by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 22, 2024 | New Blog
+Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary+
Sweet Heart of Mary, be my salvation!
In my early 20s, I read a book that later would send me indirectly to the doors of Traditional “Catholicism.” That book was None Dare Call it Conspiracy, by Gary Allen. It helped me make sense of a world that was suffering a moral and religious crisis at the time, a crisis that officially began with usurpation of the throne of St. Peter but had actually been in the making for over a century. When I discovered that the Church I was baptized in, the one I had left after the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae, was being “revived” by Traditionalists, I investigated them. It was then I discovered this particular sect supported a right-wing group whose philosophy was based on Allen’s book, and everything seemed to finally come into focus. I became a member of the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement headed by Fr. Francis E. Fenton and briefly, the John Birch Society.
Four years spent in the movement, after writing for four Traditionalist publications, I realized that the goal of all these interrelated but separate sects was to maintain the status quo, not move forward to advocate for doctrinal unity which could be had only by electing a true pope. I resigned membership in the Birch society in 1982 and was done with the ORCM by 1983. I began actively advocating for a papal election in 1986-87. Readers know the rest. I have since discovered and exposed the founding and infiltration of the Traditionalist movement by Freemasons, and recently a reader has kindly advanced my knowledge regarding the Birch Society’s role in that infiltration. It further strengthens what is written HERE regarding Traditionalism’s Masonic origins and should leave Catholics with no doubt regarding the true motives and intent of LibTrad pseudo-clergy.
In that article I wrote: “Early in the Traditionalist game (1975), Catholic writer William Strojie, in his Letters, commented on De Pauw’s beliefs and affiliations and found them wanting. Strojie and Mary Lejeune, who wrote Sword of Truth were apparently the first among writers at the time to link DePauw’s Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM) to the Old Catholics and Gnostics. They also identified Fr. Francis E. Fenton’s John Birch Society-affiliated Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM) as not only linked to the Old Catholics, but also to the Americanists, (the initials for the Old Roman Catholic Church are ORCC and Fenton’s group functioned in the U.S. much as that church functions both in Britain and here).”
What Lejeune and Strojie didn’t know is that the John Birch Society’s own council members directing the society were peppered with Freemasons and Communist sympathizers. This is confirmed by former JBS members in the article found HERE. Much of the information comes from Who’s Who in America and other sources. Below the implications of this find will be discussed.
Masonic Birchers, their associates and British Israel
Most interesting about the Birch expose article is that it lists as one of their council members a Dr. [John] Grady, founder of the Shickshinny Knights (Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, SOSJ) but does not refer to his Masonic membership in this order. The Shickshinny Knights were taken to court and denounced as a legitimate order. They also were investigated by the FBI for neo-Nazi and terrorist-type connections in the 1990s (https://barthsnotes.com/2012/05/24/patcon-and-the-investigation-of-a-sovereign-order/). Wikipedia rightly reports that Fr. Fenton founded the ORCM on the suggestion of and with the support of Rev. Joaquin Saenz- Arriaga, a Mexican canonist and theologian. The translator for Arriaga’s work frankly admits, in a dedication for The New Montinian Church, that Arriaga was a member of the Order of St. John Jerusalem, an order that also tracks back to Marcel Lefebvre. Below is the preface to Saenz-Arriaga’s book.
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE
“Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, S.J., Ph.D. was born October 12, 1899, ordained a Jesuit priest in April, 1930, and died in April, 1976. An acclaimed sentinel and guardian of the Rock of St. Peter, he held doctorates in philosophy, theology and Canon Law. An active and prodigious traditionalist writer, he authored or co-authored more than fifty books exposing the neo-gnosticism of the Post-Conciliar Church, including such well-known texts as Sede Vacante (The Vacant Chair), For Christ and Against Christ, The New Mass Is Not the One Catholic Mass, The Plot Against the Church, etc. A dedicated servant of Christ, his love of God and mankind propelled him to write the present comprehensive expose against the occult conspiracy. A shining star of the Jesuit Order and the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, he first published La Nueva Iglesia Montiniana on the Feast of the Assumption, August 15, 1971. This was subsequently translated and published in Italian, creating such a furor within liberalized Church circles that it even brought about an invalid excommunication, handed down by a bishop who did not have jurisdiction over Fr. Saenz and who did not call a tribunal to hear the case. It is hoped that the timely and long-awaited publication of this book on August 15, 1985 will provide the reader with enough historical insight to appreciate the nature of the pagan anti-Christian conspiracy which is at work against the Church.”
It should be no surprise, then, that Fenton himself was a member of the same organization on which Grady also sat as a council member, or that Saenz-Arriaga was a member of Grady’s Shickshinny Knights. “Fr.” Dan Jones, an ORCM pseudo-cleric, regularly promoted Grady’s side organization, the American Pistol and Rifle Association, and recruited Traditionalists for membership in the group. Jones also openly promoted British Israel ideology in his Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes. He would later embrace a schismatic alternative-pope group in Canada condemned by Pope Pius XII.
Although not a council member, another possible Masonic connection was Kennett Bawden, father of David Bawden, aka “Pope Michael.” According to family members, the elder Bawden left the Masons on embracing the Catholic faith, sometime in the 1960s, 1970s. During his time as a member of the St. Pius X Society and for some time afterward, Kennett Bawden was a public relations agent for the Kansas branch of the JBS (1970s, 1980s). His 1995 obituary lists him as “a lifetime member” of the JBS. He was the main funder and promoter of his son David’s 1990 “election.”
H.M. Peters on the JBS and British Israel
British Israel is treated in various articles on this site and is one of the lower rungs of Freemasonry listed on Lady Queenborough’s Masonic pyramid. The authors of the JBS article mention Protestant author and researcher, Helen M. Peters, in their work and her reference to the philosophy of the JBS as definitely supporting British Israel. Peters is quoted at length in the treatise HERE on the history of British Israelism, which the article on the Masonic origins of Traditionalism mentioned above links to the Birch Society and Traditionalists. She doesn’t expose the JBS, founded by Robert Welch, as infiltrated by Freemasons, but she definitely provides the spiritual link that places them in the service of the One World religion architects. Peters writes:
“This one “link” is all important because it not only ties in the conservative and Identity Movements, it links them with the Jew’s religion which the Identity people promote as the Kingdom Message. The Identity people are bastard offspring of Judaism because their belief in the earthly kingdom is Judaism.
“The John Birch Society has been a thorn in the flesh of many would-be patriots. The purpose of the John Birch Society is to soak up any effective opposition and neutralize it or turn it toward a false conservatism. Robert Welch and his Society has never attacked the Kingdom Message propaganda. In fact they promote British Israel under the cover of Fundamental Christianity. “Welch laid to rest any questions on British Israel to his members in his booklet THE NEUTRALIZERS. We say that he who does not want the whole truth does not deserve any truth. With this in mind let us take a close look at Welch’s double talk in his phony expose` of British Israel. He simply attacks it by one name and promotes it under another.
“THE NEUTRALIZERS is a booklet distributed by the John Birch Society. Its purpose, according to its author, is to “minimize the effect of the whole splintering (efforts to destroy the John Birch Society) operation.” According to Robert Welch none of his members are supposed to believe any bad stories about himself or his society unless they first check with headquarters in Belmont, Massachusetts. This, most of them dutifully do.
“If through guile, one wishes to twist men’s minds, it is necessary to be compassionate, sincere, religious and, in this case, patriotic. These qualities of character cause an unfaltering admiration, stupefying followers and “neutralizing” opponents. The way for a villain to disguise his crime is to implicate it to others, blaming them for that which he is guilty.
“THE NEUTRALIZERS is a case in point. If we suppose that Mr. Welch has a valid attack upon advocates of “Anti-Semitism,” “Religious Neutralism,” “Academic Neutralism,” “Political Neutralism,” and “Tangentitis,” we have a right to examine him and his Society with regard to the same topics. (We have not checked with Belmont but we will go ahead.) As Mr. Welch so powerfully stated, on page 39 of THE NEUTRALIZERS, “Consistency is seldom a virtue of the bigot.” End quote. With this we agree and with this in mind we turn the spotlight upon Mr. Welch and his “Anti-Communist John Birch Society.”
“In the first section of THE NEUTRALIZERS on “Anti-Semitism” the term anti-Semitism is used twelve times. This of course injects the revolutionary tactic of racism because of the commonly false definition put upon the word “Semitic.” With all the knowledge that Sir Robert possesses he cannot prove that there is a Semitic Race, let alone that the Jews are Semites. His genealogical proof of a Semitic Race today is as impossible as is any British Israelite’s racial identity. Racial lineage dating back to any of the tribes of Israel was forever destroyed when the genealogical tablets were destroyed with the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. The error of “Jewish Semitism” is as erroneous as the error of “Arab Semitism.” But of course the idea of race helps promote conflict and revolution.
“Then with the gall of a brass monkey he equates religion with race in order to confuse the two. On page 8 he suggests that “Jews” are sometimes “Jews” and sometimes not — “but those who had formerly been Jews and many who had not been Jews.” End quote. So Welch says on page 18 that the Communists do the “opposite of the appearance that they create so diligently.” Is he not here following the same pattern of using racism (semitism) to promote revolution?
“Then like all good Masons do, he equates all religions to one big happy family. On page 20 he states that Communism must go “so that Jews and Christians alike, and Mohammedans and Buddhists, can again have a decent world to live in.” End of quote. Now be not deceived that his plan graciously allows Christianity a fourth part with the heathens. His definition of Christianity is British Israel and is not based on the Deity of Jesus Christ at all… Mr. Welch and all the Right-Wing Communists say the bad guys are in the Kremlin. They are bad all right because they are controlled by the same British Israel that controls Mr. Welch. The only thing is, their left-wing Communism is going to give way to Mr. Welch’s “Christian Communism” (https://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/unionjack_epilogue.htm).
Is that not precisely where we are headed in this coming election? And is this not reflected in the establishment of the Abrahamic Family House celebrating all three world religions, the Satanic result of indifferentism, pan-Christianism, Modernism, ecumenism and the religious liberty espoused at the false Vatican 2 council?
Replacement theology and conversion
Right-wing Christian fundamentalism, as explained by Peters above in the link on British Israel, rebuffs the idea of a “replacement theology,” or supersessionism. This term is defined by one Protestant writer as: “The animosity even some Christians have toward the Jewish people. They choose to believe in the Replacement Theology that ‘essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of the Replacement Theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel.’” Romans 11: 28-31 is quoted to support the restoration of Israel: “As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. For as you also in times past did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy, through their unbelief; So these also now have not believed, for your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.”
Rev. Leo Haydock, however, interprets this as follows: “They are… enemies to God, for He has rejected them at presentfor their willful blindness…” Typically, this Protestant neglects to refer to the preceding verses, Rom. 11:25-27: “For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: ‘There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins’.” Rev. Haydock comments: “All Israel shall be saved when all nations are converted [and] they [the Jews] submit to the faith of Christ… Christ Jesus shall then come to them by His powerful grace, ‘And this is to them my covenant… [when I shall take away their sins’”].
