by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 15, 2025 | New Blog
+Our Lady’s Glorious Assumption+
(This excerpt is taken from The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, written by Rev. B. Rohner, O.S.B. in 1897, before Pope Pius XII proclaimed that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven was a dogma of faith.)
CHAPTER XLVI. THE BLESSED VIRGIN IS ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN
Although the holy Church has not yet raised it to an article of faith, and although we are not in possession of detailed satisfactory evidence as to the miraculous manner in which the assumption of the Blessed Virgin was accomplished, yet there cannot be a doubt but that, not only the pure soul of the blessed Mother of God was admitted into heaven, but also her immaculate body; for it had been the dwelling-place of the Most High, and the sacred Ark of the Covenant in the New Law. To a believing soul it is sufficient to know that this really took place, although Divine Providence has not been pleased to clearly enlighten us on this point, nor, indeed, on many others. In the first place, I shall relate to you, Christian reader, what the earliest Christian writers have left in their writings concerning the glorious mystery of the Assumption. Then I shall furnish you with the reasons why we may believe unconditionally this mystery; nay, must believe it, although no direct decision of the holy Church obliges us to do so.
THE EMPTY TOMB
After the solemn and touching ceremony of laying the virginal body of our blessed Lady in the tomb, t h e apostles and other believers, as already stated, remained at the grave for three days. What kept them there? Their great love and profound respect for the Mother of Jesus would not permit them to think for a moment in their hearts that this immaculate tabernacle of the Redeemer would be given over to corruption. They remembered vividly and joyfully the glorious resurrection of their divine Master on the third day. An interior voice, perhaps even a special revelation, informed them that Christ, who had Himself arisen, would be pleased to awake His highly favored beloved Mother also from the sleep of death.
Deeply impressed with this conviction, they opened the grave on the third day. Or, if we choose, we may safely adopt another opinion given and held by many learned and pious writers. These teach that one of the apostles, having arrived in Jerusalem too late to see the remains of the Blessed Virgin, was over-powered with grief and disappointment. He begged that the stone enclosing the tomb might be removed just once more, to enable him to gaze for the last time on the beloved countenance of their departed guide and Mother. In expectation of this happy privilege, he had travelled incessantly, night and day, from his remote mission. Moved at his deep piety and earnest pleadings, the other apostles granted his wish.
In anxious expectation, and wavering between hope and fear, they lifted away the heavy stone. A sweet fragrance immediately came forth from the grave. A supernatural brightness arose and enveloped all present. The flowers that had surrounded the body revived and again assumed their most beautiful colors. But the fairest and brightest flower, the sacred remains of the Mother of Jesus, was not there. A cry of astonishment and joy fell from the lips of all: “She is risen, she is not here!” Yes, the Blessed Virgin had arisen from death, and with body and soul had been conducted into heaven. Such was the firm belief of the wondering apostles and their fellow-watchers. It would be absurd to suppose that robbers could have rifled the grave and carried away the body; for the whole gathering of apostles and other friends had been continually on guard. Hymns of joy and exultation were now sung in honor of the glorified Queen of heaven. As the happy news spread far and wide. new courage and lively faith were awakened in the
souls of all believers. Here the almighty God had plainly given incontestable evidence that He was near His holy and beloved Church, with His protection and grace, and ready and willing to reward the love, fidelity, and sacrifice of His friends.
PROOFS OF THE ASSUMPTION
From the days of the apostles down to our own time it has been the unbroken universal belief of the whole Catholic world that the blessed Mother of God has been admitted to the presence of God, not alone in soul, but also with her pure and now glorified body. But, Christian reader, although you believe firmly and joyfully this miraculous assumption of your blessed Lady, yet it may not be superfluous, for a still better understanding of the mystery, for an increased faith in it, and perhaps as a help to defend it, to give the grounds on which this Catholic conviction is based. Briefly, then, I would lay before you, for your study and meditation, the following eight points:
(a) The festival of the Assumption of the Blessed Vir- gin was evidently observed even in the very earliest years of Christianity as a joyful feast commemorative of this miraculous event. Many learned writers have made good attempts to prove that the feast was established by the apostles and celebrated in their time. It is certain that during the reign of the Emperor Constantine the Great, who died May 22, 337, this festival used to be celebrated in the East with great devotion and pomp. In the Western Church. it has been a festival of the first class ever since the sixth century. Even from the very prayers used in the Mass and divine office on this day, it is clear that the church commemorates the translation from earth to heaven, not only of the soul of our blessed Lady, but also of her sacred body.
(b) As early as the year 451, Marcian, the Emperor of the Eastern Empire, summoned Bishop Juvenalis to the court at Constantinople in order to get his opinion on this question; namely, whether the body of the Blessed Virgin was still in the grave at Jerusalem or not. The Emperor’s intention was, if the body were to be found, to have it translated to the church recently erected in his capital by the Empress Pulcheria, and which was to be dedicated to God under the invocation to the Blessed Mary. Bishop Juvenalis stated the tradition universally admitted in Palestine, namely, that the body as well as the soul of the Blessed Mother of God had been translated by angels into heaven. (Niceph. Hist. Book II.) In fact, at no period in Christian history has anyone claimed to have seen any relic from the sacred person of and expose to public veneration every relic deserving such honors, not a word has ever been said of any relics or these sacred remains.
(c) In the Western Church, the holy bishop, St. Gregory of Tours, also gives testimony in his writings, published about the year 550, of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Not many years later one of the most saintly of Popes and renowned of church writers mentions the universal belief in this mystery. Pope Gregory the Great, who died on the 12th of March, 604, composed for the Mass celebrated in honor of the Assumption the following prayer: “We beseech thee, O Lord, that we may obtain real assistance, through the solemn celebration of this day on which the Mother of God died indeed a corporeal death, but could not be detained in the bonds of death.”
(d) The Greek Church considers this general belief so well founded, that in a council held in Armenia in the year 1342, the assembled members issued the following declaration: ” Let everyone know and understand the Church of Armenia holds and teaches that the holy Mother of God, by the power and virtue of Jesus Christ, was translated into the kingdom of heaven, both body and soul.” Again this same Eastern Church, when repelling the calumnies which the so-called Reformers, Luther and Calvin and their followers, uttered against the Mother of God, declared in a council held in Jerusalem in the year 1672: “It is beyond all doubt that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not only a great and miraculous sign on earth, because although she brought forth God in the flesh and yet remained a virgin, but she is also a great and miraculous sign in heaven, because she was translated thither body and soul: for although her immaculate body was enclosed in the tomb, yet, like the body of Our Lord, after three days it was released and admitted to heaven.”
(e) Death is the wages of sin. As God had wrought the greater miracle of preserving Mary from every stain of even original sin, it was eminently becoming that He should not omit a lesser miracle and one expected from His justice, mainly to avert Mary from the wages of sin, death in its destructive form.
(f) This precious body was the miraculous source in which the body of Christ, the Victor over death, the grave, and corruption, was itself formed. How then could this virginal flesh fall a prey to death and corruption?
(g) As Mary had given her virginal body to the King, the Blessed Virgin of glory to be His dwelling-place, it is right and proper that this same Lord should give His kingdom of eternal glory to be her resting-place. St. Bernard thus beautifully expresses this sentiment: “When the Lord came into this world, Mary received Him in the noblest dwelling on earth, in the temple of her chaste womb. Therefore, on this day has the Lord exalted her to an honorable throne in His heavenly kingdom.” What human imagination can picture to itself the splendor with which our glorious Queen was carried up to heaven, the reverence and love with which the heavenly hosts met and greeted her, the songs of triumph amid which she was conducted to the presence of her divine Son, the affection with which He received her, and placed her above all other creatures.
(h). If it be objected that it is altogether new and un- heard of for any member of the human family to be translated in body from this life on earth to heaven before the general resurrection of the flesh on the last day, we should recall to mind the case of the patriarch Enoch, who, according to the clear and undoubted testimony of Holy Scripture, was carried in body by the power of God from earth to heaven. Moreover, the prophet Elias was borne to heaven in a fiery chariot drawn by fiery horses. These evidences and many others which might be adduced, and which may be found in Brennan-Businger’s “Life of Christ.” are sufficient to give to the doctrine of the bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin a solidity and a certainty that cannot be given to any other fact in ancient history. For this reason the renowned Pope Benedict XIV. has declared it godless, unintelligible, absurd, and foolish, to doubt this consoling, well-grounded doctrine. The Holy See abstains from defining the Assumption to be an article of faith. Happily it needs no formal declaration; for all Catholics believe it firmly and willingly.
CHRIST’S ASCENSION AND MARY’S ASSUMPTION
There is, however, an essential difference existing between the triumphant ascension of Our Lord and the assumption of His blessed Mother. This difference is well described by St. Peter Damian, a renowned doctor of the Church. He says: “With the eyes of thy soul observe the Son ascending and the Mother carried. Thou wilt discover a manifestation of glory in the ascent of the Son, and the same in that of the Mother. For the Redeemer ascends to heaven in the power and dominion of His strength, as Lord and Creator, surrounded by the homage of the angels, but not aided by any help from them.
But Mary is carried to heaven, and as a sign of her supereminent grace, under the escort and with the help of the angels, for it is grace and not nature that elevates her. Hence this day is termed Assumption, while Our Lord’s day is styled Ascension. For power is something different from mercy, and to the Creator alone belongs the right to transcend by His own inherent power the forces of a nature created by His own hands. ‘The entire glorious company of the heavenly spirits came forth to meet the ascending Saviour. With them were united the hosts of the souls of the just, whom Jesus was leading, and thus conducted by both in triumph to the Father, He sits in equal glory at the right hand of Majesty. The triumphal procession that came to meet the approaching Virgin is far more splendid and glorious. For as she was entering the palace of heaven, the Son Himself came forward, with the whole heavenly court of angels and just souls. (Sermon on the Assumption.) Now is fulfilled completely the prophecy of the timid Virgin of Nazareth, which many years before she had pronounced in holy youthful enthusiasm: “Behold from henceforth, all nations shall call me blessed; for the mighty hath done great things to me. He puts down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.” (Luke I. 49.)
I, too, praise thee and call thee blessed, O glorious Queen of heaven. I, too, rejoice that thou hast been raised to a throne of everlasting glory. O that it may be permitted to me one day to see thee there, face to face, to glorify thee, and with all the angels and saints to love thee forever and ever. Amen.
ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY
O Mother pure, our hymns to thee ascending,
Proclaim thee Queen of the eternal years;
Oh let our hearts earth’s joys and sorrows blending
Place at thy feet their rosary of tears.
Awake, my soul, list to the angels rending,
The vault of heav’n with joy that stills all fears
O Queen of sorrows, for our follies grieving,
We cast ourselves distressed before thy throne;
‘Tis thou hast taught our lips to still be weaving,
The words of hope amid the words of moan.
We have no hope, alas! of e’er retrieving,
Our ways, unless thou keep us as thine own
O Lady Queen, behold thy children praying
To be received beneath thy mantle’s fold;
Thou wilt not frown upon our late essaying
To wrest our sinful hearts from Satan’s hold.
Oh, stay our wilful feet from wayward straying,
And bind them fast to thee with love’s pure gold.
F.M.S.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 1, 2025 | New Blog
+St. Peter in Chains+
August, Month of the Immaculate Heart of May
Prayer Society Intention for August
Most holy and Immaculate Virgin Mary, our tender mother and mighty help of Christians, continue to show thyself to be the helper of the Christian people in these our days… Bring low the enemies of our holy religion and frustrate their wicked designs. (Raccolta)
Introduction
A Protestant movement aiming to “Christianize” democracy in America, the “New Apostolic Reformation,” (NAR), now has been backhandedly endorsed by Pres. Donald Trump, and even conservative Protestants are worried that this group’s beliefs are not Christian. NAR has been building its membership worldwide since the 1990s. The group is characterized on Wikipedia as: “a Christian supremacist theological belief and controversial movement associated with the far-right that combines elements of Pentecostalism, evangelicalism, and the Seven Mountain Mandate to advocate for spiritual warfare to bring about Christian dominion over all aspects of society, and end or weaken the separation of church and state… American Republican politicians such as Mike Johnson, Doug Mastriano, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert and activists such as Charlie Kirk have aligned with it… The NAR is rooted in the Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity movements” (The NAR also is known as the Independent Network Charismatic (INC) or Apostolic-Prophetic Movement.)”
A Mother Jones article reveals that Trump’s former national security adviser Mike Flynn has hosted NAR leaders on his “ReAwaken America” tour and Vice-president J. D. Vance appeared in Pennsylvania at an event hosted by Lance Wallnau, a Texas business strategist-turned-NAR superstar, during last year’s presidential campaign. Vance has publicly styled himself as a “post-liberal.” Below we provide some background on NAR, post-liberalism, and Vance’s ties to an even more disturbing philosophy.
What is the NAR
NAR chronicler Holly Pivec, who has been documenting the growth and activities of the NAR for over a decade, has linked Pres. Trump’s new Office of Faith head Paula White-Cain with NAR. ”White, a well-connected televangelist and prosperity gospel preacher, is known as an apostle who concurs with much Bethel Church and NAR theology.” Trump’s executive order establishing the office states its purpose is to “assist faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship in their efforts to strengthen American faith. Mother Jones reports that Trump asked White-Cain to be his “personal minister” in 2002 and engaged other NAR personalities as counselors during his first term as president.
According to Pivec’s article HERE, “The New Apostolic Reformation is made up of hundreds of churches and organizations that are led by apostles and prophets who share a distinct theology. Many of these churches and organizations have joined “apostolic networks.” These apostolic networks are made up of, in some cases, hundreds of churches and organizations that submit to the leadership of a single apostle, such as Harvest International Ministry — a network of over 12,000 churches and organizations under NAR apostle Ché Ahn… The distinctive teaching of the New Apostolic Reformation is that God has restored the governmental offices of apostle and prophet to the church…. NAR leaders teach that God began restoring the office of prophet to the church in the 1980s and the office of apostle in the 1990s. C. Peter Wagner — one of the movement’s most influential U.S. apostles — teaches that 2001 A.D. marked the beginning of the “Second Apostolic Age,” when the proper church government — headed by living apostles and prophets — was finally restored.
“The primary role of apostles, as taught in the NAR movement, is to govern the church. They are seen by many NAR leaders as filling the highest office in church government above prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Thus, they are often referred to as the movement’s “generals.” The primary role of prophets, as taught in the NAR movement, is to receive new divine revelation. Thus, prophets are seen by many NAR leaders as filling the second highest office in church government second only to the apostles… NAR prophets are not expected to be 100 percent accurate in their predictions. Thus, they still can be considered legitimate prophets even when they make errors. Critics of the NAR movement believe this toleration of false prophecies is in direct contradiction to the Bible’s teaching that a key sign of a false prophet is giving erroneous, or false, predictions (Deut. 18:20-22). (ED. Note: Not to mention the fact that it is Catholic dogma that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the Apostles. Most Protestants believe it ended with the Book of Revelation, our Apocalypse, which is why they also reject NAR teaching).
