New Mass Is Not the One Catholic Mass, The Plot Against the Church, etc. A dedicated servant of Christ, his love of God and mankind propelled him to write the present comprehensive expose against the occult conspiracy. A shining star of the Jesuit Order and the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, he first published La Nueva Iglesia Montiniana on the Feast of the Assumption, August 15, 1971. This was subsequently translated and published in Italian, creating such a furor within liberalized Church circles that it even brought about an invalid excommunication, handed down by a bishop who did not have jurisdiction over Fr. Saenz and who did not call a tribunal to hear the case. It is hoped that the timely and long-awaited publication of this book on August 15, 1985 will provide the reader with enough historical insight to appreciate the nature of the pagan anti-Christian conspiracy which is at work against the Church.”
It should be no surprise, then, that Fenton himself was a member of the same organization on which Grady also sat as a council member, or that Saenz-Arriaga was a member of Grady’s Shickshinny Knights. “Fr.” Dan Jones, an ORCM pseudo-cleric, regularly promoted Grady’s side organization, the American Pistol and Rifle Association, and recruited Traditionalists for membership in the group. Jones also openly promoted British Israel ideology in his Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes. He would later embrace a schismatic alternative-pope group in Canada condemned by Pope Pius XII.
Although not a council member, another possible Masonic connection was Kennett Bawden, father of David Bawden, aka “Pope Michael.” According to family members, the elder Bawden left the Masons on embracing the Catholic faith, sometime in the 1960s, 1970s. During his time as a member of the St. Pius X Society and for some time afterward, Kennett Bawden was a public relations agent for the Kansas branch of the JBS (1970s, 1980s). His 1995 obituary lists him as “a lifetime member” of the JBS. He was the main funder and promoter of his son David’s 1990 “election.”
H.M. Peters on the JBS and British Israel
British Israel is treated in various articles on this site and is one of the lower rungs of Freemasonry listed on Lady Queenborough’s Masonic pyramid. The authors of the JBS article mention Protestant author and researcher, Helen M. Peters, in their work and her reference to the philosophy of the JBS as definitely supporting British Israel. Peters is quoted at length in the treatise HERE on the history of British Israelism, which the article on the Masonic origins of Traditionalism mentioned above links to the Birch Society and Traditionalists. She doesn’t expose the JBS, founded by Robert Welch, as infiltrated by Freemasons, but she definitely provides the spiritual link that places them in the service of the One World religion architects. Peters writes:
“This one “link” is all important because it not only ties in the conservative and Identity Movements, it links them with the Jew’s religion which the Identity people promote as the Kingdom Message. The Identity people are bastard offspring of Judaism because their belief in the earthly kingdom is Judaism.
“The John Birch Society has been a thorn in the flesh of many would-be patriots. The purpose of the John Birch Society is to soak up any effective opposition and neutralize it or turn it toward a false conservatism. Robert Welch and his Society has never attacked the Kingdom Message propaganda. In fact they promote British Israel under the cover of Fundamental Christianity. “Welch laid to rest any questions on British Israel to his members in his booklet THE NEUTRALIZERS. We say that he who does not want the whole truth does not deserve any truth. With this in mind let us take a close look at Welch’s double talk in his phony expose` of British Israel. He simply attacks it by one name and promotes it under another.
“THE NEUTRALIZERS is a booklet distributed by the John Birch Society. Its purpose, according to its author, is to “minimize the effect of the whole splintering (efforts to destroy the John Birch Society) operation.” According to Robert Welch none of his members are supposed to believe any bad stories about himself or his society unless they first check with headquarters in Belmont, Massachusetts. This, most of them dutifully do.
“If through guile, one wishes to twist men’s minds, it is necessary to be compassionate, sincere, religious and, in this case, patriotic. These qualities of character cause an unfaltering admiration, stupefying followers and “neutralizing” opponents. The way for a villain to disguise his crime is to implicate it to others, blaming them for that which he is guilty.
“THE NEUTRALIZERS is a case in point. If we suppose that Mr. Welch has a valid attack upon advocates of “Anti-Semitism,” “Religious Neutralism,” “Academic Neutralism,” “Political Neutralism,” and “Tangentitis,” we have a right to examine him and his Society with regard to the same topics. (We have not checked with Belmont but we will go ahead.) As Mr. Welch so powerfully stated, on page 39 of THE NEUTRALIZERS, “Consistency is seldom a virtue of the bigot.” End quote. With this we agree and with this in mind we turn the spotlight upon Mr. Welch and his “Anti-Communist John Birch Society.”
“In the first section of THE NEUTRALIZERS on “Anti-Semitism” the term anti-Semitism is used twelve times. This of course injects the revolutionary tactic of racism because of the commonly false definition put upon the word “Semitic.” With all the knowledge that Sir Robert possesses he cannot prove that there is a Semitic Race, let alone that the Jews are Semites. His genealogical proof of a Semitic Race today is as impossible as is any British Israelite’s racial identity. Racial lineage dating back to any of the tribes of Israel was forever destroyed when the genealogical tablets were destroyed with the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. The error of “Jewish Semitism” is as erroneous as the error of “Arab Semitism.” But of course the idea of race helps promote conflict and revolution.
“Then with the gall of a brass monkey he equates religion with race in order to confuse the two. On page 8 he suggests that “Jews” are sometimes “Jews” and sometimes not — “but those who had formerly been Jews and many who had not been Jews.” End quote. So Welch says on page 18 that the Communists do the “opposite of the appearance that they create so diligently.” Is he not here following the same pattern of using racism (semitism) to promote revolution?
“Then like all good Masons do, he equates all religions to one big happy family. On page 20 he states that Communism must go “so that Jews and Christians alike, and Mohammedans and Buddhists, can again have a decent world to live in.” End of quote. Now be not deceived that his plan graciously allows Christianity a fourth part with the heathens. His definition of Christianity is British Israel and is not based on the Deity of Jesus Christ at all… Mr. Welch and all the Right-Wing Communists say the bad guys are in the Kremlin. They are bad all right because they are controlled by the same British Israel that controls Mr. Welch. The only thing is, their left-wing Communism is going to give way to Mr. Welch’s “Christian Communism” (https://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/unionjack_epilogue.htm).
Is that not precisely where we are headed in this coming election? And is this not reflected in the establishment of the Abrahamic Family House celebrating all three world religions, the Satanic result of indifferentism, pan-Christianism, Modernism, ecumenism and the religious liberty espoused at the false Vatican 2 council?
Replacement theology and conversion
Right-wing Christian fundamentalism, as explained by Peters above in the link on British Israel, rebuffs the idea of a “replacement theology,” or supersessionism. This term is defined by one Protestant writer as: “The animosity even some Christians have toward the Jewish people. They choose to believe in the Replacement Theology that ‘essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of the Replacement Theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel.’” Romans 11: 28-31 is quoted to support the restoration of Israel: “As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. For as you also in times past did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy, through their unbelief; So these also now have not believed, for your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.”