And then we find this verse: in 2 Corin. 3 vs 13-16: “And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void. But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the Old Testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. But when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.” Let them once convert and THEN the promises will be fulfilled, in the establishment of the heavenly New Jerusalem, as the Good Book teaches. This conversion very likely already happened in part, as reported in the article cited previously on the lost Jewish tribes. But toward the very end, before the consummation of the world by fire and after the terrible chastisement and destruction of Rome, time will be given for the remaining Jews to convert, as well as “The Synagogue of Satan…those who say they are Jews and are not but do lie. I will make them to come and adore before thy feet” (Apoc. 3:9).
Who is this synagogue? As Msgr. Jouin reports in his booklet on Freemasonry: “The renewed sentences of anathema by Pope Pius IX strike most particularly the satanism of secret societies. In his Encyclical of November 2l, 1873, the Pope writes of them as ‘the synagogue of Satan.” So is Freemasonry, aligned at the top with certain Jewish entities, those of whom this pope speaks, the ones now promoting British Israel? Or is he referring to the fact that the Jews as a race have ceased to exist, since all their genealogies were lost with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., and by their dispersion among the nations. This is even taught by Jewish historians and converts from Judaism. What must Catholics believe about replacement theology, now so popular among Fundamentalists? Surely it cannot be called animosity, for Catholics are not anti-Semites. We wish to take nothing from the Jews that belongs to them, only enrich them with the acceptance of the Messiah that they mistakenly rejected so long ago. Then indeed all the promises made to them will be fulfilled. These are not our terms, but the terms of their God.
Rev. Denis Fahey reports that Pope Pius XI, in his Sept. 6, 1938, address to Belgian pilgrims wrote: “At the most solemn moment of the Mass we recite the prayer which contains the expression “sacrifice of Abel, sacrifice of Abraham, sacrifice of Melchisedek” in three strokes, three times, three steps, the entire religious history of mankind—a magnificent passage. Every time we read it; we are seized by an irresistible emotion. The sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham. Note that Abraham is called our patriarch, our ancestor. Antisemitism is incompatible with the thought and the sublime reality expressed in this text. It is alien to us, a movement in which we Christians can have no part. The promise was made to Abraham and to his descendants. It is realized in Christ, and through Christ in us who are members of His Mystical Body. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham. No, it is not possible for Christians to take part in antisemitism. We acknowledge for all the right to defend themselves, to adopt measures of protection against what threatens their legitimate interests. But antisemitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are Semites.”
It is the British Israel adherents, among them Traditionalists, who expect a millennium and the restoration of Christ’s Church on earth. Traditionalists believe they will be the beneficiaries of this restoration and Fundamentalists believe it will be a Jewish operation that will somehow include Christians, but they are not in agreement on the extent or timing of this involvement. Millenarianism, even in its mildest, spiritual sense, has been condemned by Pope Pius XII and this is explained HERE. The thousand-year reign probably began after the papacy was firmly established in Rome once the major persecutions of Christians subsided. In 445, Emperor Valentinian pronounced that the Bishop of Rome was the law for all. Pope Gelasius I was the first pope to be called Vicar of Christ (492-496). A little over 1,000 years later, Luther began his revolt, followed by that of Henry VIII around 1532. Freemasonry was established in England 200 years after Luther’s revolt.
Conclusion
LibTrads no longer can defend the fraudulent and apostate foundations of their “church.” As documented in the Masonic origins article, The Catholic Traditional Movement (CTM), the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM), the St. Pius X Society (SSPX) — and any remaining LibTrad pseudo-clergy issue from these three organizations — ALL were founded by men later linked to the exact same secret society: the Knights of St. John Jerusalem. And now we have shown that the ORCM was intertwined with a Masonic-run organization from the outset. Any so-called clerics were excommunicated for cooperating in any way with these apostates, and any Traditionalists joining “Fr.” James Wathen’s Solemn Order of St. John of Jerusalem were excommunicated for joining a secret society. Wathen claimed in his Is the Order of St. John Masonic that the order was not aligned with Freemasonry, but it was secret in nature, never sanctioned by a reigning pope, and therefore did not have to be directly aligned to qualify as a forbidden secret society.
The link HERE explains that it was indeed a secret society populated by former WWII generals and other military personnel directing “underground armies.” Some have claimed these armies exist both in Europe and the U.S. Fidelity Magazine writer, Thomas Case, reported in the 1990s that the SSPX in St. Mary’s, Kansas was a neo-Nazi hotbed, and much of this seems to be directly traceable to the SOSJ (see HERE). LibTrads have been warned before, but the preponderance of evidence is now firmly stacked against them. The length, depth and breadth of the infiltration of the Church is something that is almost unbelievable, but the popes warned us long ago it was occurring and no one heeded their warnings or obeyed them. God warned the Israelites in Leviticus 26 about what would befall them if they broke His Covenant and disobeyed Him. (The whole chapter should be read) Sadly, we reap what we sow.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 15, 2024 | New Blog
+Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary+
An article written in June has been submitted for comment by a reader from a Novus Ordo site called Canon Law Made Easy. The Canon Law referred to on that site is the false revision of the 1917 Code issued in 1983 by the usurper John Paul 2. This revision was first suggested by Angelo Roncalli before the first session of the false Vatican 2 council. In the Novus Ordo article, statements are made and links provided regarding the “schismatic” sedevacantist position and the false basis for this position. Of course no one expects members of this non-Catholic sect to get anything right, regardless of their supposed canon law credentials. But the points they use to deflect enquirers from sedevacantism need to be addressed, since they predictably fail to inform their readers that they do after all have the obligation to diligently research the legitimacy of the 1958 election and form their conscience accordingly.
The revised 1983 “code”
Abp. Amleto Cicognani observed that changes to the law are odious and are to be made sparingly. Revs. Woywod-Smith state under Can. 22 that “Changes in the law are made solely by the Holy See, and only for serious reasons and after mature deliberation… It is a fundamental principal that the general presumption is always in favor of the old law remaining unchanged.” So if those considered doubtful “popes,” at best, change the laws, then in doubt the old laws always remain in force under Can. 6 §4. Doubt concerning the validity of these false popes suffices, for those not able to gain a more advanced degree of certainty; a doubtful pope is no pope, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, and as a doctor of the Church his opinion is probable according to the moral theologians. We are to use such opinions, also reflex principles whenever we have no one to consult regarding such situations. Canon 22, in the 1917 Code states: “A more recent law given by the competent authority abolishes a former law if the new law explicitly says so or if it is directly contrary to the old law or if it takes up and readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law.”
The entire question here must be asked and answered for those who have not yet done the necessary study: were Roncalli and his successors true popes, “competent authority”? Were their elections unquestionably valid? The answer to this question should be obvious, given the fruits of these imposters and what has been presented by this author and others for nearly 35 years. This is why, of course, all these objectors assume the question is preposterous, schismatic, absurd, etc. They list those who have the least likelihood of offering any credible evidence for Roncalli’s false election, the more fantastical sedevacantist proponents, to make sedevacantism appear to have little value as a tenable theory. While claiming to uphold the law, they violate it, resorting to sophisms to avoid addressing the issue, that is arguing beside the point. The elephant in the room remains very large and real while they talk around it.
They don’t even get the real jist of the issue or the sedevacantist position held by LibTrads, writing: “And since a man who isn’t validly elected Pope can’t validly select new Bishops and Cardinals, this means that subsequent Popes were chosen by non-Cardinals, meaning that the new Popes weren’t/aren’t validly elected either. So sedevacantists are basically saying that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has pretty much ceased to exist” (June 6, 2024). Only those praying at home really believe the hierarchy has ceased to exist, in this the end times. Sedevacantist pseudo-clergy believe they are the hierarchy and can continue to function without their head bishop, the pope. The proper term, which all canonists should be familiar with, is actually canonically elected. And the real issue here is not whether the non-cardinals chose subsequent popes or a non-pope could select new bishops. The old law easily solves the problem, and if these commentators were truly competent canonists who had done their due diligence, they would know this. Canon 2391 § 1 states that a college electing an unworthy candidate is automatically disqualified from proceeding to a new election.
Certitude and matters of faith
In a link to a 2017 article, provided in the June 6, 2024, article, we read: “Canon 205 tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance — and it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism. If you don’t believe that this or that papal document was issued by a man who is/was really the Pope, then you naturally don’t intend to abide by whatever it says by refusing to accept the authority of the current Pope or his recent predecessors, a Catholic who’s a sedevacantist willfully puts himself into a state of schism… But since sedevacantists tend to cite (incorrectly) a lot of canon law in support of their positions, it seems reasonable to assume that they are aware of both the Church’s position on the crime of schism, and the penalties that may accompany it…
“Sedevacantism… is a schismatic movement rather than a heretical one. As sedevacantist Catholics refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Holy Father(s), deciding for themselves that he/they are not really Pope(s), they are deliberately taking themselves out of full communion with the Church… When people take it upon themselves to decide that the Pope isn’t really the Pope because he took a sketchy theological position, or because his personal morals were scandalous, or because it looks like his election wasn’t done quite right… they’re playing with fire.”
But there is a major problem with these statements. Catholics MUST decide for themselves, for they are obligated to arrive at certitude that the man claiming to be pope was canonically elected, according to the laws prevailing at the time, NOT the revised 1983 code — the old law still prevails. Theologians unanimously teach that one cannot act in a state of doubt regarding matters concerning eternal salvation, such as obedience to a true pope, unless and until that doubt is resolved, and no one will consider ALL the evidence to resolve it. That we are bound to remove this doubt is clearly demonstrated from the binding decrees found in Henry Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, (DZ 570d, 650, 652, 674, also Cum ex Apostolatus Officio): “A pope canonically elected, who lived for a time after having expressed his own name, is the successor of blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church,” (DZ 674). This is an article of faith, proposed for belief to the Armenians and to Wycliffe and the Hussites. The article proposed to the Armenians asks them to hold that “all the Roman Pontiffs who… succeeding Blessed Peter have entered canonically and will enter canonically,” will possess the same plenitude of jurisdiction Christ granted to St. Peter. Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton states that what was proposed to the Armenians is to be considered a dogma of faith, (The Concept of Sacred Theology, pgs. 132-33).
In his 1896 work Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy, Sydney F. Smith, S.J. wrote: “The following passage is [found] in Ferraris Bibliotheca, a work of the highest authority. In his article on the Pope, (S.v. Papa, p. 949) [the respected theologian] Ferraris says: It is of faith that Benedict XIV, for instance, LEGITIMATELY ELECTED and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance, where Martin V’s Const. Inter Cunctos decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’” (See DZ 674, 675).
