Angels of light, novelties, and perversions of truth for sale

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 22, 2024 | New Blog

+St. Raymond of Penafort+

Introduction

“The Church is infallible in selecting terms suitable to convey the truths which she defines. Truths can be set forth in words only, i. e., by means of creeds and dogmatic decrees. Therefore, to be infallible in teaching, the Church must also be infallible in choosing words that accurately express her meaning without ambiguity” (The Church of Christ, Rev. E. S. Berry, p. 504-505). For as Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton commented: “It is, I believe, to be presumed that the Vicar of Christ speaks to the faithful in a way they are able to understand.” And we must always remember, “It makes no difference whether a person who breaks the bonds of Catholic communion does so in good faith or in bad. In either case, he ceases to be a member of the Church. The innocence or guilt of the parties involved is purely an internal matter, purely a matter of conscience; it has no direct bearing on the question of one of the external and social bonds requisite for membership” (Msgr. G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Christ’s Church, Vol. II, no. 154).

All of us who are refugees of the Novus Ordo and LibTrad sects have communicated in false religious rites (communicatio in sacris, Canons 2314 and 1258). Even though we may have been in good faith, we thus placed ourselves outside the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, and must work diligently to regain that membership (see HERE).

We know that the devil constantly roams about seeking whom he may devour, and that his time is short. He works in darkness — what he does is often hidden from view. He is crafty and  deceitful, a liar from the beginning, yet he comes as an angel of light. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” Gal. 1: 8-11). So likewise it is with the teachings of His vicars on faith and morals which He has guaranteed free from any error.

Truth is one for God is one; Christ is the truth, the way, the life. As demonstrated on this website since its inception, the teaching of Christ’s Vicars in these faithless and evil times are our only sure guide: “He who hears you hears me,” as Christ told St. Peter and His apostles. But no one speaks in His name without being in communion with Peter’s successors. And if they are not in communion with him, they are angels of darkness sent to deceive us. As noted above, the popes need no interpretation; their words are clear. And if we need any explanation of their teachings, we must strive to find it only from the most reliable, approved pre-1959 sources we can find. No one has the right to presume to interpret, far less flatly ignore, papal teaching regardless of any supposed secular credentials they may claim to possess, for these mean nothing in the eyes of God (see HERE). As Saint Paul teaches, we are not servants of God if we follow mere men who, who then and today seduce their hearers with novelties and honeyed words. And if we prefer their allurements to the teachings of the popes, we are outside the Church — and this whether we are in good faith or not.

Although we have covered the ground below many times before, renewed attacks made known to us by readers seems to indicate that this shorter and easier explanation may better assist those still of good will in answering questions on this topic.

Pope Pius XII declaresTraditionalist orders invalid

1. Bps. Ngo dinh Thuc and Marcel Lefebvre could not validly create priests and bishops during an interregnum because a papal mandate and confirmation of episcopal appointment could not be obtained. The appointment of bishops and issuance of the papal mandate has been reserved exclusively to the Roman Pontiffs for centuries. To presume the possession of the papal mandate and confirmation of any appointment to the episcopacy is therefore a usurpation of papal jurisdiction according to Pope Pius XII’s infallible 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) that invalidates any attempt at consecration. (See the full analysis of this bull HERE). In addition, men who never became bishops could scarcely establish seminaries or validly ordain priests, acts which can be executed only by a validly consecrated bishop in communion with the Roman Pontiff.
2. Some claim that the supposed orders conveyed by Thuc and Lefebvre cannot be considered invalid because these men were approved and appointed under Pope Pius XII. But the validity of Lefebvre and Thuc’s ordinations/consecrations in the 1970s-80s and the subsequent ordinations conferred by their “bishops” has been questioned even by Traditionalists for decades. Therefore they are already doubtful and to be avoided. But this is not all.
3. For in presuming the validity of these ordinations and consecrations without a decision by the Holy See, Traditionalists usurp papal jurisdiction BECAUSE ONLY THE POPE MAY DETERMINE SUCH VALIDITY. Therefore said presumption is null, void and invalid.
4. VAS also invalidates THE EXERCISE of any orders received after 1958, even by bishops approved under Pope Pius XII, just as Pope Pius VI’s Charitas and other papal decrees have done. Because of their adherence to the Novus Ordo (and later, Traditionalist sects), the men conveying these orders, even if they used the old rite, were at least suspect of communicatio in sacris and therefore presumed to have incurred this censure under Can. 2200 (and undoubtedly other censures as well). Can. 2200 holds them guilty until the pope determines otherwise. To presume the lifting of these censures and vindicative penalties, which is clearly an act of papal jurisdiction, is to usurp said jurisdiction. Therefore any EXERCISE of these orders, even if otherwise valid, constitutes a presumption of absolution and dispensation from these censures, a usurpation of papal jurisdiction rendering them null, void and invalid.
5. It is a proven and indisputable fact that the only source ever cited for supplying jurisdiction throughout the history of the Church is the Roman Pontiff, who holds supreme jurisdiction in the Church. To claim that such jurisdiction is supplied in his absence by the law itself is an absurdity, (since Canon Law itself is predicated on papal law and the perpetual existence of the Roman Pontiff); and to say that it is supplied by Christ is a Protestant heresy, condemned at the Council of Trent (DZ 960, 967). VAS forbids appeal to the supplying principle and invalidates any such appeal as a usurpation of papal jurisdiction during an interregnum.
6. Any attempt to change or dismiss canon law also is nullified. This would include the violation of Can. 6 n. 4, which requires Traditionalists to adhere to the old law regarding heresy, meaning no declaratory sentence is needed for its existence; Can. 104, reflected in VAS, which invalidates anything done based on error; Can. 147, which requires that in order to possess jurisdiction, certainly validly ordained or consecrated clergy must first receive an office from competent authority; Can. 200, which requires proof of jurisdiction be presented; Can. 804, which requires presentation of the celebret in order to celebrate Mass in a place other than the priest’s proper diocese and Can. 2265 §1 which forbids those excommunicated from advancing to orders. And these are only a few among many.

Therefore Traditionalists are only laymen simulating the Sacraments, and this we know infallibly from the mouth of Pope Pius XII. Christ warned us that in these times we would be inundated by false shepherds, hirelings and false Christs. In a binding decision approved by Pope Pius XII regarding Can. 147, which declares invalid anyone who claims to possess jurisdiction without first being assigned an office in the Church by “competent ecclesiastical authority,” the Holy Office describes such men “as thieves and robbers who have not entered by the door (AAS 42-601). Flee then while you can, lest such men rob you of that pearl of great price — your eternal salvation.