Rev. Leo Haydock, however, interprets this as follows: “They are… enemies to God, for He has rejected them at presentfor their willful blindness…” Typically, this Protestant neglects to refer to the preceding verses, Rom. 11:25-27: “For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: ‘There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins’.” Rev. Haydock comments: “All Israel shall be saved when all nations are converted [and] they [the Jews] submit to the faith of Christ… Christ Jesus shall then come to them by His powerful grace, ‘And this is to them my covenant… [when I shall take away their sins’”].
And then we find this verse: in 2 Corin. 3 vs 13-16: “And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void. But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the Old Testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. But when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.” Let them once convert and THEN the promises will be fulfilled, in the establishment of the heavenly New Jerusalem, as the Good Book teaches. This conversion very likely already happened in part, as reported in the article cited previously on the lost Jewish tribes. But toward the very end, before the consummation of the world by fire and after the terrible chastisement and destruction of Rome, time will be given for the remaining Jews to convert, as well as “The Synagogue of Satan…those who say they are Jews and are not but do lie. I will make them to come and adore before thy feet” (Apoc. 3:9).
Who is this synagogue? As Msgr. Jouin reports in his booklet on Freemasonry: “The renewed sentences of anathema by Pope Pius IX strike most particularly the satanism of secret societies. In his Encyclical of November 2l, 1873, the Pope writes of them as ‘the synagogue of Satan.” So is Freemasonry, aligned at the top with certain Jewish entities, those of whom this pope speaks, the ones now promoting British Israel? Or is he referring to the fact that the Jews as a race have ceased to exist, since all their genealogies were lost with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., and by their dispersion among the nations. This is even taught by Jewish historians and converts from Judaism. What must Catholics believe about replacement theology, now so popular among Fundamentalists? Surely it cannot be called animosity, for Catholics are not anti-Semites. We wish to take nothing from the Jews that belongs to them, only enrich them with the acceptance of the Messiah that they mistakenly rejected so long ago. Then indeed all the promises made to them will be fulfilled. These are not our terms, but the terms of their God.
Rev. Denis Fahey reports that Pope Pius XI, in his Sept. 6, 1938, address to Belgian pilgrims wrote: “At the most solemn moment of the Mass we recite the prayer which contains the expression “sacrifice of Abel, sacrifice of Abraham, sacrifice of Melchisedek” in three strokes, three times, three steps, the entire religious history of mankind—a magnificent passage. Every time we read it; we are seized by an irresistible emotion. The sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham. Note that Abraham is called our patriarch, our ancestor. Antisemitism is incompatible with the thought and the sublime reality expressed in this text. It is alien to us, a movement in which we Christians can have no part. The promise was made to Abraham and to his descendants. It is realized in Christ, and through Christ in us who are members of His Mystical Body. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham. No, it is not possible for Christians to take part in antisemitism. We acknowledge for all the right to defend themselves, to adopt measures of protection against what threatens their legitimate interests. But antisemitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are Semites.”
It is the British Israel adherents, among them Traditionalists, who expect a millennium and the restoration of Christ’s Church on earth. Traditionalists believe they will be the beneficiaries of this restoration and Fundamentalists believe it will be a Jewish operation that will somehow include Christians, but they are not in agreement on the extent or timing of this involvement. Millenarianism, even in its mildest, spiritual sense, has been condemned by Pope Pius XII and this is explained HERE. The thousand-year reign probably began after the papacy was firmly established in Rome once the major persecutions of Christians subsided. In 445, Emperor Valentinian pronounced that the Bishop of Rome was the law for all. Pope Gelasius I was the first pope to be called Vicar of Christ (492-496). A little over 1,000 years later, Luther began his revolt, followed by that of Henry VIII around 1532. Freemasonry was established in England 200 years after Luther’s revolt.
Conclusion
LibTrads no longer can defend the fraudulent and apostate foundations of their “church.” As documented in the Masonic origins article, The Catholic Traditional Movement (CTM), the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM), the St. Pius X Society (SSPX) — and any remaining LibTrad pseudo-clergy issue from these three organizations — ALL were founded by men later linked to the exact same secret society: the Knights of St. John Jerusalem. And now we have shown that the ORCM was intertwined with a Masonic-run organization from the outset. Any so-called clerics were excommunicated for cooperating in any way with these apostates, and any Traditionalists joining “Fr.” James Wathen’s Solemn Order of St. John of Jerusalem were excommunicated for joining a secret society. Wathen claimed in his Is the Order of St. John Masonic that the order was not aligned with Freemasonry, but it was secret in nature, never sanctioned by a reigning pope, and therefore did not have to be directly aligned to qualify as a forbidden secret society.
The link HERE explains that it was indeed a secret society populated by former WWII generals and other military personnel directing “underground armies.” Some have claimed these armies exist both in Europe and the U.S. Fidelity Magazine writer, Thomas Case, reported in the 1990s that the SSPX in St. Mary’s, Kansas was a neo-Nazi hotbed, and much of this seems to be directly traceable to the SOSJ (see HERE). LibTrads have been warned before, but the preponderance of evidence is now firmly stacked against them. The length, depth and breadth of the infiltration of the Church is something that is almost unbelievable, but the popes warned us long ago it was occurring and no one heeded their warnings or obeyed them. God warned the Israelites in Leviticus 26 about what would befall them if they broke His Covenant and disobeyed Him. (The whole chapter should be read) Sadly, we reap what we sow.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 15, 2024 | New Blog
+Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary+
An article written in June has been submitted for comment by a reader from a Novus Ordo site called Canon Law Made Easy. The Canon Law referred to on that site is the false revision of the 1917 Code issued in 1983 by the usurper John Paul 2. This revision was first suggested by Angelo Roncalli before the first session of the false Vatican 2 council. In the Novus Ordo article, statements are made and links provided regarding the “schismatic” sedevacantist position and the false basis for this position. Of course no one expects members of this non-Catholic sect to get anything right, regardless of their supposed canon law credentials. But the points they use to deflect enquirers from sedevacantism need to be addressed, since they predictably fail to inform their readers that they do after all have the obligation to diligently research the legitimacy of the 1958 election and form their conscience accordingly.
The revised 1983 “code”
Abp. Amleto Cicognani observed that changes to the law are odious and are to be made sparingly. Revs. Woywod-Smith state under Can. 22 that “Changes in the law are made solely by the Holy See, and only for serious reasons and after mature deliberation… It is a fundamental principal that the general presumption is always in favor of the old law remaining unchanged.” So if those considered doubtful “popes,” at best, change the laws, then in doubt the old laws always remain in force under Can. 6 §4. Doubt concerning the validity of these false popes suffices, for those not able to gain a more advanced degree of certainty; a doubtful pope is no pope, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, and as a doctor of the Church his opinion is probable according to the moral theologians. We are to use such opinions, also reflex principles whenever we have no one to consult regarding such situations. Canon 22, in the 1917 Code states: “A more recent law given by the competent authority abolishes a former law if the new law explicitly says so or if it is directly contrary to the old law or if it takes up and readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law.”