No schism if positive doubt established
This same article of faith is one we ourselves must believe. But if certitude cannot be had regarding the canonical status of the election, and the book The Phantom Church in Rome, also articles on this site have provided sufficient evidence for years to cast grave doubt on the results of the 1958 election, then one is bound in conscience NOT to hold such an election valid. According to the opinions of seven notable theologians, in withdrawing from the “obedience” of a man claiming to be pope who you believe was never canonically elected, no schism is involved. Vermeersch-Cruesen, Reiffenstuel, Schmalzgrueber, Ferraris, Vechiotti and Szal state: “There is no schism involved… if one refuses obedience [to a pope] inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election…” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L.). Serious reasons, that is positive doubt, must exist and proofs must be presented to support such a position. This fulfills the provisions of Can. 20 and establishes probability according to Church teaching. These theologians agree that one need only suspect that the man claiming to be Pope is irregular in some way or invalidly elected (Can. 2200), and we have established far more than just suspicion in the documents presented on this subject.
And then we have the probable opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, who teaches a doubtful pope is no pope: “When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there also is a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case, no one is bound to obey him… But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all… An authority that may be justly doubted at all times is no authority; it commands neither obedience nor respect as is evident in churches that reject the claim to indefectibility… One who intrudes himself into the ministry against the laws of the Church receives no authority, and consequently can transmit none to his successors…
“Therefore,” continues the Cardinal, “If a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.” (Rev. E.S. Berry, The Church of Christ: “p. 402).
St. Antoninus, commenting on the Great Western Schism, also noted: “The question was much discussed and much was written in defense of one side or the other. For as long as the schism lasted each obedience had in its favor men who were very learned in Scripture and Canon Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were illustrious by the gift of miracles. Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds of many still in doubt. Doubtless we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor. But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know Canon Law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.” And the superiors and prelates WE follow are those writing before the death of Pope Pius XII.
Another respected theologian weighs in here: “A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power, but he has not practically in the Church the same right as a certain pope — he is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim,” (The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, Rev. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J., emph. his.) Rev. O’Reilly was the theologian of choice in Ireland for local Irish Councils and Synods and was a professor of theology. The opinion of these men and the proofs that the 1958 election was invalid also constitutes the juridical certainty in way of evidence required by Dom Charles Augustine under Can. 430. What Szal presents, then, is a solidly probable opinion, one which helps establish certitude, and according to the laws and teachings of the Church it may be followed at will.
So those among LibTrads holding John 23 as validly elected and the Novus Ordo “experts” who criticize others for misquoting Canon Law and accuse them of willfully committing schism are asking Catholics to actually ignore their conscience and deny an article of faith. Furthermore they have entirely argued beside the point regarding the question, refusing to consider evidence that amply shows there were numerous alarming irregularities and evidence of outside election interference in 1958. These facts have been available for years, even decades. Pretending to be champions of Canon Law, they entirely discount and ignore the canons then in effect which have been cited here numerous times. But most importantly, they entirely dismiss Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which infallibly voids any attempted act or acts contrary to those canons, and levies penalties for violations of his law that could be lifted only by a future canonically elected pope. This renders their reasoning and their arguments null and void.
Peter’s faith lacking in Roncalli, Montini
We read above from this NO site that: “Canon 205 [1983 code] tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance… it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism.” No, the issue of Church governance and unchanging faith is the key problem with ALL LibTrad and Novus Ordo sects. The Church was founded on a rock — on PETER’S FAITH. It was not founded on fractured rock or sand. Both Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis exclude heretics or suspected heretics from election and Roncalli was a proven suspected heretic (see HERE). And the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.” Neither Roncalli or Montini were loyal to Pope Pius XII or retained that same faith. His governance meant nothing to them; they were working together and with others to establish a new church, and they succeeded. Many instances have been cited proving they questioned or denied the faith; Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo Missae proved that most effectively. Montini and Roncalli were Catholics in name only. But how do you make an objective judgment in this case when the man falsely elected has been declared a “saint”?!!
Dr. Cyril Andrade wrote in a 1976 article, Are Papal Elections Inspired by the Holy Ghost?”: “Pius XII is pope: Montini is his pro-secretary of State: Roncalli is Papal Nuncio in Paris: the Pope suppresses the “Worker Priest” movement in France because far from reclaiming the workers to the Church, all of the 200 “Worker Priests”, themselves, lost their faith; but Montini and Roncalli, in collusion, secretly encourage the movement and keep it alive against the order of the Pope.” After explaining how both the elections of Roncalli and Montini were secretly engineered by Freemasons and others, Andrade writes: “Does this scenario of low, vile intrigue, connivance, collusion and treachery of the hierarchical mafia led by the liberal (heretical) gang of Suenens, König, Döpfner, Lercaro, et al, in any way lend credence to the canard that the Conclave that elected [Roncalli and] Montini was “secret” and “inspired by the Holy Ghost”?
“To thus make a mockery of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, in this vile fashion, is to be guilty of the unforgivable sin. But, then, the Vatican II Mafia does not believe that the Holy Ghost is God for, in the fourth Eucharistic prayer which they have concocted for their Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) they state categorically: “Father in heaven, you alone are God . . .” (Emphases added), thus excluding the Son and the Holy Ghost from the Trinity Godhead.” And these Novus Ordo pretenders can dismiss these heresies and proofs that faith is lacking, in Francis AND his predecessors, to accuse sedevacantists of schism and rejection of lawful authority? Please see the article HERE which confirms what Andrade wrote so long ago.
And not only must the one elected as pope be considered here but the ones electing as well. As Andrade notes and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis states, the cardinals are tasked to select who they believe is the worthiest among them to act as Christ’s vicar. Those making this selection must certainly be Catholic themselves. Yet we see that all those cardinals who participated in Roncalli’s election, minus those who had the good fortune to pass away, went on to convene and approve the deliberations of the false Vatican 2 council. And they were good Catholics, they can be trusted and we have no reason to doubt them? How could anyone be so blind? A canonical election requires that all those voting be Catholics who have not automatically forfeited their office owing to some heresy. Ecumenism is a heresy; religious liberty is a heresy; the insertion into missalettes distributed in 1959 containing the English translation, “for all men,” is a heresy. If only a few cardinals could be proven to be suspect of heresy, or disobedient to the pope or to have participated in plots to confirm Roncalli as pope before Pope Pius XII’s death, and there is proof of this, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis declares the election is invalid for want of a two-thirds plus one vote.
Peter’s faith is the rock, and without it the entire foundation that is the papacy crumbles. Does any true Catholic really believe that the Holy Ghost would descend upon and grant the gift of infallibility to a man suspected of heresy for over 25 years, elected by men, some of whom were complicit in rigging the election, with assistance from the CIA and other groups? Canon Law and pre-1958 canonists deny the election would be valid. Pope Pius XII declares in his infallible Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that anything done in violation of the sacred canons during an interregnum is null and void. Common sense and any reverence for the institution of the papacy should tell us that such an election is doubtful in the extreme, especially considering what went before compared to what followed. It would convince a rational person, if we were dealing with truly rational human beings identifying as Catholic. But sadly this is not the case today. Pray that the veil be lifted from their eyes and the hardness be driven from their hearts.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 10, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Lawrence, Martyr+
A sad form of rigorism still seems to be afoot that would deny those converting towards the end of their lives the hope of salvation. In his classic work Sinners Return to God, written in 1897, Rev. Michael Mueller calls out to the hardened sinner to return to the God who gave joy to his youth, the religion into which he was received or was born. It is often quoted as proof that deathbed repentance or “conversion” is not something favored by the Church, as Rev. Mueller points out, and this is very true concerning the state of certainly baptized Catholics who were raised in the faith and later abandoned it, Catholics who have stubbornly delayed their return to the Church. Of such errant Catholics Rev. Nicholas Walsh, S. J., says in his 1898 work, The Saved and the Lost:
“It may sound harsh and seem strange to say that there is a class of persons who appear to be in greater danger of being lost than the pagan or negative infidel, the grossly ignorant or the simple followers of sects and schisms: namely heretics and schismatics of the educated class. These, as a rule, by profession and education, know much of Holy Scripture and reference it as the word of God; believe in most if not all the fundamental truths of Christianity; are not ignorant of history and live in countries where the Catholic Church is carrying on Her mission. The danger would also seem to increase in proportion to their education, knowledge and nearness to the Church. They know too much and have gone too far not to have the thought forced on them that they should learn a little more and go a little further. It is scarcely possible that such persons have not, from time to time, some misgivings as to their religious position and that light is not almost forced on them as to the paramount claims of the Catholic Church.”
So often the mistake is made today of believing that what is said of those assumed to be validly baptized Catholics now applies to the majority of those simply professing to be Catholic. Some of these may or may not be validly baptized; some may assume they have been sufficiently educated in the faith when in fact they have been grossly misled or propagandized to an extent almost impossible to reverse. These are the grossly ignorant or blind followers of LibTrad and other sects. But there are yet others, and not a few, who have a greater knowledge of Holy Scripture and matters of faith who choose to mislead or be misled and to ignore the warnings that they are not properly drawing out conclusions from what they know and therefore are leading others astray. These are the souls, who, if they do not turn from their evil ways, are in grave danger of perishing as unrepentant sinners.
The grossly ignorant or the simple followers of sects and schisms are not guiltless but are not as harshly judged, for they have followed either the bad example of their relatives or followed LibTrad pseudo-clergy. And there are various classes of individuals peculiar to our times who are seldom considered here but are frequently misclassified as insincerely repentant on their death. These are the unbaptized, those raised with little thought at all of God; who knew little or nothing of the Catholic faith, even though they may have been validly baptized. Also included here are those converted and baptized only shortly before death and those suffering from mental illness; or physical illness that profoundly impacts their mental capacity. And yet those calling themselves Catholic seem to feel no compunction in including such individuals alongside the certainly baptized and those enjoying the use of a sound mind, something Canon Law and Church teaching certainly does not support.
As an example, consider the case of an individual who feels attracted by the Catholic faith, even in these sad times. Perhaps they have friends or relatives who they believe are Catholic; or maybe they have been influenced by some profound event that makes them sympathetic to the faith. Let us say they are great sinners, addicted to certain vices they fight, but are not able to overcome. But without the grace of true conversion or Baptism, how are they able to overcome them without the prayers of the Catholics they know and their loved ones, should they be Catholic? And even with such prayers, as the great catechist Rev. John Kearney teaches in his Our Greatest Treasure, “…the difficulty in making the final step” to conversion, a pain-filled journey that often took even the best educated non-Catholics literally “years” to complete, is very difficult. “Hence the necessity of a very strong grace,” and who among us are worthy of declaring when God might grant this grace and to whom?
Is it not a miracle that without a visible Church, without confessors, the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments, anyone is ever attracted to the faith today at all? How much easier was repentance and conversion, when all one needed to do was approach the priest for instruction or the Sacrament of Penance! In this welter of confusion today, where even “Catholics” cannot agree on what comprises the truths of faith, is it any wonder that so few manage to find their way to the truth? Readers of this will readily acknowledge that their own journey to the faith, if witnessed by one secretly drawn to it, would possibly have done more to alienate such potential converts than to attract and encourage them, what with all the running around to errant LibTrad sects and doctrinal deformity that ensued. This certainly is not the good example and practice of the Catholic faith such timid and often tortured souls need to make that final, difficult step to conversion.
Hope for the dying
If not for the following words from A Golden Key of Heaven for All Good Christian People by Rev. T. Von Den Driesch (1904), the very possibility of deathbed conversions without a priest present would be denied.