The “bishops must always exist” error

The proponents of this error falsely teach that valid episcopal orders were conveyed up till the end of the false Vatican 2 council in 1965 or the institution by Paul 6 of the false episcopal and ordination rites in 1968. Those promoting this error generally agree that John 23 and Paul 6 are antipopes or were invalidly elected. They imply that those men consecrated during the reign of these two usurpers could then have proceeded to ordain and consecrate others validly, so true bishops could and even must still exist. To presume to believe and teach this they necessarily deny the following truths of faith:

1. They hold that Pope Pius XII was the last true pope, yet they deny that he had the right to exercise the fullness of his jurisdictional power of binding and loosing, granted him by Christ as proclaimed at the Vatican Council, in invalidating all acts usurping papal jurisdiction and violating canon law during an interregnum (DZ 1831). This constitution does not nullify Orders already received; it nullifies the act of proceeding to said consecration without the necessary papal mandate or letter of appointment.
2. By teaching the body of bishops — the Apostolic College — must always exist, yet implying it can exist independently of its head, the Supreme Pontiff, those teaching this error deny the perpetuation of the Divine constitution of the Church as Christ established it, (Gallicanism, errors of the Hussites).
3. While condemning Traditionalist “bishops” for teaching that their jurisdiction comes directly from Christ, they insinuate it in their own teaching, for they deny that Pope Pius XII definitively settled the question of episcopal jurisdiction — whether it comes directly from Christ or through the Roman Pontiff. In his infallible encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII taught that: “The bishops are not entirely independent but are placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff” (DZ 2287; AAS 35, 1943, 211f). This teaching then is binding on all the faithful, despite what some claim to be taught by Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. (See HERE where Ott’s work is described as containing “serious defects.”) As the theologians Pohle and Preuss write: (The Sacraments, Vol. IV): “It matters not what the private opinions of…theologians [are]. It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided.”
4. They dare to spurn the teaching of Pope Paul IV’s infallible bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, (para. 6), that those who are heretics cannot be validly elected to any office, a bull confirmed by Pope St. Pius V. They teach then that a man never elected as true pope, a bishop this bull calls a heresiarch who is to be avoided as the heathen and the publican, can approve a bishop for consecration when this bull forbids it and nullifies it, as does VAS.
5. In ordinary times, a consecration by a heretic bishop, which Roncalli was even before his election, is considered valid, but the one receiving the orders, also the one consecrating, is automatically excommunicated and forbidden to exercise these orders (Can. 2370). Rev. Charles Augustine comments: “This suspension ipso iurelasts until the Apostolic See expressly dispenses therefrom.” He then lists the following in his footnotes: “For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare as both schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained thus INVALIDATING their future actions.” This quote is taken from Pope Pius VI’s Charitas, 1791, issued against three bishops who consecrated another bishop without the papal mandate. Augustine notes it is listed as the Fontes, or old law, for Can. 2370, commenting that this is “…an example of its effective application.”

During an interregnum, the exercise of these orders is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction (presuming the cessation of the censure, which can only be lifted by the pope) and a violation of Canon Law. Therefore, any acts attempted by these men while under this censure during an interregnum are null and void.

Don’t fall for false shepherds, lay or otherwise

All the above is directly from the infallible teachings of the Roman Pontiffs or Canon Law, which itself is based on papal and conciliar teachings as well as divine law; this is why they call them the Sacred Canons. The Church has always taught that these laws are negatively infallible — that is, nothing they command or forbid can be contrary to faith or morals. Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that anything done contrary to these canons during an interregnum is null and void. And only approved pre-1959 theologians can analyze and explain these canons. Some of you may have recently been invited to join various groups praying at home by individuals who may present as praying at home, but do not hold or practice the truths of faith. To determine if such groups are truly Catholic, potential members should first determine whether or not their leaders:

• Insist on obedience to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and ecumenical councils primarily as the source for what they propose or do.
• Place emphasis on the popularity, “holiness” and personal appeal of certain persons claiming to be knowledgeable, thereby promoting a personality cult
• Provide references from papal pronouncements and the councils, Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma or Canon Law for the whole of their work
• Condemn the works of others on the basis of their opponents’ alleged unworthiness, lack of credibility or past sins, when they themselves have been guilty of equally grave or even graver offenses
• Restrict their followers’ access to other sources by means of such condemnation. Cult expert Steven Hassan tells us that personality cults often exert undue influence on members, not due influence: “Due influence involves informed consent, your choice, right to question, listening to your inner voice, freedom to interact with anyone, free will, and the freedom to leave.”
• Show the necessary respect for and obedience owed to Canon Law as Pope Pius XII commands
• Explain to their readers that, as Canon Law teaches, that because everyone has previously participated in the rites of the Novus Ordo or Traditionalists, all are excommunicates, themselves included
• And if all are excommunicates (and some of them many times over), why is it that they have such a penchant for pointing to others as guiltier than themselves when Rev. Van Noort, quoted above, writes: “The innocence or guilt of the parties involved is purely an internal matter, purely a matter of conscience; it has no direct bearing on the question of one of the external and social bonds requisite for membership.” So why are these self-proclaimed teachers of truth preaching leniency and charity towards Traditionalists but not others?

How many times have readers seen their friends and relatives leave the Novus Ordo or some LibTrad sect, only to then join an even more destructive sect, often with disastrous consequences? This is the perfect example of inviting in seven devils worse than the first! (Matt. 12: 43-45). But there is one devil that has not yet been addressed that is especially loathsome and needs to be exorcised, as we will see below.

For Sale: perversions of the Truth

We said in an earlier blog that some professing praying at home offer the truth for a price, but that is not really what they are doing. For just as all heretics do, they mix truth with error and present it as truth, in ways that the faithful cannot easily detect or assess. They then request and even demand allegiance and financial support necessary to promote these perversions. This is a form of simony, which the moral theologians McHugh and Callan define as: “…the studied will to buy or sell for a temporal price or consideration something that is spiritual, either intrinsically or extrinsically” (2318). The spiritual is that which proceeds from God or tends to Him as the Author or End of eternal salvation (viz., the destiny, law, means, works, etc., proposed to us in Christian revelation and religion). Among these things those are intrinsically spiritual that pertain to the supernatural order on account of some inherent character of their own (e.g., grace, Sacraments, Mass, miracles) or some intimate union with things spiritual (2317e). The temporal price in simony is some temporal good or advantage.

“St. Gregory the Great distinguishes three kinds of simoniacal prices as follows: (a) the price from the hand…is either money or things that have a money value, such as movable or immovable property, corporeal or incorporeal rights. It would be simony to give a benefice

in exchange for a sum of money, for a loan, for real estate; (b) the price from the tongue… is any kind of patronage, such as praise, recommendation, protection, defense, opposition to competitors, etc. (c) the price in service… is any kind of temporal labor or assistance given for another’s benefit, such as the management of his business or the instruction of his children” (2319). (End of McHugh and Callan quotes) So if someone offers others membership in a group with fringe benefits, such as the purchase of goods, property, special instruction or so on — based on the specific acceptance and profession of certain spiritual beliefs, at least some of them Catholic — then this seems to fit the definition of simony.  And certainly if one benefits from the sale of things purportedly Catholic, and repeatedly requisitions those s/he is “serving” for funds to continue this service, this fits the definition of simony above.