“Now that the church is under the leadership of living apostles and prophets, it can complete its primary task — the Great Commission, which has been redefined by NAR leaders as a commission to take dominion, or sociopolitical control, of the earth. One of the more problematic teachings associated with the New Apostolic Reformation (though, again, not held formally by all those who would identify with the movement) is referred to as dominion theology. This theology suggests that Christians should attempt to institute God’s kingdom by conquering the “seven mountains” of society, which include (1) politics, (2) education, (3) media, (4) business, (5) religion, (6) family, and (7) entertainment. Popularized by Lance Wallnau and Bill Johnson in Invading Babylon, the Seven Mountain Mandate (7M) becomes the means by which Christians extend God’s Kingdom…
“NAR leaders teach that they and their followers will develop vast supernatural powers and will perform miracles that will surpass those performed by the biblical apostles and prophets and even those performed by Jesus during his earthly ministry. These miracles will include amazing feats such as healing every single person inside hospitals and mental institutions simply by laying their hands on the buildings and having command of the laws of nature, including gravity. One of most radical teachings in the NAR movement is known as the “Manifest Sons of God.” According to this teaching, the people who continue to receive the new revelation given by NAR apostles and prophets will gain more and more supernatural powers until they eventually become “manifest” or unveiled as “sons of God.”
“Though it is called the New Apostolic Reformation, the movement’s teachings are not new but are actually very old. Throughout church history, groups on the fringes of Christianity have attempted to restore the offices of apostle and/or prophet, including the Montanists (second century), the Irvingites (1830s), and the Apostolic Church (early 1900s)” (end of Pivec quotes). And here we must add many other heresies to this list, including Gnosticism, Theosophy, Spiritism and Mormonism. All of these manifestations are only the fulfillment of St. Paul’s prophesy regarding the operation of error, with its lying signs and wonders. Only the apostolic line of canonically elected Catholic popes — proceeding from St. Peter who was appointed by Christ Himself, and ending with Pope Pius XII — could possibly claim any connection to the Divine. And no pope has ever added to Divine revelation but has only determined its true, pre-existing sense.
The apostasy of “Messianic” Judaism should also be added to the heresies list. According to the Mother Jones article, “The NAR also appropriates Jewish imagery. Two days after I heard one shofar at Ephrata, I attended an all-day “prayer burn” at a barn in the countryside where several attendees blew them. Others wore tallitot, or Jewish prayer shawls. A group of tween dancers carried a chuppah, a four-posted canopy often used in Jewish weddings. The group sang in Hebrew as they danced the hora, a standard feature in Jewish celebrations. Then, one of the NAR leaders I recognized from Ephrata took the microphone and began to speak about Jesus. “He’s the Lord of hosts,” she said. A cacophonous roar of shofars came from the crowd.” The entire theological structure of the NAR mimics that of Judaism, for like the Jews — who esteem the Talmud or laws and teaching of their rabbis over the Torah (Old Testament) — the NAR places Holy Scripture and Divine Revelation secondary to the teachings of their apostles and prophets.
What is post-liberalism
HERE we see that post-liberalism is three things. “First, it is an authoritarian ideology adapted from Catholic reactionary movements responding to the French Revolution and, later, World War I. Second, it is a loose international coalition of illiberal, right-wing parties and political actors. Third, It is a set of policy proposals for creating a welfare state for family formation, the government establishment of the Christian religion and the movement from republican government to administrative despotism… “[Post-liberals are now] training conservative Harvard Law School graduates to adopt [a] negative view of the U.S. Constitution… [Post-liberalism] is filtering into some Catholic seminaries and has made its way into American Protestantism under the name of “Christian nationalism” and this is where post-liberalism intersects with the NAR. According to Wikipedia, “Post-liberals advocate for a communitarian approach that emphasizes social conservatism and social solidarity, often drawing on traditionalist conservative and religious frameworks.” But this should rather read as appearing to “draw on traditionalist, conservative and religious frameworks,” for it certainly cannot be aligned with Catholic teaching.
What is communitarianism
Communitarians balance national laws against the undefinable notion of an international “community.” It eliminates U.S. Constitutional Law. Thousands of communitarian programs and laws have been introduced into American communities, and hundreds of elected representatives embrace the new ideology. Communitarian law is the foundation for international communitarian sustainable development programmes under U.N. Local Agenda 21… Communitarianism is linked to COMMUNISM and is also referred to as Civil Society (a freemason term) and The Third Way (a Marxist Platform). The entire philosophy is based on vague notions of what constitutes a “good society” (What is the Hegelian Dialectic?, by Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich). “Its common ancestor is a system of philosophy known as “Hegelianism.”
“Hegelianism is named after Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, born in Germany in 1770. Basically Hegel was an evolutionist, believing that nothing actually “is” but only is in the process of perpetually “becoming,” (primitive Modernism). And as we learn from the 1911 Catholic Encylopedia: “Among Catholic philosophers who were influenced by Hegel the most prominent were George Hermes (q.v.) and Anton Gunther (q.v.). Their doctrines, especially their rejection of the distinction between natural and supernatural truth, were condemned by the Church. [Hegelianism]… is utterly repugnant to the Christian mind.”
In A. Allen Butcher’s The Six Waves of Communitarianism: A History, (referenced by Raapana), Butcher explains how communitarianism was introduced by degrees or “waves” following the Protestant Reformation. The third wave officially introduced liberalism and modernism or progressivism to America at the same time that Marx and Lenin were formulating their ideology on communism and socialism. The fourth wave brought FDR’s New Deal. Thirty years later, in the 1960s came the fifth wave, ushering in the peace movement, ecology, [ecumenism] and feminism.
The sixth wave arrived in the 1990s with co-housing, eco-villages and various “networks,” as in networking. When Protestantism exploded into numerous sects beginning with the Reformation, this created the anti-thesis to the Catholic Church, which up until that time had held sway. In the 1800s during the second wave of communitarianism, Hegel’s philosophy was put to work in earnest.
One article authored by a Novus Ordo sect member, who neglected to mention the origins of communitarianism, even encourages NO sect members to become communitarians, as John Paul 2 taught in Centesimus Annus (1991). “Pope John Paul’s great vision of communitarianism and a New Global Order has yet to receive the recognition it deserves in furthering the understanding that humanity is built on religious values, without which transformations in totalitarian regimes would have been impossible” (Robert Phillips, Communitarianism, the Vatican, and the New Global Order). This when Pope Pius XI taught in Divini redemptoris, (1937): “The doctrine of modern Communism… is often concealed under the most seductive trappings… Too few have been able to grasp the nature of Communism. The majority instead succumb to its deception, skillfully concealed by the most extravagant promises… The rapid diffusion of the Communistic ideas is now seeping into every nation… to be found in a propaganda so truly diabolical that the world has perhaps never witnessed its like before… It… strives to entice the multitudes by trickery of various forms, hiding its real designs behind ideas that in themselves are good and attractive.
“Under various names which do not suggest Communism, they establish organizations and periodicals with the sole purpose of carrying their ideas into quarters otherwise inaccessible. They try perfidiously to worm their way even into professedly Catholic and religious organizations. Again, without receding an inch from their subversive principles, they invite Catholics to collaborate with them in the realm of so-called humanitarianism and charity; and at times even make proposals that are in perfect harmony with the Christian spirit and the doctrine of the Church. Elsewhere they carry their hypocrisy so far as to encourage the belief that Communism, in countries where faith and culture are more strongly entrenched, will assume another and much milder form. It will not interfere with the practice of religion. It will respect liberty of conscience.
“We trust that those rulers of nations, who are at all aware of the extreme danger threatening every people today, may be more and more convinced of their supreme duty not to hinder the Church in the fulfillment of her mission. The State must allow the Church full liberty to fulfill her divine and spiritual mission, and this in itself will be an effectual contribution to the rescue of nations from the dread torment of the present hour. Everywhere today there is an anxious appeal to moral and spiritual forces; and rightly so, for the evil we must combat is at its origin primarily an evil of the spiritual order. From this polluted source the monstrous emanations of the communistic system flow with satanic logic. Now, the Catholic Church is undoubtedly preeminent among the moral and religious forces of today. Therefore the very good of humanity demands that her work be allowed to proceed unhindered” (end of Pius XI quotes).
The word communitarianism DOES actually suggest the doctrines of communism and collectivism. And this doctrine, derived as it is from the writings of Hegel, is already condemned, should some be deceitful enough to suggest it is not really Communism in it proper sense. They forget Can. 1324, which states,” It is not sufficient to avoid heretical error but one must also diligently shun any errors which more or less approach heresy. Wherefore all constitutions and decrees by which the Holy See has condemned and prohibited such opinions must be observed.” And they also forget that: “Those, who by words or conduct externally manifest that they personally accept the doctrine of Communism are apostates and incur excommunication ipso facto” (Problems in Canon Law, Rev. William Conway p. 322;1949).
As if the above was not enough, there are further disturbing elements involved in this NAR shift.
The “Dark Enlightenment”
What follows better explains the focus of the Trump administration on eradicating the Democrat Party, funding the introduction of AI, and moving to a more centralized form of government. Of course the errors of liberal Dems, particularly on a moral and faith-based level, must not be tolerated. The party should instead be thoroughly reformed, but this seems impossible given its platform. Yet the goals of Vance and presumably Trump himself are just as bad, buried deep in a philosophy that is both uncatholic and frankly, frightening.
Various website and blog articles report that Vance’s political career was largely funded by Silicon Valley billionaire and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who filled Vance’s 2022 Senate campaign coffers with $15 million. Thiel also helped finance Curtis Yarvin’s software startup in 2013. Yarvin is best known for his blogs promoting the “Dark Enlightenment,” a philosophy that teaches American democracy is an experiment that has failed, one that should be replaced by an “accountable” monarchy, comparable to the way corporations are structured. While on the surface this may sound appealing to those who hate liberalism and favor monarchy, when combined with the rule of a Protestant elite in matters of faith, it can only spell spiritual disaster.
Key Beliefs of the Dark Enlightenment:
“Monarchy Over Democracy: Yarvin believes that a CEO-like leader should rule with absolute authority, without the inefficiencies of elections or legislative gridlock.
- “The Cathedral: He coined the term “The Cathedral” to describe a self-reinforcing elite system of media, academia, and government institutions that allegedly manipulates society under the guise of democracy.
- Technocratic Authoritarianism: Yarvin sees big tech and AI-driven governance as the future of society, replacing traditional democratic institutions. While Vance does not publicly endorse Yarvin’s most radical ideas, his rhetoric and policy positions reflect the core tenets of the Dark Enlightenment, including:
- Skepticism of democracy and calls for a more centralized, leader-driven governance system.
- Alignment with tech elites who push for corporate-driven governance rather than traditional policymaking.
- A belief that traditional institutions like the press and universities need to be dismantled.”
And all the above we are witnessing as Trump’s second term unwinds. How far it will actually succeed and to what effect has yet to be seen. It could take hold only to be reversed with the next election. It could be implemented and carried out to its fullest extent by a Trump monarchy or the election of Vance. It could topple or be exacerbated by war or a natural disaster. Anything is possible; man proposes, God disposes.
Conclusion
Catholics must remember that the type of democracy written about by the popes prior to the death of Pope Pius XII did not anticipate the later inroads of democracy itself into the Church. By this I mean the intrusion of Americanism, Modernism and ecumenism, which paved the way for the problems we see today; the subsequent leveling down of all religious classes to a more manageable playing field; the teaching of Vatican 2, set out by John Courtney Murray, S. J., that in a democracy, peopled by individuals of different faiths, Catholics have no inherent right to teach the Catholic Church is the only one in which salvation can be found, and finally, the heretical idea that the Church herself can change her teachings, readjust her outlook, or touch even the words of Christ Himself in the Canon of the Mass. Here we see the necessary preparations for the “community of faith,” the idea that all men — not just the many who would enter the Church — could be saved, regardless of their lack of belief in one God in three Persons, unrepented sins, questionable baptism or marriage status, or their public lives as sinners. This contrary to centuries-old Church teaching and timeless biblical principles.
In many ways what is happening with the NAR and Office of Faith is similar, on a national level, to what happened to the Church in the 1960s. Then we were expected to bow down to men never validly elected to the papacy who usurped the Chair of Peter and proceeded to betray the Deposit of Faith entrusted to them by Christ. Very few priests dared to defy their superiors and meekly went along with all that Vatican 2 brought with it. We were to accept the changes they made, contrary to all we had ever been taught, without a whimper, or be excluded as members of their “church” and treated as pariahs. So we chose the latter, and gladly. Now the NAR has apparently reduced Protestant pastors and evangelists, most of whom at least had what passed as theological training in their various sects, to third in command, subservient to the “governance’ of apostles and prophets.
So if they don’t accept their “revelations,” will they be cast out as non-Christians? Re-educated? Penalized? If classified as outcasts, what place will these Christians have in a communitarian society? Will all this apply to true Catholics in America as well? This is the danger in binding Catholicism or any other religion to a particular form of government, whatever form that might be. The Popes have warned us about this and have made it clear where such ideas originate, as Pope St. Pius X teaches in his address to the French Sillon below:
“The Sillon’s… brand of Catholicism accepts only the democratic form of government which it considers the most favorable to the Church and, so to speak, identifies it with her. The Sillon, therefore, subjects its religion to a political party… What We wish to affirm once again, after Our Predecessor [Pope Leo XIII], is that it is an error and a danger to bind down Catholicism by principle to a particular form of government. This error and this danger are all the greater when religion is associated with a kind of Democracy whose doctrines are false… We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion… more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the ‘Kingdom of God – We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind…’ We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds” (Pope St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate).
And Pope Pius XII warns that unless the TRUE CHURCH is allowed to play a role in establishing a truly moral and God-fearing democracy, it will fail. “If the future is to belong to democracy, an essential part in that achievement will have to be given to the religion of Christ and to the Church. She is the mouthpiece of our Redeemer and the institution which carries on His mission of saving men. She teaches and defends supernatural truths and communicates to men the supernatural helps of grace in order to actuate the divinely established order of beings and ends which Is the ultimate foundation and directive norm of every democracy. The Church has the mission to announce to the world, which is looking for better and more perfect forms of democracy, the highest and most needed message: the dignity of man, the call to be sons of God” (Pope Pius XII, Christmas Message, Democracy and a Lasting Peace,1944).