The entire question here must be asked and answered for those who have not yet done the necessary study: were Roncalli and his successors true popes, “competent authority”? Were their elections unquestionably valid? The answer to this question should be obvious, given the fruits of these imposters and what has been presented by this author and others for nearly 35 years. This is why, of course, all these objectors assume the question is preposterous, schismatic, absurd, etc. They list those who have the least likelihood of offering any credible evidence for Roncalli’s false election, the more fantastical sedevacantist proponents, to make sedevacantism appear to have little value as a tenable theory. While claiming to uphold the law, they violate it, resorting to sophisms to avoid addressing the issue, that is arguing beside the point. The elephant in the room remains very large and real while they talk around it.
They don’t even get the real jist of the issue or the sedevacantist position held by LibTrads, writing: “And since a man who isn’t validly elected Pope can’t validly select new Bishops and Cardinals, this means that subsequent Popes were chosen by non-Cardinals, meaning that the new Popes weren’t/aren’t validly elected either. So sedevacantists are basically saying that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has pretty much ceased to exist” (June 6, 2024). Only those praying at home really believe the hierarchy has ceased to exist, in this the end times. Sedevacantist pseudo-clergy believe they are the hierarchy and can continue to function without their head bishop, the pope. The proper term, which all canonists should be familiar with, is actually canonically elected. And the real issue here is not whether the non-cardinals chose subsequent popes or a non-pope could select new bishops. The old law easily solves the problem, and if these commentators were truly competent canonists who had done their due diligence, they would know this. Canon 2391 § 1 states that a college electing an unworthy candidate is automatically disqualified from proceeding to a new election.
Certitude and matters of faith
In a link to a 2017 article, provided in the June 6, 2024, article, we read: “Canon 205 tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance — and it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism. If you don’t believe that this or that papal document was issued by a man who is/was really the Pope, then you naturally don’t intend to abide by whatever it says by refusing to accept the authority of the current Pope or his recent predecessors, a Catholic who’s a sedevacantist willfully puts himself into a state of schism… But since sedevacantists tend to cite (incorrectly) a lot of canon law in support of their positions, it seems reasonable to assume that they are aware of both the Church’s position on the crime of schism, and the penalties that may accompany it…
“Sedevacantism… is a schismatic movement rather than a heretical one. As sedevacantist Catholics refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Holy Father(s), deciding for themselves that he/they are not really Pope(s), they are deliberately taking themselves out of full communion with the Church… When people take it upon themselves to decide that the Pope isn’t really the Pope because he took a sketchy theological position, or because his personal morals were scandalous, or because it looks like his election wasn’t done quite right… they’re playing with fire.”
But there is a major problem with these statements. Catholics MUST decide for themselves, for they are obligated to arrive at certitude that the man claiming to be pope was canonically elected, according to the laws prevailing at the time, NOT the revised 1983 code — the old law still prevails. Theologians unanimously teach that one cannot act in a state of doubt regarding matters concerning eternal salvation, such as obedience to a true pope, unless and until that doubt is resolved, and no one will consider ALL the evidence to resolve it. That we are bound to remove this doubt is clearly demonstrated from the binding decrees found in Henry Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, (DZ 570d, 650, 652, 674, also Cum ex Apostolatus Officio): “A pope canonically elected, who lived for a time after having expressed his own name, is the successor of blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church,” (DZ 674). This is an article of faith, proposed for belief to the Armenians and to Wycliffe and the Hussites. The article proposed to the Armenians asks them to hold that “all the Roman Pontiffs who… succeeding Blessed Peter have entered canonically and will enter canonically,” will possess the same plenitude of jurisdiction Christ granted to St. Peter. Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton states that what was proposed to the Armenians is to be considered a dogma of faith, (The Concept of Sacred Theology, pgs. 132-33).
In his 1896 work Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy, Sydney F. Smith, S.J. wrote: “The following passage is [found] in Ferraris Bibliotheca, a work of the highest authority. In his article on the Pope, (S.v. Papa, p. 949) [the respected theologian] Ferraris says: It is of faith that Benedict XIV, for instance, LEGITIMATELY ELECTED and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance, where 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.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’” (See DZ 674, 675).
No schism if positive doubt established
This same article of faith is one we ourselves must believe. But if certitude cannot be had regarding the canonical status of the election, and the book The Phantom Church in Rome, also articles on this site have provided sufficient evidence for years to cast grave doubt on the results of the 1958 election, then one is bound in conscience NOT to hold such an election valid. According to the opinions of seven notable theologians, in withdrawing from the “obedience” of a man claiming to be pope who you believe was never canonically elected, no schism is involved. Vermeersch-Cruesen, Reiffenstuel, Schmalzgrueber, Ferraris, Vechiotti and Szal state: “There is no schism involved… if one refuses obedience [to a pope] inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election…” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L.). Serious reasons, that is positive doubt, must exist and proofs must be presented to support such a position. This fulfills the provisions of Can. 20 and establishes probability according to Church teaching. These theologians agree that one need only suspect that the man claiming to be Pope is irregular in some way or invalidly elected (Can. 2200), and we have established far more than just suspicion in the documents presented on this subject.
And then we have the probable opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, who teaches a doubtful pope is no pope: “When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there also is a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case, no one is bound to obey him… But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all… An authority that may be justly doubted at all times is no authority; it commands neither obedience nor respect as is evident in churches that reject the claim to indefectibility… One who intrudes himself into the ministry against the laws of the Church receives no authority, and consequently can transmit none to his successors…
“Therefore,” continues the Cardinal, “If a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.” (Rev. E.S. Berry, The Church of Christ: “p. 402).
St. Antoninus, commenting on the Great Western Schism, also noted: “The question was much discussed and much was written in defense of one side or the other. For as long as the schism lasted each obedience had in its favor men who were very learned in Scripture and Canon Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were illustrious by the gift of miracles. Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds of many still in doubt. Doubtless we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor. But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know Canon Law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.” And the superiors and prelates WE follow are those writing before the death of Pope Pius XII.
Another respected theologian weighs in here: “A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power, but he has not practically in the Church the same right as a certain pope — he is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim,” (The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, Rev. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J., emph. his.) Rev. O’Reilly was the theologian of choice in Ireland for local Irish Councils and Synods and was a professor of theology. The opinion of these men and the proofs that the 1958 election was invalid also constitutes the juridical certainty in way of evidence required by Dom Charles Augustine under Can. 430. What Szal presents, then, is a solidly probable opinion, one which helps establish certitude, and according to the laws and teachings of the Church it may be followed at will.
So those among LibTrads holding John 23 as validly elected and the Novus Ordo “experts” who criticize others for misquoting Canon Law and accuse them of willfully committing schism are asking Catholics to actually ignore their conscience and deny an article of faith. Furthermore they have entirely argued beside the point regarding the question, refusing to consider evidence that amply shows there were numerous alarming irregularities and evidence of outside election interference in 1958. These facts have been available for years, even decades. Pretending to be champions of Canon Law, they entirely discount and ignore the canons then in effect which have been cited here numerous times. But most importantly, they entirely dismiss Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which infallibly voids any attempted act or acts contrary to those canons, and levies penalties for violations of his law that could be lifted only by a future canonically elected pope. This renders their reasoning and their arguments null and void.