Conclusion

The above is why, other than my 2018 book (which I wrote specifically at the request of readers, in case the Internet failed), I have consistently refused to solicit donations or sell my articles — they were written for everyone. The research on this site has been open and available to all for nearly 20 years. It was taken up first and foremost to defend the faith and warn of error, as all are obliged to do. But it also was written to spare Catholics of good will seeking the truth the agonizingly painful spiritual, mental and emotional consequences of being entangled in the webs of those many deceivers — hirelings, false prophets, false christs. For their own perverse reasons, these deceivers wish to rob them of their spiritual innocence, their children, their self-respect, their ability to reason, not to mention their hard-earned cash. I know because I have been there. As a Catholic we have the obligation to assist our neighbor in extreme spiritual necessity. You may not realize the dangers you are in, because as one sage has explained, some learn by reading (and meditating), others by observation, but there are those who will learn only by seizing the electric fence for themselves; that is, they must learn the hard way, and they are in abundance today. No one can be dragged kicking and screaming into heaven. But all can pray that those who have been deceived may be granted the light to see before they leave this world.

Refuting new claims that Pius XII bishops retained jurisdiction under John 23

by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 22, 2023 | New Blog

+Mission Sunday+

“So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).

Summary of what follows

1. It is no longer technically correct to state that the Church now exists in a state of interregnum.
2. Canon Law teaches that bishops appointed under Pope Pius XII lost their offices when accepting transfers to other dioceses by Roncalli.
3. Jurisdiction comes with the appointment to an OFFICE; the office cannot be VALIDLY obtained unless conferred “…by the COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY” (Can. 147).
4. Bishops who did not depart from Roncalli did NOT receive a pardon from their censures, Canon Law states.
5. Different canons govern the lifting of censures and those canons do not contain footnotes to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Therefore one cannot maintain that Cum ex… can be used to interpret these canons.
6. Bishops openly cooperated with Roncalli in destroying the Church founded on St. Peter.
7. Even without recognizing Roncalli as a false pope, these bishops were personally guilty of heresy for conspiracy against the papacy, contempt of faith and harm to souls.
8. Given these violations, their acts produced results and the imputability of the delict was not taken away.

New objections have been made regarding the application of Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and it is important to completely understand this subject in order to attain certitude regarding how and when the Great Apostasy began amongst the hierarchy. Bishops reigning when Pope Pius XII died cannot be excused for their actions under Roncalli, and this is not a matter of opinion, but one determined by the facts, as judged by Canon Law and Church teaching. They became heretics either before or shortly after his death, for their failure to challenge and renounce innovations to the liturgy forbidden by Pope Pius XII and in committing other heresies. The following links will provide background for this.

https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-cardinals-electing-bishops-recognizing-roncalli/; https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/6997-2/ (Scholastic method neglected in determining apostasy of bishops)

Below we will try to unravel some of the strange aberrations in thinking on this subject by appealing to Canon Law and the commentaries, also plain old common sense.

 Interregnum definition and the relocation of bishops

Objection: A Bishop remains a Bishop during an interregnum …The fact that Roncalli changed the place of many Bishops (transfers) and gave them false powers and false charges does not mean they lost their jurisdiction over their flock, but only that they could not use their jurisdiction outside their limits.

Response: First, we must define interregnum. An interregnum (meaning among, between etymologically) PRESUMES that the election of a pope is ongoing. In other words, in the case of a disputed election the term itself, as the Church understands it, indicates the selection process is still in progress. (A better terminology is the sede vacante, or vacancy of the See.) Please prove there was ever a time when the Church allowed the See to remain vacant without opposing a true pope to an antipope or actually being engaged in a conclave; such an occasion does not exist. I realize some authors claim that the right to elect a pope never expires, but this is true only if the subject matter yet exists (validly appointed and truly Catholic cardinals or bishops, in the absence of the cardinals, to elect a pope) and the moral conditions are still in place (the previous election has been drawn into question by even a minority of cardinals or bishops). This statement is based on the teachings of Henry Cardinal Manning.

There was no disputed election and no faithful cardinals or bishops called to postulate a canonical election. Therefore these bishops could not have retained their jurisdiction during this time-period because it never existed; it does not correspond to the actual meaning of the word or the Church’s meaning/intended use of it. As Rev. A.C. Cotter so aptly notes in his 1949 work, the ABC of Scholastic Theology, “By far the most fruitful source of error is our careless use of words, or rather the vague notions we have of the meaning of words… [Writers must make] absolutely sure (a) of the various meanings of terms and (b) of the exact meaning they attach to them in the present discussion.” These bishops accepted Roncalli as valid; they did not realize an interregnum even existed, nor did the faithful. So why would they have retained their positions?

Papal elections must be held within 18 days of the vacancy; ecclesiastical elections within three months. In the event the cardinals fail to elect or are disqualified for electing a heretic, the election devolves to the bishops. They must convene to elect within at least the three-month period, in straightened circumstances, or they lose the right to elect (Can. 162). The right to elect a true pope never expires, but as already stated above, the conditions for an unquestionably canonical election can expire and did expire when all the bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII became schismatics under Roncalli with no one to absolve or reinstate them.

Transfer of bishops

Regarding the transfer of bishops by the usurper, Can. 429 states: “If the Bishop has incurred excommunication, interdict or suspension… the vicar general’s jurisdiction is suspended together with that of the Bishop (Can. 371).”

And Can. 430: “The episcopal see becomes VACANT on the death of the Bishop, on his resignation accepted by the Roman Pontiff, on his transfer and on his deprivation of office made known to the Bishop.”  These men vacated the positions assigned to them under Pope Pius XII to which their jurisdiction was attached  to accept a “bishopric” from a usurper.  This argument that jurisdiction is retained by these bishops is totally nonsensical because if a bishop is transferred from Timbuktu to Haiti, how can he possibly minister to subjects in Timbuktu any longer? If they deliberately accepted the transfer, they no longer have a flock, because jurisdiction can be exercised only over those subjects assigned to bishops by competent ecclesiastical authority.

Jurisdiction comes with the appointment to an OFFICE; the office cannot be VALIDLY  obtained unless conferred “…by the COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY” (Can. 147). Roncalli didn’t have it and Cum ex…says all his acts are null, void and invalid. There is a decision on this Canon entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis as documented on this site many times. This decision quotes from the Council of Trent to clearly show that what is NOT conveyed by those who are not competent ecclesiastical authorities is jurisdiction, for the Canon with the anathema attached clearly states: “If anyone says that… those neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority but come from a different source Are LAWFUL ministers of the word and of the sacraments let him be anathema” (DZ 967).