NAR is the end-result of centuries of revolt against authority of all types, both civil and religious. It began with various schisms and errors in the Church, culminating in the Protestant Reformation. And from there it disintegrated into the chaotic splits that eventually resulted in thousands of Protestant sects. That it has ended in equating God with man, as capable of conveying Divine revelation, comes as no surprise: Strike the shepherd and the flock will be dispersed. And then one will come who will stand in the place of God, showing himself as God. Whether it be a false pope in the Vatican or an apostle in the Office of Faith, the results are the same. And St. Peter, whose feast day we celebrate today, remains in chains, the teachings of his true successors in office castigated and ignored.
St. Peter, ask Jesus to have mercy on our souls!
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 18, 2025 | New Blog
+St. Camillus of Lellis, Confessor+
Introduction
Some may object that Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio has too frequently been discussed on this blog and cannot possibly be elaborated upon any further. But the information on one site only recently viewed needs to be addressed, especially in light of the fact that we swear obedience to the Sacred Canons in the profession of faith, as was pointed out in our last blog. To do so we must know to what extent the canons bind us and how they bind us. And we must learn this from what the popes, especially, and truly approved pre-1959 theologians and canonists have taught — NOT the spew of LibTrad pseudo-clergy and their subservient apologists who are not Catholic in the first place, so have no right to even comment. Below is a sample of the damage that can be done regarding the teachings of the Church and Canon Law, based on nothing but the opinions of LibTrad “experts.” Please forgive the length of this blog, but it is necessary if the papacy is to be defended and those spreading error unequivocally rebuked.
The following is taken from the WM Review: “While everyone has an opinion on Paul IV’s Apostolic Constitution [Bull] ‘Cum ex Apostolatus Officio’ and the heretic pope question, not everyone has read his text, or understood its status today… The 1917 Code of Canon Law makes clear that penal laws which are not expressly incorporated into the code are abrogated. The Bull was included in the Fontes (sources) of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, as a footnote for Can. 188.4. However, Fontes is a private work of Cardinal Gasparri, and not an authoritative indication that Paul IV’s Constitution remains in force, in whole or in part (still less, in which parts).” There is no indication in this comment of WHERE the Code makes this clear, (Canon Law citation), nor is any proof offered that the teaching of Cum ex… is excluded from the Code, and how and why it is excluded.
The WM Review author’s article then goes on to list comments made only by “experts” evaluating the Bull today and dismissing it as no longer in force. To support this claim, they cite one 19th century canonist, Joseph Cardinal Hergenrother, who classified the Bull as a penal law — denying its infallibility and dismissing it as a “disciplinary” document. But Hergenrother wrote before the 1917 Code of Canon Law came into existence and commentators on the Code clarified the application of the old laws. But before quoting Hergenrother, we need to remind readers what the Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX taught concerning disciplinary laws: “If anyone thus speaks that the Roman Pontiff has…not the full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those things which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…Or that this power is not ordinary and immediate…over pastors and faithful altogether AND INDIVIDUALLY; let him be anathema.”
Hergenrother says in his work, “The Bull…only contains penal sanctions against heresy, which belong to disciplinary laws alone…Besides the renewal of old, there is an addition of new punishments, which equally belongs to the sphere of discipline.” But Pope Pius IX makes it clear below that it is heresy to deny that disciplinary documents are binding on Catholics. In 1873, in his Quartus Supra, (to the clergy and faithful of the Armenians) Pius IX taught: “Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Teaching of this kind is HERETICAL, and not just since the definition of the power and nature of the papal primacy was determined by the ecumenical Vatican Council: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS ALWAYS CONSIDERED IT SUCH AND ABHORRED IT.”
Pope Pius IX also taught, in Quae in patriarchatu: “In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. HE WHO WOULD DENY THIS IS A HERETIC; HE WHO RECOGNIZES THIS AND OBSTINATELY REFUSES TO OBEY IS WORTHY OF ANATHEMA,” (Pope Pius IX, September 1, 1872, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite.) Since the Church has “always abhorred it” and considered it heresy, those shamelessly limiting the application of these papal condemnations to the Armenians and Chaldeans can scarcely defend their claim.
We know that the primary reason Angelo Roncalli, (John 23), could never have been a candidate for the papacy was his listing as a Modernist by Pope Pius XI. Roncalli’s biographer Peter Hebblethwaite (John XXIII, Pope pf the Century) seems to imply that Roncalli in 1910 approached [his taking of the Modernist] oath as a general act of loyalty to the pope without endorsing its provisions (p. 34). Hebblethwaite observes that, in something of the same spirit, “[F]rom the whole tragic episode Roncalli drew the conclusion that there were other and better ways of dealing with ‘error’ in the Church.” (p. 36). So it is no surprise that Roncalli later fell victim to this error, having obviously been infected with it during his seminary days, just as many others were. If we have any doubts that Roncalli was a professed Modernist (not to mention good reason to believe he was a Freemason) one need only turn to the public comments he made. A great collection of these may be found HERE, as well as in various papal biographies.
The attempts to totally discredit Cum ex… can only be viewed as a wholesale effort on the part of LibTrads to discourage any serious investigation into the validity of Roncalli’s election and the true situation in the Church today, which would divest them of their fraudulent status. Rev. Anscar Parson (Canonical Elections, Catholic University of America Canon Law dissertation, page 73) notes that Cum ex… is the OLD LAW listed in the Fontes regarding heresy and schism in canonical elections (Can. 167). A careful elucidation of the actual content of para. 6 of the bull reveals Pope Paul IV’s true intent in preventing Roncalli and anyone else from ever being considered a canonically elected pope. We make the observations below only because so many continue to misrepresent the bull and omit certain factual details.
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Dryden translation, para. 6
“In addition, [We enact, determine, decree. define] that IF EVER AT ANY TIME IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ANY BISHOP, EVEN ONE CONDUCTING HIMSELF AS an Archbishop, Patriarch, or primate; OR ANY CARDINAL of the aforesaid Roman Church, even as mentioned, a Legate; OR LIKEWISE ANY ROMAN PONTIFF BEFORE his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed or deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, or has incurred schism, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void. It cannot be declared valid or become valid through his acceptance of the office, his consecration, subsequent possession or seeming possession of government and administration, or by the enthronement of or homage paid to the same Roman Pontiff, or by universal obedience accorded him, or by the passage of any time in said circumstances, NOR SHALL IT BE HELD AS QUASI-LEGITIMATE.… The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power…”
- IF EVER AT ANY TIME IT BECOMES CLEAR [manifest or evident]: This is the Prof. Benjamin F. Dryden translation, from the Latin version of Cum ex…, first published in 1978 by Prof. Carlos Disandro of Argentina. This introductory phrase has been cross-referenced (by this author) with Cassell’s Latin Dictionary. The Daly translation reads “APPEAR,”(become visible), the first definition in Latin; but this is ambiguous. And the alternate, second (modern) definition of appear as “seem” could be said to apply, when “seem” indicates an indefinite determination of a grave matter — heresy, apostasy or schism.
- That ANY BISHOP, OR ANY CARDINAL EVEN ONE CONDUCTING HIMSELF AS… [a] ROMAN PONTIFF: to conduct oneself AS something means that one is not really that something;
- BEFORE his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff: which indicates said bishop or cardinal was in this condition prior to his elevation as a cardinal or election as pope;
- Has strayed or deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, or has incurred schism, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void: And this, according to other translations, “…even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals.” So if at any time after the fact, it should be discovered that a man elevated to the cardinalate or the papacy was guilty of heresy apostasy or schism prior to that elevation, then the election to that office was null, void and invalid; that is, IT NEVER HAPPENED, and the votes of the cardinals were void.
It should be noted that WM Review publishes the translation of the Bull by John S. Daly. This translation conveniently omits an important part of paragraph 6 of the bull, which the original Latin and Dryden’s translation includes. That part is, in addition to heresy, “has deviated [deviasse] from the faith or has incurred schism.”Very Rev. H.A. Ayrinhac wrote in his Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, under Can. 2314 that a fide Catholica deviasse in the Bull is now definitely interpreted as “a Christianae fide apostatus,” or apostasy from the faith (no. 197 in Ayrinhac work). Regarding the matter of schism, its inclusion is important as explained by Rev. Ignatius Szal in his dissertation, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics (1948, Catholic University of America), where he wrote:
“The earliest Bulla to contain an enacted excommunication against schismatics was that of Paul IV in 1559… From what has been said, it is evident that the status of the schismatic before the year 1559 was at most one of doubtful excommunication.” And as Ayrinhac also wrote in his Penal Legislation under Can. 2314: “Schism is formally assimilated now to heresy and apostasy in every respect at least in regard to the penalties enacted in this cannon. There is no distinction made as formally between schismatics and persons who withdraw from obedience to the reigning pontiff.” He further notes, under Can. 2331 [no. 243]: “Disobedience becomes schism when it implies rejection of the Pope’s authority and separation from the center of unity.” Given Pope Pius IX’s clear teaching on matters of discipline and LibTrad behavior in general regarding papal teaching, schism is their middle name.
- NOR SHALL IT BE HELD AS QUASI-LEGITIMATE: The meaning of this prefix is, according to https://www.etymonline.com/word/quasi-quasi(adv: “As if, as it were,” used in introducing a proposed or possible explanation, late 15c., a Latin word used in Latin in hypothetical comparisons, “as if, just as if, as though;” in real comparisons “just as, as;” and in approximation, “somewhat like, nearly, not far from.” Pope Paul IV forbids any such appointment to be considered even potentially legitimate. Sorry, material formal believers, this nixes your hypothetical nonsense. No inference contrary to the evident facts is true; conjectural opinions are dangerous, (Pope Pius XII; Humani Generis).
Commenting on Can. 1828, which warns against conjecturing about something not proven as “a fact established by evidence in the case,” Revs. Woywod-Smith write: “(5) All persons are presumed to know the law. (CANON LAW DOES NOT ADMIT IGNORANCE AS AN EXCUSE FROM THE LAWS THAT DISQUALIFY A PERSON OR RENDER ACTS INVALID…)” Both Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis are infallible pronouncements which disqualify persons from acting and render their acts invalid. Yet LibTrads remain willfully ignorant of this fact.
- WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION: Once the heresy is clear, evident, manifest, there is no need for any declaration that the person is excluded from office and was never elected or appointed. Abp. Amleto Cicognani, in his Canon Law, quotes the theologian Chelodi, who tells us that according to Can. 2232 §1: “The notoriety of an offence is held equivalent to a declaratory sentence” (page 703-704). The proofs presented HERE leave no doubt that LibTrad contentions regarding the necessity of declaratory sentences directly contradict the teaching of Pope Paul IV in Cum ex… as well the continual teaching of the magisterium.
Pseudo-bishop Sanborn declares Cum ex… abrogated
Why is there so much confusion concerning Cum ex…? Because so-called LibTrad “experts” such as the pseudo-bishop Donald Sanborn have officially weighed in on the matter — they who must be obeyed. Sometime during the usurper Benedict 16’s reign Sanborn wrote:
“Cum ex Aposatolatus is an apostolic constitution, a law, made by Pope Paul IV, which says that if a pope should be a heretic, his elevation to this dignity would be null. It was made in order to ensure that no Protestant could ever become the Pope. It does not apply to the present case for two reasons. The first is that it is no longer the law. It was derogated (made obsolete) by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The second reason, and the more important, is that even if it should for some cause still have force, it could only apply to Ratzinger if he were legally recognized as a public heretic. But, as we have seen, there is no legal condemnation of Ratzinger. Before the law of the Church he does not have the status of heretic because (1) he himself does not hold himself guilty of heresy, and (2) no legitimate superior holds him guilty of heresy. An admission of guilt, or an authoritative judgment, is a condition required for the election to be juridically rendered null. Without it, the man is and remains the true pope quoad nos, and all his acts of jurisdiction remain valid.”
Let us begin by saying that Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was not a constitution but a BULL, in its time, “The most solemn and weighty form of papal letter” (Attwater’s Catholic Dictionary). “Formerly all-important papal letters including canonization decrees were called Bulls” (New Catholic Dictionary, Pius XI edition). These definitions say nothing about bulls being just laws, strictly speaking. And neither is an apostolic constitution merely a “law.” This type of papal document can deal with serious doctrinal matters regarding the definition of dogma, changes in canon law or disciplinary matters. Apostolic constitutions in later times were issued as papal bulls because of their solemn, public form. Sanborn’s intent appears to attempt to minimize the weight of Cum ex… and limit it from the outset solely as a law without doctrinal content. Furthermore, he obviously does not even know the difference between abrogate and derogate in the law. Abrogate means to abolish (make obsolete, with obsolete meaning no longer in use; replaced with something new). Derogate means to annul only in part; to restrict. And this guy is passing himself off as a bishop?!
We now address (1) in Sanborn’s document, the inapplicability of Cum ex… in the 1917 Code. Commenting on Can. 6, Revs. Woywod and Smith relate in their commentary on the Code: “In reference to the former Canon Law, the Code states that, as a rule, the old discipline is retained…The STUDENT of Canon Law must keep in mind the rules of Can. 6 throughout the whole course of study of the Code, for these rules are the key to the correct interpretation of all the laws of the Code.” Can. 6, no. 5 reads: “All former ecclesiastical penalties of which no mention is made in the Code are abolished.” But the Latin version of the Code definitely lists Cum ex… in its footnotes, also recorded by Peter Cardinal Gasparri in his Fontes (sources). This is true not only for Can. 188§4 but also for several other Canons dealing with heresy, (Codex Iuris Canonici, Peter Cardinal Gasparri, Newman Press, 1957.) The Code lists Cum ex… as a source not only for Can. 188§4, but also for Canons 167§3, 2198, 2209, 2264, 2265, 2294, 2314, 2316 and 2317, and there may be others, (see HERE).
Rev. Cicognani comments: “Under the canons are placed footnotes or notes…first from the ‘Codicis Iuris Canonici,’ the Constitutions of Popes, from the Sacred Congregations, and from Liturgical Books…In the Code there are nearly 26,000 citations of the old law. Of these, 8,400 are from Gratian’s Decretum; about 1,200 from Ecumenical Councils; about 4,000 from Papal Constitutions; about 11,200 from the Sacred Congregations and 800 from liturgical Books. Surely this is a very eloquent reply to those who think that since the old the old laws of the church have lost all utility and the history of their sources is become meaningless.” Cicognani then goes on to mention that Pietro Cardinal Gasppari is in the process of presenting all the documents cited in the notes to the canons. He notes that they don’t have the same legal force as the Canons themselves but are intended to be used in matters of interpretation. He also points out: “In a commentary on the canons the footnotes must never be neglected list that occurred which Quintillian spoke the pediments are viewed the foundations are hidden.”
