1917 Code of Canon Law: “Traditional” clergy are invalid

by Kenny Bertin | Dec 11, 2024

What the popes teach about the Jews

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 9, 2023

© Copyright 2014, revised 2025; T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

We would be remiss if we did not add to the first article on the Jews the stated teachings of the Continual Magisterium on this matter, although it cannot and does not change what was said initially. One critic recently alleged that the quote from Pope Pius IX on the synagogue of Satan was taken out of context in the previous site article. Below it is presented in its entirety. It is obvious that the pope here gave a different meaning to this Scripture phrase than that offered by scripture commentators on Apoc. 2:9 and 3:9. For these passages refer to the Jews as they existed after Christ’s death, not as they exist today.

Unlike the modern writers and teachers of today, the popes did not speak idle words, nor bandy about Scripture passages as so many handy slogans or catchphrases. The pope indicates that this synagogue is drawn from many different sects — schismatical, heretical, Masonic and otherwise. Yet he credits these machinations primarily to the Masons, not the Jews, although certainly at least the more radical factions of the Jews must be counted among the sects mentioned and no one is questioning their contributions to Freemasonry. The Pope is clear, however, that this is a multi-faceted effort involving ALL those opposed to the Church.

As noted in the previous article, racially the Talmudists are not Jews; this Leon de Poncins, joining David Goldstein, points out in his “Judaism and the Vatican.” Nor are they Jews by religion, because the Old Law ceased to exist with the coming of Christ and destruction of the Temple. As Rev. Heidt relates in his commentary and Pope Pius XI taught, Christians are now Israel or “spiritual Semites.” Today’s Jews are, for the most part, Jews culturally and by nationality. There are those among their enemies who still believe they are Jews by race and oppose them on a racial basis or oppose them for whatever remains of their Jewishness racially and its cultural expression. This is why in Mit Brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI condemned those championing only the white race as the true race, since Hitler condemned those “tainted” by Jewish blood.

The “bible” of most Traditionalists today who advocate an open opposition of the Jews is The Plot Against the Church, written by “Maurice Pinay,” (Anacleto Gonzalez Guerrero (Flores) and others, under the direction of Fr. Joacquin Saenz y Arriaga, S.J.). I corresponded with Gonzalez-Guerrero for several years during the 1980s. He was a physician and a long-time Traditionalist, having coursed through the Lefebvre sect and other Traditionalist organizations before becoming sede vacante. He is best known for his article printed in Veritas in the late 1970s “Packet from Mexico,” in defense of Lefebvre. Later Saenz and Gonzalez Guerrero left the SSPX, declaring the papal see to be vacant.

The sedevacantist thesis was officially adopted by Mexican Traditionalists following a private meeting between Saenz-Arriaga and Gonzalez-Guerrero in 1965. For many years prior, as reported under sedevacantism by Wikipedia and in other documents, Saenz had been the spiritual director for the radical right secret society Los TECOS, founded in Mexico in 1934. He also was a member of the Masonic neo-Nazi sect, the Shickshinny, PA Knights of St. John of Jerusalem (OSJ), as related by the translator of his book The New Montinian Church, (see preface). Saenz later founded the Union Catolica Trento  as an off-shoot of Los TECOS with Frs. Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, later to become pseudo-bishops under Abp. Peter Martin Ngo dinh Thuc.

He then helped Fr. Francis Fenton found and organize the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM) in the early 1970s as a sort of sister group to Union Catolica Trento. Fenton was an official spokesperson for the John Birch Society, later discovered to be riddled with Freemasons. Some have reported Birch founder Robert Welch was a 32nd degree Mason. Both in the Los TECOS and OSJ groups, claiming many Traditionalist members, anti-Semitism ran/runs strong. Of course none of these LibTrad priests and bishops presenting as clergy following the death of Pope Pius XII were ever valid in the first place (see our articles on Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) and Trad invalidity on the homepage and current articles  page).  But their Masonic origins alone would prove them invalidly ordained and consecrated, if Pope Pius XII had not already invalidated and incapacitated them in VAS.

Meaning of the term “synagogue of Satan”

In Pinay’s work, the “synagogue of Satan” is referred to repeatedly but misleadingly in reference to the Jews. We say misleadingly, for while the scripture commentators (several commentaries were consulted) interpret this phrase in Apocalypse 2:9 and 3:9 as the more obstinate Jews of Apostolic times, they do not speculate on the specific identity of these false Jews as they might exist in our own time. The Jews of apostolic times were the synagogue of Satan because they rejected Christ and looked for another Messias. Freemasons are false Jews because they embrace the Kabbala, the Jews’ book of magic, yet are not, strictly speaking, of the Jewish faith or race. Some believe pre-Christian gnostics, who were not racial Jews, infiltrated the Jewish religion just as they have the Christian religion; if so, they were not Semites then and cannot be Semites now. They pretended to be Jewish just as they later pretended to be Catholic, gutting the Jewish church prior to Christ’s birth much as they gutted the Church in our day; hence our Lord’s condemnation of the Pharisees. Later in the 740s A.D., the Ashkenazi Jews, largely Russian, would surface who were only converts to the Jewish faith, not RACIAL Jews. This could explain the biblical reference in Apoc. 2:9 to “Those who say they are Jews and are not but are the Synagogue of Satan.”

The papal edicts against the Jews slowed down beginning in the 1600s. Freemasonry in the form of Rosicrucianism surfaced in that century. The popes began issuing their condemnations of Freemasonry in the 1700s; things were becoming much clearer, especially following the American and French Revolutions and the emergence of the Illuminati. By the 1800s they had become clearer still, allowing Pope Pius IX to identify the synagogue of Satan today as mainly Freemasonry, not just the Jews. We see this in the excerpts from his encyclical below.

Etsi multa, (On The Church In Italy, Germany, and Switzerland); Pope Pius IX encyclical, Nov. 21, 1873:

27. “…Some years past, a most severe war was begun against the Church, its institutions, and the rights of this Apostolic See. If We were to pursue these matters, We would find much to say; since, however, because of the gravity of the situation, they cannot be touched on in passing, We will treat them more thoroughly at another time and place.
28. “Some of you may perchance wonder that the war against the Catholic Church extends so widely. Indeed each of you knows well the nature, zeal, and intention of sects, whether called Masonic or some other name. When he compares them with the nature, purpose, and amplitude of the conflict waged nearly everywhere against the Church, he cannot doubt but that the present calamity must be attributed to their deceits and machinations for the most part. For from these the synagogue of Satan is formed which draws up its forces, advances its standards, and joins battle against the Church of Christ.”

If the synagogue of Satan already was comprised of just the Jews, as Pinay and others hold, how could it be in the process of formation under the flags of Masonic sects as described above by Pope Pius IX? Catholics are bound to hold the teachings of the popes as binding in conscience, not those of laymen not even writing with approval. That Pinay’s work has been widely read and disseminated by Traditionalists and others, and is now available on CD is common knowledge. Many quote this book and its sources exclusively as proof that Catholics must join them in outspoken opposition to the current “Jewish menace.” But if they really believe the Jews are solely responsible for destroying the Church, why are they on the muscle now when the deed already has been accomplished? They can’t very well lock the barn door after the horse has escaped, not with any hope of recapturing the horse, anyway. And if they really want to drive their point home, why rely almost solely on a book never approved by the Church, written by one or more persons in all probability prejudiced in their views, not only concerning Jewry, but even concerning the papacy?

Crypto-Jews in Mexico

Since Vatican 2, a good number of Mexicanos, previously professing to be Catholic, have confessed that their families, for long generations, were Catholic in name only and secretly were practicing Jews. This may have been the result of Marranos who immigrated to Mexico from Spain (Sephardim Jews). Such articles have appeared in national publications, with one Novus Ordo “priest” in New Mexico even admitting his dual allegiance to both religions. Recently this author received a detailed commentary on Jewish and Masonic infiltration of the Mexican Church, naming names and pointing fingers, even at present-day Traditionalist clergy. Having been victims of this infiltration for some time, and obviously having been aware of this situation for many decades, the authors of The Plot Against the Church could not help but be embittered over the fact, whereas most American Catholics were not even aware of it until recently.

This is especially true since Mexico’s Masonic (Pinay aka Flores would say Jewish) government was the cause of the Cristero revolt, and his (Gonzales-Flores’) father was one of the martyrs of that revolt. Victimized again when the betrayal of the Church became a done deal in the 1960s, those still willing to fight laid their cards on the table. But along with that play came an ingrained distrust of the papacy, not only present but past. Such ill will was nurtured among Traditionalists in general, but especially by Mexicanos, who feel that Pope Pius XI more or less threw the Cristeros under the bus. Traces of this resentment can easily be detected in Pinay’s work, especially in view of the fact that he quotes the provincial and ecumenical councils primarily, not the popes, as the sources of his research. This may be an indication that like so many Traditionalists, Flores entertained Gallicanist tendencies. He blames Jewish influence for the exclusion of conciliar condemnations of the Jews from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, but in this he is mistaken.