“With the grace of God, perfect contrition is attainable by all who have good will; for it is in the will, not the feeling. Perfect contrition is often confounded with a supposed greatest intensity of sorrow; but perfect contrition has degrees and stages, and it need not be the highest and the most intense, such as that of St. Peter, or St. Mary Magdalen, or St. Aloysius. A much lower degree of perfect contrition effects the forgiveness of sin. To give you confidence in your ability to make acts of perfect contrition, remember that for many thousand years before the time of our Lord, in the Old Law, perfect contrition was the only means whereby men could obtain forgiveness of sins and [prepare] to enter Heaven. Catholic soul, you have so many more graces and are better instructed. I maintain that you often have perfect contrition, without knowing it or thinking of it; for example, while making the Way of the Cross, while contemplating a crucifix or a picture of the Sacred Heart, etc. Furthermore, you can express ardent love and heartfelt sorrow in a few words, provided you have the proper intention and motive, namely the love of God: “My God and my All!”‘ My Jesus, mercy!”; “God be merciful to me, a sinner!” God has given perfect contrition the power to produce such excellent effects; therefore He desires us to excite ourselves to it and He will help us to do so. “He wills not the death of the sinner, but that he live and be converted.”
Regarding even unbaptized adults, the 1929 work by Rev. Edwin G. Kaiser, C.PP.S, Our Spiritual Service to the Sick and Dying, instructs us as follows: “Those who are not Catholic should be helped in their last moments. If they are unbaptized and are willing to believe all the Church teaches, we may and must baptize them. If it is not sure that they have been properly baptized, we baptize them conditionally. If the person is well disposed but there is reason to fear he does not want to join the Church; if mentioning the Catholic Church will only disturb him and endanger the work of saving his soul, we may proceed in this manner: recite with him the Apostles Creed, or if this is too much, ask him if he believes in Jesus who is God and came to save us by his death on the Cross. If he believes in Christ and the three Divine Persons and is ready to believe all that Christ wants him to believe in, to do all that God wants and is sorry for offending God, then we can and should baptize him. Or if we can do no more, we can at least induce him to make an act of love for Jesus.”
So deathbed repentance is still possible and may be even more common today than in the past. Is it not in accordance with God’s mercy that he would assist those who are truly sorry even at the end of their life with the necessary graces, seeing how this was already true before the loss of Mass, Sacraments and the papacy? Why send priests to prisons to absolve the worst criminals if such conversion is not a distinct possibility? Below we find the comments of the theologians on this attitude toward deathbed conversions.
Conformity in death to God’s will
“Ignorant, then, are they of human nature, and of God, who deride death-bed conversions, as though they must needs be insincere. Who knows what astounding shiftings of the personality may not, at that unique moment, and in unplumbed depths of the self, take place — nay, even, one would say, must take place in the all-but-discarnate soul, or have the chance of taking place? Foolish are they who sneer at the anxious effort of the Church, and her eager giving of the sacraments even to the seemingly unconscious, or to the hardened sinner if but there be some symptom that his will has become susceptible of their effects; or even, it may be, short of that, you may almost suppose that in the interior soul that divine mysterious recognition and embrace is happening, which by no exterior symptom can express itself.
“Here, then, you must remember that the forgiveness of sins is an article of our Creed. Here is no arbitrary condemnation in mid-life; no fatal mechanistic series; no Karma, even. There is only one complete, irreversible soul-suicide, the act of dying with the will rebellious against God’s. After all, man is limited. The soul, I said, has an appetite for the infinite; yet not infinite is the soul. It is conceivable that the soul may so pour itself out into an act of knowledge, that it can do no more; it has become its knowledge; it is its own act; time exists no more for it. So, too, it is conceivable that a soul may, as it were, exhaust itself in an act of will: it has fully expressed itself in its choice; it is that will, then; the soul may make itself what is opposed to God. That gigantic act may indeed occur; it is an evil self; it is its own worst hell.
“But this carries us beyond the juridical aspect of the problem on which these “moral” difficulties are based. From the side of man they disappear if it be recalled that man, if he finds himself “in hell,” has put himself there. No Calvinist predestination is ours. “This is the will of God, your sanctification. God wills that all men should be saved.”
“And on God’s side we have to recall that in him all is one—mercy, justice, power, love. Only our limited, inexhaustive, analyzing intellect sets these “attributes” as it were one against the other. He cannot defeat his mercy by his justice, nor justice by mercy; both are knowledge: in all he is being true to himself; his action is his self; he alone is, in the full sense, his self. No deviation from the true right is possible, on his part, without his ceasing to be God. This we know unerringly. Of the moral aspect of what we know we judge; and in human verdicts is room for almost every error. (Fr. C. C. Martindale, S.J., God and the Supernatural, 1954, Catholic Book Club.)
Deathbed conversion
“Deathbed conversion, however difficult, is still possible. Even when we see no sign of contrition, we can still not affirm that, at the last moment, just before the separation of soul from body, the soul is definitively obstinate. A sinner may be converted at that last-minute in such fashion that God alone can know it. The holy Cure of Ars, divinely enlightened, said to a weeping widow: “Your prayer, Madame, has been heard. Your husband is saved. When he threw himself into the Rhone, the Blessed Virgin obtained for him the grace of conversion just before he died. Recall how, a month before, in your garden, he plucked the most beautiful rose and said to you, ‘Carry this to the altar of the Blessed Virgin.’ She has not forgotten.”
“Other souls, too, have been converted in extremis, souls that could barely recall a few religious acts in the course of their life. A sailor, for example, preserved the practice of uncovering his head when he passed before a church. He did not know even the Our Father or the Hail Mary, but the lifting of his hat kept him from departing definitively from God.
“In the life of the saintly Bishop Bertau of Tulle, friend of Louis Veuillot, a poor girl in that city, who had once been chanter in the cathedral, fell first into misery, then into misconduct, and finally became a public sinner. She was assassinated at night, in one of the streets of Tulle. Police found her dying and carried her to a hospital. While she was dying, she cried out: “Jesus, Jesus.” Could she be granted Church burial? The Bishop answered: “Yes, because she died pronouncing the name of Jesus. But bury her early in the morning without incense.” In the room of this poor woman was found a portrait of the holy Bishop, on the back of which was written: “The best of Fathers.” Fallen though she was, she still recognized the holiness of her bishop and preserved in her heart the memory of the goodness of Our Lord.
“A certain licentious writer, Armand Sylvestre, promised his mother when she was dying to say a Hail Mary every day. He kept his promise. Out of the swamp in which he lived, he daily lifted up to God this one little flower. Pneumonia brought him to the hospital, served by religious, who said to him: “Do you wish a priest?” “Certainly,” he answered. And he received absolution, probably with sufficient attrition [imperfect contrition], through a special grace obtained for him by the Blessed Mother, though we can hardly doubt he underwent a long and heavy Purgatory.
“Another French writer, Adolphe Rette, shortly after his conversion, which was sincere and profound, was struck by a sentence he read in the visitors’ book of the Carmelite Convent: “Pray for those who will die during the Mass at which you are going to assist.” He did so. Some days later he fell grievously ill, and was confined to bed in the hospital at Beaune, for many years, up to his death. Each morning he offered all his sufferings for those who would die during the day. Thus he obtained many deathbed conversions. We shall see in Heaven how many conversions there are in the world, owing to such prayers.
“In the life of St. Catherine of Siena we read of the conversion of two great criminals. The Saint had gone to visit one of her friends. As they heard, in the street below, a loud noise, her friend looked through the window. Two condemned men were being led to execution. Their jailers were tormenting them with nails heated red-hot, while the condemned men blasphemed and cried. St. Catherine, inside the house, fell to prayer, with her arms extended in the form of a cross. At once the wicked men ceased to blaspheme and asked for a confessor. People in the street could not understand this sudden change. They did not know that a nearby Saint had obtained this double conversion.
“Several years ago the chaplain in a prison in Nancy had the reputation of converting all criminals whom he had accompanied to the guillotine. On one occasion he found himself alone, shut up with an assassin who refused to go to Confession before death. The cart, with the condemned man, passed before the sanctuary of Our Lady of Refuge. The old chaplain prayed: “Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who had recourse to thy intercession was abandoned. Convert this criminal of mine: otherwise I will say that it has been heard that you have not heard.” At once the criminal was converted.
“Return to God is always possible, up to the time of death, but it becomes more and more difficult as hard-heartedness grows. Let us not put off our conversion. Let us say every day a Hail Mary for the grace of a happy death” (written by the renowned theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange in his Life Everlasting, 1852, Herder Books, https://archive.org/details/lifeeverlasting0000garr/page/n5/mode/2up ).
Life Stories of Dying Penitents, (P. J. Kenedy, 1892), by a missionary priest is yet another example of God’s mercies, even to hardened sinners. No one is saying that all these individuals are certainly saved, or that they will be spared punishment in Purgatory. That is for God alone to determine. But no one should, as some seem to believe, discount the mercy of God at the hour of death if a sinner exhibits or has previously exhibited signs of repentance. That is Jansenism and rigorism in its most dangerous form. Let us instead every day say some prayer for the dying, that they may be spared the pains of hell and may find their way to that place of comfort, light and peace where we all long to be.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 31, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Peter in Chains+
+Prayer Society intention for August+
“O HEART most pure of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
obtain for me from Jesus a pure and humble heart.”
First, I would like to address the conspiracy theories. There has been speculation on social media that Trump staged his own near-miss, that he was never grazed by a bullet, with the after-bandage photos seeming to show little if any residual damage. That doesn’t mean that a bullet whizzing by that barely touches the ear could not cause profuse bleeding, even if no tissue damage is visible. Or that the inside back of the ear, which cannot be seen, was not abraded. Cosmetic surgical procedures unavailable to the general population and high-tech cosmetic aids can expertly mask skin damage. Even had the shooter missed Trump entirely and only hit the firefighter and father who tragically died, it would still qualify as an attempted assassination.
And yes, as one reader writes in, Trump “could be one of them.” The Church fully understands what voting for an unworthy but less evil candidate entails. Those presenting as Catholic need to be conscious of the fact that they are branded as crackpots and their religious position damaged by suppositions they make that cannot be proven, i. e., conspiracy “theories.” When certainty cannot be obtained, moralists allow us to follow a probable opinion. Let’s leave what we can’t prove aside and focus on what affects us from a strictly religious standpoint, which places us on much safer ground.
Is Trump a Christian?
I recently received the following link from yet another reader: https://www.bitchute.com/video/uNky8MT7g0NX In this video, Trump states he is NOT a Christian, something many did not previously know. I watched some of this speech live and Trump admitted that Catholics have been persecuted and that no Catholic could vote for a Democrat in good conscience. He also embraced all non-Christian religions and placed them on an equal footing, as all those promoting “democracy” do. Those who lean toward him now know his true orientation. His true religious affiliation seems to be unknown. Of course in politics these days it is all irrelevant. We have Pres. Biden, a baptized Catholic and culpable as such, supporting full-term fetal death, as does VP Harris, and Trump, (sporting a Novus Ordo VP), who dodges the issue by leaving it to the states to decide. Anyone expecting a genuine Christian to be capable of election is living in a fantasy world.