Special law is immune from abrogation
Rev. Nicholas Neuberger comments that fewer fontes are provided for the penal laws, making the mention of Cum ex… even more auspicious. And it is Rev. Neuberger who provides the reason why Cum ex… could never be abrogated. He states: “Canon 6 deals with subsidiary sources of the Code. The old law in general is esteemed as such an interpretive aid. If a prior law is bound up by an oath which reads into it immunity from abrogation, the law is not countermanded unless expressed mention is made to that effect. The reasons for this assertion is that the legislator is mindful of a law which has an oath attached and hence abrogation would be INVALID. No allowance is made for such enactments in Canon 6… A doubt concerning valid abrogation has no significance, for the law ever retains its binding force… In doubt the presumption is in favor of the former legislation. The penalties, for example, in the Vacante Sede Apostolica are still enforceable. This constitution of Pius X is special legislation. All special legislation is inviolate according to the prescriptions of Canon 6 n. 5.” And there is no record that Cum ex… was ever abrogated or derogated. In fact, Pope St. Pius V reaffirmed it in his Inter Multiplices.
Therefore Cum ex…, Pope Pius II’s Execrabilis, forbidding the appeal of a Roman Pontiff’s decrees to a future council; Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum; Pope St. Pius X’s papal election law Vacante Sede Apostolica; Pope Benedict XV’s Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, promulgating the Code of Canon Law and Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which forbids anyone to change the laws or teachings of the Church in any way during an interregnum cannot be abrogated — all have an oath attached and state they must be observed “in perpetuity.” They can be counted among those documents which the Church teaches can neither be questioned nor violated. In updating Vacante Sede Apostolica, Pope St. Pius X’s election law, Pope Pius XII was careful to change very little out of respect for his predecessor and in accordance with this maxim. This can be seen from the documents themselves. As stated HERE it has been retained in several canons, not just 188 §4. So it is interesting that the WM Review article, referring to Daly, observes:
“The Bull was included in the Fontes (sources) of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, as a footnote for Can. 188.4. However, Fontes is a private work of Cardinal Gasparri, and not an authoritative indication that Paul IV’s Constitution remains in force, in whole or in part (still less, in which parts).” How disingenuous! For the Fontes was printed by the Vatican Press, and Gasparri served for 17 years as the President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law. The quote on which this assumption is based is taken out of context from Neuberger’s work. I can say this because the Neuberger work in my possession was given to me by John Daly in Australia and is marked in precisely the spot referenced above. The entire quote reads:
“Much of the former discipline has been retained. Very few canons are destitute of some form of prescription. These old laws have juridical force only inasmuch as they are embodied in the canons. They are the interpretive norms of the new law whenever the new and the old coincide. The laws effective at the promulgation of the Code are usually cited in the footnotes of each Canon. The notation of the sources, however, is not authentic. Consequently other sources may be used by the canonists provided they have survived the principles of abrogation and produce relevant matter. Thanks to the eminent canonist Gasppari not a little chaotic interpretation has been averted through the alignment of the sources under each Canon. There are Canons which reproduce the old law in its entirety.”
Cum ex..., then has juridical force because it is retained not in just one canon on heresy, but several. The listing itself as a footnote does not give it this force, but its embodiment in the Code does. Without the actual documents and a complete listing of all the relevant documents, which Gasparri provided, one does not possess the entirety of the sources. Neuberger only confirms what Abp. Cicognani already stated above: the old laws have no legal force themselves unless embodied in the Canons, and then they can be consulted to facilitate interpretation.
Rev. Neuberger says about the conditions of retention of the old law in the 1917 Code: “The legislator has constructed Can. 6 (n. 1-6) to show the relation between the Canon and preceding enactments.” He then lists three different ways a law may be retained in the Code.
1.) The old law is retained by either stating it verbatim;
2.) Mentioning the subject matter followed by the phrase ad normam Constitutionis (referring one to the specific Constitution) or
3.) By expressing the enactment in different terminology.
As quoted from Woywod-Smith above: “All former ecclesiastical penalties of which no mention is made in the Codeare abolished (Can. 6 n. 5).” So if one refuses to search the Code for reiterations of Cum ex… based on Gasparri’s footnotes providing the sources, which Cicognani says cannot be ignored, we are left only with 188 §4, which Daly cited in his translation in 1984. The only other treatment I am aware of regarding the additional canons mentioning Cum ex… was published to this site in 2006. But they were also partially listed in the work Will the Catholic Church Survive…? in 1990. So in discrediting the reliability of the sources listed as not authentic, WM effectively contradicts the canons themselves, demolishing the ability of canonists to determine what is listed in the sources as the “old law.” This effectively shuts down any attempt at interpretation, when, as Woywod-Smith note, “…The student of Canon Law must keep in mind the rules of Can. 6 throughout the whole course of study of the Code, for these rules are the key to the correct interpretation of all the laws of the Code.”
This being the case, special attention must be paid to Can. 6 §4, as Hutton Gibson pointed out in his newsletter in the early 1980s. This rule under Canon 6 reads: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the Canons differs from the old law one must adhere to the old law. Rev. Neuberger comments: “In doubt, the presumption is in favor of the former legislation. The presumption is merely in favor of a more seasoned rule of interpretation. It is not the rejuvenation of the old law but merely an appeal to the interpretation which is certain. If the opposite were favored, much confusion would ensue… When the legislator prefers the old established rules, be they authentic or doctrinal, not a little trouble is avoided for the jurist.”
And that is the whole point: what we are discussing here is really how Cum ex… applies to the exclusion of apostates, heretics and schismatics from office. The elite pseudo-clergy pretend only they are allowed to peruse canon law and determine this, when Neuberger states that even private interpretation of the Canons is allowed. Can. 6 §4 legislates that the norms of Cum ex… be employed to judge heresy in cases of doubt. Failure to follow this Canon and adhere to the old law is a violation of the Canons, and Pope Pius XII condemns any departure from the Canons in his infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. This effectively renders null and void Sanborn’s material-formal fiction and attempts to minimize LibTrad heresies.That these “experts” are so afraid of the truth and anxious to conceal it from their followers should be sufficiently clear, given the elaborate smokescreen Sanborn, in abrogating Cum ex…, attempts to erect regarding heresy below.
Sanborn contradicts the approved theologians on heresy
And now to Sanborn’s second error, (2), stated as fact, contradicting the approved canonists regarding the determinants for formal heresy. In the face of what the renowned theologian Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange tells us in his work, The Theological Virtues: Faith: “The one thing that suffices for formal heresy is an obstinate denial of any truth which has been infallibly proposed by the Church for belief. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE INDIVIDUAL BELIEVER REALIZES THAT THE TRUTH IN JEOPARDY HAS BEEN REVEALED” (p. 432). Revs. McHugh and Callan, in their Moral Theology, A Complete Course, teach: “Heresy is defined as “an error manifestly opposed to faith and assented to obstinately by one who had sincerely embraced the faith of Christ, (meaning only catechumens and the baptized, who after baptism have retained the name of Christian – Can. 1325 §2),” (#826, 827). And according to Can. 1325, Catholics must be able to determine what is heretical and denounce it or else they themselves become heretics.
“By “opposed to faith” means any judgment which, according to the logical rules of opposition between propositions, is irreconcilable with the truth of a formula of dogma OR A CENSURE FOR HERESY (826c). One who declares in public addresses or articles that he agrees with Modernism, or who joins openly an heretical sect… is a public heretic, (#828c). In Spirago and Clarke’s The Catechism Explained, 1927, (which errs in other points but agrees with McHugh and Callan on this particular point) the authors state: “Doctrinal decisions are usually accompanied by sentence of excommunication against those who refuse to submit to them; hence such decisions are binding for all Catholics” (p. 240). We mention this only because this catechism is a favorite among LibTrads. All these men were approved canonists and theologians, something Sanborn has never been and could never be. But this self-proclaimed “expert” is superior to them?!
In evaluating heresy, Sanborn focuses on imputability and pertinacity without identifying the Church’s definition of pertinacity, as the scholastic method and canons of the Code bid him to do. “Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it. But for formal heresy it is not required that a person give his consent out of malice, or that he continue in obstinate rejection for a long time, or that he refuses to heed admonitions given him. Pertinacity here means true consent to recognized error, and this can…be given in an instant and does not presuppose an admonition disregarded” (McHugh and Callan, ibid., #829b).
Rev. Eric MacKenzie, in his 1932 dissertation, The Delict of Heresy, says that heresy “consists not merely in error, but in error which is consciously and deliberately conceived by excluding the evidence which would otherwise lead to a true judgment… Heresy is an externalized, morally imputable violation of the Church’s law…committed most commonly by words written or spoken…[or by] signs, acts or omissions.” He defines pertinacity as “holding firmly.” Well LibTrads have held firmly to their disregard for Cum ex… and consideration of it as abrogated for decades “by excluding the evidence which would otherwise lead to a true judgment.” Likewise with Pope Pius XII’s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. That evidence has existed since 1990 and was readily available to LibTrads at that time.
Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange teaches in his “The Theological Virtues: Faith” that: “Pertinacious adherence to his error is the most distinctive character of a heretic. The sin of heresy consists in an obstinate upholding of A PERSONAL VIEW, recognizable as being against the faith, after the opposite truth or truths of faith have knowingly become sufficiently manifest. (…Once [heresy] becomes commonly known, especially on a large scale, it passes as manifest heresy…) Such a position cannot be ascribed to ignorance. It is the product of ill will… Pertinacity dignifies completeness of attachment, not necessarily temporal duration. The attitude can be instantaneous, a sudden seizure of ill-will against the faith after it has been sufficiently propounded by the Church…Heretical pertinacity is not directed immediately against God’s word, or truth in revealing. Its target is the infallibility of the Church’s authority.”
LibTrads hold liberal views on heresy
Canon E. J. Mahoney comments in his Questions and Answers: The Sacraments (1945): “The liberal view [is that] baptized non-Catholics in good faith are members of the body of the Church precisely because they are not excommunicated…The view diametrically opposed to this is [that] the excommunication of heretics applies to material as well as formal heretics…If a choice had to be made between these two views…, there is no question that the second fits in best with Catholic discipline, and, in particular, with our practice in reconciling converts…” Revs. Woywod-Smith on Can. 731: “All canonists and moralists agree that those who are heretics or schismatics and know they are wrong cannot be given the Sacraments of the Church unless they renounce their errors and are reconciled with the Church. Numerous decrees of the Holy Office put this point beyond controversy.” Did all those exiting from the Novus Ordo sect make the 1942 Profession of Faith when joining LibTrad sects? For certainly they were admitting they were wrong in staying with the Novus Ordo. And certainly Ratzinger admitted he and his usurping predecessors were wrong when he returned the consecration of the wine to “for many” after decades of “for all.”
MANY Catholics considered it a crime to change Christ’s very own words of the consecration of the wine. Patrick Henry Omlor, followed and respected by many, first labeled this as heresy in the late 1960s, implicitly condemning as the authors of this heresy both Paul 6 and John 23 (who inserted for all men into vernacular missalettes for the laity)? Omlor wrote: “142. …in the context in which it has been placed, in the “form” for The Eucharist, [for all men] conveys a FALSEHOOD, and also an implicit HERESY: the denial of the doctrine of The Mystical Body of Christ” (The Robber Church). But this widely circulated work was not public; the 1969 promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae was not public; the 1970s works of Saenz-Arriaga and Francis Panakal were not public?! The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith note under Can. 2197: “The Code calls an offense public when knowledge of it has been spread among the people or when it was committed under circumstances which make it practically impossible to keep the offense secret. In order that a crime may be called public, it is necessary that the fact be publicly known as a criminal or morally imputable act, i.e., that the act is known as a crime.” Yet no one followed Omlor’s work or the works of these others through to their logical conclusions.
Conclusion
Given the above, the idea that Paul 6 and even John 23 were false popes, guilty of crimes against the faith, was certainly no secret; it was publicly known. “Heresy is an externalized, morally imputable violation of the Church’s law…committed most commonly by words written or spoken…[or by] signs, acts or omissions” (MacKenzie, see above). The faithful’s first impulse to act on these words was stifled and redirected by Sanborn and other branches of the Traditionalist movement worldwide. Sanborn, Daly and others rely heavily on St. Bellarmine’s teaching regarding an heretical pope. But what they never cite from his writings, the one reflex principle that would have resolved everything, is the following from Rev. E.S. Berry’s The Church of Christ, (1927):
“A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case no one is bound to obey him, for it is an axiom that a doubtful law begets no obligation — lex dubia non obligat. But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope.
“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.”
Well we know why the “bishops” never resolved the matter — they were never priests, far less bishops. Certainly they were never Catholic. Having carefully crafted and profited from their schismatic and heretical little empires, they and their lay apologists will happily continue to mislead the unwary. Perhaps they should pay attention to Pope Paul IV’s warning in para. 3 of Cum ex…:“[When those who teach others the Catholic faith] …prevaricate, they sin more gravely than others; for they not only lose themselves, but drag down with them to perdition and the pit of death countless other peoples entrusted to their care and government or otherwise subject to them.”
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 8, 2025 | New Blog
+St. Elizabeth of Portugal, Widow+
Introduction
In recent blogs as well as numerous articles on this site, it has consistently been pointed out that (a) it is the dogmatic teaching of the Church, not private revelations, on which we must base our assessment of the times in which we live; (b) the views and opinions of so-called experts in the fields of speculative, dogmatic and moral theology, eschatology and other Catholic sciences are without any value at all or are gravely flawed. This is because such supposed experts are either not validly ordained or consecrated, or in the case of secular “experts,” have not been educated in Catholic institutions. And (c) Those bishops who allowed the poison of Modernism to infiltrate their teachings and that of their seminaries abandoned the Catholic faith, and according to dogmatic Church teaching and Canon Law could never be restored to their positions. This occurred long before the death of Pope Pius XII and explains how and why the Church was successfully infiltrated by neo-Modernists, proving Angelo Roncalli could never have been elevated to the papacy.
Even secular writers decry the adverse influence of self-appointed experts, as can be seen in online comments and articles. One such writer recently observed that by introducing mind-altering drugs, both pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs, and food additives that affect brain chemistry, a mental state has successfully been created that more readily accepts a “reality shift” created by influencers and experts. She describes this as mind control tactics effecting an information reality shift, information which is delivered “in special ways, in audio, visual or written format.” The writer goes on to state that this information can be false while appearing to be true, making it difficult for the general population to determine just how much truth, if any, it might contain. We have seen this play out politically for decades.