The Holy Office wrote: “No one can presume to intrude himself or others into ecclesiastical offices and benefices without a legitimate canonical investiture or provision. And Pope Pius XII issued excommunications ipso facto and specially reserved to the Holy See against this: 1) By those who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authority or who attempt in any way to subvert their authority  and 2) By anyone who without a canonical investiture or provision made according to the Sacred Canons occupies an ecclesiastical office, benefice, or dignity or allows anyone to be UNLAWFULLY intruded into the same or retains the same.” There are no exceptions here made for bishops!

These bishops who accepted these transfers, of their own free will, resigned the offices given to them by Pope Pius XII and with that all right to minister to their former flocks as well as any granted them by the usurper Roncalli. “Vacancies occur by the voluntary act of the incumbent or by compulsion” (Cath. Encyclopedia). Show me anything in Canon Law or papal documents which contradicts this.

No departure from Roncalli = no lifting of censures

Objection: The Bull Cum ex… is very clear in para. 7 that bishops not leaving Roncalli did not incur censure.

Response: What did Pope Paul IV have in mind when he said that the cardinals and bishops etc. could leave the usurper without any fear of censure “at any time”? Notice, however, his precise words, for he said that the cardinals who elected “one straying from the faith… a heretic or schismatic [pretender] to the papacy… It shall be lawful for all and sundry… to DEPART with impunity [meaning without punishment] at any time from obedience and allegiance to said promoted and elevated persons… For the greater confusion of persons thus promoted and elevated, if they attempt to continue their government and administration, all may implore the aid of the secular arm against those so advanced and elevated.” And here he anticipated not only the removal of the usurper, but also a new papal election.

Paul IV did not foresee our situation here; that of multiple heretics usurping the See. In referring to this “one’s” deposition, he does not extend it past the time of his usurpation, as already stated in the links above. No one left Roncalli, and the entire paragraph — the lifting of any punishment or censures — is predicated only on their departure from the usurper. Failure to admit that is outright dishonesty. And more than that, it is a blatant contradiction of the entire array of Canons regarding the lifting of censures. Latae sententiae censures can be lifted only under the following conditions:

(1) The ecclesiastical superior is obliged by law to grant absolution from censures as soon as the offender amends and gives due satisfaction. But in the case of vindicative penalties (attached to the censure against heresy, apostasy and schism in Can. 2314), it is left to the prudent judgment of the superior to concede or refuse dispensation from the penalties to an amended offender (Can. 2236).

(2) A person is considered to have desisted from his obstinacy when he has truly repented of his offense and has at the same time made proper satisfaction for the damages and scandal caused or has at least earnestly promised to do so (Canon 2242).

(3) Any censure once contracted cannot be removed except by legitimate absolution. Absolution cannot be denied whenever the offender ceases to be obstinate as declared in Canon 2242.  The censure once incurred binds the offender even though the law is changed later on and the penalty abolished (Can. 2248).

(4) Rev. Stanislaus Woywod states under Can, 672§1 that the religious who has given signs of complete amendment for three years is to be readmitted to his order. But the reason for dismissal must have been grave, as stated in Can. 647§2. In the case of material heresy or schism, infamy also is incurred as a vindicative penalty, and only the pope can lift it. After three years this censure could be ignored regarding infamy of fact, (Can. 2295), but not infamy of law, as is the case with Can. 2314. The offender would still need to seek absolution for material heresy and/or schism when it is available, and until then cannot posit any ecclesiastical acts.

Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) also factors in here. VAS excommunicates the cardinals for interference by the secular powers, for failing to tag Roncalli for campaigning for himself pre-election (confirmed by several different sources), and for other violations. These latae sententiae excommunications are reserved to the Holy Father in a “most special manner” (Can. 2330), for he alone can judge them. Excommunication of this sort deprives them of all jurisdiction, from the time of Roncalli’s “election,” until lifted by a true pope. Until then they are not permitted to function. VAS states that Pius XII’s election constitution (NOT Paul IV’s Cum ex…) is the only law that applies to Roncalli’s attempted election. So Cum ex… cannot be disingenuously used to absolve the cardinals, but rather it is VAS which holds them liable. In addition, in para. 7 of Paul IV’s bull, the emphasis has shifted from who incurs censures for heresy, apostasy and schism to who can be excused from cooperating with the usurper and under what conditions.

We are justified in following the old law as long as it is clear (a) there is doubt in some matter; (b) there is no other law governing the situation (Can. 20) and (c) that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is footnoted to the laws of the 1917 Code which now governs this particular question. This is explained in Can. 6 n.3 which states: “Those canons which agree with the old law in part only must be interpreted according to the old law in the part they agree with it; and according to the meaning of the words [Can. 18, 19] employed in the part they differ from it.” The need to cease from obstinacy before pardon is clearly outlined above and is implied in Paul IV’s bull. “It shall be lawful for all and sundry who would have been subject to persons so promoted and elevated, had these not first strayed from the Faith or been heretics, or incurred or incited or committed schism…to DEPART.” Roncalli committed and incited schism. Those who would remain with such a usurper would be held guilty of the same before departing and if remaining. Only by departing could they avoid the censure.

Cooperation in sin

Objection: Nobody can pretend to know for a fact that all the Cardinals and Bishops were collaborating with Roncalli after his false election. And only the Roman Pontiff may judge the Cardinals (Can. 1557).

Response: This is such a preposterous and mind-blowing statement that it seems almost unworthy of a response. We have cardinals who invalidly elected a man and bishops who never denounced him; bishops who these same objectors admit all excommunicated themselves for heresy at Vatican 2. We know that Montini and Roncalli were friends beginning in the 1930s, and that they were especially close in the 1950s. We have two popes, one warning us how Freemasons were bent on destroying the Church (Leo XIII) and the other warning us that Modernists had already infiltrated the ranks of the clergy (St. Pius X). We know for a FACT that all these cardinal/bishops and other bishops signed Vatican 2 documents and even those that didn’t attend or sign them died without ever attempting to elect a true pope, as they were bound to do. Let us count the ways one can cooperate in sin here by quoting from the Revs. McHugh and Callan in their work on moral theology:

“The cooperator acts as assistant or subordinate agent to the one who commits sin, providing him with moral or physical help, or supplying him with the means requisite for the act of sin… From the viewpoint of the external act, cooperation is positive or negative, according as one does something to help the principal agent, or does nothing to impede him… Cooperation is either occasional or effective. By occasional cooperation is understood that which leads another into sin, or allows him to be drawn into sin, but does not assist him to commit sin… By effective cooperation is understood assistance given another enabling him to carry out, or to carry out more easily, an act of sin on which he had resolved… According to its nature, an act of cooperation is intrinsically evil, if it has no uses except such as are evil… According to its circumstances, an act of cooperation is evil, if by reason of adjuncts it is wrong, as when it signifies approval of evil, gives scandal to others, endangers the faith or virtue of the cooperator, or violates a law of the Church.”