Could Trump be Jewish, or at least leaning in that direction? We must remember that Trump’s daughter converted to Judaism, the faith of her presidential senior advisor-husband Jared Kushner. Trump’s father reportedly had many Jewish friends and business associates. And we know Trump is a staunch supporter of Israel’s war against Palestine following the Oct. 7 attack, the latest result of a conflict ongoing for over 100 years. Israel’s response to this attack is justified because Palestine is currently in the hands of Hamas, the terrorist organization that attacked Israel following numerous skirmishes over the years, aided and abetted by other terrorist groups. All would support any nation’s right to defend itself from such attacks. But the overall history of this conflict, which has escalated into a war, is little understood. And what is not understood at all is the longstanding position of the Church regarding the Jewish occupation of Palestine, which has been effectively buried. So a refresher course is provided below.
Valuable Catholic lessons on the Palestine question
First a little background on the history of the Palestine situation. “The Balfour Declaration of 1917, issued by the British government, supported the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire and under British control following World War I.
“The British Mandate for Palestine (1920-1948) saw increased immigration of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe, particularly during the Nazi era, which led to rising tensions between Jewish and Arab communities. The Arabs opposed the growing Jewish presence and the idea of a Jewish state, leading to outbreaks of violence” ) https://worldhistoryedu.com/origin-and-history-of-the-conflict-between-israel-and-palestine/).
When Israel became a state in 1948, the Arabs occupying that territory objected and went to war against Israel. Although the UN had established specific borders, the war ended with an increased number of Jewish Palestine refugees, which many considered as illegal occupation under international law. Several other wars followed.
In a scholarly work delivered as a history dissertation by Adriano E. Ciani in 2011 (https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/348/), Ciani carefully details the Church’s stance pre-Vatican 2 on the Palestine question. He begins with the following:
“In 1904, Pope Pius X granted an audience to the prominent Zionist Theodor Herzl, in which he reminded his guest that the Roman Catholic Church could never endorse or support the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine. This was to remain the essence of papal policy on Palestine for decades to come. A reader has been kind enough to provide the exact text of Pope St. Pius X’s comment to Herzl: “We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem if it were not always sacred has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.”
What has happened, beginning in the 20th century, is that anti-Semitism, which the Church has repeatedly condemned, was extended at Vatican 2 to the Palestine question itself, a completely separate political issue promoted by the Zionists, that had no relation to Jewish persecution. Despite their false claims to hold all things Catholic just as they existed prior to Vatican 2, LibTrads have adopted the stance that not only has the Church never condemned anti-Semitism, Her distrust and dislike for the Jews is evidenced by many warnings issued against them and confirmed by their confinement by the popes to the ghettoes of Rome. LibTrads even have revived the ritual murder charge, long ago dismissed by the popes. The founders of Traditionalism in Mexico and the U.S. blamed the Church’s infiltration and demise mainly on the Jews, and for many years those following them have continued to believe this was the case. Some have even descended to neo-Nazism, as various articles and studies have confirmed.
But fingering the Jews is a classic example of projection, which lifts blame for what has befallen the Church from those commissioned to die rather than let this happen — the cardinals and bishops — and transferring it to the Jews and others. Even the laity who were then adults and educated in Catholic schools must accept this blame for not better studying these issues and coming to the aid of the Church. Instead of adopting the offensive, they took the victim stance, waiting to be rescued and comforted. Of course we were all victims, but that should not have been our chosen designation. We are meant to be soldiers of Christ, not shell-shocked survivors of the spiritual combat in which all of us are expected to engage. By playing the victim, we effectively surrendered. The distinction must be clearly made between anti-Semitism and support of Israel’s recovery of the holy places in order to settle their own people there. Below, Ciani provides proofs that although the Church did all She could possibly do to combat anti-Semitism and help the Jews, at the same time She consistently opposed Israel’s efforts to resettle Jews in Palestine.
“Between 1939 and 1945, more than six thousand Italian Jews obtained passports, ship tickets and travel money from the Rome-based St. Raphael’s Association, an organization directly funded by the Vatican. Countless others were sheltered in monasteries, churches, convents and private homes, all with the explicit knowledge of the Pope, and consistent with his opposition to Nazi and Fascist racialist policies. The Vatican Relief Commission, at a cost of nearly one million dollars, supplied food, clothing, and medicine to untold thousands of refugees, prisoners and partisans during the winter of 1943-44, including at least 6,000 Jews in Rome alone.
“Throughout the war, a distinct bifurcation endured in the Vatican’s response to persecution of Europe’s Jews, characterized by assistance to Jews, where possible, on the one hand, and an opposition to the goals of political Zionism on the other. Simply put, the tragedy of the Holocaust and the refugee crisis that it created did not translate into Vatican support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Assistance to European Jews was regarded as a Christian duty, an obligation to lend assistance to a suffering fellow man. Monsignor Domenico Tardini, the Vatican’s undersecretary of state, expressed as much in the spring of 1943, when he observed that “the Jewish question is a question of humanity. The persecutions to which the Jews in Germany and the occupied or conquered countries are subjected are an offence against justice, charity, humanity… Therefore, the Catholic Church has full reason to intervene, whether in the name of divine law or natural law.” Support for a Jewish homeland, however, despite the catalyst that the Holocaust had created toward that very end, was unfailingly opposed by Pius XII‟s Vatican, based on the ancestral Roman Catholic tenet that the Terra Santa was sacred to the faith, and must never fall under the political jurisdiction of a sovereign power.
“In large part, Catholic periodicals and diocesan newspapers in the United States reflected the position of Rome; namely that the persecution of European Jews was a tragedy for all humankind, but that it did not necessitate, or obviate, the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine… Vatican policymakers preferred to keep discreet any public stance on the future of Palestine. Privately, however, Pius XII and his Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione, continued to express severe reservations about the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, fearing a loss of control over Christian sites in the Holy Land, and concerned with the possibility of a “Jewish beachhead‟ for communist influence and infiltration in the Near East. These sentiments were shared by a number of the Vatican’s most powerful Cardinals and diplomats, including Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII, who as nuncio to Istanbul was noted for his efforts to save Jewish lives, but was unreceptive to the solutions posed by political Zionism. In a September 1943 letter to Maglione, Roncalli expressed discomfort about the degree to which Vatican aid to Jews would be later considered an endorsement of their ‘messianic dream’, adding that the ‘reconstruction of the Kingdom of Judah and the Israelites would not create a utopia.’
“The Holocaust, despite providing the most compelling rationale yet for the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine, did not alter either the Vatican’s or the American bishops’ opposition to the Zionist program, a stance which remained firmly rooted in historical and theological notions… On the substantive question of Jewish emigration to Palestine, and the creation of a Hebrew national home there, however, the American bishops remained resolutely in line with Rome. It was a policy that withstood the full airing of the tragedy of the Holocaust, and which stood firm against the rising tide of sympathy for Zionism in the United States, not just among Jews but among a growing segment of American Protestant Churches, Congress and even the Truman White House.
“The American Episcopal consensus that remained intact from the 1920s to the 1950s was weakened in subsequent decades by a number of factors, not least the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the great renewal movement in the Roman Catholic Church that was called by Pope John XIII in 1959. A number of American bishops took active roles at the Council, embracing its reformist zeal as evidenced by the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae, a declaration on religious freedom conceived by John Courtney Murray and tabled by Archbishops Albert Meyer of Chicago and Joseph Ritter of St. Louis. Though Cardinal Spellman loomed large at the Council, and was undoubtedly the leader of the “conservative‟ faction of American bishops, there emerged in Rome a growing faction of liberal-minded bishops, which included Meyer and Ritter as well as Detroit’s John Dearden and Kansas City’s John Patrick Cody, who more openly took up the Council’s mandate of revival and renewal.
“The Second Vatican Council was also significant, moreover, for the promulgation of Nostra Aetate, a declaration on the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church with non-Christian religions. Notable was the fourth section, which dealt specifically with Judaism. It repudiated the centuries-old charge of deicide against the Jews, and stressed the religious and spiritual bonds shared by the faiths, reaffirming the eternal covenant between God and the people of Israel. It further dismissed the Catholic objective of trying to convert the Jews, a symbolic turning point if juxtaposed with Pope Pius X’s 1904 warning to Theodor Herzl that should the Jews return to Palestine, there would be “Catholic priests waiting there to baptize them all.” For the first time in history, Nostra Aetate called for Catholics and Jews to engage in friendly dialogue and theological discussion to better understand each other’s faiths. After intense debate, the declaration was adopted by the world’s cardinals and bishops on 28 November 1965, a definitive turning point in the history of Catholic-Jewish relations.
“The Second Vatican Council, and its promulgation of Nostra Aetate, would herald the beginning of a new era both in relations between Catholicism and Judaism and, by extension, between the Vatican and Israel. The Council, moreover, would unleash a plurality of views in the Church that would preclude the survival of such a monolithic transnationalism.” (End of Ciani quotes)
What this means for us today
In Nostra Aetate, John Courtney Murray’s American proposition, as explained in our last blog, was finally admitted as Catholic practice. It taught that the Church need not evangelize to secure converts, Jewish or otherwise, and Jews could not be held responsible for crucifying Christ. Forget the fact that according to Rev. Denis Fahey, Rev. Cahill and others, the Jews had never been held responsible by the Church for this act as a race for His death on the Cross, only the Jewish leaders of that day who actually crucified Him. For they alone knew that He had indeed fulfilled all the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and certainly the rabbis leading the Jewish people following the destruction of the temple, as prophesied by our Lord, never acknowledged Him and shamelessly spread filthy lies about Him and His Blessed Mother. The Church would not have the Jews persecuted for this, but neither would they ever concede that the Holy Land should be given over to the very people who rejected our Lord and had no reason to honor or preserve the ground He trod or the places He taught.
So while we cannot support Muslim control of the Holy Places existing today, neither can we support the plans of the Zionists to repopulate Palestine in order to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem and install the Jewish Messiah, as Roncalli (already in on the plan) well knew. And that is their goal. See https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Final-Chapter-for-web.pdf for the full overview, but we will provide some excerpts here. As one Jewish writer observed many years ago, “The Roman Catholic Church wants Israel to lose sovereign control over the Old City of Jerusalem so that “the promises to the literal descendants of Abraham will be applied to the ‘New Jerusalem.’ If Israel controls Jerusalem, it is evidence that Rome’s claims are not legitimate and that the literal interpretation of Scriptures is correct. There is no place for the restoration of the nation of Israel in its theology. How can the Vatican claim to be “the New Jerusalem” and “rightful heir to the Kingdom of God” if the Jews control Jerusalem? How is the Catholic Church going to convince the world that their version of theology is correct?