She then goes on to note that it is the “experts” and “fact checkers,” who are to blame for this — those in the media and elsewhere who at one time were expected to hold public officials accountable, investigate any suspected corruption and collusion and expose it. She blames modern technology for occasioning this reality shift, advising people to stop relying on modern methods of information gathering and delivery. This is why articles on this site repeatedly warn that one must not depend on lengthy videos, podcasts, DVD’s and other non-traditional means of relaying information which LibTrad experts produce and disseminate as education in the Catholic faith. Such dissemination is, quite simply, neo-Modernism at its best, used to warp and redirect enquirers sincerely wishing to learn about the Catholic faith.
Had the election of Angelo Roncalli been investigated as it should have been long ago, the flood of information generated by the contentious LibTrad movements — propaganda intended to herd Catholics into the pre-designated channels — would never have been successful in confusing and deceiving so many of those exiting the Novus Ordo Church in the late 1960s, early 1970s. Roncalli’s disqualification for election on several counts became known in the 1970s, through public statements revealed in his biographies, works by respected Catholic authors and his actions as “pope,” but were suppressed or ignored. This is how clerical “experts,” who never trained in Catholic seminaries and never received valid ordination or consecration, along with the lay “experts” they endorsed, gained control of sincere Catholics.
Nothing illustrates this point better than the article reviewed below, written by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. An approved theologian or true expert, personally commended by Pope Pius XII, Fenton here examines a much-neglected document condemning Modernism, issued by Pope St. Pius X. And in examining its contents through his explanation, we see unfold precisely how the Church was infiltrated and subverted. Having just celebrated July 4 in this country, the beginning of a yearlong celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the following review also highlights the connection between Modernism and Americanism, something very familiar to Msgr. Fenton. For he and Rev. Francis J. Connell were the only ones to oppose the resurgence of Americanism at the first session of the Vatican Council, after Time/Life publisher Henry Luce, with the with the assistance of Connell’s and Fenton’s nemesis, John Courtney Murray, S. J., helped spread its doctrines throughout the world.
Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism
In this article, written for the The American Ecclesiastical Review in October, 1960, Msgr. Fenton translates and explains the introduction and conclusion of Pope St. Pius X’s Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, or Oath against Modernism, which Fenton terms “the most important, of the three main anti-Modernist pronouncements issued by the Holy See during the brilliant reign of St. Pius X” (the other two being Pascendi and Lamentbili). Fenton begins:
“Quite obviously the greatest danger to the faith of the members of the true Church of Jesus Christ exists when some members of this Church actually teach or even show sympathy for doctrine contradictory to or incompatible with the body of Catholic dogma without receiving any reproof from those whom God has commissioned and obligated to protect the purity and the integrity of the Catholic faith. St. Pius X was acutely conscious of the fact that many influential Catholics were teaching or encouraging erroneous doctrines opposed to the divinely revealed Catholic message long after those erroneous doctrines had been pointed out and condemned by the highest teaching authority within the Church… St. Pius X speaks out very clearly of the existence of a secret alliance or a foedus clandestinum among the Modernists of his day — (a clandestine alliance or secret pact) connected with and inherent in the Modernist movement.
“…The introduction to the Sacrorum antistitum takes cognizance of the fact that most of the genuinely dangerous supporters of the Modernist movement, the men against whose efforts the Sacrorum antistitum and its commands were particularly directed, were priests active within the Catholic Church itself. St. Pius X took cognizance of the fact that such priests were actually perverting their own ministry… No one has ever been as well placed to harm the true Church and to counteract its essential work as a Catholic priest in good standing. If such a man, by his preaching, his teaching, or his writing, actually sets forth the kind of teaching condemned in the Lamentabili sane exitu and in the Pascendi dominici gregis, or if he works to discredit the loyal defenders of Catholic dogma without receiving any repudiation or reproof from those to whom the apostolic deposit of divine revelation has been entrusted, the Catholic people are in grave danger of being deceived.
“The Bishops of the Catholic Church were bound in conscience by the obligations of their office to act energetically against this teaching that contradicted the divinely revealed truth proposed as such by the true Church. The “defence of the Catholic faith” and strenuous efforts “to see to it that the integrity of the divine deposit suffers no loss” are definitely not works of supererogation. These are the duties prescribed by Our Lord Himself for the leaders of the Church, which He has purchased by His blood.”
The danger spread by members of the clergy
Fenton quotes St. Pius X: “For it is no longer a case, as it was in the beginning, of dealing with disputants who come forward in the clothing of sheep. Now we are faced with open and bitter enemies from within our own household, who, in agreement with the outstanding opponents of the Church, are working for the overthrow of the faith. They are men whose audacity against the wisdom that has come down from heaven increases daily. They arrogate to themselves the right to correct this revealed wisdom as if it were something corrupt, to renew it as if it were something that had become obsolete, to improve it and to adapt it to the dictates, the progress, and the comfort of the age as if it had been opposed to the good of society and not merely opposed to the levity of a few men. To counter such attempts against the evangelical doctrine and the ecclesiastical tradition, there will never be sufficient vigilance or too much severity on the part of those to whom the faithful care of the sacred deposit has been entrusted.”
TSB comment: So what makes anyone believe that this war ever ended? LibTrads merely picked up where the neo-Modernists left off. They pretended to keep the Mass while abandoning the papacy, paying only lip service to Canon Law and papal teaching. They ”corrected” papal teaching on jurisdiction with their claim to epikeia and jurisdiction proceeding directly form Christ, in flagrant violation of Mystici Corporis Christi. And this, without ever validly possessing episcopal or priestly orders. Surely, they exceeded the Modernists’ wildest dreams.
Fenton comments: “It is quite obvious that, given the intimate connection between the Church and the faith, a connection so close and perfect that the Church itself may be defined as the congregatio fidelium, the repudiation of the Catholic faith would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Church. Yet, for the Modernists and for those who co-operated in their work, the immediate object of attack was always the faith itself. These individuals were perfectly willing that the Catholic Church should continue to exist as a religious society, as long as it did not insist upon the acceptance of that message which, all during the course of the previous centuries of its existence, it had proposed as a message supernaturally revealed by the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth. They were willing and even anxious to retain their membership in the Catholic Church, as long as they were not obliged to accept on the authority of divine faith such unfashionable dogmas as, for example, the truth that there is truly no salvation outside of the Church.
Both LibTrad and Novus Ordo pseudo-clergy equally responsible
What these men were really working for was the transformation of the Catholic Church into an essentially non-doctrinal religious body. They considered that their era would be willing to accept the Church as a kind of humanitarian institution, vaguely religious, tastefully patriotic, and eminently cultural. And they definitely intended to tailor the Church to fit the needs and the tastes of their own era… They sought to force or to delude the teaching authority of Christ’s Church into coming out with the fatally erroneous proposition that what is accepted by divine faith in this century is objectively something different from what was believed in the Catholic Church on the authority of God revealing in previous times.”
TSB comment: And both the Novus Ordo and LibTrad sects were wildly successful in doing just that. They abandoned doctrine and focused on the liturgy, each in their own way. LibTrads emphasized the preservation of Catholic culture, an Americanist-style patriotism and the Latin Mass. The Novus Ordoites “humanized” their sacrilegious liturgy, destroyed any meaningful traditions and embraced ecumenism, condemned by the Church. (Back to Fenton)
This Modernistic outlook is precisely what Pope Leo XIII condemned in his teaching on Americanism, Msgr. Fenton notes, quoting this pope: “The principles on which the new opinions We have mentioned are based may be reduced to this: that in order the more easily to bring over to Catholic doctrine those who dissent from it, the Church ought to adapt herself somewhat to our advanced civilization, and, relaxing her ancient rigor, show some indulgence to modern theories and methods. Many think that this is to be understood not only with regard to the rule of life, but also to the doctrines in which the deposit of faith is contained. For they contend that it is opportune, in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrines, as if of lesser moment, or so to soften them that they may not have the same meaning which the Church has invariably held.”
Americanism and Modernism work hand in hand
Fenton continues: “Thus, when we examine the actual texts of the Testimonium benevolentiae and of the Sacrorum antistitum, it becomes quite apparent that Pope Leo XIII and St. Pius X were engaged in combating doctrinal deviations that actually sprang from an identical principle, the fantastically erroneous assumption that the supernatural communication of the Triune God could and should be brought up to date and given a certain respectability before modern society. The men who sustained the weird teachings condemned by Pope Leo XIII, a document which, incidentally, did not denounce any mere phantom body of doctrine, and the men who taught and protected the doctrinal monstrosities stigmatized in the Lamentabili sane exitu and in the Pascendi dominici gregis, based their errors on a common foundation. The false Americanism and the heresy of Modernism were both offshoots of doctrinal liberal Catholicism.
TSB comment: Well we don’t call them LibTrads for nothing! In their own way the leaders of these LibTrad sects especially are just as heretically evil as the Novus Ordo sect they consistently condemn. They are merely flip sides of the same coin. Take the case of a LibTrad “priest” corrected by one of his parishioners about displaying an American flag on the altar — the parishioner’s objections were rebuffed and the flag remained. And of course there was the influence of the Americanist John Birch Society among Traditionalists, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. Some LibTrad clergy even preached Birch propaganda form the pulpit. Today, however, we know the Birch Society was founded and headed by Freemasons. (Back to Msgr. Fenton)
“The first components of liberal Catholicism, during the earlier days of the unfortunate Felicite De Lamenais, were religious indifferentism, some false concepts of human freedom, and the advocacy of a separation of Church and state as the ideal situation in a nation made up of members of the true Church. But, after these teachings had been forcefully repudiated by Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Mirari vos arbitramur, a new set of factors entered into this system. These were inserted into the fabric of liberal Catholicism because the leaders of this movement persisted in defending as legitimate Catholic doctrine this teaching, which had been clearly and vigorously condemned by the supreme power of the Catholic magisterium. Most prominent among these newer components of liberal Catholicism were minimism, doctrinal subjectivism, and an insistence that there had been and that there had to be at least some sort of change in the objective meaning of the Church’s dogmatic message over the course of the centuries.
“This common basis of the false doctrinal Americanism and of the Modernist heresy is, like doctrinal indifferentism itself, ultimately a rejection of Catholic dogma as a genuine supernatural message or communication from the living God Himself. It would seem impossible for anyone to be blasphemous or silly enough to be convinced, on the one hand, that the dogmatic message of the Catholic Church is actually a locutio Dei ad homines, and to imagine, on the other hand, that he, a mere creature, could in some way improve that teaching or make it more respectable… The conclusion to the Sacrorum antistitum brings out more clearly than any other statement of the Holy See the fact that Modernism sprang from the same basic principle, as did the false Americanism pointed out and proscribed in the Testem benevolentiae of Pope Leo XIII.
TSB comment: “Catholic” Liberalism begat Americanism and Americanism evolved into Modernism, although both coexisted side by side before Pope St. Pius X’s condemnation of the Modernist heresy. We have commented at length on doctrinal minimism on this site, citing Rev. John F. Cronins as follows: “The great bulk of Church teaching is had through the normal channels of pronouncements by the popes, bishops, and theologians… A “minimist” attitude of accepting only infallible pronouncements is simply un-Catholic.” And as Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton wrote: “Ultimately theological minimalism was a device employed BY LIBERAL CATHOLICS to make the rejection of authoritative papal teaching on any point appear to be good Catholic practice. Sometimes it took the crass form of a claim that Catholics are obligated to accept and to hold only those things which had been defined by the explicit decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Holy See. This attitude… was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his letter Tuas Libenter (DZ 1683).” (“The Components of Liberal Catholicism,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, July 1958). (Back to Msgr. Fenton)
Investigation of candidates for ordination key
“These four directives are: (1) the strict carrying out of the legislation set down under n. 2 of the first section of the Sacrorum antistitum, (2) the submission by individual seminary professors to their Bishops at the beginning of the scholastic year of the textbooks they are going to use and of the theses they are going to propound, (3) the investigation (obviously by the competent and proper ecclesiastical authority), of the teaching offered in the various courses being given to the seminarians, and finally (4) the making of the Tridentine-Vatican profession of faith and the taking of the Oath against Modernism. The teacher is to sign his name to the Oath he has taken. The context would seem to indicate that it was the mind of St. Pius X that this Oath should be taken every year at the beginning of the academic term.”
Fenton then quotes Pope St. Pius X: “Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and selecting candidates for Holy Orders. Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty! God hates the proud and the obstinate mind. In the future the doctorate in theology or in canon law must never be conferred on anyone who has not first of all made the regular course in scholastic philosophy. If such a doctorate be conferred, it is to be held as null and void. The rules laid down in 1896 by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the clerics of Italy, both secular and regular, about the frequenting of universities, we now decree to be extended to all nations. Clerics and priests inscribed in a Catholic institute or university must not in the future follow in civil universities those courses for which there are chairs in the Catholic institutes to which they belong. If this has been permitted anywhere in the past, we order that it shall not be allowed in the future. Let the Bishops who form the governing boards of such institutes or universities see to it with all care that these Our commands be constantly observed.”
TSB comment: Here Pope St. Pius X recognizes the cause of the Modernist mindset: civil universities polluted with liberalism and Modernism. And yet how many among the LibTrad pseudo-clergy and their lay apologists put forth their credentials from these universities as something that places them above the laity and endows them with some sort of credibility?! Even those now calling themselves pray-at-home Catholics point to these credentials as academic achievements the Church would actually endorse. (Back to Fenton)
Catholic cardinals and bishops abandoned the faith
“All of these directives went against the liberal Catholic spirit, of which Modernism was the outstanding expression. All of them were likewise unpopular, as calculated to arouse the antagonism of the enemies who attacked the Church from the outside. All of them were duly denounced and regretted as obscurantist… It was and always will necessarily remain the duty of the bishop to see to it that any individual who teaches or who supports Modernism in any way be excluded from any co-operation in the apostolic task of teaching the divine message of Jesus Christ within His Church. In issuing this decree, St. Pius X was taking cognizance of the basic truth about the teaching work in the Church, which was afterwards brought out so clearly by Pope Pius XII in his allocution Si diligis. This document brings out more clearly than any other in recent years the tremendous responsibility of the bishop in the field of teaching the divine message.”