Peter’s faith lacking in Roncalli, Montini
We read above from this NO site that: “Canon 205 [1983 code] tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance… it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism.” No, the issue of Church governance and unchanging faith is the key problem with ALL LibTrad and Novus Ordo sects. The Church was founded on a rock — on PETER’S FAITH. It was not founded on fractured rock or sand. Both Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis exclude heretics or suspected heretics from election and Roncalli was a proven suspected heretic (see HERE). And the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.” Neither Roncalli or Montini were loyal to Pope Pius XII or retained that same faith. His governance meant nothing to them; they were working together and with others to establish a new church, and they succeeded. Many instances have been cited proving they questioned or denied the faith; Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo Missae proved that most effectively. Montini and Roncalli were Catholics in name only. But how do you make an objective judgment in this case when the man falsely elected has been declared a “saint”?!!
Dr. Cyril Andrade wrote in a 1976 article, Are Papal Elections Inspired by the Holy Ghost?”: “Pius XII is pope: Montini is his pro-secretary of State: Roncalli is Papal Nuncio in Paris: the Pope suppresses the “Worker Priest” movement in France because far from reclaiming the workers to the Church, all of the 200 “Worker Priests”, themselves, lost their faith; but Montini and Roncalli, in collusion, secretly encourage the movement and keep it alive against the order of the Pope.” After explaining how both the elections of Roncalli and Montini were secretly engineered by Freemasons and others, Andrade writes: “Does this scenario of low, vile intrigue, connivance, collusion and treachery of the hierarchical mafia led by the liberal (heretical) gang of Suenens, König, Döpfner, Lercaro, et al, in any way lend credence to the canard that the Conclave that elected [Roncalli and] Montini was “secret” and “inspired by the Holy Ghost”?
“To thus make a mockery of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, in this vile fashion, is to be guilty of the unforgivable sin. But, then, the Vatican II Mafia does not believe that the Holy Ghost is God for, in the fourth Eucharistic prayer which they have concocted for their Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) they state categorically: “Father in heaven, you alone are God . . .” (Emphases added), thus excluding the Son and the Holy Ghost from the Trinity Godhead.” And these Novus Ordo pretenders can dismiss these heresies and proofs that faith is lacking, in Francis AND his predecessors, to accuse sedevacantists of schism and rejection of lawful authority? Please see the article HERE which confirms what Andrade wrote so long ago.
And not only must the one elected as pope be considered here but the ones electing as well. As Andrade notes and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis states, the cardinals are tasked to select who they believe is the worthiest among them to act as Christ’s vicar. Those making this selection must certainly be Catholic themselves. Yet we see that all those cardinals who participated in Roncalli’s election, minus those who had the good fortune to pass away, went on to convene and approve the deliberations of the false Vatican 2 council. And they were good Catholics, they can be trusted and we have no reason to doubt them? How could anyone be so blind? A canonical election requires that all those voting be Catholics who have not automatically forfeited their office owing to some heresy. Ecumenism is a heresy; religious liberty is a heresy; the insertion into missalettes distributed in 1959 containing the English translation, “for all men,” is a heresy. If only a few cardinals could be proven to be suspect of heresy, or disobedient to the pope or to have participated in plots to confirm Roncalli as pope before Pope Pius XII’s death, and there is proof of this, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis declares the election is invalid for want of a two-thirds plus one vote.
Peter’s faith is the rock, and without it the entire foundation that is the papacy crumbles. Does any true Catholic really believe that the Holy Ghost would descend upon and grant the gift of infallibility to a man suspected of heresy for over 25 years, elected by men, some of whom were complicit in rigging the election, with assistance from the CIA and other groups? Canon Law and pre-1958 canonists deny the election would be valid. Pope Pius XII declares in his infallible Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that anything done in violation of the sacred canons during an interregnum is null and void. Common sense and any reverence for the institution of the papacy should tell us that such an election is doubtful in the extreme, especially considering what went before compared to what followed. It would convince a rational person, if we were dealing with truly rational human beings identifying as Catholic. But sadly this is not the case today. Pray that the veil be lifted from their eyes and the hardness be driven from their hearts.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 10, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Lawrence, Martyr+
A sad form of rigorism still seems to be afoot that would deny those converting towards the end of their lives the hope of salvation. In his classic work Sinners Return to God, written in 1897, Rev. Michael Mueller calls out to the hardened sinner to return to the God who gave joy to his youth, the religion into which he was received or was born. It is often quoted as proof that deathbed repentance or “conversion” is not something favored by the Church, as Rev. Mueller points out, and this is very true concerning the state of certainly baptized Catholics who were raised in the faith and later abandoned it, Catholics who have stubbornly delayed their return to the Church. Of such errant Catholics Rev. Nicholas Walsh, S. J., says in his 1898 work, The Saved and the Lost:
“It may sound harsh and seem strange to say that there is a class of persons who appear to be in greater danger of being lost than the pagan or negative infidel, the grossly ignorant or the simple followers of sects and schisms: namely heretics and schismatics of the educated class. These, as a rule, by profession and education, know much of Holy Scripture and reference it as the word of God; believe in most if not all the fundamental truths of Christianity; are not ignorant of history and live in countries where the Catholic Church is carrying on Her mission. The danger would also seem to increase in proportion to their education, knowledge and nearness to the Church. They know too much and have gone too far not to have the thought forced on them that they should learn a little more and go a little further. It is scarcely possible that such persons have not, from time to time, some misgivings as to their religious position and that light is not almost forced on them as to the paramount claims of the Catholic Church.”
So often the mistake is made today of believing that what is said of those assumed to be validly baptized Catholics now applies to the majority of those simply professing to be Catholic. Some of these may or may not be validly baptized; some may assume they have been sufficiently educated in the faith when in fact they have been grossly misled or propagandized to an extent almost impossible to reverse. These are the grossly ignorant or blind followers of LibTrad and other sects. But there are yet others, and not a few, who have a greater knowledge of Holy Scripture and matters of faith who choose to mislead or be misled and to ignore the warnings that they are not properly drawing out conclusions from what they know and therefore are leading others astray. These are the souls, who, if they do not turn from their evil ways, are in grave danger of perishing as unrepentant sinners.
The grossly ignorant or the simple followers of sects and schisms are not guiltless but are not as harshly judged, for they have followed either the bad example of their relatives or followed LibTrad pseudo-clergy. And there are various classes of individuals peculiar to our times who are seldom considered here but are frequently misclassified as insincerely repentant on their death. These are the unbaptized, those raised with little thought at all of God; who knew little or nothing of the Catholic faith, even though they may have been validly baptized. Also included here are those converted and baptized only shortly before death and those suffering from mental illness; or physical illness that profoundly impacts their mental capacity. And yet those calling themselves Catholic seem to feel no compunction in including such individuals alongside the certainly baptized and those enjoying the use of a sound mind, something Canon Law and Church teaching certainly does not support.