Any decrees of ecumenical councils, particularly those canons stigmatized with an anathema still bind, since the pope must approve all such decrees. Why was this not pointed out? Pinay’s main objection is that the bishops and the priests not willing to energetically combat and condemn the Jews were ordered excommunicated by the Third Lateran Council and the Code removed this excommunication. He gives the paragraphs as XXVI and XXVII, but says they condemn heresies and heretics, when strictly speaking, Jews are regarded as apostates, (see pgs. 580-582, Feb. 1967 edition of his work). Quotes below from this very council disprove both the fact that the Code removes such excommunications as well as the fact that the council ordered the faithful to actively combat the Jews. It was not the Jews that the Third Lateran Council ordered both clergy and faithful to battle at all costs but the Cathars; “faithful Christians” are encouraged to “take up arms against them.” It is true that the previous paragraph, 26 addresses abuses by the Jews, but there is no indication that the Jews are included among those mentioned in the succeeding paragraph.

Third Lateran Council — 1179 A.D.
“26. Jews and Saracens are not to be allowed to have Christian servants in their houses, either under pretense of nourishing their children or for service or any other reason. Let those be excommunicated who presume to live with them. We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians, and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be subject to Christians and to be supported by them on grounds of humanity alone. If any by the inspiration of God are converted to the Christian faith, they are in no way to be excluded from their possessions, since the condition of converts ought to be better than before their conversion. If this is not done, we enjoin on the princes and rulers of these places, under penalty of excommunication, the duty to restore fully to these converts the share of their inheritance and goods.

“27. As St. Leo says, though the discipline of the church should be satisfied with the judgment of the priest and should not cause the shedding of blood, yet it is helped by the laws of Catholic princes so that people often seek a salutary remedy when they fear that a corporal punishment will overtake them. For this reason, since in Gascony and the regions of Albi and Toulouse and in other places the loathsome heresy of those whom some call the Cathars, others the Patarenes, others the Publicani, and others by different names, has grown so strong that they no longer practise their wickedness in secret, as others do, but proclaim their error publicly and draw the simple and weak to join them, we declare that they and their defenders and those who receive them are under anathema, and we forbid under pain of anathema that anyone should keep or support them in their houses or lands or should trade with them…With regard to the Brabanters, Aragonese, Navarrese, Basques, Coterelli and Triaverdini {17}…they should be subject in every way to the same sentence and penalty as the above-mentioned heretics…On these {18} and on all the faithful we enjoin, for the remission of sins, that they oppose this scourge with all their might and by arms protect the Christian people against them. …”

“We command that those who refuse to obey the exhortation of the bishops in this matter should not be allowed to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord. Meanwhile we receive under the protection of the Church, as we do those who visit the Lord’s Sepulchre, those who fired by their faith have taken upon themselves the task of driving out these heretics, and we decree that they should remain undisturbed from all disquiet both in their property and persons. If any of you presumes to molest them, he shall incur the sentence of excommunication from the bishop of the place, and let the sentence be observed by all until what has been taken away has been restored and suitable satisfaction has been made for the loss inflicted. Bishops and priests who do not resist such wrongs are to be punished by loss of their office until they gain the pardon of the Apostolic See.”

So judging by the last sentence, it seems these bishops and priests lose their office for resisting the molestation of those who drive out the heretics or for failing to drive these heretics out themselves, for the excommunication appears to be levied on those only who fail to prosecute those molesting defenders of the faith.

Penalties for heresy still in effect

From 1215 on, by order of Innocent III, the Jews were made to wear distinctive badges and dress and if not yet in ghettoes, they usually were confined to living in certain areas in the various countries. But even before this order they were more easily identified by their very culture and religious practice and were closely monitored by the local clergy and Rome. The Cathars and others, however, were not so contained and became very open in fomenting their errors. Since this council was held in 1179 and deals with anathema against heretics it was renewed as a penalty by Pope Paul IV in his 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, later confirmed by Pope St. Pius V in his Intermultiplices. So seeing that this council document, only quoted piecemeal by Pinay, calls upon us to actively oppose THESE above-named sects, are we then to assume that we should take up arms against the Freemasons, Novus Ordo followers and Traditionalists? For all these are heretics and apostates just as dangerous as the Cathars! How strange that those using Pinay’s work as gospel truth single out only the Jews from this Council document and ignore, analogously at least, these other dangerous heretics now persecuting the Church!

Pope Paul IV renewed the penalties for excommunication against all schismatics, heretics and apostates, also making cooperation with them in any way matter for ipso facto excommunication. But he did not renew the call to oppose these wretched people by taking up arms, at least in the situation he addressed in his bull. In fact he advised the faithful fleeing from heresy to resort instead to the secular arm to have those hierarchy removed who were never truly hierarchy, but had long ago deposed themselves. Anyone with even a smidgen of common sense knows that what was possible in medieval times and the day of the Catholic state is scarcely possible today. In his work, The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (1875), Henry Cardinal Manning goes into great detail to demonstrate that the Vatican Council definition has no power whatsoever to command or depose non-Catholic governments. The Church cannot order those outside Her spiritual pale to obey Her rules and laws. And Catholic subjects cannot use the excuse that they must obey only the pope to escape obedience to civil law, which the Church always has held as binding.

“Until a Christian world existed, there was no apta materia for the supreme judicial power of the Church in temporal things,” Manning wrote in his above-mentioned work. “St. Paul laid down as a rule of law that he had nothing to do in judging those that were without the unity of the Church. It is only when nations and kingdoms become socially subject to the supreme doctrinal and judicial authority of the Church that the conditions of its exercise are verified.” And none could be duly subject to a non-existent judicial authority today. So without Catholic secular officials to appeal to in such a crusade against heresy and apostasy — without a true pope and hierarchy to command us and support us — how are we expected to embark on such a foolhardy mission, that of openly engaging the Jews? Civil law in this country forbids persecution of other religions as well as persecution of those of another race and so did Pope Pius XII and his immediate predecessors. If the popes do not command us to take up arms against the Jews or heretics existing today, and clearly they do not, then what in heaven’s name are those who are preaching such a war, at least one comprised of words and civil actions, thinking?

These people are taking entirely out of context a teaching of an ecumenical council, applied to certain heretical sects, but not the Jews, by applying it in the manner they see fit. Why? The only possible conclusion one can reach is that they really do believe that they must eradicate the Jews both as a race and as a religious entity. But what about Freemasonry, which Pope Pius IX says today is the real problem? And what about the Muslims? For from a racial standpoint, many agree, they have more Jewish blood than the Jews themselves. Even though Pinay claims that Canon Law relieves Catholics of obedience to previous laws in this matter, this is not the case as shown above. For those previous laws dealing with faith and morals are just as binding today as they ever were, as we just went to great lengths to explain in the articles posted on Cum ex. Many of the laws the popes set down concerning the Jews still bind us, for disciplinary documents are binding in many cases just as those on faith and morals are binding. But they did not set down any laws commanding us to openly oppose the Jews, or to persecute them. In fact they forbade us to do this. Below is a summary of exactly what the Continual Magisterium has taught over the centuries concerning the Jews.

The Popes on the Jews

Pope Innocent III: “The Jews… against whom the voice of the blood of Christ cries out … are not to be killed [but] they must always be dispersed as wanderers upon the face of the earth… They are admitted to our familiarity only through our mercy; but they are to us dangerous as the insect in the apple, as the serpent in the breast.”

At the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, Jews were forbidden to injure Christians by exercising usury, they were ordered to wear a distinctive badge and dress, Christians were not allowed to work for them as nurses, tutors or servants and Christians were warned not to cohabit with Jews or Jewesses. It also was ordered that while Christians could testify against Jews, Jews could not testify against Christians.

Pope Innocent IV ordered the French King to burn copies of the Talmud owing to the blasphemies contained therein concerning our Lord and His Blessed Mother.

Pope Eugenius IV basically ordered the Jews to be avoided as vitandus. Christians are not to use Jewish lawyers or legal experts in matrimonial cases or use Jewish doctors as obstetricians. Christians cannot bequeath goods to Jews in their wills.

Pope Paul IV forbade them to live in common with the Christians.

Pope Clement VIII: “All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor… Their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.”

Pope Benedict XIV: “Furthermore, by means of their particular practice of commerce, they amass a great store of money and then by an exorbitant rate of interest utterly destroy the wealth and inheritance of Christians,” (A Quo Primum).

Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII: Beginning in the 1880s and extending into the 20th century, there are reports that both the papally sanctioned publications L’ Osservatore Romano and Civilta Catolica, also La Croix took the hard line against the Jews.

Pope St. Pius X: “We cannot prevent Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we can never sanction it. Jews have not recognized Our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. They had ample time to acknowledge Christ’s divinity without pressure, but they didn’t. Should the Jews manage to set foot on the once promised old-new land, the missionaries of the Church would stand prepared to baptize them. Jerusalem cannot be placed in Jewish hands,” (Wikipedia).

Pope Pius XI (Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, March 25, 1928): “The Catholic Church habitually prays for the Jewish people, who were bearers of the Divine revelation up to the time of Christ; this, despite, indeed, on account of their spiritual blindness. Actuated by this love, the Apostolic See has protected this people against unjust oppression and, just as every kind of envy and jealousy among the nations must be disproved of, so in an especial manner must be that hatred which is generally termed anti-Semitism,” (Acta Apostolica Sedis).