TSB comment: This definitely being the case, what would Pope St. Pius X have said of a bishop on the Modernist watchlist (Angelo Roncalli) elected as head bishop of the Church, in charge of delivering the divine message and guarding the Deposit of Faith?!!! This was precisely why Pope Pius XI listed him as a suspected Modernist in the first place. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio infallibly teaches that such a man could never become head bishop. (Back to Fenton)
Profession of faith for Catholics demands obedience to Pope, Councils, CANON LAW
“The Sacrorum antistitum likewise contains strict directives about the candidates for Holy Orders. Men who hold Modernistic teachings or who are sympathetic towards the Modernists are not to be ordained… Other dignitaries of the Catholic Church are ordered to take this Oath, along with the Tridentine Profession of the Faith. But it is something intended primarily and immediately for those who are called upon to teach or to direct candidates for Holy Orders. Thus the Oath itself is constituted as a Profession of the Catholic belief. The man who takes this Oath makes his solemn declaration in the sight of God Himself that he firmly accepts and receives all the teachings and each individual one of the teachings “that have been defined, asserted, and declared by the infallible magisterium of the Church, especially those points of doctrine which are directly opposed to the errors of this time.”
“The Oath against Modernism is undoubtedly, up until now, the most important and the most influential document issued by the Holy See during the course of the twentieth century. It is a magnificent statement of Catholic truth, in the face of the errors, which were being disseminated within the Church by the cleverest enemies the Mystical Body of Christ has encountered in the course of its history. “
We have posted on this site for many years now the updated version of the Profession of Faith and Abjuration of Error, (issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office for the U.S. in 1942 to replace the previous profession prescribed by the Holy Office in 1859; Canon Law Digest, T. Lincoln Bouscaren S.J., S.T.D, L.L.B, 1943.) We list it with the Oath against Modernism immediately following, recommending both be made before witnesses and notarized, if possible, when returning to the Church from error or on conversion. For those who dare to suggest that the Vatican Council be “revised,” that Canon Law has ceased to apply to us today, that the decrees of the Council of Trent can be manipulated or interpreted other than they have always been held by the Church, that one can follow LibTrad pseudo-clergy who attempt to interpret the teachings of the popes to justify their errors, need to review exactly what they must vow to believe in order to be considered a Catholic.
“I recognize the Holy Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church as the mother and teacher of all the Churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ… Besides I accept, without hesitation, and profess all that has been handed down, defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and by the General Councils, especially by the Sacred Council of Trent and by the Vatican General Council, and in a special manner concerning the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. At the same time I condemn and reprove all that the Church has condemned and reproved.”
No obedience to papal teaching, utter disregard for the Sacred Canons, no respect or reverence for what is taught by the General Councils as a whole and absolutely no acceptance of papal infallibility and the necessity of the papacy as taught by the Church — this is what LibTrad pseudo-clergy cultivate among their followers. Those making this profession of faith who are coming from non-Catholic sects as “Traditionalists” are no more Catholic than the Dalai lama. What they swear on the Gospels is a lie. As Pope Pius XII teaches in his infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, even during an interregnum NO ONE is permitted to change, even partially, or dispense from the Sacred Canons or usurp papal jurisdiction, which, as mini-popes, LibTrad pseudo-clergy have done for decades. Time is running out for those few individuals sincerely seeking the truth. War or natural disasters at any time could silence the Internet and prevent access to solidly reliable pre-1959 Catholic teaching, and we can see that these unfortunate events cannot be excluded from our immediate future.
Conclusion
A validly ordained Catholic priest who avoided involvement with LibTrad groups wrote to a follower as early as 1979: “At present, if one of us could perform miracles to prove the Church is in apostasy, the Catholics who have been blind since John the 23rd’s reign will claim the miracle is by power of Beelzebub. It has been actually about a year that I do not wish nor try to convert anyone because it is useless. Only at the extreme where I am asked for help do I waste my energy… I am convinced that if people did not see the light in 15 years of Paul 6, they never will… The devil has really had a holiday with private prophecies. Prophecies are vague notions — nothing definite — open to hundreds of interpretations. Satan has made prophecy become ridiculous and a laughingstock especially when the ignorant Catholics were basing their hopes not on the Bible and Bible prophecy but on what one might suspect: hysterics… that salvation would come out of France with the limping nobleman who would lead an army on a horse and subjugate all nations to the Church. How stupid and ridiculous!
“We must not look for chronological order in Bible prophecy especially in the Apocalypse where there is none. Hence the false prophet John 23rd set up the state statute that came alive — humanism and the ecumenism. He opened with the papal key the bottomless pit. Out of it came the beast Paul 6 who destroyed everything Catholic down to the seven sacraments. Tell me what another Antichrist could, if it is not Paul 6, do that would be worse than what Paul 6 did?” (Rev. Gabriel Sparacino, O.F.M, 1911-1987). And as readers well know, this has been my own position for over 40 years. Rev. Sparacino also commented that another validly ordained priest, Rev. John Gentakes, a Passionist, shared his opinions. I would like to remind readers that anything they find on this site is written first, as an obligation to defend the faith; second to create a record of the true teachings of the Catholic Church from papal and conciliar teachings, Canon Law and approved theologians and only third, as a way to lead others to the truth.
As stated here repeatedly, this third reason — that others embrace the truth — cannot be realized without the graces provided by the Holy Ghost. The operation of error has allowed nearly all calling themselves Catholic to believe lies, and Satan is the father of lies. We are all in God’s hands until he grants St. Michael permission to seize the Devil and cast him for all eternity into hell. Through the power of St. Michael, may God soon forever rebuke him we humbly pray!
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 29, 2025 | New Blog
+Sts. Peter and Paul+
Prayer Society Intention for July, Month of the Precious Blood of Jesus
“We therefore pray Thee, help Thy servants whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy Precious Blood.” — Raccolta
In our last blog, it was mentioned that only earlier reports regarding Sr. Lucy can likely be authentic, and that nothing after 1948 should be considered as trustworthy. This because it has been long suspected that an imposter took Sr. Lucy’s place and certain elements of the Fatima message may have been falsified. Even certain statements made by Sr. Lucy before 1948 (prior to the imposture) are suspect and indicate she may have been the victim of coercive persuasion. This is best illustrated by her nonsensical change of the prayer between the decades from “assist the poor souls in Purgatory,” to “lead all souls to heaven,” as if the Church considers this to be even a possibility. This change was conveyed by the seer to the Catholic author William Thomas Walsh during his July 1946 interview with Sr. Lucy. And judging by his description of her, it was most likely Sr. Lucy and not the imposter.
In 2017, Dr. Peter Chojnowski established a tax-exempt non-profit organization called Sister Lucy Truth to establish proof that the real Sr. Lucy was replaced by an imposter sometime during her existence as a Dorothean and/or Carmelite nun. The results of his investigation have been presented at https://www.sisterlucytruth.com/ since that time, and also have been covered at https://www.novusordowatch.org/. Recently, Novus Ordo Watch (NOW) reported that over 100 attendees at the Ohio State Coroners convention in Columbus have endorsed Chojnowski’s findings, stating in a letter later addressed to him: “The photographs of Sister Lucia, the Fatima visionary, showed a clear fraud. Pre-1960 Lucia, visionary, was replaced by an impostor in 1967. The evidence you presented was completely convincing as to this point.” But as pointed out previously, in 2020, and as NOW even mentioned in 2020 as well, some believe Chojnowski’s conclusions are misleading and incomplete. This author agrees.
This imposture was first brought to my attention in the early 1980s in an article written for the Francinta Messenger out of Boise, Idaho, edited by John Beauclair. So this suspicion has been around for decades now. The Francinta Messengerarticle showed John Paul 2 greeting a smiling fake Sr. Lucy and the caption noted that she looked nothing like photos of the real Fatima seer. A decade later, a Portuguese man also would question the imposter’s identity, as traditioninaction notes on its site. Some 40 years later, it is finally taken seriously. In 2019, Chojnowski issued a document entitled Fraud in Fatima presenting the rudiments of the case, but he did not limit his inquiry just to the Sr. Lucy imposture. One page reads:
Number 5 on this list is intriguing, for a truly OBJECTIVE evaluation of the actual validity of Angelo Roncalli’s election from a strictly legal standpoint — not the conclave events themselves — is what has been so desperately needed all along. But after six years, to the best of our knowledge, Chojnowski has not addressed these legal issues, at least not directly. Anything he has to say on the matter is through broadcasts available on the ISOC website (In the Spirit of Chartres) and of course this site is the home of ecumenical-minded LibTrads, as we have explained here before. ISOC also shamelessly promotes Gary Giuffre’s Siri fantasy, which Chojnowski seems to favor, in his presentation of a declassified document HERE. So somehow, they will probably try to link the Sr. Lucy truth business to some sort of revelation regarding Siri’s exclusion as papabile at the election and promote his purported election.
The Siri angle
This not only casts a shadow on the Sr. Lucy imposture investigation but makes it much easier to pinpoint why many of the correlations that explain Sr. Lucy’s fate have not been accepted by Chojnowski as relevant. Giuffre says he possesses declassified U.S. government documents proving conclusively that Siri was elected in 1958. But others have been unable to locate these same documents. It hardly needs saying that the reported collusion of various British and U.S. government agencies with the Novus Ordo church and especially with Giovanni Montini (Paul 6) — during and shortly after World War II as demonstrated in various modern historical works and biographies — place these declassified documents in serious doubt. This is especially true in this case since the Freedom of Information Act did not come into existence until after Vatican 2, (1966), so the true Catholic Church has never been able to determine if such documents were reliable or not, far less admissible as evidence.
While Can. 1814 states that civil documents are to be presumed genuine unless the contrary is proven by evident arguments, it would seem that the basis of such an argument can be found in the proofs of Montini’s covert operations, as described in The Phantom Church in Rome and other works; also his suspected collusion in poisoning Pius XII in 1952-53, (with such poisoning verified by his own physician at the time as “accidental”). Therefore it seems highly improbable that the true Church would willingly accept as solid evidence documents proceeding from espionage and intrigue, especially when such documents can easily be the product of falsehood, forgery and elicitation by force or sheer chicanery. (Read more on the Siri Fantasy HERE.) This, of course, is especially true considering Paul 6’s destruction of everything Catholic. So obviously such documents would be questionable at best and could not outweigh canonical proofs or those issuing from the pope or the Holy Office.
Canon 1813 §1 lists as principal ecclesiastical documents those acts of the Supreme Pontiffs, Roman Curia and Ordinaries. While reliable public documents may be admitted into evidence as Can. 1813, #2 states, documents of this nature are admissible only in the proper forum, i.e., in ecclesiastical courts over which the Roman Pontiff ultimately presides. “Proof to the contrary is not admitted against Letters of the Roman Pontiff bearing his signature,” (Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law, p. 626, ft. note). While we have no ecclesiastical courts today, we still are bound by Canon Law per the current interregnum. This is clear from Pope Pius XII’s papal election law, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS), an unquestionably infallible document entered into the AAS and binding on all Catholics. Only papal documents entered into the AAS are excluded from scrutiny by ecclesiastical courts (Can. 1819). So why would any educated Catholic pretend that other circumstantial evidence is equally compelling?
What constitutes proofs
Chojnowski states on his site: “Sister Lucy Truth, as an investigative enterprise, makes no attempt to draw theological conclusions from our findings. We simply wish to present the truth as it is uncovered.” This is all well and good and in the absence of an ecclesiastical court, where the forensic evidence only is considered as pertains to the actual case, there is little else that can be done. But we know that this is not a simple matter of determining the true identity of an individual; the implications of such an imposture are far reaching and definitely theological in nature. Chojnowski is already extending his investigation into the 1958 conclave by his own admission. And whether he presents his findings himself or under the auspices of Giuffre, Judith Sharpe or ISOC, makes little difference. He is entering matters definitely theological that deal with dogmas of faith.
As pointed out many times before, no man can become pope unless he is elected according to the papal laws and canons prevailing at the time of election. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, as testified to by Pope Clement VI (Super quibusdam, 1351), Pope Martin V (Inter Cunctas, Errors of Wycliffe and Huss, Council of Constance, 1418), Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559), Pope St. Pius V (confirming and strengthening Cum ex…, 1566), Pope St. Pius X (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904) and Pope Pius XII (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945). Martin V’s Const. Inter Cunctos decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, “Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.” Canon 109 states that only those “…legitimately elected and freely accepting the election receives jurisdiction by divine law.” Likewise Can. 219 declares: “The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains from the moment he accepts the election the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right.”
Dr. Chojnowski’s recent victory in confirming his investigation of Sr. Lucy’s imposture may serve as a way for him to establish greater credibility in the scientific and secular realm so that any later investigation into the 1958 conclave or other Church matters is more readily accepted. He already possesses a bachelor’s degree in political science and a Ph.D. in philosophy, having served in a teaching capacity at several Novus Ordo institutions. But that would count as nothing in the eyes of the Church if She yet existed on this earth today, because these degrees were received in the1980s. In fact, a re-education program would need to be undertaken to make certain that all previously taught errors were addressed then renounced. Were the Sr. Lucy findings to be presented today before an ecclesiastical court — which the Church requires because this is not a civil matter but definitely a Church matter — then there would need to be a determination made about the nature of the complaint or the investigation.
Because Fatima is an approved apparition and is so popular among the laity, it must be considered as a matter affecting the public welfare. What needs to be taken into consideration is that in the case of expert witnesses, the Church demands they be employed “…whenever a judge requires it, and the choice or designation of the experts pertains to the judge… In cases, however, in which the public welfare is concerned, the appointment of the experts must be done in consultation with the prosecutor or the defensor vinculi. It is left to the discretion of the judge to appoint one or more experts according to the nature of the case and difficulty of the affair may demand unless the law itself fixes the number of experts (Can. 1793). Other things being equal, those persons should be chosen as experts who have been declared capable by the authority of a competent board” (Can. 1795.)
All of this comes under the chapter in the 1917 Code regarding proofs; and what we need to know about proofs is: “No proof is required for the following:
- notorious facts, Can. 2197 numbers 2 and 3
- facts which are presumed by law and
- facts asserted by one of the contending parties and admitted by the other unless either the law or the judge nevertheless demands proof (Can. 1747).
“The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff with regard to the claims made in his bill of complaint. It rests on the defendant with regard to the exceptions and counter charges which he makes” (Can. 1748).
Papal election and the experts
Chojnowski’s self-appointed role as both plaintiff and prosecutor would need to be approved by the Church. The selection of experts to determine the facts at hand would also need to be approved both by an ecclesiastical judge and a competent board, all impossible today. So we should all be aware of the limitations of this investigation from the Church’s standpoint. It is reasonable to assume there was definitely a false Sr. Lucy. Many had already been able to determine this without the testimony of experts, just through photo examination. Confirmation by those skilled in forensics is a plus, but it does not tell the whole story. Nor does it admit evidence or observations made by others to the contrary; or consider that there may have been more than just one imposter, points brought to the attention of Chojnowski several years ago. Once a prosecutor and “experts” are endorsed by those running the show, any Catholics who may have valid points — even if they have degrees of their own — are edged out by the degreed “Catholic” elite. Is this what Christ would have wanted for the remnant Church?!