And of course Catholics must know the various ways they can commit cooperation: by counsel, command, consent, provocation, praise or flattery, concealment, participation or enjoyment, silence or inaction and defense of the wrong done. These bishops participated in the distribution of the missalettes containing the English translation of the consecration of the wine as “for all men,” contrary to the direct order of Pope St. Pius V”; they consented to everything said and done by those attending the preparatory meetings for the first session of the false V2 Council, and if read online these sessions contain many heresies and errors, (something noted by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton in his diaries); they participated in the first session of the false V2 Council, they then obeyed the command to recite the John 23 missal with its modified Canon of the Mass, adding St. Joseph (an innovation that had been requested by certain factions but refused for 150 years by true popes); they instituted all the calendar changes made by Roncalli and omitted the St. Michael’s prayer at the end of the Mass; and bishops complied with a secret document issued by Roncalli that sex offenders be transferred to different positions rather than held libel for canonical penalties, a major change from the policies of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. (Readers can request a copy of this document.)

All those acts enumerated above in which these bishops participated led them in the same direction: away from the teachings of the continual magisterium and towards ecumenism, aided by liturgical innovations. The heretical teaching alone that was allowed in seminaries by these bishops, beginning in 1960 — documented by investigative reporter Michael Rose in his Goodbye, Good Men, (2002) —  is enough to indict these bishops as heretics. And there can be no question that they were — in every sense of the word.  As far as the cardinals being able to be judged only by the Roman Pontiff, this is technically true. However, they are judged already by Pius XII in VAS, also by their external acts. And under Can. 2314, the infallible bull of that great Roman Pontiff, Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio), condemns and sentences them.

The consequences of latae sententiae censures

Objection: A bishop retains his jurisdiction during an interregnum as long as he is not a notorious heretic [or schismatic] or adheres to a sect like the one generated by Antichrist, Montini-Paul 6 in 1965.

Response: A latae sententiae sentence refers to an automatic excommunication. It is ipso facto (automatic) and is incurred the minute the law is broken. Can. 2314, the excommunication for  heresy, apostasy and schism, also communicatio in sacris, is a latae sententiae sentence. In such sentences, the law itself serves as the canonical warning required in other sentences. And according to Cum ex…, the old law under Can. 2314, no declaratory sentence is necessary for the law to take effect. “Whenever it shall appear…” that Bishops have uttered heresy or committed schism, they shall: “ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power” (para. 6, last sentence).

The thing to be determined is precisely when the law was broken in each individual case and which law(s) were broken. In this case we know it was Can. 2314, Can. 188 n. 4 and Can. 1258. What is disputed here is when these bishops became heretics and schismatics. Leaving heresy aside for a moment, let us focus on schism. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as: “Schismatics and those who elude or obstinately withdraw from the authority of the reigning Roman pontiff. The schismatics here referred to are of two kinds: those who are such because they belong to separated Churches which reject the authority of the pope, and those who, being Catholics, become schismatics by reason of obstinate disobedience to the authority of the pope as such.”

While it is true Pope Pius XII was not still reigning, it is also true that since John 23 was never pope, the only pope or popes these bishops did owe obedience to were those who went before. One might be able to understand a mistaken identity of Roncalli as a true pope; what cannot be understood is how bishops consecrated during Pius XII’s reign or that of Pope Pius XI could possibly fail to obey their previous infallible teachings. And then there is the matter of the council to consider. The Catholic Encyclopedia continues: “All those, of no matter what state, rank, or condition, who appeal from the ordinances or mandates of the reigning Roman pontiff to a future ecumenical council, and all who have given aid, counsel, or countenance to this appeal. The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council, not only implies the superiority of the council over the pontiff but is preeminently an act of injurious disobedience to the Head of the Church” (censured with ipso facto excommunication for suspicion of heresy under Can. 2332).

Roncalli announced his council in January 1959. The cardinals and bishops knew there had been previous attempts to call a council, and most likely they knew the reason why: increasing tension between the liberals, moderates and conservatives among the bishops. They had to have known the conservatives — the integralists — were in the minority. Many viewed them as standing in the way of the reunion of Christendom. “The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council” was an appeal to Roncalli for relief from the “outmoded, oppressive teachings and attitudes” of his predecessors. It was Ottaviani and Ruffini who by their own admission made this appeal. And they made it against Popes Pius XI and XII under whom they had served. If this is not an example of injurious disobedience, I don’t know where a person could find one.

The difference between what betrayedcatholics is stating and what these objectors are stating is this: The objectors  are saying that the bishops were not required to have the knowledge necessary to discern Roncalli was a heretic — something I have proven untenable in the links above. I am stating that regardless of whether they recognized him as a heretic or schismatic, they were guilty of heresy and schism PERSONALLY themselves — not for believing Roncalli was pope, but simply because what they adhered to was heresy and/or schism IN AND OF ITSELF. This is a very necessary and important distinction. “For all men” in the missalettes they approved and distributed was heresy; they were disobeying Pius XII in Mediator Dei, Pope Pius V in his de defectibus and Quo primum, and Popes Pius XI and XII in their condemnations of ecumenism. It had nothing to do with John 23^rd, to whom they owed no obedience. Disobedience to the true Popes and contempt for their decisions is precisely the definition of schism as we’ve seen above. Revs. Alan McCoy and Innocent Swoboda point out that what they were doing was intrinsically evil, and indeed does amount to conspiring against the teachings of the TRUE Roman Pontiffs.

Presumption of guilt

“On evaluating the application of penalties in various delicts, Swoboda wrote: “The force of Can. 2200 §2 [which we have talked about at length in our writings for years] is to presume that the delinquent knowingly and deliberately violated the law when two facts are established beyond doubt: that the law was actually violated and that this particular individual was the cause of the illegal violation of the law.” Swoboda calls the presumption of guilt in Can. 2200 “an absolute presumption,” which Abp. Cicognani says cannot be directly attacked. It can be attacked only indirectly against the fact on which the presumption is based (Can. 1904). That means someone would need to produce verifiable facts — records, deeds or public statements — not a phrase from Cum ex… taken entirely out of context when Cum ex… is not even the law that applies here. This alone would show that certain bishops could not have been guilty of the crime of heresy and schism.