Rev. Denis Fahey tells Catholics how they must comport themselves where the Jews are concerned and walk that fine line between anti-Semitism and the championing of the rights of Christ the King. In his The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, Fahey writes that while addressing Belgian peasants over the radio, Pope Pius XI read a prayer from the Canon of the Mass one day, remarking: “Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the sublime ideas and truths expressed in this text,” (prayer following the Consecration, beginning “And this deign…”) “We Christians can take no part in such a movement… no, it is impossible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism. We acknowledge that everyone has the right to defend himself, in other words, to take the necessary precautions for his protection against everything that threatens his legitimate interests. But anti- Semitism is inadmissible. Spiritually we are Semites.” According to a cardinal who witnessed the address, the Pope wept as he read the words from the Canon. This was in September 1938, after the Fascist government of Italy issued the anti-Semitic laws stripping Jews of their rights and civil liberties, including rights to inheritance, land ownership, marriage with Aryans and service in teaching posts.

Fahey comments on the passage above: “The Church condemns race hatred in general and the hatred of the Redeemer’s race in particular…Thus we find in this pronouncement of Pope Pius XI the two currents, which, down through the centuries, run through the official declarations of the Holy See concerning the Jews. On the one hand, the Sovereign Pontiffs strive to protect the Jews from physical violence and to secure respect for their family life and worship, as the life and worship of human persons. On the other hand, they aim unceasingly at protecting Christians from the contamination of Jewish Naturalism and try to prevent Jews from gaining control over Christians.” He then mentions the duty of Christians, as explained above, to observe those things concerning the Jews which the popes have forbidden. Generally, yes; Catholics are bound to oppose Naturalism.

Fr. Denis Fahey wrote at a time when a war against this great evil could possibly have been launched. But it wasn’t launched, and Catholics did not realize the true extent of the dangers. Instead many of them willingly embraced Jewish Naturalism in accepting the Novus Ordo church. As might be expected, this action culminated in a reaction — many Traditionalists overcompensated and developed an actual racial hatred for the Jews; some of them even sympathized with neo-Nazi groups and individuals, and still do today. They blamed the Jews for destroying the Church, but that blame rested far more with negligent Catholics than it ever did with the Jews or even the Freemasons.

These are the most notable of the decrees and decisions issued by the popes throughout history, or the private comments they made. In all, some 26 popes issued decrees naming the Jews, but some of these decrees were identical, others confirmed the bulls of previous popes, and still others dealt mainly with neophytes and catechumens. So of all the popes, only about 10 percent spoke out against them formally, assuming that all the main documents have been discovered that mention them. The ecumenical councils echo their teachings. It is clear that the popes treated the Jews sternly and were reluctant to give them much leeway because of the dangers they posed to the faith. But they also protected them and would not allow them to be persecuted. Pope Pius XI tells us in his last (unpublished) encyclical that the “unyielding energy” and alternating “mildness” of the popes should not be interpreted as any lack of disagreement on the subject of the Jews on the part of the Roman Pontiffs, for it mirrors only changes and variations in circumstances and the behavior of the Jews towards the Church at different times.

As noted in the first article on this subject posted Holy Thursday, Popes Pius XI and XII softened their attitude towards the Jews only to prevent/ameliorate their persecution. Pope Pius XII especially gave pristine example concerning treatment even of our greatest enemies when they are being hunted down and murdered by others. There is no use pretending that this persecution did not rise solely from their race and Hitler’s Aryan ideas concerning racial purity, which he borrowed from Theosophy and the mystery religions; it is well-known that he was involved in secret societies. And that such racial prejudice continued even long after World War II and Hitler’s defeat and lives on in a very real way today cannot be denied. That it would ever rear its ugly head among Catholics is unthinkable, but it has; and not just for religious reasons. Otherwise, there would be no attempt by Catholics to justify the excesses of warring openly against the Jews by citing a council decree that does not exist, while ignoring their responsibility to speak out against heretics once Catholic. We are to aid our enemies when they are persecuted or in danger of being persecuted, and for those who have hinted that I am “soft” on the Jews I say only that I follow the instructions of Christ to “do good to those who hate you” and the example set by the popes.

In his A Quo Primum, Pope Benedict XIV also quotes a doctor of the Church, St. Bernard, as defending the Jews against persecutors much as the last two popes did, so here I feel I am in good company. The persecutor at that time was one Radulphus, a French monk, whom Pope Benedict says was “carried away by excessive zeal…inciting the Christians to wipe them out completely. In consequence of his intemperate zeal, a great number of Jews were slaughtered.” One Peter, the abbot of Cluny also wrote against Radulphus to Louis King of France “exhorting the king to not allow the Jews to be slaughtered,” while at the same time asking the king to take severe measures against them for their abuse of Christians through usury.

St. Bernard says of the Jews: “[They] must not be persecuted; they must not be slaughtered or hunted like wild animals…Does not the Church triumph every day over the Jews in nobler fashion by bringing home to them their errors or converting them, than by slaughtering them?…” He then urges Christians to instead pray for them, that, “the veil be lifted from their hearts,” (363rd letter; letter to Henry, Archbishop of Mayence). In the present climate, those urging action against the Jews beyond those age-old sanctions already assigned by the popes run the very real risk of stirring some borderline or unstable individuals into a frenzy that would precipitate just such a massacre as Pope Benedict attributes to Radulphus.

As we have witnessed to our great sorrow, especially recently, there is no shortage of such individuals in the world today, a world gone mad as the prophet Isaias predicted for the latter days. Traditionalists Timothy McVey and John Paul 2’s would-be assassin are cases in point. Yes, the Jews killed Christ; and yes, His blood is upon their children. But do those passing as Catholics today really think that they can successfully oppose the Jews in these times, when the Jews are convinced the Church has conceded and admitted to discriminating against them? Do these people really believe they can possibly make any headway when even the popes could not successfully resolve the problem? If they do, this is sheer egoism.

Obeying the popes today

In the 15th century, the New World was established and with it came the end of the ghettoes, for American Jews at least. Jews have freely intermingled with Christians on this continent for centuries. The popes have never forbidden it in this country and for these circumstances and all true Catholics know they are not free to marry Jews or to keep close company with them. Those who love Christ and are loyal to Him and to His vicars will do the best they can to avoid financial dealings with them, not engage them as doctors, and not use them as attorneys in any matter that might even indirectly involve the faith. Nor will a Catholic knowingly work for a Jew or employ one as a nurse or nanny. They are simply obliged in conscience to choose differently in certain matters, much as Jews and Muslims would choose to avoid buying products from Christian pig farmers. But that being said, Catholics are not bound to shun them and should display the usual signs of courtesy they offer everyone else.

For the Code of Canon Law did change the status of vitandus, so that since 1917 only those may be considered vitandus who are named personally by the pope as such. Always the intent of the Catholic Church was not to ever discriminate against the Jews as a race or even a religion but to prevent contamination of Her children by those who feigned Catholicism, even working their way into the ranks of the clergy and religious. Throughout the ages, the Jews showed themselves erstwhile enemies of the Faith by blaspheming the names of Jesus and Mary and doing what they could in other ways to subvert the clergy and faithful. If the Church took measures against them, these were defensive measures to safeguard the faith of believers, and it was never without provocation and just cause on the part of the Jews. In their own publications and in secular history volumes, Jews have not hesitated to boast that they have lured Catholics from their faith and infiltrated the clergy. But this is still no excuse for disobeying the Church and demanding an eye for an eye.

Conclusion

During the speech given by Pope St. Pius X at the Beatification of Joan of Arc, the Pope told the faithful: “In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men… All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics,” (ibid, Fahey). What are we weak in? It is clear from the consequences following Vatican 2 that Catholics did not know their faith. Pope Benedict XIV and the Cure of Ars both told Catholics in their day that this was the cause of many people losing their souls. Since the death of Pius XII, there have been no instructors in the faith. Catholics have been the victims of constant lies, half-truths, misinformation and out-and-out fraud. Some have become so confused about their faith they have abandoned it as impracticable. Traditionalist “clerics” and other self-appointed leaders ceaselessly vie with each other to gift them with their brand of the truth; or engage them in a crusade against their personal pet peeve. Yet they need listen to only one teacher, and that is Christ Himself, who speaks through His vicars. Access to their documents has never been so easy, with the advent of the Internet, and yet these documents are seldom read. Christ speaks to us, He remains with us, and yet no one reads, that they might understand.

Those pushing Catholics to realize the dangers posed by certain Jewish interests controlling politics, money and business in this nation are not wrong in what they are saying, but they assume they are talking to people who can understand what they are conveying from a truly Catholic perspective. This, however, is NOT the case. And as pointed out above, even if educated Catholics were the rule and not the exception, how could they possibly be successful in trying to change a system so totally decimated by naturalism as the American system is today without the active help and protection of the Church and Her hierarchy? Catholics must first be confident that they understand the present situation in the Church from a biblical and papal perspective, then they can leave the Traditional movement and begin learning their faith.