Before delving into some of the Sr. Lucy observations that have not been considered, the matter of the conclave investigation needs to be discussed regarding proofs. The case we have presented on this site and elsewhere regarding Roncalli’s invalid election is based almost entirely on notoriety of fact, public statements made in biographies and news publications, also Roncalli’s own public statements and actions both before and after his “election.” Simply producing these indicts him, and these statements have been available for decades. No further proof is necessary according to Can. 2197 (3): A notorious act must be known as criminal or morally imputable, impossible to conceal and “not to be excused by any excuse admitted in law”. The testimony of true experts — popes, doctors of the Church and approved theologians writing theses on these topics (to earn doctorates in Canon Law, prior to Pope Pius XII’s death) — confirm the indictment. You don’t top papal decrees with declassified documents. Any attempt to violate Canon Law regarding a papal election nullifies the attempt immediately under Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
Roncalli’s election was invalid. No verifiable proof can ever be produced at this late date that Siri or anyone else accepted the election. It is not simply a matter of “historical plausibility;” it is all about ascertaining a dogmatic fact. Under Canon 2391 §1, those responsible for electing an unworthy candidate are automatically disqualified from proceeding to a new election. The canonists, Revs. Woywod-Smith, define unworthy as “an excommunicated, suspended or interdicted person or one who has been punished with deprivation of a passive vote; a person branded with infamy of law or fact, a notorious apostate, heretic, schismatic or public sinner.” Roncalli fits this description perfectly, and any other “contender” such as Siri would be doubtfully elected, at best. For a bona fide expert long ago assured us that “A doubtful pope is no pope” (St. Robert Bellarmine).
Filling in holes in the Sr. Lucy investigation
An overview of the entire period during which all this took place will help put things into proper perspective and should provide stimulus for further research. There is evidence to suggest that Sr. Lucy actually passed away in 1949. A reader reported to Tradition in Action several years ago that official Carmelite records show Sr. Lucy listed as deceased. This evidence is strengthened by the fact that once the imposter Sr. Lucy died, and the Carmelite convent in Coimbra realized someone had reported this first listing, it was then changed to reflect the death of the imposter (see HERE).
What was transpiring during the critical period when Sr. Lucy was asked to write down the first two secrets in 1941? The great unknown light had already been seen across Europe in 1938, warning that WWII was about to begin. Pope Pius XI passed away in January 1939 without ever asking for the consecration of Russia, when it was most necessary. Pacelli was chosen to become Pope Pius XII, but the time for consecrating Russia had passed: it was “too late.” The world was at war, and the chaos was used as a cover to further the agenda of the Church’s enemies. In The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, Vol. III, written by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, we learn that one Fatima opponent, the Jesuit Fr. Edouard Dhanis, (said to lean towards Modernism), wrote in the mid-1950s: “The new history of Fatima, which rests on the accounts of Lucy, calls for more reserve. One may fear, without denying the sound judgment or sincerity of the seer, that certain fictitious elements slipped into the accounts… Thus, it hardly seems probable that Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia or that she attributed the provocation of the present war exclusively to the atheistic propaganda of this country.”
We must be careful here because the fictitious elements to which Dhanis refers may have come from the person impersonating Sr. Lucy and not Sr. Lucy herself. Dhanis also played a major role in Vatican 2, another red flag. But as further explained in the article HERE, there is good reason to believe that the reframing of the Fatima Message and coercion of Sr. Lucy began in 1941-42, if not before. And in the link just provided, information from various sources show that:
- Montini’s involvement with the OSS and CIA during and following WWII contributed to the Fatima message interpolations
- Montini, who arranged for Sr. Lucy’s transfer to the Carmelite Convent in Coimbra, Portugal, in 1948, also played a role in approving works containing the new format for the prayer between the decades (see the leaflet excerpts HERE).
- Montini was a supporter of the Dominican Felix Morlion, another suspected CIA operative. In 1939-1940, at the invitation of Goncalves Cardinal Cerejeira of Fatima fame, Morlion established his Center of Information Pro Deo press service in Lisbon, Portugal, later relocating to the U.S. in 1941. Morlion’s goal was to successfully influence and shape the opinions of the Catholic laity, and Fatima’s popularity provided an excellent vehicle for this endeavor. Cardinal Cerejeira went on to participate in the 1958 election and vote for the Vatican 2 reforms.
- Montini, also his great friend Jacques Maritain, were avid Pro Deo supporters according to author David A. Wemhoff (John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition, 2015). In Part XIV, Chapter 59 of his work,Wemhoff cites declassified documents in which a C.I.A. correspondent names Montini as co-founder of Pro Deo and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as being appointed in some way to participate in Pro Deo operations.
- Shortly before Pope Pius XII became ill in 1952, following the consecration of Russia, the pope reportedly commissioned the Austrian Jesuit Schweigl to present 31 questions regarding the conversion of Russia to Sr. Lucia, who possibly by that time was deceased. Schweigl later revealed his previously undisclosed mission to the Vatican 2 council fathers (according to Frere Michele, The Whole Truth About Fatima). He also told them that “…in 1952, the Archbishop of Coimbra demanded that the replies given by Sister Lucy not be published without authorization of the Holy Office.”And that authorization was never given.
- Following a series of grave revelations regarding Msgr. Montini’s misconduct and disobedience, Pius XII relieved him of his Vatican pro-secretary post and sent Montini to Milan as an Archbishop. After a near-death experience as the result of his initial poisoning, and a vison of Christ, Pope Pius XII practically shut down the operations of the Holy Office. He rarely mentioned Fatima publicly again. Did Pius suspect that Sr. Lucy had passed away? He obviously was suspicious of the Russia part of the Fatima message. And the mystery of the entire affair died with him.
The implications of the above revelations, in retrospect, confirm what we already know. And sadly it places much about Fatima in grave doubt. The earlier components, the earlier reports can be trusted with caution but anything after 1941 may be subject to interpolation. Many will remember that the La Salette seers Melanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud were subject to the same type of manipulation, and their messages compromised. Melanie’s own confessor added apocalyptic language to the message from Our Lady, causing that and other unauthorized versions of the La Salette secret to be proscribed by the Holy Office. This is why we do not accept private revelations with the firm assent we owe to truths of faith, and indeed we are not required to accept them at all. This being said, however, and the Sr. Lucy hoax being exposed, it is only fair to consider ALL the findings in the case and evaluate them.
Additional findings on false Sister Lucy
Because of the uncertainty regarding the authenticity of Sr. Lucy’s memoirs and interviews by various clergy and authors, the author quoted below,whose links are provided here wishes to include the following disclaimer:
“I came to understand the history of Fatima and its characters as a house of mirrors. Finding no sure guide myself and fearing lest I become a blind guide who leads others into a pit, I removed my articles and personal website diesilli.com from the Internet. However snapshots of these articles remain online at the Internet Archives so they remain part of the public domain. Let it be known that my opinion about the Sister Lucy truth investigation, the Coimbra convent and all other matters related to the history of the Fatima apparitions and the fake sister Lucy situation has changed since publishing the original articles in 2020. I prefer to keep my opinions to myself at this point and I offer my fervent prayers for everyone interested in these matters, rather than my own two cents. — Gratefully, Lauri Brown”
Following are the Internet links to Lauri’s articles:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034356/https://diesilli.com/some-questions/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034400/https://diesilli.com/more-questions/
https://web.archive.org/web/20201212002825/https://diesilli.com/timeline-srlucy/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034356/https://diesilli.com/the-1957-interview/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034349/https://diesilli.com/blog/
May the Holy Ghost grant us the light to know the truth and the grace to understand it.
ADDENDA
Fourth Sunday after Pentecost
I was unable to find the actual copy of the information on Sr. Lucy from an early 1980s edition of Francinta Messenger when this blog was first posted but have recently discovered it. This is a photo of Sr. Lucy that seems to be missing from the photo galleries available on the Internet, but one that once again raises questions. The archives of Vers Demain and LaPresse, such as they are, do not reveal any photos of Sr. Lucy. Was this photo provided by mistake? Was it yet another indication of an imposter? Why would Canadian papers print it without verifying it? These are additional questions which should be investigated and answered. Below are the photos and copy from Francinta Messenger; I apologize for the lack of readability of the last photo. Anyone wishing actual photocopies/prints of the article may contact me at answers@betrayedcatholics.com.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 16, 2025 | New Blog
+Feast of the Holy Trinity+
Introduction
In the past, I have expressed serious doubts about the Fatima message as concerns Russia, simply because Pope Pius XII himself expressed these same doubts in his final years, and with good reason. All that we know is that at some point Sr. Lucia dos Santos was replaced with an imposter, but exactly when is not known. Nor can we be certain she was not the victim of coercive persuasion (brainwashing) even before her replacement was installed, presumably upon her death, which might explain some inconsistencies in her statements. It seems best, then, to trust her earlier statements, some of which have either been altered, minimized, misrepresented or never properly assessed. Among these is her vision of the Trinity at Tuy, Spain. Little has been written on the possible meaning of this vision, even though it is striking in three respects. But before addressing these, we want to clear up some possible objections to the vision itself.
Some might object that the image in Sr. Lucy’s vision suggests that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father and not the Son, a heresy condemned by the Church. But this 1455 painting above by Francesco di Steffano (Pesselino), situated over the high altar of the Church of the Holy Trinity in Pistoia, a small city north-west of Florence, Italy, is proof that the Church did not condemn the illustration of the Holy Trinity represented in this fashion. Other such illustrations in Catholic church art worldwide attest to this. And some will object the wound of the lance was inflicted on Christs’ left side, but Holy Scripture does not tell us which side the lance pierced. The right side is more often portrayed, since Ezekiel 47 speaks of water flowing from the right side of the temple. From a tiny trickle of water it increases to become a mighty stream, healing all in its path. The Church treats this as a prophecy of the blood and water issuing from the pierced side of Christ, the true Temple, as it is expressed in the Easter liturgy.
The chalice and the Host
Having addressed these objections, we move on to the three notable qualities of the vision. The first of these, and what will stand out most to those seeing it for the first time, is the Host and chalice suspended under the wound in Christ’s side. From our Lord’s side issues the Sacred Blood and the water (bodily fluids) which symbolizes His union with the Mystical Body, the Church. Sister Lucy does not mention this fact, (stating that she sees only blood from Christ’s head and side dripping on to the Host), but there is most certainly a mingling of the water with the blood. For it is a teaching of the Church, as seen below, that both blood and water flowed from the wound of the lance.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, in his Summa Theologica, (III pars q 74, 6-8): “Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is offered in this sacrament. First of all, on account of its institution: for it is believed with probability that our Lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to the custom of that country: hence it is written (Proverbs 9:5): ‘Drink the wine which I have mixed for you.
“Secondly, because it harmonizes with the representation of our Lord’s Passion: hence Pope Alexander I says (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): ‘In the Lord’s chalice neither wine only nor water only ought to be offered, but both mixed because we read that both flowed from His side in the Passion.’
“Thirdly, because this is adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament, since as Pope Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can. 1): ‘We see that the people are signified by the water, but Christ’s blood by the wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people [are] made one with Christ.’
“Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament, which is the entering into everlasting life: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): ‘The water flows into the chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting life.'”
And from St. Cyprian: “For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people [are] made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated.
“Whence, moreover, nothing can separate the Church — that is, the people established in the Church, faithfully and firmly persevering in that which they have believed — from Christ, in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always abiding and adhering. Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament.”
St John Chrysostom wrote: “There flowed from his side water and blood.” Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy Eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, “the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Ghost and from the holy Eucharist.” The people were made one with Christ on the Cross, when the lance pierced His side, not just daily in the Holy Sacrifice when receiving Holy Communion, the renewal of Christ’s sacrifice. If actual Communion is what the vision was referring to, why didn’t Sr. Lucy’s vision take place above an altar where Holy Mass was being celebrated, with a priest and communicant at the altar rail? But no, the altar in the vision is bare, in all but a very few artistic depictions.
This is much like the vision of the Sacred Species the children saw when the Angel appeared to them before the Fatima apparitions occurred; the significance is unmistakable. Swiss Catholic author Michael Mottet commented in the 1980s: “The abolition of the Perpetual Sacrifice has clearly been predicted in Fatima in the apparition of the Angel of Peace carrying a Host and a Chalice and giving the Most Holy Communion to Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco. This is the clear prediction that a time will come when the Most Holy Communion will descend straight from Heaven and will only be possible under this form. The Faith tells us moreover that this communion of desire is not only possible, but highly desirable, which is indeed normal for the most spiritual of all sacraments, (sacrament meaning mystery),” (“Fatima: Apocalypse?,” Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes, Sept. – Dec., 1989).
Isn’t Sr. Lucy’s vision of the Trinity further confirmation of this?
Our Lady and the Rosary
The second aspect is the presence of Our Lady as she appeared at Fatima. In her vision, Sr. Lucy saw the Host, positioned above a chalice, into which the Sacred Stream flows. Under the Host and chalice, suspended in mid-air, stands Our Lady of Fatima, (the Sorrowful) and Immaculate Mother, but not with a sword piercing her heart. Our Lady, however, is standing on the right side of the Cross, just as she stood at the Passion. She is holding the Rosary and her body is slightly inclined, her hand extended, as if offering it for recitation. Again the Host and Chalice are just to the left of Our Lady. She points to her flaming heart burning with love for us and encircled with thorns, begging for reparation, just as the Head of Her Divine Son is encircled. This positioning and gesture are but further proof that the Holy Sacrifice will be suspended and the faithful will only have recourse to the rosary and the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary. The vision came with a request for reparation — the Five First Saturdays — filling up what is wanting to the Passion of Christ (Col. 1:24).
We read in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “By voluntary submission to His Passion and Death on the Cross, Jesus Christ atoned for our disobedience and sin. He thus made reparation to the offended majesty of God for the outrages which the Creator so constantly suffers at the hands of His creatures. We are restored to grace through the merits of Christ’s Death, and that grace enables us to add our prayers, labours, and trials to those of Our Lord “and fill up those things that are wanting…” Just as Christ made reparation to His Father, so also must we make reparation to Him and His holy Mother. We must atone for our disobedience and sin, but first we must understand what it has cost us.
Antichrist was given the power to take away the Holy Sacrifice and to destroy the papacy; this we read in the Book of Daniel. “And the little horn was magnified even unto the strength of heaven and it was magnified even to the Prince of the strength: AND IT TOOK AWAY FROM HIM THE CONTINUAL SACRIFICE AND CAST DOWN THE PLACE OF HIS SANCTUARY. And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice BECAUSE OF SINS: and truth shall be cast down on the ground, and he shall do and shall prosper” (Dan. 8: 9-12). Who is this Prince of strength? In his commentary on verses 10 and 12, Rev. Leo Haydock identifies them as the Jewish high priests: “…Many priests gave way to idolatry…The sacrifices were neglected… Ambitious pontiffs kept not their promises.” It was the sins of the Jewish hierarchy, but also the people, “the strength of heaven,” who Haydock refers to as the “army of the Jews, the people of God.” And so it was the faithless Catholic hierarchy, and those meant to be soldiers of Christ, who in our time likewise brought on the destruction of the Church.