Continuing from Swoboda: “The presumption that a man is good ceases when it is established that he actually committed a crime and the burden of proving that the crime doesn’t exist rests with the accused… The presumption is that ordinarily when a man performs an action he is in possession of his faculties, that is he knows what he is doing and realizes the ordinary implications, both physical and moral, of his own conduct; also that he knows the law and the penalty of the law. And presuming knowledge of the law, the legislator merely supposes the individual has not failed in his obligation to know the law. Secondly, the law presumes a man is aware of the factual circumstances in which he is acting; that he knows his own actions and personal condition. Notorious facts which are presumed by the law to be known are those which are public or known to the people generally in the community and hence the law presumes they are also known in a given instance” (Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts, CUA, 1941).

Now what well-educated, devout Catholic could ever think that it is permissible not to believe in something that a pope had taught as a matter binding on the faithful? That the Church could just “change Her mind” and teach something new, when her teachings are forever the same? Yet obviously these bishops bought into this hook, line and sinker with Roncalli. And they were bound to know and do so much more than the faithful ever knew or did.

Usurpation, conspiracy and harm to souls

And Swoboda tells us something more. He writes: “It seems that usurpare and conspirare… can be included in the classification of expressions which presuppose simple dolus [meaning that the penalty is incurred whether the one committing the delict was aware of the fact that it was forbidden by Canon Law or not]. For it is difficult to understand how one could become guilty of the delicts described and defined by these terms through mere negligence or culpa [fault].” In other words, the nature of these acts themselves require a man to know exactly what he is doing. He then lists Canons 2331 and 2345 as the source of these crimes. Can. 2331 treats of those who: “…conspire against the authority of the Roman Pontiff or his legates, or against their legitimate commands and also those who provoke subjects to disobedience towards them.”

Canon 2345 states: “Persons who usurp or retain personally or through others goods and rights pertaining to the Roman Church automatically incur excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. If they are clerics they shall also be deprived of dignities, benefices, offices and pensions and shall be declared disqualified to obtain them.” And how better to conspire against the Roman Pontiffs than to frustrate all they ever taught by setting up the Vatican 2 church? Isn’t that exactly what we have witnessed?

Then there is this from Rev. Alan McCoy: “When an act is intrinsically evil [and here he mentions heresy, apostasy and schism as intrinsically evil], or involves contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or works to the detriment of souls… imputability is not taken away in such cases since in these instances the observance of the law still urges under the pain of sin, even though the most severe personal hardship or danger, or also the greatest private harm might come from such observance. And the reason for this is that some spiritual good, either of God or of the Church or of individual souls is involved…There is consequently always grave guilt in the deliberate transgression of such a law.”

And regarding how we are to view our current situation,  Can. 2229 n. 3 §3,  states: “Grave fear does not exempt from penalties later sententiae of the offense entails contempt  of faith or of ecclesiastical discipline or public injury of souls.” McCoy has this interesting observation regarding when such public injury would occur: “When, then, would such harm to souls not be occult [meaning when would it be public] since there is a question of latae sententiae penalties, that is such as are incurred at the time the crime is committed. Only that case wherein the harm is public at the time of the actual commission of the criminal act can be considered here. Otherwise the delinquent would be uncertain as to the incurring of the penalty until the harm became public or until it became certain that it would remain occult.

“Using Canon 2197 as their guide one can maintain that the harm to souls is public in the sense spoken of in Canon 2229 §3, n.3 whenever the crime which evidently entails injury to souls is committed under such circumstances that it is immediately divulged or that it may and must be prudently considered that it easily will be divulged. The Code says that IF THE ACT TENDS TO PRODUCE RESULTS, the imputability of the delict is not taken away” (Force and Fear in Relation to Delictual Imputability and Penal Responsibility, 1944, Catholic University of America). And here McCoy explains that the very same must be said regarding a contempt of faith. How can anyone claim that the harm to souls was not public seeing the results of Vatican 2 and the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae? And yet McCoy says that when there is a question of latae sententiae penalties these are incurred at the time the crime is committed.

These crimes were committed gradually over a long period of time, but eventually these craven acts produced their RESULTS, as Rev. McCoy notes above. As each crime was committed, the sentences were incurred en masse — for these results were clearly public as well as profound and cannot be denied. Nor can the imputability of these delicts be taken away. This is true  especially in the issuance of the 1959 missalettes, which effectively both demonstrated a contempt of faith AND SUCCESSFULLY CONDITIONED AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THOSE THEN CLAIMING TO BE CATHOLIC TO LATER ACCEPT THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE. It also can be seen in the deadly scourge of doctrinal minimalism condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani generis, an error courageously combatted in the 1940s and 1950s by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. And we must not forget the campaign for religious tolerance (indifferentism) — begun in the 1950s by John Courtney Murray and other Catholic writers — which culminated in the acceptance of this false doctrine as the handmaid of ecumenism at the false Vatican 2 council.

Conclusion

I guess the moral of this blog is not to take everything you read at face value. First and foremost what is stated above should convince those who study to make certain that whoever attempts to inform them do so from approved sources only, verifiable proofs, not their own opinions. Think things through and mull it over. Look up the actual meaning of the words; there are several Catholic dictionaries available for free download online. And look things up only in older secular dictionaries from the 1940s-50s. Do this until it makes perfect sense and all the kinks in thinking are worked out. The only value of the false conclusions presented by these objectors is that they remind us to stay alert and spur us on to a better understanding of what we read about what has happened to the Church, how it happened and why it happened. For that is essential to helping others understand, that they might be brought to the true faith. “Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5: 15-16).

Modernist heresy, papal disobedience reason bishops defected

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 19, 2023 | New Blog

+Feast of St. Vincent de Paul+

The articles we have presented here over the past several weeks boil down to two things, in the end: refusal to obey the Roman Pontiffs and an inability to recognize and call out heresy. Some will say, well that was Pope Pius XII’s job. But they could say it also of Popes Liberius and Honorius, and they were not held by the Church, in the end, to be heretics or even certainly blameworthy, in the opinion of some theologians. The pope is the one person in all this who is immune from heresy. He received the charism of infallibility only in matters of faith, morals and discipline (Vatican Council). If he declares a man a heretic, he is definitely a heretic, and we must accept this. If he fails to condemn a man for something we believe to be heresy, but he has not yet determined is heresy, that is a different story. It does not mean he is wrong in not condemning such individuals or that we are wrong in our perceptions either. He may have reasons for not condemning them that we know nothing about and cannot even imagine.