As an example, consider the case of an individual who feels attracted by the Catholic faith, even in these sad times. Perhaps they have friends or relatives who they believe are Catholic; or maybe they have been influenced by some profound event that makes them sympathetic to the faith. Let us say they are great sinners, addicted to certain vices they fight, but are not able to overcome. But without the grace of true conversion or Baptism, how are they able to overcome them without the prayers of the Catholics they know and their loved ones, should they be Catholic? And even with such prayers, as the great catechist Rev. John Kearney teaches in his Our Greatest Treasure, “…the difficulty in making the final step” to conversion, a pain-filled journey that often took even the best educated non-Catholics literally “years” to complete, is very difficult. “Hence the necessity of a very strong grace,” and who among us are worthy of declaring when God might grant this grace and to whom?
Is it not a miracle that without a visible Church, without confessors, the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments, anyone is ever attracted to the faith today at all? How much easier was repentance and conversion, when all one needed to do was approach the priest for instruction or the Sacrament of Penance! In this welter of confusion today, where even “Catholics” cannot agree on what comprises the truths of faith, is it any wonder that so few manage to find their way to the truth? Readers of this will readily acknowledge that their own journey to the faith, if witnessed by one secretly drawn to it, would possibly have done more to alienate such potential converts than to attract and encourage them, what with all the running around to errant LibTrad sects and doctrinal deformity that ensued. This certainly is not the good example and practice of the Catholic faith such timid and often tortured souls need to make that final, difficult step to conversion.
Hope for the dying
If not for the following words from A Golden Key of Heaven for All Good Christian People by Rev. T. Von Den Driesch (1904), the very possibility of deathbed conversions without a priest present would be denied.
“With the grace of God, perfect contrition is attainable by all who have good will; for it is in the will, not the feeling. Perfect contrition is often confounded with a supposed greatest intensity of sorrow; but perfect contrition has degrees and stages, and it need not be the highest and the most intense, such as that of St. Peter, or St. Mary Magdalen, or St. Aloysius. A much lower degree of perfect contrition effects the forgiveness of sin. To give you confidence in your ability to make acts of perfect contrition, remember 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 [prepare] to enter Heaven. Catholic soul, you have so many more graces and are better instructed. I maintain that you often have perfect contrition, without knowing it or thinking of it; for example, while making the Way of the Cross, while contemplating a crucifix or a picture of the Sacred Heart, etc. Furthermore, you can express ardent love and heartfelt sorrow in a few words, provided you have the proper intention and motive, namely the love of God: “My God and my All!”‘ My Jesus, mercy!”; “God be merciful to me, a sinner!” God has given perfect contrition the power to produce such excellent effects; therefore He desires us to excite ourselves to it and He will help us to do so. “He wills not the death of the sinner, but that he live and be converted.”
Regarding even unbaptized adults, the 1929 work by Rev. Edwin G. Kaiser, C.PP.S, Our Spiritual Service to the Sick and Dying, instructs us as follows: “Those who are not Catholic should be helped in their last moments. If they are unbaptized and are willing to believe all the Church teaches, we may and must baptize them. If it is not sure that they have been properly baptized, we baptize them conditionally. If the person is well disposed but there is reason to fear he does not want to join the Church; if mentioning the Catholic Church will only disturb him and endanger the work of saving his soul, we may proceed in this manner: recite with him the Apostles Creed, or if this is too much, ask him if he believes in Jesus who is God and came to save us by his death on the Cross. If he believes in Christ and the three Divine Persons and is ready to believe all that Christ wants him to believe in, to do all that God wants and is sorry for offending God, then we can and should baptize him. Or if we can do no more, we can at least induce him to make an act of love for Jesus.”
So deathbed repentance is still possible and may be even more common today than in the past. Is it not in accordance with God’s mercy that he would assist those who are truly sorry even at the end of their life with the necessary graces, seeing how this was already true before the loss of Mass, Sacraments and the papacy? Why send priests to prisons to absolve the worst criminals if such conversion is not a distinct possibility? Below we find the comments of the theologians on this attitude toward deathbed conversions.
Conformity in death to God’s will
“Ignorant, then, are they of human nature, and of God, who deride death-bed conversions, as though they must needs be insincere. Who knows what astounding shiftings of the personality may not, at that unique moment, and in unplumbed depths of the self, take place — nay, even, one would say, must take place in the all-but-discarnate soul, or have the chance of taking place? Foolish are they who sneer at the anxious effort of the Church, and her eager giving of the sacraments even to the seemingly unconscious, or to the hardened sinner if but there be some symptom that his will has become susceptible of their effects; or even, it may be, short of that, you may almost suppose that in the interior soul that divine mysterious recognition and embrace is happening, which by no exterior symptom can express itself.
“Here, then, you must remember that the forgiveness of sins is an article of our Creed. Here is no arbitrary condemnation in mid-life; no fatal mechanistic series; no Karma, even. There is only one complete, irreversible soul-suicide, the act of dying with the will rebellious against God’s. After all, man is limited. The soul, I said, has an appetite for the infinite; yet not infinite is the soul. It is conceivable that the soul may so pour itself out into an act of knowledge, that it can do no more; it has become its knowledge; it is its own act; time exists no more for it. So, too, it is conceivable that a soul may, as it were, exhaust itself in an act of will: it has fully expressed itself in its choice; it is that will, then; the soul may make itself what is opposed to God. That gigantic act may indeed occur; it is an evil self; it is its own worst hell.
“But this carries us beyond the juridical aspect of the problem on which these “moral” difficulties are based. From the side of man they disappear if it be recalled that man, if he finds himself “in hell,” has put himself there. No Calvinist predestination is ours. “This is the will of God, your sanctification. God wills that all men should be saved.”
“And on God’s side we have to recall that in him all is one—mercy, justice, power, love. Only our limited, inexhaustive, analyzing intellect sets these “attributes” as it were one against the other. He cannot defeat his mercy by his justice, nor justice by mercy; both are knowledge: in all he is being true to himself; his action is his self; he alone is, in the full sense, his self. No deviation from the true right is possible, on his part, without his ceasing to be God. This we know unerringly. Of the moral aspect of what we know we judge; and in human verdicts is room for almost every error. (Fr. C. C. Martindale, S.J., God and the Supernatural, 1954, Catholic Book Club.)
Deathbed conversion
“Deathbed conversion, however difficult, is still possible. Even when we see no sign of contrition, we can still not affirm that, at the last moment, just before the separation of soul from body, the soul is definitively obstinate. A sinner may be converted at that last-minute in such fashion that God alone can know it. The holy Cure of Ars, divinely enlightened, said to a weeping widow: “Your prayer, Madame, has been heard. Your husband is saved. When he threw himself into the Rhone, the Blessed Virgin obtained for him the grace of conversion just before he died. Recall how, a month before, in your garden, he plucked the most beautiful rose and said to you, ‘Carry this to the altar of the Blessed Virgin.’ She has not forgotten.”
“Other souls, too, have been converted in extremis, souls that could barely recall a few religious acts in the course of their life. A sailor, for example, preserved the practice of uncovering his head when he passed before a church. He did not know even the Our Father or the Hail Mary, but the lifting of his hat kept him from departing definitively from God.