This image is a representation of the Passion of the Church, for any who have eyes to see. Christ entrusted the Church to His mother at the foot of the Cross. Her presence in this vision is a warning that the Sacrifice will be suspended because of sins, unless reparation is made for them. It is a virtual invitation to participate in Christ’s Passion. It is also a warning that if a significant number of the faithful would not make this reparation during Pius XI’s reign, as requested, then the Pope would not consecrate Russia, and Russia would spread its errors. It is my belief that the last sentence purportedly conveyed to the children during the third apparition was later added to the original locution received by the children. Remember, this message was not revealed until Dec. 8, 1941. By then, WWII had already begun, with its ensuing chaos. Enemy agents already had infiltrated the Church.
That message read: “IF MY REQUESTS ARE HEARD Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, she will spread her errors throughout the entire world fomenting wars and persecution of the Church. The good will suffer martyrdom; the Holy Father will suffer much; different nations will be annihilated. But in the end my Immaculate Heart shall triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, which will be converted, and some time of peace will be granted to humanity.” This last sentence is suspect, and I believe that Pope Pius XII considered it suspect as well. The time for the consecration and Russia’s conversion ended with the reign of Pope Pius XI, for before his death, already the “night illumined by an unknown light” had appeared on Jan. 25, 1938. The pope died in 1939. Also, the last sentence contradicts what our Lord later told Sr. Lucy in 1943. This will be addressed below.
Graces and mercy
The third aspect of the vision is the graces and mercies descending in crystalline rivulets to the left of the Cross, the water flowing from the right side of the Temple in Ezekiel 47. We also are put in mind of the verse in Apocalypse 21: 6-7: “And he said to me: It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. To him that thirsteth I will give of the fountain of the water of life gratis. He that shall overcome shall possess these things and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Rev. Haydock comments on this as follows: “The state of Christ’s Church on earth and in this world is now finished and the time is come to reward the good and punish the wicked. The living water is God himself of which the Saints shall be inebriated at the source…” The vision is of Christ’s Sacred Body hanging from the cross following His death. Yet He continues to provide sustenance to His Church on earth through the merits of His Body and Blood — Blood mingled with water.
We find reference to this “inebriation at the source” in Rev. Henry Semple’s Heaven Open to Souls, where he cites Rev. Von Driesch: “To give you confidence in your ability to make acts of perfect contrition, you must be reminded that for many thousand years before the time of our Lord, in the old law, perfect contrition was the only means whereby men could obtain forgiveness of sins and enter heaven. And, at the present time, there are many millions of heathens and heretics, and all of these who are saved will be saved only and entirely by perfect contrition.” Semple then comments: “The great Dominican theologian, Melchior Cano, was present in the Council of Trent and took a leading part in its discussions…He writes: ”In the Sacraments of the old law, there was no other merit but that of faith… [this] by itself was enough for the remission of sins.” The living water is the inebriating symbol of that source.
The graces and mercies we receive can be likened to this image found in a Roman church. Salvation comes from Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross into the Church, founded on the Rock of St. Peter. And from this Rock flow the rivers of salvation from which the faithful drink. Sister Lucy’s vision of the Trinity reminds us that while the earthly renewal of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross may be suspended, the means of salvation are yet available to the faithful. In the words of St. Cyprian, “…nothing can separate the Church — that is, the people established in the Church, faithfully and firmly persevering in that which they have believed — from Christ, in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always abiding and adhering.” The Church’s time on earth is ”done.” It is left to us remaining to be those overcomers mentioned in Apoc. 21 and to drink of the living water of graces and mercy that is now the Perfect Act of Contrition and Spiritual Communion.
The Fatima Consecration was “TOO late”
Sister Lucy related that she also received “an intimate communication” from our Lord shortly after the Tuy vision occurred. “Our Lord complained to me saying: “They did not wish to heed my request, like the King of France. They will repent and do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars, and persecutions of the Church; the Holy Father will have much to suffer.” This is the translation of that message printed in every book I have ever examined regarding Fatima and in every Internet translation. In their recent works on Fatima, Robert Sungenis and Taylor Marshall both report that the actual wording is “TOO late” (see HERE). Why after all these years would they report differently? Well there is a very good answer to that question, and it applies to more than one of the Fatima iterations as conveyed by Sr. Lucy. This is just one of the mistranslations referred to above.
The actual reference, however, appears in yet another mistranslated text. The Portuguese words as relayed by Sr. Lucy in letters to Rev. Fr. José Bernardo Gonçalves May 18, 1936, were at one time reported on a website page that is now no longer accessible. They read in Portuguese: [Lucy] Nas cartas para o Rev. P. José Bernardo Gonçalves, S. J. , afirmou ela, em 18-5- 1936: “Mas, meu Deus, o Santo Padre não me há-de crer, se Vós mesmos o não moveis com uma inspiração especial.” [Jesus]: “O Santo Padre: Ora muito pelo Santo Padre. Ele há-de fazê-la, (a consagração da Rússia), mas será tarde.”
The English translation of these letters to Rev. Gonçalves, S.J. reads:
Sister Lucia: “But, my God, the Holy Father will not believe me if you yourself do not move him with a special inspiration.”
Jesus: “The Holy Father… Pray much for the Holy Father. He will do it (the consecration of Russia), but it will be late.”
Yet these Portuguese words, when entered into numerous translation programs, (ImTranslator, Translitz, Translationly, Online translation pro, Translate, Free translations) all translate these last two words as “TOO LATE.” And if anyone would think for one moment about the translation of the words of Our Lord regarding the King of France, they immediately would know that this communication also was deliberately mistranslated. The King of France, Louis XIV, refused to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart, as Christ requested through St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in 1689. King Louis XV also ignored the request and died of smallpox after traveling with his mistress to participate in a hunt. One hundred years after St. Margaret Mary Alacoque’s request, Louis XVI, having never performed the consecration, lost both his kingdom and his life during the French Revolution. It was definitely too late for her kings to save France as a Catholic country. And it boded ill for the kings of the Church as well.
Pope Pius XI died under suspicious circumstances without ever making the consecration. And the purpose of that consecration died with him. Poor Pope Pius XII tried to make good on his predecessor’s omission, but he had much to suffer. He fought Communism up to the time of his death, but the damage had already been done; it was too late. As reported on this site a few years ago, there is very little about Fatima that can be trusted after about the mid-1940s, when it is thought that the real Sr. Lucy passed away, to be replaced by a series of imposters. And even some of her comments before then are suspect. It is most likely that, relatively uneducated and therefore more vulnerable, Sr. Lucy was expertly subjected to coercive persuasion, especially since she was indeed a simple peasant girl and wished only to be obedient to her superiors. And to be fair, it is most likely that she knew nothing of the mistranslations.
Pope Pius XII suspected there was something amiss about the Russia consecration and was most likely poisoned after discovering the imposture and possible additions/alterations to the Fatima message, among other troubling revelations regarding Montini (see HERE). Perhaps, seeing his firm stance against ecumenism, he was alerted by the alleged change in the prayer between the decades. For this too was the victim of mistranslation and, it would appear, deliberate alteration.
Fatima prayer between the decades
This is from yet another website, no longer available for viewing: “We have been alerted to the fact of a troubling alteration in the prayer given by Our Lady to the three seers of Fatima, to be recited after each decade of the Rosary. The most common form of this prayer today is the following: “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.”
“This form of the prayer, however, is very different from that given in the earliest book on the Fatima apparitions, written by Fr. Manuel Nunes Formigão, under the pseudonym of\Visconde de Montello, Os episodios maravilhosos de Fátima (1921), and subsequently in many novenas and devotional works approved by ecclesiastical authorities through the 1950s. Fr. Formigão was in charge of interrogating the seers, including Lucia dos Santos, who received the prayer from Our Lady on July 13, 1917. According to Formigão’s account, the prayer should read: “O my Jesus, pardon us, deliver us from the fire of Hell, and relieve the souls in Purgatory, especially the most abandoned.” We have also found a letter, written by Lucia, giving the original text of the prayer below.
“According to this letter, the original words of the prayer are as follows in Portuguese: O meu Jesus, perdoai-nos e livrai-nos do fogo do inferno, levai as alminhas todas para o Ceu, principalmente aquelas que mais precisarem.” In English, this may be translated as: O my Jesus, forgive us and save us from the fire of Hell, lead all little souls toward Heaven, especially those who are most in need.” It is our understanding, that the word “alminhas”, literally, “little souls,” is an idiom in Portuguese for the souls in Purgatory, similar to the phrase in English, “Poor Souls.” This interpretation is supported by the fact that the priest responsible for questioning Lucia, Fr. Formigão, a native speaker of Portuguese, transcribed this part of the prayer as a petition for the relief of the souls in Purgatory (see scan from Formigao book below).
“It is alleged that Lucia, long after the fact, corrected the wording of the prayer to refer to “all souls,” rather than to the souls in Purgatory. The earliest first versions of the prayer with the revised wording, to our knowledge, began to appear twenty to thirty years after the apparitions.”
And of course that would fit in with the timeline for the appearance of the Sr. Lucy imposters. According to his work, Our Lady of Fatima, on July 15,1946, the author William Thomas Walsh interviewed Sr. Lucy in her convent in Vilar and it was at this time that she corrected the prayer to read: “Oh my Jesus, pardon us and save us from the fire of Hell. Draw all souls to heaven, especially those in most need.” Sr. Lucy told Walsh she “corrected” it in her memoirs because it had previously been misreported. But what about her letter then to Rev. Goncalves?! And if that, then what else? Was she persuaded to change it? Ordered? Threatened? Certainly the sudden appearance of her “replacement” suggests something was afoot. Can we still recite the original prayer that she recited to Rev. Formigao?
It seems we can, for it is duly imprimatured and indulgenced, according to this 1947 booklet, available online HERE. Perhaps the question should be asked why, if it was not accurate, that the prayer was ever indulgenced in the first place, and why the author felt both prayers should be included in his booklet? If Pope Pius XII approved the booklet, wouldn’t that be enough to assure the recitation of the original version? And given that G. B. Montini issued the announcement of the pope’s blessing, might it not have served his own purposes well, seeing that the prayer between the decades was “corrected”?
Now more than ever, it is important that we say this prayer between the decades, since the most powerful means of freeing the souls in Purgatory in the past, Holy Mass, has been lost to us. It seems right to assume that this is the reason that it was given to the seers in the first place. And since the Rosary is one of the most indulgenced prayers we can offer, it is the best choice for freeing our loved ones from Purgatory or relieving their suffering there.
If we had never known what we know now about Fatima and the destruction of the Church, these discrepancies wouldn’t matter. But we can’t very well “unknow” it. We know what the changing of one word did to the consecration of the wine in the Latin Mass, and what the omission of qualifying adjectives can accomplish. The La Salette message was similarly attenuated, and the seers harangued and harassed for years. Melanie Calvat’s own confessor even added to and twisted her accounts of the message and printed them; at least one of these accounts was condemned by the Holy See. So why should anyone be surprised now, with the enemy fully in control of things, that these deceptions have become so obvious?
Our Lord’s last message
The last known communication of our Lord to Sr. Lucy occurred in 1943. He expressed his joy at Pope Pius XII’s 1942 consecration but said it was not complete. World War II would end, He told her, but Russia would not yet be converted. In this last message He defined exactly what type of penance and reparation Fatima demanded. “The sacrifice demanded of everyone is the fulfillment of his duties in life and the observance of My law. This is the penance that I now seek and require.” Our Lord complained bitterly to Sr. Lucy that so few would be willing to make whatever sacrifices the observance of His law would require. (From the book Fatima or World Suicide, Rt. Rev. Wm. C. McGrath, P.A., 1950). And if this is the true message of Fatima, the real secret to fulfilling Our Lady’s wishes and those of her Son, then it is no wonder we have lost the visible Church. God’s law can only translate as the 10 Commandments and the laws enacted over the centuries by His vicars, for “He who hears you, hears Me.” And of course Christ already knew how few would obey these laws and fulfill the duties of their chosen vocations.
This final message seems to indicate that a rough road lay ahead for the faithful. It almost sounds as though Catholics were being called to white martyrdom, which indeed was the case. This final communication, coupled with the vision at Tuy, has been scarcely mentioned and never explained, unlike the rest of the message regarding the consecration and Russia’s conversion. And of course there is a reason for this — they do not wish to consider the real import of the message or its consequences.
Conclusion
In this author’s opinion, the Holy Trinity is portrayed in the Tuy vision as a pictorial presentation of the third secret. The Trinity will always be with us, just as the Three Persons were with the people of Israel prior to their defection — God the Father, Christ the (coming) Messiah and the Shekinah, or Holy Ghost. If we truly keep the faith, the Holy Trinity will send the streams of grace and mercy we need to save our souls, just as they did in Old Testament times, before there was a pope, a Mass or the sacraments. Sr. Lucy may have been granted this vision because God knew that the message of Fatima would be derailed and corrupted by the enemies of the Church. As St. John Chrysostom says, in the blood and water flowing from Christ’s side, we have Baptism and the Eucharist (Perfect Contrition and Spiritual Communion); these means of salvation cannot be taken from us. Lucy saw only the blood; she did not see (or did not mention) the water. Could it be that this signifies that now only Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross suffices, because there can be no mingling of the water in the absence of Holy Mass?!
I have no idea who the artists were that painted the vision of Tuy. But in one of the older ones, the one that I have included above, something strange can be seen when it is printed out. Just past the graces and mercy on the left side of the Cross, a faint image can be seen of what appears to be a priest dressed in alb and surplice, his head down, leaving the altar. Go in peace, the Mass has ended. The Church’s time on earth is done. The prince of strength’s sanctuary has been cast down; he who withholdeth has been taken out of the way. “I will strike the Shepherd” and disperse the flock, Christ announces in Matt. 26: 31. And after the pattern of Our Lord, the Holy Father, Pius XII, had much to suffer. God has given us so many indications of the times in which we live, if we only read the signs.
Fatima is merely a private revelation, and as such can be taken as true on human faith or ignored entirely. Many have hijacked and perverted its true meaning for decades. But if it is stripped of its dross, this seemingly prophetic representation of the Holy Trinity may yet be able to confirm what we should already know.