It is the condemnation of a heretic that would be infallible; the lack of a condemnation is a moral fault concerning the pope and a grave sin if he is culpable, but we are not allowed to judge the pope. This goes to impeccability as we explained in another blog. All that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio states is that if it ever “appears” that a pope has “strayed from the faith or fallen into some heresy,” then he is assumed to have been a heretic pre-election. In no way could this ever appear to apply to Pope Pius XII, although certain vicious Traditionalist factions have alleged this. Under Canon Law, only the pope can judge whether bishops or cardinals are heretics, when we have a pope; the only reason we are able to judge the cardinals and bishops today is out of sheer necessity, because we have no pope. And even then, in doing so we must strictly abide by Canon Law according to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

The bishops and cardinals could publicly accuse a pope of heresy or of dereliction of his duty, and ask for a retraction or clarification, as they did with Pope John XXII concerning the Beatific Vision. But no such public event ever occurred in the case of Pope Pius XII. The clearly heretical intent of the cardinals and bishops only manifested itself with the election of Roncalli, whom they knew would support their ecumenical heresies. And that is exactly what happened. I have never insinuated that Pope Pius XII’s will was so attenuated by Montini and his other advisors that they actually controlled all that he did. Persuasion and indirect influence are not the same as someone running the show in the name of a pope, as some have observed is happening with the U.S. government today. That did not happen with Pope Pius XII. They attempted to sway him, and to a certain extent, in some cases, they were successful; but in others they were not. More on this in a separate article soon to be posted.

First, the cardinals violated Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) by ignoring Roncalli’s suspected heresy, and Roncalli and an undetermined number of other cardinals incurred censures which could only be lifted by a FUTURE pope, barring them from election. That they elected him anyway was itself a heresy, for it not only violated VAS, and nullified their actions, but also denied the teachings that the pope must be canonically elected, that is according to the existing law. Errors against this teaching are condemned (see Denzinger’s, nos. 570 d, 650, 652, 674; also Canons 147 and 219). Then, in accepting him as a true pope, they also incurred schism, creating a new church with a false head. And later, in joining in “worship” of him and with him, they committed communicatio in sacris (Can. 2314 §3).

The same is true of the bishops, who should have known on approving and accepting the missalettes, if not before. And it must be understood that these missalettes were distributed all over the Unites States, at least, for they were in the pews of our parish church in Kansas by 1959. And as noted previously, the liturgical movement was international. Under Can. 2200, the bishops are ALL considered heretics the moment they accepted Roncalli as pope, since none ever left him. On this application of Can. 2200, even St. Thomas Aquinas agrees:  “Concerning such things, anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest” (Summa Theologica, Q. 32, Art. 4, Pt. I). Malice and obstinacy are presumed in the case of those who are obligated to know the laws and teachings of the Church. Their external acts convict them of schism and heresy and they are outside the Church.  

The Oath Against Modernism

EVERYTHING that happened in 1958-59 can be laid up to the fact that the cardinals and bishops violated the oaths they took at their episcopal consecration to: “…be obedient to Blessed Peter the Apostle, and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Holy Father, Pope …. and to his successors CANONICALLY ELECTED. I will assist them to retain and to defend the Roman Papacy…”; in their oaths on acceptance of the Cardinalate: “For the praise of Almighty God and the honor of the Apostolic See, receive the red hat… By this you are to understand that you must show yourself fearless, even to the shedding of blood, in making our holy Faith respected, in securing peace for the Christian people and in promoting the welfare of the Roman Church…”  and at the election of the pope (see Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, para. 12a). Add to this the Oath Against Modernism, contained in every book of Canon Law and required to be professed by all the bishops. Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton wrote on this topic as follows, quoting from Pope St. Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism:

“We believe that no bishop is ignorant of the fact that the wily Modernists have not abandoned their plans for disturbing the peace of the Church since they were unmasked by the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis. For they have not ceased to seek out new recruits and to gather them into a secret alliance. Nor have they ceased, along with their new associates, to inject the poison of their own teachings into the veins of the Christian body-politic by turning out anonymous or pseudonymous books and articles. If, after a re-reading of the above-mentioned encyclical Pascendi: “If this audacity, which has caused Us so much grief, be considered very carefully, it will become quite apparent that these men are just as the encyclical describes them: enemies who are all the more to be feared by reason of their very nearness to us. They are men who pervert their ministry in such a way as to bait their hooks with poisoned meat in order to catch the unwary. They carry with them a form of doctrine in which the summary of all errors is contained. While this plague is spreading abroad over that very part of the Lord’s field from which the best fruits might be expected, it is the duty of all Bishops to exert themselves in defense of the Catholic faith and most diligently to see to it that the integrity of the divine deposit suffers no loss.

“What these men were really working for was the transformation of the Catholic Church into an essentially non-doctrinal religious body. They considered that their era would be willing to accept the Church as a kind of humanitarian institution, vaguely religious, tastefully patriotic, and eminently cultural. And they definitely intended to tailor the Church to fit the needs and the tastes of their own era… What they sought was a declaration on the part of the Church’s magisterium to the effect that these old formulas did not, during the first decade of the twentieth century, carry the same meaning for the believing Catholic that they had carried when these formulas had first been drawn up. Or, in other words, they sought to force or to DELUDE the teaching authority of Christ’s Church into coming out with the fatally erroneous proposition that what is accepted by divine faith in this century is objectively something different from what was believed in the Catholic Church on the authority of God revealing in previous times.

“’All these prescriptions, both Our own and those of Our predecessor, are to be kept in view whenever there is a question of choosing directors and teachers for seminaries and for Catholic universities. Anyone who in any way is found to be tainted with Modernism is to be excluded without compunction from these offices, whether of administration or of teaching, and those who already occupy such offices are to be removed…’ (end of Pope St. Pius X quotes).

Monsignor Fenton comments:

“In other words, the obligation of the individual Bishop to exclude Modernists and sympathizers with Modernism from the administrations and from the professorial staffs of seminaries and of Catholic universities definitely did not begin with the first promulgation of this law by St. Pius X. Given the position and the obligation of the Bishop within the true Church of Jesus Christ, and given the nature and the necessity of the Catholic faith, it is always the clear duty of the Bishop to exclude from the dignity of teaching in the Church in any position under his control any individual who will teach or favor the contradiction of the divinely revealed message. Modernism was and is such a contradiction. Thus it was and always will necessarily remain the duty of the Bishop to see to it that any individual who teaches or who supports Modernism in any way be excluded from any co-operation in the apostolic task of teaching the divine message of Jesus Christ within His Church.

“In the Si diligis, Pope Pius XII explains the directives issued by St. Pius X in the Pascendi and in the Sacrorum antistitum. The members of the apostolic hierarchy of jurisdiction, the Pope and the residential Bishops throughout the world are responsible before God Himself for the teaching in the Catholic Church. All the legitimate teaching in the Church is issued by them or under their direction. They have full responsibility and full competence to see to it that the faithful of Christ receive His message in all of its purity and integrity.Naturally if they themselves contradict, or transform, or withhold any portion of the revealed truth, which has been entrusted to them, they will have been recreant to the commission they have received from Our Lord Himself. … The man who takes the Oath calls upon God as His Witness that he rejects these false judgments and firmly accepts the statements of Catholic doctrine opposed to them. The man who taught or in any way aided in the dissemination or the protection of Modernistic teachings in a seminary or in a Catholic university after the issuance of the Sacrorum antistitum would mark himself, not only as a sinner against the Catholic faith, but also as a common perjurer.” (“Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism,” Catholic University of America Press, October 1960. End of Fenton quotes.)