“In the life of the saintly Bishop Bertau of Tulle, friend of Louis Veuillot, a poor girl in that city, who had once been chanter in the cathedral, fell first into misery, then into misconduct, and finally became a public sinner. She was assassinated at night, in one of the streets of Tulle. Police found her dying and carried her to a hospital. While she was dying, she cried out: “Jesus, Jesus.” Could she be granted Church burial? The Bishop answered: “Yes, because she died pronouncing the name of Jesus. But bury her early in the morning without incense.” In the room of this poor woman was found a portrait of the holy Bishop, on the back of which was written: “The best of Fathers.” Fallen though she was, she still recognized the holiness of her bishop and preserved in her heart the memory of the goodness of Our Lord.
“A certain licentious writer, Armand Sylvestre, promised his mother when she was dying to say a Hail Mary every day. He kept his promise. Out of the swamp in which he lived, he daily lifted up to God this one little flower. Pneumonia brought him to the hospital, served by religious, who said to him: “Do you wish a priest?” “Certainly,” he answered. And he received absolution, probably with sufficient attrition [imperfect contrition], through a special grace obtained for him by the Blessed Mother, though we can hardly doubt he underwent a long and heavy Purgatory.
“Another French writer, Adolphe Rette, shortly after his conversion, which was sincere and profound, was struck by a sentence he read in the visitors’ book of the Carmelite Convent: “Pray for those who will die during the Mass at which you are going to assist.” He did so. Some days later he fell grievously ill, and was confined to bed in the hospital at Beaune, for many years, up to his death. Each morning he offered all his sufferings for those who would die during the day. Thus he obtained many deathbed conversions. We shall see in Heaven how many conversions there are in the world, owing to such prayers.
“In the life of St. Catherine of Siena we read of the conversion of two great criminals. The Saint had gone to visit one of her friends. As they heard, in the street below, a loud noise, her friend looked through the window. Two condemned men were being led to execution. Their jailers were tormenting them with nails heated red-hot, while the condemned men blasphemed and cried. St. Catherine, inside the house, fell to prayer, with her arms extended in the form of a cross. At once the wicked men ceased to blaspheme and asked for a confessor. People in the street could not understand this sudden change. They did not know that a nearby Saint had obtained this double conversion.
“Several years ago the chaplain in a prison in Nancy had the reputation of converting all criminals whom he had accompanied to the guillotine. On one occasion he found himself alone, shut up with an assassin who refused to go to Confession before death. The cart, with the condemned man, passed before the sanctuary of Our Lady of Refuge. The old chaplain prayed: “Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who had recourse to thy intercession was abandoned. Convert this criminal of mine: otherwise I will say that it has been heard that you have not heard.” At once the criminal was converted.
“Return to God is always possible, up to the time of death, but it becomes more and more difficult as hard-heartedness grows. Let us not put off our conversion. Let us say every day a Hail Mary for the grace of a happy death” (written by the renowned theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange in his Life Everlasting, 1852, Herder Books, https://archive.org/details/lifeeverlasting0000garr/page/n5/mode/2up ).
Life Stories of Dying Penitents, (P. J. Kenedy, 1892), by a missionary priest is yet another example of God’s mercies, even to hardened sinners. No one is saying that all these individuals are certainly saved, or that they will be spared punishment in Purgatory. That is for God alone to determine. But no one should, as some seem to believe, discount the mercy of God at the hour of death if a sinner exhibits or has previously exhibited signs of repentance. That is Jansenism and rigorism in its most dangerous form. Let us instead every day say some prayer for the dying, that they may be spared the pains of hell and may find their way to that place of comfort, light and peace where we all long to be.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 31, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Peter in Chains+
+Prayer Society intention for August+
“O HEART most pure of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
obtain for me from Jesus a pure and humble heart.”
First, I would like to address the conspiracy theories. There has been speculation on social media that Trump staged his own near-miss, that he was never grazed by a bullet, with the after-bandage photos seeming to show little if any residual damage. That doesn’t mean that a bullet whizzing by that barely touches the ear could not cause profuse bleeding, even if no tissue damage is visible. Or that the inside back of the ear, which cannot be seen, was not abraded. Cosmetic surgical procedures unavailable to the general population and high-tech cosmetic aids can expertly mask skin damage. Even had the shooter missed Trump entirely and only hit the firefighter and father who tragically died, it would still qualify as an attempted assassination.
And yes, as one reader writes in, Trump “could be one of them.” The Church fully understands what voting for an unworthy but less evil candidate entails. Those presenting as Catholic need to be conscious of the fact that they are branded as crackpots and their religious position damaged by suppositions they make that cannot be proven, i. e., conspiracy “theories.” When certainty cannot be obtained, moralists allow us to follow a probable opinion. Let’s leave what we can’t prove aside and focus on what affects us from a strictly religious standpoint, which places us on much safer ground.
Is Trump a Christian?
I recently received the following link from yet another reader: https://www.bitchute.com/video/uNky8MT7g0NX In this video, Trump states he is NOT a Christian, something many did not previously know. I watched some of this speech live and Trump admitted that Catholics have been persecuted and that no Catholic could vote for a Democrat in good conscience. He also embraced all non-Christian religions and placed them on an equal footing, as all those promoting “democracy” do. Those who lean toward him now know his true orientation. His true religious affiliation seems to be unknown. Of course in politics these days it is all irrelevant. We have Pres. Biden, a baptized Catholic and culpable as such, supporting full-term fetal death, as does VP Harris, and Trump, (sporting a Novus Ordo VP), who dodges the issue by leaving it to the states to decide. Anyone expecting a genuine Christian to be capable of election is living in a fantasy world.
Could Trump be Jewish, or at least leaning in that direction? We must remember that Trump’s daughter converted to Judaism, the faith of her presidential senior advisor-husband Jared Kushner. Trump’s father reportedly had many Jewish friends and business associates. And we know Trump is a staunch supporter of Israel’s war against Palestine following the Oct. 7 attack, the latest result of a conflict ongoing for over 100 years. Israel’s response to this attack is justified because Palestine is currently in the hands of Hamas, the terrorist organization that attacked Israel following numerous skirmishes over the years, aided and abetted by other terrorist groups. All would support any nation’s right to defend itself from such attacks. But the overall history of this conflict, which has escalated into a war, is little understood. And what is not understood at all is the longstanding position of the Church regarding the Jewish occupation of Palestine, which has been effectively buried. So a refresher course is provided below.
Valuable Catholic lessons on the Palestine question
First a little background on the history of the Palestine situation. “The Balfour Declaration of 1917, issued by the British government, supported the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire and under British control following World War I.
“The British Mandate for Palestine (1920-1948) saw increased immigration of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe, particularly during the Nazi era, which led to rising tensions between Jewish and Arab communities. The Arabs opposed the growing Jewish presence and the idea of a Jewish state, leading to outbreaks of violence” ) https://worldhistoryedu.com/origin-and-history-of-the-conflict-between-israel-and-palestine/).
When Israel became a state in 1948, the Arabs occupying that territory objected and went to war against Israel. Although the UN had established specific borders, the war ended with an increased number of Jewish Palestine refugees, which many considered as illegal occupation under international law. Several other wars followed.