“The premise is this: According to Rome there will never be a Temple/Synagogue built in Jerusalem unless Rome first controls the real estate (Temple Mount, Old City, City of David, Mt. Zion) upon which it will be built. The Vatican is actively pursuing these goals… The Vatican has attempted to obtain control of Jerusalem, which started with the Crusades. For them to convince the world that the Messiah they put on the world’s stage is going to be accepted as genuine, they need to perform this play in the Old City. The story of this production is that this “Messiah” will merge THE THREE MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS, usher in peace and harmony in the world, and solve the Middle East conflict. The location for this “production” will be in none other than the Old City of Jerusalem.”
“This so-called “Messiah” that will be proclaimed, will be a false one and it will insist that by having a “world government” (i.e., the United Nations) the world peace and harmony will be ushered in. This will be a lie, and a fraud, but never mind. In our world, reality isn’t important. Public perceptions are. The end result is the stripping of Israel’s sovereignty as an independent nation giving way to a “regional bloc of nations” in the Middle East. Israel will be pressured to accede to these demands by all world bodies and the superpowers on the claim that “this is the only way to solve the Middle East conflict.”
“In order for the Jews to go along, they will convince them that with the “Messiah” having appeared for the Jews, it is time to start rebuilding the Third Temple — what they call “Solomon’s Temple.” This version of events is widely available through a simple search on the Internet… “Again: The Vatican is going to have everyone believe this “mysterious individual who will ‘unite the faiths’ and appear in Jerusalem which will be under the control of an authority headed by The Vatican.” That deal to have the Vatican come into Israel and take over these properties and to “control and dominate the Old City of Jerusalem” already exists and has been fully documented and reported in the world’s media.
“The deal that it has signed with Israel via Yossi Beilin and Shimon Peres (in secret and without the approval of the Knesset, [Israeli legislature, Ed.]) gives the Church not only extraterritorial status to their properties (which is what the bi-lateral agreement the Israeli government signed with the Vatican on December 30th, 1993, put in law) but of control over the entire city as “custodians” under UN presence. In this way the Jews will give up control over the Old City. To the Vatican, the Israeli people they would have a problem with. To the UN, they would say, “We had no choice.”
“Arafat had been lobbying for the idea of sharing undivided Jerusalem, and for creating a Vatican-style sovereignty in the Old City.” (Somehow we are supposed to believe that Arafat initiated this, and not the Vatican. [Is that why he was murdered? — Ed.). The agreement calls for Jerusalem to be “an international city based on international resolutions and an international guarantee.” The pack was signed despite the Vatican having signed an agreement with Israel six years earlier on December 30, 1993, which gave legal jurisdiction under Israeli law over the Church’s own institutions and assets in the Holy Land” (Barry Chamish, Israeli investigative writer and reporter).
David Ben-Gurion, London, Dec. 16, 1949
“In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the prophets to serve the federated union of all continents: this will be the seat of the supreme court of mankind, to settle all controversies, as prophesied by Isaiah. Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel and world Jewry: It aspires to become the spiritual center of the world.” And this is their goal, achieved in part by the recent erection of the Abrahamic Family House, which officially opened February 16, 2023. https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/abrahamic-family-house/.
Trump has not formally weighed in on the Palestine question. But he seems in favor of a peaceful resolution and a cessation of hostilities, both in the Middle East and in Ukraine.
Conclusion
Not Francis nor any of his successors are Catholics, or representatives of the Vatican. Any “deal” made with the Vatican was never made with the true Catholic Church, but with the Whore of Babylon, who Protestants themselves established through their creation of Freemasonry. Protestant pastors cooperated in the destruction of the Catholic liturgy and were present at Vatican 2. They applauded ecumenism, the absolution of the Jews as responsible for Christ’s death and the modernization of the Church. It is a certain faction of Protestantism, called Dispensationalists, who have supported the rebuilding of the Temple all along. One group has even established an evangelical seminary in Jerusalem with claims of Jew and Arab converts to Christianity (One for Israel). They teach that “The people of Israel are God’s chosen people whom He loves with an everlasting love. God continues to fulfill all of the promises given to the Fathers. … Yeshua the Messiah will return to establish God’s manifest kingdom, to resurrect the dead and determine the eternal destiny of all men, eternally blessing the believers and eternally punishing the wicked.”
These comprise many of the “Christians” who support Trump unconditionally because he supports Israel, and the number of these people seems to be growing. They are known as British Israel proponents, a rung listed on the ladder of Freemasonry, and they even count among their number a faction of Traditionalists. Certainly supporters of Hamas such as Harris could never be trusted. And if Trump is not a Christian and has Jewish leanings, one worries he would not be able to appreciate or impartially uphold the right of TRUE Catholics and sincere Protestants to lobby for the preservation of Israel from destruction of the holy places and protest its occupation by the usurpers. But at least it seems he is willing to protect the rights of Christians whether he professes to be a Christian himself or not. That is something that all those voting for him are bound to hold him to, should he be elected.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, Christ and His true followers will prevail in the end. The Jews longed for a fiery-eyed and righteous Messiah, and they shall have Him. Christ the King shall ride His white horse into the arena followed by a legion of angels, headed by St. Michael, when they least expect it and take possession of His throne. For He alone is the King of Zion, reigning forever and ever, Amen.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 22, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Mary Magdalene+
Having viewed certain segments of the Republican National Convention this past week, I need to once again caution Catholics about the attitude they should adopt concerning voting choices this coming November. From comments viewed in social media forums, it appears that some of those identifying as Traditionalists and even pray-at-home Catholics have fallen into the trap of believing that they are justified in their ardent support of the alternatives to Democrat candidates, meaning the Trump/Vance ticket, when this behavior is not in keeping with Catholic teaching.
Overall, last week’s convention was reminiscent of high school pep rallies highlighted by surprise guest speakers, with a smattering of Masonic play-acting and revelry thrown in. The rival sports teams were facing off, with all the hoopla that entails and the rah-rah-siss-boom-bah was deafening. Jock-style egos swelled and audiences applauded. Rock bands wailed in the background and candidates and attendees alike clapped and swayed to the tunes. It was the perfect example of a largely middle-class crowd that never matured intellectually beyond their high school or (liberal) college days, hence the convention’s appeal. And a good number of Catholics, who should be more intelligent and dignified, (given the very nature of the faith they profess), instead seem to have climbed on the bandwagon fueled by Trump’s attempted assassination and his underdog status as a (falsely) convicted criminal.
If Catholics were cheered and attracted by what they saw at the convention, then they are woefully lacking in the education department — Catholic education, that is. This, of course, is not easily obtained, yet is still available to those who care enough to inform themselves. The popes, also Catholic clergy and laypersons writing in the 1940s and 1950s stress the necessity of Catholics to educate themselves in these matters. The superficial attitude of those attending the RNC is absent from the solemn evaluations written by these men. Rather a sober and somber attitude is encouraged that weighs the common good and our bounden duty to best promote it. Levity and recreation have their place, but given the dangers facing Catholics today, it is best minimized or put aside to make way for in-depth, serious discussion of the issues. To understand the Church’s teaching on voting for the less worthy candidate, visit: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/a-voting-primer-for-catholics-why-pius-xiis-directives-must-be-obeyed/
And now have a situation where the president has withdrawn from the race and may very well resign his presidency. VP Harris, already the presumptive nominee to run against Trump, could then become president, a nightmare waiting to happen. Yet Harris could become tripped up by campaign financing regulations and state laws dictating the assignment of delegates. Federal lawsuits could be filed that would complicate matters even further, perhaps even delay the election. We are standing in the path of a runaway train and anyone on the tracks is bound to be mown down. Where this goes, no one can be certain, but all should be prepared for the twists and turns that lie ahead. And education is key to rightly judging this situation, whatever the outcome may be.
Democracy and the Catholic
While Democrats have accused Republicans of destroying democracy and vice versa, some Republicans have pointed out that this country was meant to be a republic, not a democracy. Yet those speaking at the convention typically referred to our form of government as a democracy, and while Catholics may think they know what that term means they most likely are not seeing it through the eyes of the Church.
A series of articles written in the 1970’s-1980s by the French Traditionalist Solange Hertz, later assembled into books, readily shows that from its inception, America was a Masonic nation, and democracy an “experiment” that clearly has gone awry. While the Church does not condemn the right kind of democracy as a viable form of government, the popes have repeatedly warned Americans that Catholics cannot endorse the liberal principles of democracy, nor the nationalistic excess known as Americanism, condemned by Pope Leo XIII, that now permeates the conservative atmosphere. Pope Leo wrote: “The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from Her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith… They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state… From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some ‘Americanism’” (Testem benevolentiae, 1899).
Of course Americanism, spawned by “Catholic” liberalism, later gave way to Modernism and ecumenism. And it is ecumenism that dominates Protestant evangelical teaching today, with so many expressing non-denominational beliefs. Trump himself lists as non-denominational, although his family religion was largely that of the anti-Catholic Norman Vincent Peale and his positivism, Protestant teaching the Church ruled as Quietistic, psychologically damaging and out of touch with reality. Trump also was an admirer of Billy Graham.
Despite its condemnation, Americanism was officially revived by Paul 6 even before he usurped the papal chair. Those who have read the opening chapters of The Phantom Church in Rome will know that Giovanni Montini, Paul 6, worked secretly as an OSS operative during World War II, and without the knowledge of Pope Pius XII, forged secret alliances with the newly formed CIA in the late 1940s which later guaranteed his election as “pope.” The CIA funded state elections and other causes in Italy following the war and actively worked to secure the election of John 23 in 1958, in direct violation of Pope Pius XII’s infallible election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. This is documented by correspondence and FOIA requests published by international attorney David Wemhoff, in his 800-page work, John Courtney Murray, Time Magazine and the American Proposition. The book reveals the fact that psychological warfare was implemented against Catholics for two decades to accomplish the establishment of ecumenism in the Church through the invalid elections of John 23 and Paul 6, in the name of democracy.
As a result, the false Vatican 2 council adopted the heresy that all men have the inherent right, (as taught by the renegade Jesuit John Courtney Murray and vehemently opposed by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, Rev. Francis J. Connell and a few others), to follow the dictates of conscience and that governments must recognize that right by suppressing any opposition to this belief. This is opposed to the Church’s God-given right to preach that the Catholic Church alone holds the truth and all other religions are false. Basically the formal endorsement by Vatican 2 of this proposition, which directly contradicts the necessity of the hierarchy to defend the Church’s rights, as expressed in Pius XII’s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, is what accomplished the downfall of the Church.
Ever since this event, there has been an effort by non-Catholics to unify into one amorphous mass as “Christians” and usurp the place of the Church as the sole proponents of the Bible and Gospel teaching, a new “Holy Roman Empire” of sorts, founded through revolutionary means on the ruins of Roman democracy resurrected in France and America. This union must be accomplished before one-world government is established, in order to place everyone on the same religious page, just as Freemasonry had to destroy Catholic monarchies before establishing American and French democracy. The roots of what such a Protestant mimicry of the Church’s empire can be found in the creation of the Sillon in France in the late 1800s, a purportedly Catholic effort to “Christianize” democracy. “Le Sillon (“The Furrow” or “The Path”) was a French political and religious movement founded by Marc Sangnier (1873–1950), which existed from 1894 to 1910. It aimed to bring Catholicism into a greater conformity with French Republican and socialist ideals, in order to provide an alternative to Marxism and other anticlerical labor unions” (Wikipedia). Just as he had done with Modernism, Pope St. Pius X thoroughly routed the Sillonists, as seen below.