And perjury goes directly to the “…silence, subterfuge or manner of acting” which signals “an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion an insult to God or scandal to their neighbor,” the very definition of heresy found in Can. 1325. But eventually, of course, their heresy became undeniably explicit.

That someone as astute as Msgr. Fenton could not see Modernism’s full impact, even in 1960, testifies to the fact that the campaign to destroy the Church was so well disguised, had gone so deeply underground, that until Roncalli was elected the extent of its true damage was almost imperceptible. Msgr. Fenton would later comment in his diary, while attending the first session of the false Vatican 2 council: “The sense or feeling of this gathering seems to be entirely liberal. I am anxious to get home. I am afraid that there is nothing at all that I can do here. Being in the council is, of course, the great experience of my life. But, at the same time, it has been a frightful disappointment. I NEVER THOUGHT THAT THE EPISCOPATE WAS SO LIBERAL…” (Oct. 31, 1962). Perhaps in a way, Msgr. Fenton had lived too long in an ivory tower, as so often happens with those in academia, and had entirely lost touch with the episcopacy. But it is also likely that the bishops had been careful not to reveal overt signs of their liberalism/ Modernism. After all, that is precisely how double-agents operate.

So if anyone wishes to know why these bishops were already rotten to the core, the answer is stated above. Modernism never left the Church. It simply went more deeply underground. It lurked in the shadows and hid under false pretenses. After Pope Pius XII became ill and began to decline in 1953, it moved in for the kill. As one Catholic theologian explained it: ”Careless, unprecise departures from traditional and enshrined doctrinal expressions have a way of coming back like boomerangs upon the unsuspecting pious, whose enthusiasms are not always as contagious as their errors. Storms do not spring forth from a clear, unclouded sky. Movements spring forth from ideas and even from clever shibboleths and catch phrases” (“The Historical Backgrounds and Theology of Mediator Dei,” by Albert F. Kaiser, C.P.P.S., Pt. 1; American Ecclesiastical Review, December,1953). Men secretly working behind the scenes had everything ready to implement their plans the moment Pope Pius XII breathed his last; and they did. And their years of secret preparation paid off handsomely.

All Catholics must hate heresy

It is appropriate here to remind Catholics that not only must they study their faith in order to learn to recognize heresy and flee the moment they detect it; they must also pray for the gift of piety, that they may hate it. Why this is true is explained below.

“These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they …and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth…” — St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies

“In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.” — St. Augustine of Hippo

“What, then, shall a Catholic do … If some novel contagion attempts to infect, no longer a small part of the Church alone but the whole Church alike? He shall then see to it that he cleave unto antiquity, which is now utterly incapable of being seduced by any craft or novelty.” —  St. Vincent of Lerins’ Commonitorium

“[Heretics] mean one thing in their heart; they promise another with their lips. They speak with piety and conceal impiety. They speak Christ and hide the Antichrist, for they know that they will never succeed with their seduction if they disclose the Antichrist. They present light only to conceal darkness; through light they lead to darkness.” St. Jerome, Homilies on the Psalms 

“The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied… It is a work of charity to shout: “Here is the wolf!” when it enters the flock or anywhere else.” — St. Francis de Sales, The Devout Life

“And therefore it is that everyone who has in him the gift of piety has also an instinctive hatred of heresy. The instinct which detests and recoils from heresy is part of the gift of piety, because piety loves the revealed truth of Jesus Christ. We are thought to be intolerant and bigoted, because we will keep no peace with heresy. But how can any man love Jesus Christ, and not love every jot and tittle of His truth? And if we love His truth, that which contradicts it must be hateful, for it contradicts Himself.” — Henry Cardinal Manning, The Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost, p. 236.

Fr. Frederick Faber on Heresy

“If we hated sin as we ought to hate it, purely, keenly, manfully, we should do more penance, we should inflict more self-punishment, we should sorrow for our sins more abidingly. Then, again, the crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities.

“Yet how light we make of it! We look at it and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor and show no signs of detestation or disgust. Some of us affect its friendship; and some even extenuate its guilt. We do not love God enough to be angry for His glory. We do not love men enough to be charitably truthful for their souls.

“Having lost the touch, the taste, the sight, and all the senses of heavenly-mindedness, we can dwell amidst this odious plague, in imperturbable tranquility, reconciled to its foulness, not without some boastful professions of liberal admiration, perhaps even with a solicitous show of tolerant sympathies.

“Why are we so far below the old saints, and even the modern apostles of these latter times, in the abundance of our conversations? Because we have not the antique sternness? We want the old Church-spirit, the old ecclesiastical genius. Our charity is untruthful, because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is untruthful.

“We lack devotion to truth as truth, as God’s truth. Our zeal for souls is puny, because we have no zeal for God’s honor. We act as if God were complimented by conversions, instead of trembling souls rescued by a stretch of mercy.

“We tell men half the truth, the half that best suits our own pusillanimity and their conceit; and then we wonder that so few are converted, and that of those few so many apostatize. 

“We are so weak as to be surprised that our half-truth has not succeeded so well as God’s whole truth. Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.

“A MAN, WHO MIGHT BE AN APOSTLE, BECOMES A FESTER IN THE CHURCH FOR THE WANT OF THIS RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION.” — Fr. Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, 1860

Conclusion

So it is now clear: Only those lacking true piety make excuses for cardinals and bishops, commissioned as defenders of the faith, who defect from that very faith. As Louis Cardinal Pie, the ultramontane friend of Henry Cardinal Manning, stated in one of his sermons: “The first requirement for holiness is orthodoxy.” Cardinal Pie also remarked: “Everything has to be redone to create a Christian people: this will not happen by a miracle or by a series of miracles especially; it will be through the priestly ministry, or it will not happen at all, and then society will perish… The true dignity, the true liberty, the true emancipation of modern nations lies in their right to be governed in a Christian manner… The time has not come for Jesus Christ to reign? Well, then the time has not come for governments to last” (Cardinal Pie, meeting with Emperor Napoleon III). Cardinal Pie died in 1865.

With this blog we end the discussion of the bishops and when they first fell into heresy. In the next few weeks, for those who are yet interested, we will post articles on the site under the Papacy and the Mass which will track the gradual development of the Novus Ordo Missae over time, explaining how it was intended to democratize the Church and prepare the way for the New World Order. Links to these articles will be provided in future blogs.