Because the faith was never taught and learned properly in the first place, they must start at the beginning, to learn what was missed or misunderstood and why. This takes time, patience, dedication and discipline. The material must be learned in the order provided by the catechisms the person has chosen to study and then amplified prudently with other material. Once the individual arrives at what they feel is a level of certitude about all they have studied, then perhaps more can be added to their knowledge base, but not too much at one time or too quickly. Basically the drive to combat the ascendancy of Naturalism would come under the heading of advanced studies. It is a project best confined to special Catholic Action and those suited to it, but only if they present it in the above perspective provided by the popes and do not falsely teach that any course of action should involve anything suggesting discrimination against or persecution of the Jews.

This sort of Catholic Action, however, is not something that the popes would wish us to become involved in today; given the general task of bringing most lay people up to speed, it is too risky and time-intensive, although the basic principles must be understood by Catholics. In stating that the laity must take over the duties of the hierarchy when they are absent, Pope Pius XII indicated the laity could engage in the lay apostolate, but also commented that they had to observe the Church’s known wishes in these matters. It was clearly the intent of the last two popes that specialized Catholic Action, in particular, should be overseen by the hierarchy, and we know that is not possible today.

Apostate cardinals, archbishops and bishops are the ones to blame for the demise of the Church, not primarily the Jews. They who professed to love Christ, to defend the Church with their blood (symbolized by the red color of the cardinals’ robes); those who were charged with feeding and guarding His lambs are far more at fault, as Pope Paul IV states in Cum ex…, than the enemies from without. Christ entrusted His Church to the bishops, first among them St. Peter, and even they fled from the Jews following His Passion and death on the Cross. But at least, with the exception of Judas, they did not abandon their faith. We know from lists gathered following Pope Pius XII’s death that many Cardinals and bishops were Freemasons, and they proved their affiliation by remaining in the Novus Ordo church. They also made concessions to the Jews. But persecuting the Jews will not restore the Church; instead, since the popes have forbidden it, it will only cause us to lose our souls. This Pope Pius XI also pointed out, noting that continued persecution only exacerbates the situation, intensifying the hatred and resentment of the group persecuted against their oppressors.

Repenting for our sins, engaging in the lay apostolate — in however small a way that may be — and working diligently for each other’s salvation alone will save us. As long as true Catholics continue to follow false lay and clerical leaders who feed them stones for bread, lies for truth, there is no hope of saving our souls. When these finally realize that they are bound to accept and follow only the true teachings of the Popes and Councils, and willingly give up their pet theories to embrace this obedience, then perhaps God will see fit to have mercy on mankind and shorten these dreadful times. Pope Pius XI ended his last encyclical by informing Catholics that it is “high time” they made reparation to the Sacred Heart for the sins committed against other peoples, nations and races, to avoid a terrible and just punishment from our Lord. Those who insist on assigning to the Church an attitude concerning the Jews contrary to what this pope and others have taught would do well to take this statement to heart.

Material heresy and membership in the Church, Pt. II: Proofs

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 22, 2015

© Copyright 2015, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Liberalism — the primary heresy today

The objection is being raised once again that the Church could not possibly condemn Traditionalists and others for what they believe and practice. This despite clear teachings of both the Popes and councils, as well as Canon Law, that their sects are considered heretical by the Church and they are anathematized for any participation in these sects. As always, whenever this happens, some so-called cleric has accused stay-at-homes in general or one of this group’s adherents of damnable violations against charity in “judging” their neighbor as excluded from salvation. The objections voiced by these accusers could be been lifted directly from the pages of Rev. Felix Sarda y Salvany’s work “Liberalism Is a Sin.” Rev. Sarda defines this rejection of magisterial teaching as follows: “Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and freely from the unrestricted exercise of the individual’s reason or caprice upon the subject matter of revelation.”

It is my personal opinion that especially those living in this country, having imbibed the foul waters of the Americanist heresy for over a century, never understood the obligation of a firm and irrevocable assent to Catholic teaching. Their freedoms as Americans to speak and believe as they pleased came first, and no pope had the right to tell them what to do. Traditionalist groups such as the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement even promoted Americanism among the early remnant by preaching John Birch Society doctrine from their pulpits. This successfully eroded all notion of the Church as the primary teaching authority. With the fever pitch of dislike and distrust for the antipopes on the rise, the idea of infallibility and unquestioning obedience to papal teaching became intolerable to many Catholics. True popes were openly criticized and their teachings examined through the eyes of historical revisionists, men intent on destroying the very idea of papal supremacy. Many even questioned the definition of infallibility, and this is where the Old Catholics regained their lost territory. For as articles posted to this site repeatedly point out, Traditional Catholics are nothing more than a revival of the Old Catholic sect, who were Liberals of the first water.

Rev. Sarda condemns Liberalism as a grave sin and cites Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, to prove the Church has condemned it as a heresy. Rev. R. J. Meyer, S. J., writing 30 years later, agrees that liberalism, “under every form is heresy,” but emphasizes that “it is worse than simple heresy; for by rejecting the principle of authority, it strikes at the very foundation of faith, and consequently it comprehends under it all possible heresies. It is, therefore, radical and universal heresy,” (Science of the Saints).  While Meyer’s treatment of this subject is brief, but complete, Sarda devotes an entire volume to it, delving into every aspect of this destructive error. He carefully explains that it is capable, chameleon-like, of adapting itself to any given situation, time or place, as does Meyer. “Liberalism is the most malignant of all heresies,” Sarda wrote. And Sarda’s work we can trust implicitly, for it had the distinction of being examined by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, which decided that Fr. Sarda, “merits great praise for his exposition and defense of the sound doctrine therein set forth with solidity, order and lucidity, without offense to anyone,” (introduction to his work). And those who claim Rev. Sarda’s work itself is rigoristic and offensive to potential converts should especially note this last highlighted phrase, which gives the lie, from the lips of authority, to their pretensions.

Sarda explains, for those who point out that loving God and neighbor is the highest good of all: “The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the neighbor of neighbors…the love due to a man ought always to be subordinated to that due…to Our Lord. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him…Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.” And so Rev. Sarda explains that the great saints and Church Fathers did not hesitate to use imprecations, execrations, irony and colorful language to crush the heretics they opposed. Sarda holds that if our neighbor is displeased, outraged, humiliated or even if some material injury comes to him, if it is truly in the service of God — done to protect others from dangers against faith or for the neighbor’s own good — then it is not an option but an obligation. “When we correct the wicked by punishing or restraining him, nonetheless do we love him. This is charity and perfect charity.” Even the mild and gentle St. Francis de Sales agrees with Sarda. “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,” (Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III, Chapter 29).

Heresy and charity

And to silence the tiresome objections of neo-Liberals who point out that the Popes have bidden Catholic writers to refrain from personal invective, harsh words and aggressive tactics, Sarda makes an important distinction. Such counsels, he observes, are given to Catholic writers and journalists discussing free questions amongst themselves, not those defending truth from the attacks of heretics and those in bad faith. He scarcely envisioned the situation we face today. Most of the questions commonly posed on Catholic discussion forums or websites are not free, but concern matters of faith and morals already decided by the Church. “These [warnings of the popes] do not in any sense apply to Catholics waging a mortal combat with the declared enemies of the faith,” Sarda forcefully asserts. So Liberalism, summarized here, is the primary error we will deal with in the subject matter presented below. Those who favor the idea that “ONLY God” can truly know who should be regarded as a heretic or schismatic forget that God left us on earth infallible guides to make such determinations on His behalf, and that the very denial that this is indeed the case is the essence of Liberalism itself, as Rev. Sarda defines this heresy above: “Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and divinely constituted authority.”

Another complaint that should be addressed here is that everyone is viciously running around calling this person and that person a heretic or schismatic, implying that no one can really know then who is right and who is wrong so should not concern themselves with this nonsense. While this sounds unctuously charitable, it minimizes the seriousness of heresy and schism and places it on a par with needless nitpicking. Those leaders of Traditionalists groups MUST be called out as heretics and schismatics because they continue to seduce their followers, who believe themselves to be Catholic. For the most part, in writing the articles appearing on this site, heresies are condemned and those who hold them, but not individual persons. Traditionalists and Novus Ordo followers in general are condemned if they persist in their errors, but always with the understanding they can repent and be forgiven. Proofs that these misdeeds are truly heresy and schism is provided at length, and from the most reliable pre-1959 sources. What it appears those making this complaint are perturbed about is that they do not have the time nor the patience, or maybe the ability, to discern who is speaking the truth and who is not. But if one book — The Sources of Catholic Dogma — could be taken and gone though an item at a time, as I have tried to do in what is written here, how hard would it be for those accepting these statements as binding to determine that there is one thing, a truth and another thing, a statement contradicting that truth?

