Other types of ignorance and more on religious debates

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 15, 2024 | New Blog

+Passion Week+

Last week we spoke of invincible ignorance, but there is much more to the ignorance equation that we need to understand before we are done with this topic. What follows below is taken from Revs. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan’s work: Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities (1958).  It explains not only invincible ignorance but vincible and affected ignorance, which must be better understood to know and appreciate the faith.

“27.With reference to the responsibility of the person who is ignorant, there are two kinds of ignorance.

(a) Ignorance is invincible when it cannot be removed, even by the use of all the care that ordinarily prudent and conscientious persons would use in the circumstances. Thus, a person who has no suspicions of his ignorance, or who has tried in vain to acquire instruction about his duties, is invincibly ignorant.

(b) Ignorance is vincible when it can be removed by the exercise of ordinary care. There are various degrees of this species of ignorance: first, it is merely vincible, when some diligence has been exercised, but not enough; secondly, it is crass or supine, when hardly any diligence has been used; thirdly, it is affected, when a person deliberately aims to continue in ignorance.

“29. Effects of Invincible and Vincible Ignorance

(a) Invincible ignorance, even of what pertains to the natural law, makes an act involuntary, since nothing is willed except what is understood. Hence, no matter how wrong an act is in itself, the agent is not guilty of formal sin (see 249), if he is invincibly ignorant of the malice involved.

(b) Vincible ignorance does not make an act involuntary, since the ignorance itself is voluntary; hence, it does not excuse from sin. It does not even make an act less voluntary and less sinful, if the ignorance is affected in order that one may have an excuse; for such a state of mind shows that the person would act the same way, even though he had knowledge.

“31. Vincible ignorance makes an act less voluntary and less sinful:

(a) when the ignorance is not affected, for the voluntariness is measured by the knowledge, and knowledge here is lacking;

(b) when the ignorance, though affected, was fostered only through fear that knowledge might compel a stricter way of life; for such a state of mind seems to show that one would not act the same way if one had knowledge.

“490. Ignorance of ecclesiastical law or of a penalty attached to the law has the following effects determined in the law:

(a) No kind of ignorance excuses from irritating or inhabilitating laws, unless the contrary is expressly provided for in the law itself (Canon 16, Sec. 1). Thus a person who contracts marriage, while ignorant that he and the other person are first cousins, is invalidly married. (b) Affected ignorance of ecclesiastical law or of the penalty alone does not excuse from any penalties latae sententiae (or ipso facto; Canon 2229, Sec.1).

(c) If the law contains the following words: praesumpserit, ausus fuerit, scienter, studiose, temerarie, consulto egerit, or others similar to them which require full knowledge and deliberation, any diminution of imputability on the part of either the intellect or the will exempts the delinquent from penalties latae sententiae (Canon 2229, Sec.2). (d) If the law does not contain such words as crass or supine, ignorance of the law or even of only the penalty does not exempt from any penalty latae sententiae; ignorance that is not crass or supine exempts from medicinal penalties, but not from vindicative penalties latae sententiae (Canon 2229, Sec.3, 1).

“833. Various penalties and inhabilities are incurred through heresy, for example, excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Pope (Canon 2314), loss of the power of suffrage (Canon 167, Sec.1, n.4), irregularity, (Canon 984, n. 5; 985)… etc.

“834. (d) If the heresy was public and notorious (i.e., if the party joined officially an heretical sect), absolution is regularly to be given in both the external and internal forums. The case should be submitted first to the Ordinary, unless there is urgency (Cfr. Canon 2254), or the confessor has special powers from Rome. The Ordinary can absolve in the external forum. Afterwards, the heretic can be absolved by any confessor in the forum of conscience (see Canon 2314, Sec.2.)

“905. Ignorance (as explained in 28 and 249) is a cause of sin — of material sin, if the ignorance is antecedent, of formal sin, if the ignorance is consequent. But ignorance is also a sin itself, in the sense now to be explained.

(a) Ignorance may be considered in itself (i.e., precisely as it is the absence of knowledge), and in this sense it is not called a sin, since under this aspect it is not opposed to moral virtue, but to knowledge, the perfection of the intellect.