In a scholarly work delivered as a history dissertation by Adriano E. Ciani in 2011 (https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/348/), Ciani carefully details the Church’s stance pre-Vatican 2 on the Palestine question. He begins with the following:
“In 1904, Pope Pius X granted an audience to the prominent Zionist Theodor Herzl, in which he reminded his guest that the Roman Catholic Church could never endorse or support the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine. This was to remain the essence of papal policy on Palestine for decades to come. A reader has been kind enough to provide the exact text of Pope St. Pius X’s comment to Herzl: “We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem if it were not always sacred has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.”
What has happened, beginning in the 20th century, is that anti-Semitism, which the Church has repeatedly condemned, was extended at Vatican 2 to the Palestine question itself, a completely separate political issue promoted by the Zionists, that had no relation to Jewish persecution. Despite their false claims to hold all things Catholic just as they existed prior to Vatican 2, LibTrads have adopted the stance that not only has the Church never condemned anti-Semitism, Her distrust and dislike for the Jews is evidenced by many warnings issued against them and confirmed by their confinement by the popes to the ghettoes of Rome. LibTrads even have revived the ritual murder charge, long ago dismissed by the popes. The founders of Traditionalism in Mexico and the U.S. blamed the Church’s infiltration and demise mainly on the Jews, and for many years those following them have continued to believe this was the case. Some have even descended to neo-Nazism, as various articles and studies have confirmed.
But fingering the Jews is a classic example of projection, which lifts blame for what has befallen the Church from those commissioned to die rather than let this happen — the cardinals and bishops — and transferring it to the Jews and others. Even the laity who were then adults and educated in Catholic schools must accept this blame for not better studying these issues and coming to the aid of the Church. Instead of adopting the offensive, they took the victim stance, waiting to be rescued and comforted. Of course we were all victims, but that should not have been our chosen designation. We are meant to be soldiers of Christ, not shell-shocked survivors of the spiritual combat in which all of us are expected to engage. By playing the victim, we effectively surrendered. The distinction must be clearly made between anti-Semitism and support of Israel’s recovery of the holy places in order to settle their own people there. Below, Ciani provides proofs that although the Church did all She could possibly do to combat anti-Semitism and help the Jews, at the same time She consistently opposed Israel’s efforts to resettle Jews in Palestine.
“Between 1939 and 1945, more than six thousand Italian Jews obtained passports, ship tickets and travel money from the Rome-based St. Raphael’s Association, an organization directly funded by the Vatican. Countless others were sheltered in monasteries, churches, convents and private homes, all with the explicit knowledge of the Pope, and consistent with his opposition to Nazi and Fascist racialist policies. The Vatican Relief Commission, at a cost of nearly one million dollars, supplied food, clothing, and medicine to untold thousands of refugees, prisoners and partisans during the winter of 1943-44, including at least 6,000 Jews in Rome alone.
“Throughout the war, a distinct bifurcation endured in the Vatican’s response to persecution of Europe’s Jews, characterized by assistance to Jews, where possible, on the one hand, and an opposition to the goals of political Zionism on the other. Simply put, the tragedy of the Holocaust and the refugee crisis that it created did not translate into Vatican support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Assistance to European Jews was regarded as a Christian duty, an obligation to lend assistance to a suffering fellow man. Monsignor Domenico Tardini, the Vatican’s undersecretary of state, expressed as much in the spring of 1943, when he observed that “the Jewish question is a question of humanity. The persecutions to which the Jews in Germany and the occupied or conquered countries are subjected are an offence against justice, charity, humanity… Therefore, the Catholic Church has full reason to intervene, whether in the name of divine law or natural law.” Support for a Jewish homeland, however, despite the catalyst that the Holocaust had created toward that very end, was unfailingly opposed by Pius XII‟s Vatican, based on the ancestral Roman Catholic tenet that the Terra Santa was sacred to the faith, and must never fall under the political jurisdiction of a sovereign power.
“In large part, Catholic periodicals and diocesan newspapers in the United States reflected the position of Rome; namely that the persecution of European Jews was a tragedy for all humankind, but that it did not necessitate, or obviate, the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine… Vatican policymakers preferred to keep discreet any public stance on the future of Palestine. Privately, however, Pius XII and his Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione, continued to express severe reservations about the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, fearing a loss of control over Christian sites in the Holy Land, and concerned with the possibility of a “Jewish beachhead‟ for communist influence and infiltration in the Near East. These sentiments were shared by a number of the Vatican’s most powerful Cardinals and diplomats, including Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII, who as nuncio to Istanbul was noted for his efforts to save Jewish lives, but was unreceptive to the solutions posed by political Zionism. In a September 1943 letter to Maglione, Roncalli expressed discomfort about the degree to which Vatican aid to Jews would be later considered an endorsement of their ‘messianic dream’, adding that the ‘reconstruction of the Kingdom of Judah and the Israelites would not create a utopia.’
“The Holocaust, despite providing the most compelling rationale yet for the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine, did not alter either the Vatican’s or the American bishops’ opposition to the Zionist program, a stance which remained firmly rooted in historical and theological notions… On the substantive question of Jewish emigration to Palestine, and the creation of a Hebrew national home there, however, the American bishops remained resolutely in line with Rome. It was a policy that withstood the full airing of the tragedy of the Holocaust, and which stood firm against the rising tide of sympathy for Zionism in the United States, not just among Jews but among a growing segment of American Protestant Churches, Congress and even the Truman White House.
“The American Episcopal consensus that remained intact from the 1920s to the 1950s was weakened in subsequent decades by a number of factors, not least the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the great renewal movement in the Roman Catholic Church that was called by Pope John XIII in 1959. A number of American bishops took active roles at the Council, embracing its reformist zeal as evidenced by the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae, a declaration on religious freedom conceived by John Courtney Murray and tabled by Archbishops Albert Meyer of Chicago and Joseph Ritter of St. Louis. Though Cardinal Spellman loomed large at the Council, and was undoubtedly the leader of the “conservative‟ faction of American bishops, there emerged in Rome a growing faction of liberal-minded bishops, which included Meyer and Ritter as well as Detroit’s John Dearden and Kansas City’s John Patrick Cody, who more openly took up the Council’s mandate of revival and renewal.
“The Second Vatican Council was also significant, moreover, for the promulgation of Nostra Aetate, a declaration on the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church with non-Christian religions. Notable was the fourth section, which dealt specifically with Judaism. It repudiated the centuries-old charge of deicide against the Jews, and stressed the religious and spiritual bonds shared by the faiths, reaffirming the eternal covenant between God and the people of Israel. It further dismissed the Catholic objective of trying to convert the Jews, a symbolic turning point if juxtaposed with Pope Pius X’s 1904 warning to Theodor Herzl that should the Jews return to Palestine, there would be “Catholic priests waiting there to baptize them all.” For the first time in history, Nostra Aetate called for Catholics and Jews to engage in friendly dialogue and theological discussion to better understand each other’s faiths. After intense debate, the declaration was adopted by the world’s cardinals and bishops on 28 November 1965, a definitive turning point in the history of Catholic-Jewish relations.