Our Apostolic Mandate
“[In its early days], the Sillon did raise among the workers the standard of Jesus Christ, the symbol of salvation for peoples and nations. Nourishing its social action at the fountain of divine grace, it did impose a respect for religion upon the least willing groups, accustoming the ignorant and the impious to hearing the Word of God. And, not seldom, during public debates, stung by a question, or sarcasm, you saw them [young people] jumping to their feet and proudly proclaiming their faith in the face of a hostile audience. This was the heyday of the Sillon; its brighter side accounts for the encouragement, and tokens of approval, which the bishops and the Holy See gave liberally when this religious fervor was still obscuring the true nature of the Sillonist movement.
“For it must be said, Venerable Brethren, that our expectations have been frustrated in large measure. The day came when perceptive observers could discern alarming trends within the Sillon; the Sillon was losing its way. Could it have been otherwise? Its leaders were young, full of enthusiasm and self- confidence. But they were not adequately equipped with historical knowledge, sound philosophy, and solid theology to tackle without danger the difficult social problems in which their work and their inclinations were involving them. They were not sufficiently equipped to be on their guard against the penetration of liberal and Protestant concepts on doctrine and obedience.
“The truth is that the Sillonist leaders are self-confessed and irrepressible idealists; they claim to regenerate the working class by first elevating the conscience of Man; they have a social doctrine, and they have religious and philosophical principles for the reconstruction of society upon new foundations; they have a particular conception of human dignity, freedom, justice and brotherhood; and, in an attempt to justify their social dreams, they put forward the Gospel, but interpreted in their own way; and what is even more serious, they call to witness Christ, but a diminished and distorted Christ… No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker — the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work…
“[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. We do not have to demonstrate here that the advent of universal Democracy is of no concern to the action of the Church in the world; we have already recalled that the Church has always left to the nations the care of giving themselves the form of government which they think most suited to their needs. What We wish to affirm once again, after Our Predecessor, is that it is an error and a danger to bind down Catholicism by principle to a particular form of government…religion ought to transcend all parties…
“This organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations… has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
“Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train. 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 (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men who become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”… [For they say]: “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. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Saviour” (St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate). We urge readers to study this entire document. For more on democracy and the situation today, go to: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/dr-disandro-redefines-government-today-and-pope-pius-xii-on-the-obligation-to-vote/
Implications of St. Pius X’s condemnation of the Sillon
The false pope John 23, as a nuncio under Pope Pius XII, would later exonerate Sangnier in a letter sent to his widow in 1950, which is no surprise. What is described above by Pope St. Pius X, who some say had the gift of foresight, is what Christian conservatives hope to achieve under Trump. And it could well be the foundation laid for a one-world “Christian” church, excluding true Catholics. Yet the Church, and her members alone have the right to rebuild the City spoken of by St. Augustine, if now it can be rebuilt at all. And given the above, certainly it cannot be rebuilt on existing democratic principles. Pope Pius XII believed for a time this was possible but was rewarded by his pro-secretary Montini with an attempted poisoning. This lest the pope discover that his teachings and plans were being sabotaged by his enemies, who were even falsifying the Fatima message to promote their democratic ideals.
Following a vision of Christ that occasioned his recovery from the illness brought on by this poisoning, Pope Pius XII all but shut down the Vatican, and so it remained until his death. If Catholics must choose Trump as the lesser of two evils, let it be an informed decision. Modern-day democracy is not the Catholic ideal. Catholics are to remain politically impartial, meaning that whenever possible, strictly speaking, they should avoid all party affiliation and register as Independents, wherever this is allowed by the State. Any perceived religious affiliation with non-Catholics must be led by the Catholic parties, since the Church alone has the right to rebuild the City, as the popes have always taught. Catholics should avoid at all costs joining in the misplaced zeal of the masses for any particular candidate, given the nature of the democracy that is being proposed and the danger it poses to the faith. They should never forget that it was the falsified ideal of democracy that was used to destroy the Church, which means their loyalties must be adjusted accordingly.
In summary, Catholics must realize in the end that this type of democracy is aligned with the secret societies, as Pope St. Pius X observes, and they can never lend their enthusiasm, public approval or seeming acknowledgment of such principles. After all, the Liberty, Equality and Fraternity promoted by the Sillon and often cited by both parties as the underpinnings of democracy is the credo of Freemasonry, and any seeming approval whatsoever of this pernicious system has been repeatedly condemned by numerous popes. Any support for an unworthy candidate should be a restrained and reluctant one, one not openly celebrated on the Internet. It must be viewed as a forced position taken reluctantly to avoid even greater evils.
Conclusion
Those more-or-less forced to vote for such a candidate who is then elected have the right to hold his feet to the fire on crucial issues and insist on upholding campaign promises and working for the moral good of the nation. Trump has claimed that election fraud is being committed on a large-scale basis, and there are reasons for believing that may well be the case. As a reporter I witnessed this first-hand and fought to put an end to it in the community in which I then lived. Trump also has promised to “drain the swamp,” to upend and reform the intelligence agencies and Department of Justice as well as other agencies, a task proposed by President John F. Kennedy that may well have led to his assassination. If this is truly his intent, let him begin with The Central Intelligence Agency, as it is said Kennedy intended to do.
If elected, it should immediately be brought to Trump’s attention that owing to election interference by the CIA, and a proven campaign to wage psychological warfare on Catholics via propaganda and public opinion tools — a campaign that makes the attempt to vilify Trump pale in comparison — an entire Church was destroyed and incalculable harm done to the religious liberty of hundreds of thousands of Catholics, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. As president, proof of this egregious act should be brought out in the open and every attempt should be made to remedy it — by exposing it, giving a voice to those affected by it and making amends to those who suffered such a tragic loss.What is sauce for the goose is sauce also for the gander; the elite should not be the only ones who are able to rectify the wrongs of election interference and its devastating consequences. Let him then live up to his claims as a victim and rectifier of election interference and fraud, a constitutionalist and a champion of religious liberty. Then, perhaps, he could be counted as a more worthy candidate.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 15, 2024 | New Blog
+Our Lady of Mt. Carmel+
It never fails to amaze me how LibTrads resort to the same fallacious arguments, over and over again, to try and convince people that valid priests and bishops still exist. They don’t care who or what is falsely characterized in the exercise of their mad obsession, and that would include St. Thomas Aquinas and his teaching. Certainly in this last foray they have once again proven their disregard even contempt for scholasticism, although of course they will insist that this is not the case and continue to promote error. But anyone who knows their true motives will understand their capacity for deception once the following is addressed.
One reader pointed out recently that some of those new to the pray-at-home position are suffering the excessive zeal that is common to new converts. They want to come into the fray and make their mark, make their point, render some sort of meaningful contribution. They think that they can make things better, fix things, rectify what has happened within the Church, unify the faithful and I understand that — I was there at one point myself. But when I was experiencing these things, I was in my 30s and that was several decades ago. This site may seem very daunting in the beginning but I want those new to betrayedCatholics to understand that it is really based on some pretty simple principles.
Those principles have been stated many times on this site, in many different places. First of all we do not owe obedience to anyone but lawful pastors and Canon Law and Church teaching insists that anyone claiming to be a lawful pastor must first prove that this is truly the case (Can. 200). Having said this we all know if we’re praying at home that the reason we’re doing it is because we cannot be certain that these men are valid and not only can we not be certain but those who wish to study and consider the matter can achieve total certitude regarding their invalidity if they would only accept and obey the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, particularly that of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, an infallible constitution written by Pope Pius XII in 1945. LibTrads cannot present proofs of their certain validity no matter how hard they try given the preamble and first three paragraphs of this constitution. To understand this more completely please see the explanation here and note that in presenting this explanation I am not interpreting anything; I am using other sources to interpret what this document says, sources that were imprimatured prior to the death of Pope Pius XII.
NO interpretation of papal documents on this site
What finally seasoned my over-zealousness and subdued my excessive zeal was dedication to study, meditation and prayer, also a heady and humiliating dose of experience with duplicitous LibTrads. Another reader contacted me recently, stating that those who accept sede vacante and pray at home are all basically interpreting papal documents, this author included, so all their (our) opinions could be more or less equally valid. I took issue with this immediately because as I have explained before on numerous occasions, I do not proceed in the same way these other individuals proceed in these matters but do my utmost to proceed only as the Church Herself has directed.
- Papal documents registered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis are considered binding on all the faithful. Numerous encyclicals and constitutions of the popes that pertain to both their liciety and their validity as well as their proper function are entered into the Acta. This teaching on binding documents was promulgated by Pope Pius XII in his infallible encyclical Humani generis, which itself is duly registered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.
- VAS, an infallible, hence binding document entered into the Acta, clearly states that all acts which violate Canon Law during an interregnum are null and void. This would include Canons 18, 20, 104, 147, 1812 and others, all of which provide the basis for determining the meaning of the law, the mind of the lawgiver, the possession of offices to which jurisdiction is attached and when acts constitute fraud. (See HERE.)
- In determining the applicability of any law whenever there is doubt, Can. 18 must be followed. This law states one must have recourse to the meaning of the terms of the law considered in their context, parallel passages of the Code, the purpose of the law and the intention of the lawgiver.
- Any attempt to present one’s analysis, opinion or interpretation of any papal document regardless of the value it is assigned is presumptuous to say the least but cannot be admitted because it does not follow these rules. VAS declares such attempts to presume the mind of the Roman Pontiff as null and void and this is clearly stated. After all, everything that issues from the Roman Pontiff amounts to papal law or papal legislation.
- Even then, no personal opinion save those of the approved canonists and theologians can be admitted. And if the document is entered into the Acta, all that is left is for the faithful to obey.
And from this second reader also came a request that proof be provided to help refute
LibTrads who say, based on the commentary of one Spanish writer, a Fr. Scio, that the Holy Sacrifice will never cease because St. Thomas Aquinas indicates it will last till the Second Coming. No direct reference to the St. Thomas Aquinas text was given unfortunately, so exactly which of his writings — and these are voluminous as we well know — was a mystery. So a search had to be conducted and there was some indication that it might have referenced a particular scripture quote, so this was used as the basis for the search. An English commentary was found in the Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura — Commentary On the First Epistle to the Corinthians by Saint Thomas Aquinas, translated by Fabian Larcher, O.P. There St. Thomas writes on 1 Cor. 11: 26:
“686. – Then when he says, As often as, he explains the Lord’s words, which said: “Do this in memory of me,” saying: For as often as you eat this bread. He says bread on account of the appearances that remain. He says this on account of the numerically same body signified and contained. And drink the cup, you will proclaim the Lord’s death, namely, by representing it through this sacrament. And this, until he comes, i.e., until His final coming. This gives us to understand that THIS RITE OF THE CHURCH will not cease until the end of the world: “I am with you always to the end of the world” (Matt 27:20); “This generation,” namely, of the Church, “will not pass away, till all has taken place” (Lk. 21:32).” This is St. Thomas’ own commentary, and no interpretation of what he is saying is offered by the translators of this text.