(b) Ignorance may be considered in relation to the will (i.e., precisely as it is a voluntary defect), and in this sense it is a sin, since under this aspect it is opposed to the moral virtue of studiosity (i.e., the part of temperance which moderates the desire of learning and keeps the golden mean between curiosity and negligence). This sin of ignorance pertains to neglect, and is twofold; it is called affected ignorance, if the will is strongly desirous of the lack of due knowledge, and is called careless ignorance, if the will is remiss in desiring due knowledge. Affected ignorance is a sin of commission, careless ignorance a sin of omission.

(c) Ignorance may be considered in relation to obligatory acts (i.e., precisely as it makes one voluntarily incapable of fulfilling one’s duties), and in this sense it partakes of various kinds of sinfulness, inasmuch as he who is voluntarily ignorant of his duty is responsible for the mistakes he will make. Thus, he who is sinfully ignorant in matters of faith, will fail against the precepts of that virtue; he who does not know what his state of life as judge, lawyer, physician, etc., requires, will fail against justice; he who does not know what charity demands of him, will sin against charity.

“906. The malice of the sin of ignorance in matters of faith is as follows: (a) Vincible ignorance of the truths one is obliged to know, whether the obligation be of means or of precept (see 360, 786 sqq.), is a grave sin, for faith in these truths is commanded under pain of losing salvation (Mark, xvi. 15, 16). (b) The sin committed is but one sin, regardless of length of time, and is incurred at the time one omits due diligence in acquiring knowledge, as is the case with other sins of omission. Hence, he who remains in culpable ignorance of Christian doctrine for a year commits one sin, but the length of time is an aggravating circumstance” (end of McHugh and Callan quotes).

Comments on the above

Point One: “Ignorance is vincible when it can be removed by the exercise of ordinary care.” So what constitutes ordinary care? In these times only extraordinary effort will suffice for “ordinary care,” since we have no access to the hierarchy and cannot receive the Sacraments. Some are unable to understand the technical points necessary to know the truth and feel that they will only be able to remain Catholic by staying where they are. God will have mercy on them if they are truly unable to make the necessary effort owing to their circumstances. But those with a college education and hence the ability to study and understand, and even those without one who possess this ability are bound to make that effort in order to save their souls and defend the Church! Have we forgotten the early martyrs?

Point 2: “Ignorance: first, it is merely vincible, when some diligence has been exercised, but not enough; secondly, it is crass or supine, when hardly any diligence has been used; thirdly, it is affected, when a person deliberately aims to continue in ignorance.” How many have simply dismissed all need to study and understand in order to tale for granted the propaganda spread by LibTrad clergy, who they assume are valid and have no desire to consider them otherwise?

Point 3: “Nothing is willed except what is understood.” Have those reading the articles on this site and otherwise studying their faith prayed to the Holy Ghost for the gift of understanding?  Have they confirmed for themselves that what has been written is actually the truth? Have they read and followed the rules listed for study by St. Thomas Aquinas and others?

Point 4: “NO KIND OF IGNORANCE excuses from irritating or inhabilitating laws…” McHugh and Callan explain these laws as follows:

“451. An irritant or inhabilitating law is one that expressly or equivalently declares that certain defects make an act void or voidable, or a person incapable. SUCH LAWS ARE JUST, EVEN WHEN MADE BY HUMAN AUTHORITY, SINCE IT IS THE COMMON GOOD THAT MAKES THEM NECESSARY, AND THE NATURAL LAW ITSELF REQUIRES THAT THE COMMON GOOD BE PROMOTED.”

And yet we read EVEN FROM THOSE AMONG THE WELL-EDUCATED, WHO CLAIM TO BE CATHOLICS KEEPING THE FAITH AT HOME, that such laws are not infallible, not binding, since they are only ”human laws.” They question their binding nature and just application to the present situation and thereby impugn the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiffs as well as the necessity of the common good and its promotion under the natural law. Among such laws can be counted Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pius II’s Execrabilis, Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, Pope Pius VI’s Charitas, Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolica curae and Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica, revised and updated by Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which now prevails. Be warned by the above then and recant your errors, for “NO KIND OF IGNORANCE excuses from irritating or inhabilitating laws…”

Point 5: “Affected ignorance of ecclesiastical law or of the penalty alone does not excuse from any penalties latae sententiae (ipso facto). Various penalties and inhabilities are incurred through heresy, for example, excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Pope (Canon 2314)… If the heresy was public and notorious (i.e., if the party joined officially a heretical sect), absolution is regularly to be given in both the external and internal forums. The case should be submitted first to the Ordinary, unless there is urgency (Cfr. Canon 2254), or the confessor has special powers from Rome. The Ordinary can absolve in the external forum. Afterwards, the heretic can be absolved by any confessor in the forum of conscience (see Canon 2314, Sec.2.)