Could it possibly be that the real thing lacking in this inability or unwillingness to separate heresy or schism from truth is faith itself? Aren’t the people posing these complaints and making these statements really calling the truths of faith into question by pretending that it is all a big mishmash no one can sort out so is not worth their time? God would never allow His Church to propose truths all must believe in such a manner that they could not be understood. If the understanding is lacking the fault is in the individual, not God or His Church. The truths found in Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic dogma take some time to go through and must be understood as they are explained in the text, but the words and the meaning are clear. No one is pretending that all Catholics today must know all these truths and routinely condemn the heresies of those writing on the Internet; this would be absurd and would preclude any performance of daily duties in many cases. But they should be able to look them up when there is a question in the course of their daily lives, or ask others more familiar with the faith to help them resolve these issues. By so doing they are not judging their neighbor; they are helping him learn his faith and they are adding to their own knowledge of the faith. They are performing an act of charity, a spiritual work of mercy, whether it is well received or not. But they definitely are not acting uncharitably.

There are certain things to take into consideration when identifying heresy and schism, circumstances that could, if and when the Church is restored, help those guilty of material heresy better explain their case.  In this work we will consider as baptized non-Catholics all Traditionalists and Novus Ordo adherents. Those belonging to either one of these sects have never received the entirety of Catholic truth, as noted above, and therefore should scarcely be judged as having been raised in a truly Catholic environment or educated as Catholics. They have, however, received enough Catholic truth that they should be able to weed out the errors now choking out the wheat, but to what extent must be determined by the hierarchy. We also will ignore special penalties for those who are clerics, treating all as lay people. For although a rare few may remain who are validly ordained, we speak to the greater majority who never were and never could be validly ordained yet are sacrilegiously functioning as priests (and bishops) today.

Rev. Eric Mackenzie wrote a dissertation to obtain a doctorate in Canon Law entitled “The Delict of Heresy,” (Catholic University of America, 1932). In his work, he explains that those laboring under an irregularity which constitutes infamy of law (inflicted ipso facto for joining/participating in a non-Catholic sect under Can. 2314§1, no. 3) can never validly be promoted to Holy Orders. With few if any exceptions, ALL Traditionalists either participated in the Novus Ordo or some Traditionalist sect outside the jurisdiction of a valid Roman Pontiff prior to their “ordination.” They therefore are invalidly ordained for this reason as well as many others. For more information on this topic, go to /free-content/reference-links/7-recent-articles/binding-power-of-papacy-voids-traditionalist-acts/ ).

Heresy is incurred automatically, by word or deed

According to St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, one need not worry, in dealing with heretics, when those espousing Liberal charity accuse their neighbors of failing to give a warning, rash judging or being judgmental. St. Alphonsus writes, under the heading The Duty of Accusing or Denouncing Another: “Here it is asked whether fraternal correction must precede accusation. Several distinctions must be made…(1) If the crime is public, since for this reason infamy or notoriety is already present, (e.g., before a number of people in the street), then no correction ought to precede. Thus St. Thomas, Sanchez, Scotus, Paludanus and Salmant with the common opinion. In such a case, to quote St. Thomas, ‘The remedy must not be applied only to him who has sinned that he may improve, but also to those who notice the crime has come.’ And for this reason, a public crime ought to be punished. The truth is you do not sin either against charity or against justice if you accuse without warning (1) When the crime gives injury to the common weal as in…heresy…For with these crimes, scarcely, if ever, is it to be hoped that correction will be fruitful, and delay can be exceedingly harmful,”(Theologia Moralis; secondary source quote).

And this is reflected not only as the “opinion’ of St. Alphonsus, but as the constant teaching of the Church, (see the quotes provided below). Notice also that St. Alphonsus does not limit such correction to the clergy or hierarchy; he is addressing the faithful in general here. And notice also that the two warnings discussed in Part I would not be strictly necessary. Yet in applying the law of excommunication, the Church advises one act with discretion, and so equity is used here even though it is not necessarily required.

“Christians must strive not to attribute the sin of heresy to their neighbor as long as another explanation remains possible. But charity does not require mental gymnastics in order to excuse what is manifest, [evident, obvious, not obscure]. However, the thesis here defended does not depend on identifying pertinacity as defined by the moralists, but as defined by canonists: conscious rejection of dogma on the part of a baptized person. This prescinds from the moral order, forming a judgment which need concern only the external forum, yet which has no connection with the error of those who ‘presume’ pertinacity where some other reasonable explanation of the external data remains available, such as simple ignorance or inadvertence. Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man.” (Dom Charles Augustine: A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. 8, pg. 335.)

Rev. R. J. Meyer provides a helpful quote from St. Ignatius on the preferred approach to be used in dealing with those who sincerely wish to correct their errors. “Every good Christian ought to be more inclined to put a favorable construction on another’s opinion or proposition than to condemn it. If he can in no way defend it, let him ask the speaker how he understands it, and in case the latter think amiss, correct him kindly. If even this does not suffice, let him try all suitable means to make him think aright and save him from error.” It should be noted, however, that Meyer offers this quote as a method to be used only in dealing with those in good faith. Rev. Sarda is of a much sterner outlook, preferring immediate and direct confrontation of Liberals of any shade with the whole truth, a tactic he describes as giving the enemy “no quarter.” So somewhere between the good faith coupled with the readiness to repent and the recalcitrance of those who refuse to repent, even knowing that Liberalism is heresy, there lies a battleground on which serious decisions must be made. Thankfully the Church has made most of those decisions for us, if we will only implement them.

St. Paul commands Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment,” (Titus 3:10,11). And that is Divine law. It should be noted here that the very law used as the old law for the canons on heresy, Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which we are bound to consult should any questions arise concerning the law (Can. 6 §4), states that where public heresy is concerned, no warning or declaratory sentence is required for the censure to take effect. “The persons themselves so promoted and elevated [to the office of primate, bishop cardinal or pope] shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power, (without any exception as regards those who might have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or committed or encouraged any or all of these.)” This is the master law now governing the Church, since all have expressed doubts concerning the laws on heresy.

Pope Paul IV gives the faithful a pass concerning mistaking an antipope as a true pope by saying they do not incur any censure if they leave him. But as indicated in Can 2200, this does not mean they can be excused for accepting his heresies, even if only materially. Canon 2200 was written for all the faithful, and with Cum ex… as a footnote, it is clear that even if the one accused or asked to retract insists they are not guilty, they are still outside the Church until such time as the proper authority can absolve them, (although by three years of study, repentance, reparation and careful adherence to Church law and teaching, it can be assumed they are in good faith. Revs. Woywod-Smith state under Can. 672§1, also Can. 2295 that the religious who has given signs of complete amendment for three years is to be readmitted to his order.) Canon 2200 tells us that in doubt we must presume those speaking or writing heresy are guilty, but only of the external violation of the law. WE do not say this and WE do not judge them; the law judges them. Can. 2200 tells us that given the external violation of the law, the evil will is to be presumed until proven otherwise by the offender and so decided by the hierarchy. All of this is discussed in Part I.

When is heresy no longer material, or ignorance invincible?

Bp. Hay in his work “The Sincere Christian” sets down the requirements for the existence of invincible ignorance and instructs non-Catholics on how they are to proceed in order to find the truth. His work must be qualified with the later teachings of the popes, who presume that such individuals are not baptized Catholics. “For one to be in invincible ignorance it is required that he be sincerely resolved toembrace the truth wherever he may find it and whatever it may cost him.  For if he benot fully resolved to follow the will of God, wherever it shall appear to him, in allthings necessary to salvation; if on the contrary, he be so disposed that he wouldrather neglect his duty and hazard his soul than correct an ill custom, ordisoblige his friends, or expose himself to some temporal loss ordisadvantage…such a disposition must be highly displeasing to God and an ignorance arising from it can never excuse him before his Creator…He must sincerely use his best endeavors to know his duty, and particularly that herecommend that matter earnestly to Almighty God, and pray for light and direction. 

“For whatever desire he may pretend of knowing the truth, if he does not use the propermeans for finding it, it is manifest that his ignorance is not invincible but voluntary;for ignorance is only invincible when one has a sincere desire to know the truth with afull resolution to embrace it, but either has no possible means of knowing it or, afterusing his best endeavors to know it, yet cannot find it.” (Nor does a formal doubtexcuse, for all are expected to resolve such doubts.) “A person brought up in a falsefaith, which the Scripture calls sects of perdition, doctrines of devils, perverse things,lies and hypocrisy; and who has heard of the true Church of Christ, which condemnsall these sects, and sees the divisions and dissensions which they constantly haveamong themselves, has always before his eyes the most cogent reasons to doubt of theway he is in.” It should be noted here, however, that Bishop Hay wrote before Pope Pius IX’s Singulari Quadam, discussed in Part I was issued, so therefore could not temper his teachings with that document. See also the Catholic Encyclopedia article on invincible ignorance at https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm.

“Now heresy, material heresy not excepted, is a want of this faith, on account of which the supernatural effects of baptism are suspended. God cannot unite himself with a soul that lives in heresy, even though it be only material heresy. As the supernatural sanctifying effects in this case are suspended, so they are for the same reason, destroyed in him who was baptized in his infancy and became a heretic, though only a material heretic, when he came to the use of reason. This person, to be again reconciled with God, must renounce heresy, believe the Catholic Church, and receive worthily the sacrament of penance; or if this cannot be had, he must have perfect contrition or charity with the desire (at least implicit) to receive the sacrament of penance,” (Fr. Michael Muller, “The Catholic Dogma”).