“The Second Vatican Council, and its promulgation of Nostra Aetate, would herald the beginning of a new era both in relations between Catholicism and Judaism and, by extension, between the Vatican and Israel. The Council, moreover, would unleash a plurality of views in the Church that would preclude the survival of such a monolithic transnationalism.” (End of Ciani quotes)
What this means for us today
In Nostra Aetate, John Courtney Murray’s American proposition, as explained in our last blog, was finally admitted as Catholic practice. It taught that the Church need not evangelize to secure converts, Jewish or otherwise, and Jews could not be held responsible for crucifying Christ. Forget the fact that according to Rev. Denis Fahey, Rev. Cahill and others, the Jews had never been held responsible by the Church for this act as a race for His death on the Cross, only the Jewish leaders of that day who actually crucified Him. For they alone knew that He had indeed fulfilled all the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and certainly the rabbis leading the Jewish people following the destruction of the temple, as prophesied by our Lord, never acknowledged Him and shamelessly spread filthy lies about Him and His Blessed Mother. The Church would not have the Jews persecuted for this, but neither would they ever concede that the Holy Land should be given over to the very people who rejected our Lord and had no reason to honor or preserve the ground He trod or the places He taught.
So while we cannot support Muslim control of the Holy Places existing today, neither can we support the plans of the Zionists to repopulate Palestine in order to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem and install the Jewish Messiah, as Roncalli (already in on the plan) well knew. And that is their goal. See https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Final-Chapter-for-web.pdf for the full overview, but we will provide some excerpts here. As one Jewish writer observed many years ago, “The Roman Catholic Church wants Israel to lose sovereign control over the Old City of Jerusalem so that “the promises to the literal descendants of Abraham will be applied to the ‘New Jerusalem.’ If Israel controls Jerusalem, it is evidence that Rome’s claims are not legitimate and that the literal interpretation of Scriptures is correct. There is no place for the restoration of the nation of Israel in its theology. How can the Vatican claim to be “the New Jerusalem” and “rightful heir to the Kingdom of God” if the Jews control Jerusalem? How is the Catholic Church going to convince the world that their version of theology is correct?
“The premise is this: According to Rome there will never be a Temple/Synagogue built in Jerusalem unless Rome first controls the real estate (Temple Mount, Old City, City of David, Mt. Zion) upon which it will be built. The Vatican is actively pursuing these goals… The Vatican has attempted to obtain control of Jerusalem, which started with the Crusades. For them to convince the world that the Messiah they put on the world’s stage is going to be accepted as genuine, they need to perform this play in the Old City. The story of this production is that this “Messiah” will merge THE THREE MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS, usher in peace and harmony in the world, and solve the Middle East conflict. The location for this “production” will be in none other than the Old City of Jerusalem.”
“This so-called “Messiah” that will be proclaimed, will be a false one and it will insist that by having a “world government” (i.e., the United Nations) the world peace and harmony will be ushered in. This will be a lie, and a fraud, but never mind. In our world, reality isn’t important. Public perceptions are. The end result is the stripping of Israel’s sovereignty as an independent nation giving way to a “regional bloc of nations” in the Middle East. Israel will be pressured to accede to these demands by all world bodies and the superpowers on the claim that “this is the only way to solve the Middle East conflict.”
“In order for the Jews to go along, they will convince them that with the “Messiah” having appeared for the Jews, it is time to start rebuilding the Third Temple — what they call “Solomon’s Temple.” This version of events is widely available through a simple search on the Internet… “Again: The Vatican is going to have everyone believe this “mysterious individual who will ‘unite the faiths’ and appear in Jerusalem which will be under the control of an authority headed by The Vatican.” That deal to have the Vatican come into Israel and take over these properties and to “control and dominate the Old City of Jerusalem” already exists and has been fully documented and reported in the world’s media.
“The deal that it has signed with Israel via Yossi Beilin and Shimon Peres (in secret and without the approval of the Knesset, [Israeli legislature, Ed.]) gives the Church not only extraterritorial status to their properties (which is what the bi-lateral agreement the Israeli government signed with the Vatican on December 30th, 1993, put in law) but of control over the entire city as “custodians” under UN presence. In this way the Jews will give up control over the Old City. To the Vatican, the Israeli people they would have a problem with. To the UN, they would say, “We had no choice.”
“Arafat had been lobbying for the idea of sharing undivided Jerusalem, and for creating a Vatican-style sovereignty in the Old City.” (Somehow we are supposed to believe that Arafat initiated this, and not the Vatican. [Is that why he was murdered? — Ed.). The agreement calls for Jerusalem to be “an international city based on international resolutions and an international guarantee.” The pack was signed despite the Vatican having signed an agreement with Israel six years earlier on December 30, 1993, which gave legal jurisdiction under Israeli law over the Church’s own institutions and assets in the Holy Land” (Barry Chamish, Israeli investigative writer and reporter).
David Ben-Gurion, London, Dec. 16, 1949
“In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the prophets to serve the federated union of all continents: this will be the seat of the supreme court of mankind, to settle all controversies, as prophesied by Isaiah. Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel and world Jewry: It aspires to become the spiritual center of the world.” And this is their goal, achieved in part by the recent erection of the Abrahamic Family House, which officially opened February 16, 2023. https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/abrahamic-family-house/.
Trump has not formally weighed in on the Palestine question. But he seems in favor of a peaceful resolution and a cessation of hostilities, both in the Middle East and in Ukraine.
Conclusion
Not Francis nor any of his successors are Catholics, or representatives of the Vatican. Any “deal” made with the Vatican was never made with the true Catholic Church, but with the Whore of Babylon, who Protestants themselves established through their creation of Freemasonry. Protestant pastors cooperated in the destruction of the Catholic liturgy and were present at Vatican 2. They applauded ecumenism, the absolution of the Jews as responsible for Christ’s death and the modernization of the Church. It is a certain faction of Protestantism, called Dispensationalists, who have supported the rebuilding of the Temple all along. One group has even established an evangelical seminary in Jerusalem with claims of Jew and Arab converts to Christianity (One for Israel). They teach that “The people of Israel are God’s chosen people whom He loves with an everlasting love. God continues to fulfill all of the promises given to the Fathers. … Yeshua the Messiah will return to establish God’s manifest kingdom, to resurrect the dead and determine the eternal destiny of all men, eternally blessing the believers and eternally punishing the wicked.”
These comprise many of the “Christians” who support Trump unconditionally because he supports Israel, and the number of these people seems to be growing. They are known as British Israel proponents, a rung listed on the ladder of Freemasonry, and they even count among their number a faction of Traditionalists. Certainly supporters of Hamas such as Harris could never be trusted. And if Trump is not a Christian and has Jewish leanings, one worries he would not be able to appreciate or impartially uphold the right of TRUE Catholics and sincere Protestants to lobby for the preservation of Israel from destruction of the holy places and protest its occupation by the usurpers. But at least it seems he is willing to protect the rights of Christians whether he professes to be a Christian himself or not. That is something that all those voting for him are bound to hold him to, should he be elected.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, Christ and His true followers will prevail in the end. The Jews longed for a fiery-eyed and righteous Messiah, and they shall have Him. Christ the King shall ride His white horse into the arena followed by a legion of angels, headed by St. Michael, when they least expect it and take possession of His throne. For He alone is the King of Zion, reigning forever and ever, Amen.