A rite of the Church and the Holy Sacrifice itself is not necessarily synonymous. If the rite is interpreted as the Holy Sacrifice itself, it would refer to only on rite when the Church recognizes several as valid. And in another place, St. Thomas states that the world will not end immediately on the death of Antichrist but will continue on for an indefinite time. So the end of the world could mean at any time during or even after Antichrist’s appearance, since the majority of the Fathers and Doctors teach the Final Judgment comes shortly after Antichrist’s death. Time, of course, is measured differently by God than by man. Notice that St. Thomas does not say until the consummation here, although he does in other places. And while he first says that the Lord will be proclaimed in the Sacrament “until the final coming,” he later says this sacramental rite itself will not actually cease until the end of the world.
Now saying that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world cannot be interpreted as meaning or implying there will be those available to administer that rite. We have the St. John’s Mass and every time we recite the prayers of the Consecration we, as Catholics, commemorate Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. Having said our Perfect Act of Contrition prior to reciting these Mass payers, we participate in Spiritual Communion as many of us have for decades and will do until we die. That the sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation was denied by Saint Thomas! So if he denies the sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation it would be difficult to understand how and why he would teach that there must be priests and bishops until the very end to administer them; this is a contradiction in terms, as St. Thomas shows in his Summa below, Pt. III, Q. 73, Art. 3.
Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said (Jn. 6:54): “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” But Christ’s flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But bodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this sacrament, for spiritual health.
Objection 3: Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord’s Passion, without which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:26): “For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come.” Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is this sacrament.
On the contrary, Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): “Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ.”
I answer that, Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above (A[1], OBJ[2]) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the Mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Pet. 3:20,21. And it has been said above (Q[68], A[2]), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (Q[68], A[2]).
Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (Q[63], A[6]): for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says, explaining Jn. 6:54, “This food and this drink,” namely, of His flesh and blood: “He would have us understand the fellowship of His body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified, His holy and believing ones.” Hence, as he says in his Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in 1 Cor. 10:17): “No one should entertain the slightest doubt, that then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member of Christ’s body; nor is he deprived of his share in that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the unity of Christ’s body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice.”
Reply to Objection 2: The difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the person nourished, and consequently it cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he heard the voice of Christ as it were saying to him: “Nor shalt thou change Me into thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be changed into Me.” But one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacrament. And consequently the comparison does not hold.
Reply to Objection 3: Baptism is the sacrament of Christ’s death and Passion, according as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Passion; but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ’s Passion according as a man is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered. Hence, as Baptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of the spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed the sacrament of Charity, which is “the bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14). (End of Summa quote)
The importance of cross-referencing
The above underscores the necessity of further study or cross-referencing St. Thomas’ teaching to discover what else he may have taught on these topics. This is very important because it helps the student to better understand the specifics of what the author himself understands about the subject and other points that must be taken into consideration to completely comprehend what the author is saying. Failure of LibTrads to do this in the case of St. Robert Bellarmine was what initially led early traditionalists to think that he taught that an heretical Pope could be deposed, which was never the case. Bellarmine later clarified his views, stating that no, a Pope could never commit heresy in office and could not be deposed as explained in the article HERE. LibTrads’ failure to cross reference what they’re trying to prove has resulted in making it appear that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that we will have Mass hence the Eucharist until the Second Coming and that Christ will remain with the hierarchy until the very end. It implies that Catholic standing themselves minus the hierarchy as is the actual reality cannot constitute the church and that the promise was given only to the hierarchy and not the faithful but that is not true.
As can be seen in the above, St. Thomas denies the statement of the author making the third objection, which is basically the position of LibTrads. And that third objection is based on the very scripture text in question here: 1 Corinthians 11: 26. So if St. Thomas really thought that that scripture quote meant that this sacrament had to be received from the hands of the hierarchy till the very end, he certainly would not have replied as he did above to this question regarding the necessity of the Eucharist for salvation. And if actual reception of the Eucharist is not required, how can LibTrads twist the meaning of 1 Cor. 11:26 to mandate the existence of the hierarchy to consecrate and administer it, a moot point, since Traditionalist pseudo-clergy never became members of the hierarchy in the first place! But of course Traditionalists are not going to refer you to that particular part of the Summa; they’re only going to quote St. Thomas’s commentary on the Vulgate regarding this text. For from what St. Thomas says on the Eucharist, this rite can also exist spiritually in the desire for receiving the Eucharist especially when we are reciting the words of the Consecration, having made a Perfect Act of Contrition and Spiritual Communion. And in the absence of the Eucharist all the theologians teach that such a desire suffices just as St. Thomas teaches it here. The same is true of confession regarding the Perfect Act of Contrition when there is no priest available.
We see the same problem with Feeney and his insistence that baptism by water only be received — it’s the same type of thing, just a different variation. And as stated before, I believe that Feeney was the prototype traditionalist. Another text not quoted here which directly addresses the problem is found in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Catena Aurea. There St. Thomas teaches Christ promised to be with ALL the faithful, not just the apostles and the disciples, just as stated in previous refutations of those who erroneously teach “there will always be bishops” (see HERE).
Catena Aurea (Matt. 28:20)
Chrys.: And because what He had laid upon them was great, therefore to exalt their spirits He adds, “And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” As much as to say, Tell Me not of the difficulty of these things, seeing I am with you, Who can make all things easy. A like promise He often made to the Prophets in the Old Testament, to Jeremiah who pleaded his youth, to Moses, and to Ezekiel, when they would have shunned the office imposed upon them. And not with them only does He say that He will be, but with all who shall believe after them. For the Apostles were not to continue till the end of the world, but He says this to the faithful as to one body.
Raban.: Hence we understand that to the end of the world shall not be wanting those who shall be worthy of the Divine indwelling.
Chrys.: He brings before them the end of the world, that He may the more draw them on, and that they may not look merely to present inconveniences, but to the infinite goods to come. As much as to say, The grievous things which you shall undergo, terminate with this present life, seeing that even this world shall come to an end, but the good things which ye shall enjoy endure forever.
Bede, Beda in Hom., non occ.: It is made a question how He says here, “I am with you,” when we read elsewhere that He said, “I go unto him that sent me.” [Jon 16:5] What is said of His human nature is distinct from what is said of His divine nature. He is going to His Father in His human nature, He abides With His disciples in that form in which He is equal with the Father. When He says, “to the end of the world,” He expresses the infinite by the finite; for He who remains in this present world with His elect, protecting them, the same will continue with them after the end, rewarding them.
Jerome: He then who promises that He will be with His disciples to the end of the world, shews both that they shall live forever, and that He will never depart from those that believe.
Leo, Serm., 72, 3: For by ascending into heaven He does not desert His adopted; but from above strengthens to endurance, those whom He invites upwards to glory. Of which glory may Christ make us partakers, Who is the King of glory, “God blessed forever,” AMEN. (End of Catena quote).
Truth matters here, and in order to prove that the Holy Sacrifice will NOT cease at the time of Antichrist, those misquoting St. Thomas need to ante up and present proofs that overcome the authoritative truth professed by approved authors — the unanimous opinion of the Fathers which both the councils of Trent and the Vatican state must be accepted as a rule of faith — that indeed the Mass will cease at the time of Antichrist. They try to cunningly wrest this interpretation from St. Thomas because they have no other proofs but even then, his opinion would be that of only one doctor regarding the Sacrament of the Eucharist. While even the opinion of one doctor as great as St. Thomas is enough to make an opinion truly probable, we are forbidden to follow a probable opinion regarding the valid reception of the Sacraments, which LibTrads try to infer as a necessity in interpreting this verse. What these pseudo-clergy teach on the cessation of the Sacrifice would never be accepted as proof of anything by the Catholic Church or even in classes of logic on secular campuses.
Fallacies in logic — again
Rev. Joseph B Walsh S.J., in his Fordham philosophy series on Logic, (imprimatured in 1940) lists several types of false arguments under the heading of ignoratio elenchi. And among these are “an appeal to the ignorance of the hearers, tricking them by statements they are unable to test.” Not everyone knows how to cross-reference the Summa, even online, to find out what else St. Thomas might have to say on this topic. And even if they do find it, not everybody is able to put together what it takes to disprove what these LibTrads are saying, and they trade on this. this can be easily seen as a deliberate attempt to take advantage and misinform. And there are other forms of ignoratio elenchi LibTrads use to make it appear that they are presenting proofs from a credible source when in fact they are assuming as proven that which they have yet to proven or assuming that a certain proposition is implicitly contained in the one to be proved.
LibTrads assume St. Thomas proves their case when in fact they have yet to prove (a) that the rite Saint Thomas refers to in his Vulgate commentary references the Holy Sacrifice, not the Eucharist; (b) that the unanimous opinion of the Fathers on the meaning of Holy Scripture, determined to be a rule of faith at Trent and the Vatican Council and hence a matter for belief by the faithful, is not binding in this case or can be overturned by other discoveries they have made; (c) that they are indeed validly able to confer the sacraments even if what Saint Thomas said was applicable in this case, for to do this they would need to overturn Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis which is impossible, because the Pope has the last word in all these things; (d) that Saint Thomas teaches Christ spoke only to the hierarchy in promising to be with dialect unto the consummation. This of course we have already shown above they will not be able to do.
LibTrads have managed to create yet another distraction, another perversion of the truth and that’s all that’s happened here. They wished to make themselves indispensable and to create fear in the faithful that unless they receive the sacraments from their hands, they cannot possibly acquire the graces necessary to attain eternal salvation. This very concept is contradicted by Saint Thomas Aquinas above so we know that they are not presenting all of the truth to their followers and to those that they may be discussing this was on the Internet. They would even go so far as to falsify the teachings of the Church on what Christ said about including the elect in the promise to be with them unto the consummation. And that is a truly sad thing to contemplate because it demonstrates that truth does matter to them, only retaining their power, position and followers. What St. Thomas says matters and what the Church teaches and has always taught must take precedence over any of this nonsense that is bandied about through e-mail, on the Internet, over the telephone, whatever.
The one thing that causes them to continually gnash their teeth is the fact that in the absence of the hierarchy Pope Pius XII taught that the laity must take up all their responsibilities and duties. And this is what we have tried to do. But until they admit the full implications of this statement, which is duly registered in the Acts of Apostolica Sedis, there will be no unity among those praying at home and there will be no admission of guilt or cooperation among traditionalists regarding what has happened since the death of Pope Pius XII.
Conclusion
We may be a rag-tag bunch, those brought to the marriage feast from the ditches and the highways, but WE are the Church. LibTrad pseudo-clergy, too, were called to obey the laws and teachings of the Church but they had better things to do; they had hidden agendas, they had dreams of creating a need for their services that would result in a tidy little income. They also are laity, but because of their disobedience and their refusal to accept the supreme jurisdiction of the papacy, they are laypersons who exist outside the Mystical Body. For they have not only refused to obey the Church they professed to love — they have betrayed Christ and his vicars every bit as much as the Novus Ordo church they love to hate.