Revs. Sabetti and Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology: “A material heretic…errs through invincible ignorance… He must be considered as only a material heretic 1) Who is prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church as soon as he knows it; 2) who, being born among heretics, knows nothing of the true faith and has never doubted his own religion; 3) who although doubting, has endeavored to learn the truth so far as he was able, but has not yet reached it. He must be reputed a formal heretic: 1) Who doubts, but from obstinacy does not wish to inquire further; 2) who again, because of obstinacy, willfully turns his intellect away from the motives of truth so that he may adhere to his own sect; 3) who although knowing the truth, still contradicts the Church… ‘If anyone after receiving Baptism and retaining the name Christian obstinately denies or calls into question any of the truths that must be believed with Divine and Catholic faith, he is a heretic,” (Can. 1325).

“… Practically there is no difficulty about censure for the sin of abortion or any other offense which the Code of Canon Law punishes with a censure, because ignorance excuses from censures (See Canon 2229, paragraph 1), and it is reasonable to assume that ordinarily the convert was ignorant of the regulations of the Church. One may object and ask why then must we insist on absolving from censure because of heresy when the convert knows nothing more about that censure than he knows of other censures. There is a difference between a public profession of faith contrary to the teaching of the Church and sins committed in one’s private life. The one is a public affair; the other is a matter of conscience only. In public violations of the rules of the Church the public authority cannot but judge that the violation was done with full knowledge, and the burden of proof that it was done in good faith rests with the one who appears to be guilty. In many instances he may not be able to prove good faith, and he will be considered guilty,” (Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Volume 34, Number 7, page 743-4, April 1934).

It is important to make the distinction here that as soon as one who is a member of the Church learns the truth, he must accept it. Those intended in (2) of Sabetti-Barrett’s comments on material heresy are mentioned as being born among heretics, but while this describes Traditionalists, it cannot be said at all that they “know nothing of the true faith.” It is precisely because they, like the Anglicans, are closer to the true faith that their errors are more culpable, since they do know and accept some truths of faith. (In Pascendi, Pope St. Pius X also notes that because of their closeness to the truth they are more dangerous.) Note from the above that a material heretic may be one who “has endeavored to learn the truth so far as he was able, but has not yet reached it.”  If they are trying to understand the faith and are progressing, we may have hope they can be saved by baptism of desire if not validly baptized, but they still remain outside the Church, though connected to it in a way that does not exclude their salvation. If validly baptized, they are considered formal heretics under Can. 1325 if they obstinately doubt or deny the truths of faith after two or three warnings, even if only from the faithful. Why? Because this is the teaching of Christ set out in Holy Scripture for all to observe, not just the hierarchy. The following article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on this topic gives all the necessary particulars, (see https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/f.htm).

So are we saying all heretics are damned?

“Now it may well happen that adverse external circumstances may prevent a man’s character as an incorporated member of the Church being recognized, and the absence of such recognition may involve the juridical denial of all that it involves.  In the eyes of men he may appear to have broken the bond uniting him to the Church, and yet, because of the supernatural faith, and the persistent loving life of grace, whereby he seeks in all things to do the will of God, his union with the Church really continues: spiritually he remains a member of the Church, he belongs to the body of the Church.  He may, all the time, through error, be giving his external adhesion to a religious society which cannot be part of the Church.  But at heart, by internal and implicit allegiance, he may be a faithful member of the Church,”(written by the Right Rev. Msgr. Can. Edward Myers, M.A. Taken from The Teaching of the Catholic Church, by Can. George D. Smith, D.D., Ph.D., Vol. II; 1959).

Rev. MacKenzie explains that this can happen if one really does not know that something denied or doubted is actually a revealed truth one is bound to believe in. Then they are guilty only of human error. Or if a person is ignorant of the law, and the fact that some words or deeds would exclude him from membership in the Church, then this is not necessarily heresy if such a person was raised in a non-Catholic household or received very little religious instruction. Basically, what is required for heresy to BE more than simple heresy is that it be sufficiently manifested to be recognized as such (that is, public) and that it furthermore, in the case of Traditionalists, is accompanied by public cooperation in a non-Catholic sect. MacKenzie defines heresy as “error which is consciously and deliberately conceived by excluding the evidence which would otherwise lead to a true judgment.”

Traditionalists have done this for years concerning revealed truths such as the absolute necessity of jurisdiction for absolution (Trent; Canon Law), the necessity of the papacy to grant such jurisdiction (The Vatican Council, Mystici Corporis), Church teaching concerning grace and other revealed truths. If the evidence confirming these truths is readily available and they ignore it, and it has been for quite some time, and if they are validly baptized they may easily be formal heretics. We are not going to judge them as such unless they are truly incorrigible, for material heresy is sufficient to deprive them of Church membership. But we are not going to give them a pass as baptized non-Catholics not all that familiar with the faith, either, since certainly some of them are far more knowledgeable concerning the faith than most validly baptized Protestants and have far greater access to the truth now, thanks to the Internet and other media, than ever was available to those in the past.

We are judging no one as damned; anyone can repent of their sins and be saved before death. But unfortunately it has been this author’s experience that many of them are simply not in good faith. Msgr. Myers did not consider the vast majority of such individuals in good faith many decades ago. He notes in his treatise on the Mystical Body: “The continual stressing of the ‘good faith’ of those who are unfortunately out of visible communion with us, does seem to undermine the traditional horror of heresy and of heretics, replacing it by a horror of ‘heresiarchs’; it seems to a premium on muddle-headedness, and to reserve the stigma of heresy for the clear-headed ones.  After all, the malice of heresy lies in the rending of the Body of Christ: what our Lord meant to be one, heretics, even material heretics, divide.  They may be in good faith — and that good faith will at some moment lead them to see what they had not seen before — but the fact remains that their error or ignorance, however inculpable, retards the edification of the Body of Christ.  Even the claims of Charity should not blind us to the importance of growth in the knowledge of objective truth, as contrasted with the limitations of error, however well-meaning it may be.” And that knowledge of objective truth includes the ability to identify heresy as opposed to truth, for how else could we possibly be able to define the parameters of our faith?

Catholics would do well, after all, to remember that there are such things as sins against the Holy Ghost, and that one of these is resisting the known truth. For these sins, the Church teaches, there is no forgiveness if one is to die unrepentant. According to St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa, “Augustine says…(De Serm. Dom. in Monte xxii), that ‘to resist fraternal goodness with the brands of envy is to sin against the Holy Ghost,’ and in his book De unico Baptismo (De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 35) he says that ‘a man who spurns the truth, is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the Church is taught,’ and therefore, seemingly, sins against the Holy Ghost, (Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 14, Art. 1).” Perhaps then it might be easier to understand why it is that remaining Catholics today should be so insistent on denouncing errors opposed to Church teaching by correcting their brethren, and so diligent in avoiding the writings and persons of those who continue to spread these errors after being corrected.

Dangers to faith from heretics

Because we daily mingle with heretics, we have become desensitized to the dangers they pose and many believe themselves immune to those dangers because they know their faith so well. But this is a deadly misconception. None of us today know our faith half as well as a Catholic 100 or 200 years ago, and what many of us do know is tainted by the fact that we cannot relate as Catholics with others in the modern world. A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth and it takes only one bad apple to spoil the barrel. These are realities we tend to forget. It doesn’t matter if we correspond with them through email or read their missives, the poison can enter in a number of ways.

Indiscriminate reading is only one of these ways, Rev. John Kearney tells us in his Our Greatest Treasure, (Benziger Bros., 1942). He explains how such reading is “prejudicial to the faith. Their tendency is to weaken it imperceptibly…in very small doses.” The same is true with indiscriminate discussions with non-Catholics, who often only wish to argue or entrap. “It is one thing to be able to know the teaching of the Church, another to be able to defend it,” he writes. Belonging to non-Catholic societies is another danger. Limiting our discussions and association solely to those truly interested in the faith or fellow Catholics is our surest bet of safeguarding the faith. Wrangling with Traditionalists or the conservative Novus Ordo crowd is a sure way to foster doubt and even rejection of the faith.

Rev. Kearney especially warns of “the danger that comes from the good people we see outside the Church. By this we are tempted to underrate the gift of faith. Against this danger…we should endeavor to fill our imagination with the magnificence of the sanctity of the Church as seen in the never-ceasing heroic supernatural sanctity of her saints…All that seems good is not profitable to salvation; it is not acceptable to God. Cardinal Newman, who lived until his midlife with good people outside the Church writes of them: ‘In spite of so much good that is in them, in spite of their sense of duty, their tenderness of conscience on many points, their benevolence, their uprightness, their generosity, they are under the dominion (I must say it) of a proud fiend; they have this stout spirit within them, they determine to be their own masters in the matter of thought, about which they know so little; they consider their own reason better than anyone else’s; they will not admit that anyone comes from God who contradicts their own view of truth.’”

It is this trap today that is the biggest danger to the faith. Many are so entranced by the perceived goodness of those close to them, or who have grown close to them over time with their permission, that they allow this to color their perception of the faith. They are so enamored of them they even begin to compromise the teachings of the Church to make excuses to allow their relationships with them to continue. When cautioned about the danger of such relationships they often lash out at their Catholic friends. There are many other dangers to the faith posed by heretics and schismatics, but these are the dangers most common today.

Exercising fraternal correction

The references to superiors noted in the encyclopedia article on fraternal correction are nearly all without application today. However, since those Catholics left on earth are ordered by Pope Pius XII to act in the stead of the hierarchy, and the “correction” involves public heresy, hence public scandal, we may proceed as described in Part I. Even Delaney in his Catholic Encyclopedia article admits one must correct another in material heresy giving scandal to a third party or injuring him/herself. This applies to all Traditionalists and other non-Catholics.  And it is important to note here the entire quote from St. Matthew, Ch. 18: “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican,” (vs. 15-17).  In our case, we are acting as the only available visible members of the Church. We are not judging anyone of sin in correcting them, or judging them incapable of obtaining salvation; we would be issuing precepts. We are only observing that according to the law (Can. 2200), they have placed themselves outside the Church. As we have repeatedly explained on this site, the word “Church” refers primarily to the pope, and all that he teaches. In his absence, Catholics acting as the hierarchy can only point to his teachings and to those theologians who (faithfully) explain them. If the offender will not “hear the Church” in those teachings, then we must avoid him or her, while praying for their conversion.

Rev. William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, in their The Catholic Dictionary (1884), offer us a surprising definition of the word “hierarchy.” After giving the usual definition offered by the Church, that the hierarchy consists of bishops, priests, and the pope, they state: “In a wide and loose sense, when the whole Catholic Church is considered as existing among heretics, schismatics and the heathen, even the laity may be considered as forming a portion of the hierarchy. With this agrees the expression of St. Peter, calling the general body of Christians in the country to which he is sending his epistles, ‘a kingly priesthood’ and a ‘holy nation.’” This statement is confirmed by Pope Pius XII in his address on “The Mission of the Catholic Woman,” (Sept. 29, 1957, The Pope Speaks). In this address he tells lay Catholics that, in the absence of the hierarchy, such as occurred behind the Iron Curtain and in other countries where the hierarchy was exiled, the laity “must, with God’s grace, assume all [the hierarchy’s] responsibilities.” We cannot act as pope, but we are bound to abide by his teachings and see that others calling themselves Catholic do the same. This was the mission of the hierarchy. And given Pope Pius XII’s directive, we sin by remaining silent out of false humility, or because Traditionalists condemn us for speaking out when we are not clergy.

As one theologian has noted: “[It is a grave moral fault] if, in meetings of the council, you keep quiet out of ignorance or malice and thus withhold the truth from the other advisers. Likewise, during a court hearing, if you see someone make a fraudulent accusation or be unjustly condemned, you will sin… Likewise, when you perceive that a word to edify, instruct, exhort or correct someone is necessary, you commit a sin if you withhold that wholesome advice,” (Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum quadruplex sive speculum maius, Graz, Akademische Druck-Verlagsanstalt, 1964, col. 1228). Comments by the editor of Beauvais’ work: “This command is directed primarily to the hierarchs and clerks who keep quiet. Nevertheless, their defection obliges all laymen to speak up, since Vincent de Beauvais, cited below, uses the adverb especially when referring to the Prelates, which means that those who are not vested with priestly dignity have an analogous duty.” In administering fraternal correction, the quotes below should prove that we do not step outside our bounds, but only obey the dictates cited above. We also are forbidden to remain silent under Can. 1325, which requires us to profess our faith, whenever “silence, subterfuge or manner of acting” would indicate approval of error.

Popes, Councils and doctors speak out on heresy

First Council of Constantinople, Canon 7, 381

“Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics … these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematize every heresy which is not of the same mind as the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of God.”

(Heresy is not forgiven or atoned for unless this anathematization takes place; see Canons 2242 and 2313.)

Council of Ephesus, 431

“All heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Ghost with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”

Second Council of Constantinople, 553

“The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy…What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned…It is clear to all believers that when a problem about the faith comes up, it is not only the heretical person who is condemned but also the person who is in a position to correct the heresy of others and fails to do so.”

(This should clarify for everyone that the excommunication of a heretic is automatic and there is no need at all for a declaration; also that failure to identify and correct such a person for committing public heresy results in the condemnation of the one bound to correct as well. This Pope Paul IV teaches in Cum ex… and Pope Pius IX teaches in Etsi multa.)

Pope Pelagius I, died 561

“So that they may burn without end, the Lord by a very just judgment will give over to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire the wicked who either did not know the way of the Lord or, knowing it, left it.”

Lateran Council, Pope Saint Martin I, Canon 18, 649

“If anyone according to the holy Fathers, harmoniously with us and likewise with the Faith, does not with mind and lips reject and anathematize all the most abominable heretics together with their impious writings even to one least portion, whom the Holy Catholic and apostolic Church of God … rejects and anathematizes … let such a person be condemned.” 

(Deviation from the faith in even a minor way is also punishable with automatic excommunication, as Can. 2200 demonstrates in determining that the material heretic is outside the Church.)

Fourth Council of Constantinople, Canon 4, 870

“We condemn, with a just decree, him who boldly, cunningly and unlawfully, like a dangerous wolf, leapt into the sheepfold of Christ; we are speaking about Photius, who has filled the whole world with a thousand upheavals and disturbances. We declare that he never was nor is now a bishop, nor must those, who were consecrated or given advancement by him to any grade of the priesthood, remain in that state.”

(In 858 Emperor Michael III deported Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople, who had been patriarch since 847. Photius, a layman, was elected to replace him, and contrary to canonical rules was hurriedly consecrated a bishop within one week. One of the consecrating bishops was Gregory Asbestos of Syracuse, whom Patriarch Ignatius had condemned and deposed. Later Pope Nicholas I deposed him and restored Ignatius as Patriarch at Constantinople. Please also see Charitas and Etsi multa below)

Pope Alexander III, Lateran Council III, 1179, Canon 27

“We likewise decree… that they should be subject in every way to the same sentence and penalty as the above-mentioned heretics and that they should not be received into the communion of the Church, unless they abjure their pernicious society and heresy.”

(They must abjure their heresy publicly, recant and repent, also do penance for their sins, in order to be received back into the Church.)

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, died 1274

 “All those who deny one article of faith, regardless of their reason, are by that very fact excommunicated.”

(Thus the meaning ipso facto — “by the fact itself.”)

Council of Florence, Session 11, 4 February 1442

“The Holy Roman Church … condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

(No qualification here of whether the sin of heresy is actually committed as in material heresy: if the views are held, one is outside the Church.)

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, 1513

“And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, cardinal, 1542-1621

De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2, Chap. 40:

“There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms…

“All the ancient Fathers…teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’…

“The Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity …Saint Nicholas I (epist. Ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, Saint Thomas also teaches (II-II, Q39, A3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null,” (https://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html. (This link is placed merely for purposes of attribution; no endorsement of this site is hereby intended.)

De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2, Chap. 30, et al:

“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”

(Here St. Robert is repeating the principles of Can. 2200, which Cum ex… had already placed in operation even in his time. We then must consider material heretics as heretics simpliciter by their external works, because we are not able to consult the Roman Pontiff. However, if we attempt correction by presenting papal documents and condemnations from general councils and they refuse to accept the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs controverting their heresy, we can only turn them over to the Church.

Pope St. Pius V, 1566-1572: Errors of Michael du Bay

“That is not true obedience of the law which is done without charity,” (DZ 1016; condemned as heretical, erroneous, suspect, rash, scandalous, offensive to pious ears).

Pope Alexander VII, 1655-1667: Various Errors on Moral Matters

“Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce [him] if you cannot prove it,” (DZ 1105; condemned as prohibited and at least as scandalous. See DZ 1820 below. We must denounce the heresy and leave ‘Peter’ to the Church authorities, or in our present situation, to God.)

Pope Pius VI, Charitas, April 13, 1791

“They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments under any pretext of necessity whatsoever… For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force…”

Pope Pius VI, Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, 1794

“Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect — false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church.”

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854

“Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church …”

(No need for a declaratory sentence in order to assume heresy is committed.)

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, 1869-70, Sess. 3

“But since it is not sufficient to shun heretical iniquity unless those errors also are shunned which come more or less close to it, we remind all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which base opinions of this sort, which are not enumerated explicitly here, have been proscribed and prohibited by this Holy See,” (DZ 1820).

Vatican Council of 1869-70, Sess. 3, Chapter 3 On Faith

Further, by Divine and Catholic Faith all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in Her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as Divinely revealed,” (DZ 1792).

Vatican Council of 1869-70, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, Article 14

“Likewise all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematized by the Church, I too condemn, reject and anathematize.”

(So here we are required also to “accept unhesitatingly and profess” not only the teachings of the ecumenical councils but also the SACRED CANONS, or canon law, which are primarily comprised of teachings from papal documents according to Rev. Amleto Cicognani, the Catholic Encyclopedia, et al. This should forever silence those who hold of little value or effect the laws of the 1917 Code.)

Pope Pius IX, Nov. 21, 1873, encyclical Etsi Multa

“24. But these men, having progressed more boldly in the ways of wickedness and destruction, as happens to heretical sects from God’s just judgment, have wished to create a hierarchy also for themselves…They have chosen and set up a pseudo-bishop, a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith, Joseph Humbert Reinkens. So that nothing be lacking in their impudence, for his consecration they have had refuge to those very Jansenists of Utrecht, whom they themselves, before they separated from the Church, considered as heretics and schismatics, as do all other Catholics…

“Therefore following the custom and example of Our Predecessors and of holy legislation, by the power granted to Us from heaven, We declare the election of the said Joseph Humbert Reinkens, performed against the sanctions of the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void… We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted.”

Pius IX’s Graves Ac Diurturnae (On The Church In Switzerland)March 23, 1875

“The serious and long-lasting plots and efforts which the new heretics who call themselves Old Catholics use daily in your country to deceive the faithful and to tear them away from their ancient faith, urge Us, as a duty of Our supreme apostolate, to zealously devote Our paternal care and attention to protecting the spiritual welfare of our children… Because it has always been especially characteristic of heretics and schismatics to use lies and deception, these sons of darkness are to be reckoned among those the prophet spoke of: ‘Woe to you deserting children who have faith in the shadow of Egypt. You have rejected the word and have hoped in trickery and rebellion.’

“They love to deceive the unwary and the innocent and to draw them into error by deception and hypocrisy. They repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine declaring that they are the heirs of the ancient faith and the only true Catholics. But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme magisterium…

“You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. They should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy.”

(To bring this into perspective, substitute Traditional Catholics for Old Catholics in the first paragraph and we have a very frighteningly accurate description of the situation today. See Pope Leo below in Satis Cognitum.)

Henry Cardinal Manning

“And therefore it is that every one 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 title of His truth? And if we love His truth, that which contradicts it must be hateful, for it contradicts Himself. And therefore, though we are to be tolerant towards the persons of heretics, we are intolerant of the heresies themselves.

“There is no degree of aversion with which we may not lawfully look upon conscious contradiction of any divine truth. There is this distinction between the heretic and the heresy. The heresy we may deal with at once, with all peremptory severity; the heretic we leave to the judgment of God and of the Church. WE are not the judges of his guilt, because we cannot read the heart,” (“The Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost,” 19th century. It must be remembered here that Card. Manning wrote before the inclusion of Can. 2200 in the 1917 Code.)

Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, Jan. 10, 1890

“Let everyone remember that he can and ought to sow the Catholic Faith by the authority of his example, and to teach it by continual profession. In the duties, then, that bind us to God and to His Church, this especially should be numbered, that the industry of everyone should be exercised, insofar as possible, in propagating Christian truth and in repelling error.”

(But how can error be reproved if it is not identified, and how can it be identified unless someone writes or speaks it? If “ONLY God” knows who are truly heretics, what possible defense can we have against them? How do we defend the truth if we cannot pinpoint and condemn error?)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 29 June 1896, para. 9

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium…No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic.”

(So while Traditionalists may pass under a different name, they are not immune from being labeled heretics simply because they surfaced after the usurpation of the Holy See began. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Kulturkampf, only reiterating the teachings of Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, is quite clear in identifying the Old Catholics with the Liberals: “Filled with ideas of ecclesiastical Liberalism and rejecting the Christian spirit of submission to the teachings of the Church, nearly 1,400 Germans issued, in September, 1870, a declaration in which they repudiated the dogma of Infallibility ‘as an innovation contrary to the traditional faith of the Church.’ They were encouraged by large numbers of scholars, politicians, and statesmen, and were acclaimed by the Liberal press of the whole world.”

Pope St. Pius X, Oath Against Modernism, 1908

“I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the orthodox fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us; and so I reject that heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had…”

Fideism and the errors of Lamenais

It is bad enough that today we must fight Liberalism on nearly every front and constantly guard against its insidious inroads. For it is this very Liberalism, spoken of above in reference to the Old Catholics that has thoroughly penetrated modern Traditionalism with its proud spirit. As Rev Sarda points out: “Liberal Catholicism… takes its root in a false conception of the nature of the act of faith. The Liberal Catholic assumes as the formal motive for the act of faith, not the infallible authority of God revealing supernatural truth but his own reason deigning to accept as true what appears rational to him according to the appreciation and measure of his own individual judgment. He subjects God’s authority to the scrutiny of his reason, and not his reason to God’s authority,” (Liberalism is a Sin). This was especially true of older Traditionalists who founded and grounded the movement in the 1970s, but today is not so true of their children and grandchildren. As so often happens with secular movements, the pendulum now has swung to the opposite side, error wise, and instead of substituting reason for God’s authority, second and third generation Traditionalists are quite happy to check their brains at the chapel door and allow their so-called clergy or lay leaders to do the thinking for them. This also results in heresy; the heresy of fideism.

Fideism, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, is “a philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority…Authority, which according to fideism is the rule of certitude, has its ultimate foundation in divine revelation, reserved and transmitted in all ages through society and manifested by tradition, common sense or some other agent of a social character…de Bonald… laid great stress on tradition in society as the means of the transmission of revelation and the criterion of certitude…Lamennais assigns as a rule of certitude the general reason (la raison générale) or common consent of the race…Fideism owes its origin to distrust in human reason, and the logical sequence of such an attitude is scepticism…Fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines…In his Letter of 11 December, 1862, to the Archbishop of Munich, Pius IX, while condemning Frohschammer’s naturalism, affirms the ability of human reason to reach certitude concerning the fundamental truths of the moral and religious order (cf. Denzinger, 1666-1676).”

A one-sentence heading in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia defines the original Lamenais variety of Traditionalism as: “A philosophical system which makes tradition the supreme criterion and rule of certitude.” This heresy, related to Fideism, pretends that Catholics are imbued with a sense of divine revelation that will guide them in discerning truths of faith; that they need not study these truths to arrive at certitude concerning what is and is not revealed. Isn’t this the very attitude exhibited by those who claim that they need not determine if any given statement contains heresy for the Liberalism-inspired fear of offending one’s neighbor? We are not even attempting to determine a neighbor’s sin by identifying and obeying Church law regarding heresy, which we are bound to do. Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches in Mystici Corporis that “the cooperation of all [the Mystical Body’s] members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all…” So unless we observe these laws we are not members of the Church.

Speaking primarily of marriage cases in 1942, Pope Pius XII told judges that even when the law does not require it, it may be wise for the judge to “not be satisfied with a low degree of certitude, especially in cases of great importance.” As long as that “grade of certitude is attained which corresponds to the requirements of law and the importance of the case,” this is sufficient, (Canon Law Digest Vol. III, Can. 1869; AAS 34-338; emph. mine) This document is a statement issuing from the ordinary magisterium, and Humani Generis states all binding documents can be found in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, (AAS). The importance of obtaining certitude in our case is the highest possible, because it concerns matters of faith. Therefore, one must not rely on a low degree of certitude, but formal certitude.

“Formal certitude is a firm assent (or dissent) based on motives which are in themselves infallible and are known to be infallible…Now only an infallible motive excludes the very possibility of error…Therefore only an infallible motive is a sufficient guarantee for the (logical) truth of a judgment…A guide is not called infallible because there is no special reason for doubting his knowledge or because it is highly improbable he will lead us astray…We call a motive or reason for judging infallible only when it cannot lead us into error,” (Cotter). It is the only basis on which we may judge the existence of objective truth or error. To deny that we must arrive at certitude in such matters is to pretend that we may ignore scholastic philosophy, the only philosophic method the Church endorses. Denial that certitude is necessary also is a heresy condemned by Pope Clement VI. “That through natural appearances, as it were, no certainty can be had regarding things,” (DZ 553). And “That in any demonstrated matter whatever no one knows clearly that in truth it surpasses all others in nobility,” (DZ 562; both propositions condemned as false, dangerous, presumptuous, erroneous and heretical).  As Rev. Amleto Cicognani observed: “The common good demands certitude concerning the validity of acts,” (Canon Law, 1935). God is not the only one who may know what is heresy; He and his ministers are the only ones who can judge it.

In other words, we can and we must obtain formal certitude to protect the common good and enforce those laws that were written for this purpose, laws that Pope Pius IX and the Vatican Council, also Pope Pius XII, teach we are bound to accept and profess. Therefore we must never fail to refute those heresies directly opposed to an infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff. To protect the faithful, the Church allows us to judge heresy; what She does not allow is for us to presume God’s mercy in the face of a possible danger to the faith; that never. This would be to spit in God’s face for a possible offense committed directly against Him, when to condemn the offense, even if unintended, is what we must do. As Rev. Sarda says so eloquently above: “The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the neighbor of neighbors…the love due to a man ought always to be subordinated to that due…to Our Lord. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him…Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.”

And so we end where we began. To avoid the man-centeredness of the Novus Ordo and Traditionalism, God and His rights must come first. Heresy and schism are offenses against God, ourselves, and our neighbor that we ignore at our own peril.