Anyone who has engaged in the services of the Novus Ordo church or those of Traditionalists has incurred this latae sententiae censure. We have no true bishops to absolve us from any such penalties. And no one but the Roman Pontiff can lift the vindicative penalty attached to Can. 2314 §1, n. 3. The only way to prepare ourselves as best as possible for the forgiveness of these censures and penalties before death is to follow the method explained here.

Point 6: “This sin of ignorance pertains to neglect, and is twofold; it is called affected ignorance, if the will is strongly desirous of the lack of due knowledge, and is called careless ignorance, if the will is remiss in desiring due knowledge…” Whether careless or affected, ignorance in and of itself is mortally sinful, for: “Vincible ignorance of the truths one is obliged to know, whether the obligation be of means or of precept (see 360, 786 sqq.) is a grave sin, for faith in these truths is commanded under pain of losing salvation (Mark, xvi. 15, 16).” Failing to exercise due diligence in learning truths of faith can only lead to eternal damnation.

And now we proceed to another topic already covered at length before but which appears to be insufficiently understood, for it is still being flaunted and ignored.

Religious Discussions (CONFERENCES, DISPUTATIONS, DEBATES) 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm

“Religious discussions, as contradistinguished from polemical writings, designate oral dialectical duels, more or less formal and public, between champions of divergent religious beliefs. For the most part, the more celebrated of these discussions have been held at the instigation of the civil authorities; for the Church has rarely shown favour to this method of ventilating revealed truth. This attitude of opposition on the part of the Church is wise and intelligible. A champion of orthodoxy, possessed of all the qualifications essential to a public debater, is not easily to be found. Moreover, it seems highly improper to give the antagonists of the truth an opportunity to assail mysteries and institutions which should be spoken of with reverence. The fact that the Catholic party to the controversy is nearly always obliged to be on the defensive places him at a disadvantage before the public, who, as Demosthenes remarks, “listen eagerly to revilings and accusations”. At any rate, the Church, as custodian of Revelation, cannot abdicate her office and permit a jury of more or less competent individuals to decide upon the truths committed to her care.

“St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 7) holds that it is lawful to dispute publicly with unbelievers, under certain conditions. To discuss as doubting the truth of the faith, is a sin; to discuss for the purpose of refuting error, is praiseworthy. At the same time the character of the audience must be considered. If they are well instructed and firm in their belief, there is no danger; if they are simple-minded then, where they are solicited by unbelievers to abandon their faith, a public defence is needful, provided it can be undertaken by competent parties. But where the faithful are not exposed to such perverting influences, discussions of the sort are dangerous. It is not, then, surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation. By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith.

“The text reads: “Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicæ personæ liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholicâ disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur.” (We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.) This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal and engrossing the attention of the public. There are numerous questions, somewhat connected with theology, which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest. In modern life, it frequently happens that an O’Connell or a Montalembert must stand forward as a defender of Catholic interests upon occasions when a theologian would be out of place. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.

“But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide” (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March 1625: “The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done. The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude. [See the decree of 1631 regarding the missionaries in Constantinople; also the decrees of 1645 and 1662, the latter forbidding the General of the Capuchins to authorize such disputes (Collectanea, 1674, n. 302).]

“That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that discussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be permitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled. The Holy See, it is added, considering that these discussions often produce no result at all or even result in harm, has frequently forbidden them and ordered ecclesiastical superiors to prevent them; where this cannot be done, care must be taken that the discussions are not held without the authorization of the Apostolic See; and that only those who are well qualified to secure the triumph of Christian truth shall take part therein.

“It is evident, then, that no Catholic priest is ever permitted to become the aggressor or to issue a challenge to such a debate. If he receives from the other party to the controversy a public challenge under circumstances which make a non-acceptance appear morally impossible, he must refer the case to his canonical superiors and be guided by their counsel. We thus reconcile two apparently contradictory utterances of the Apostles: for according to St. Peter (1 Peter 3:15) you should be “ready always to satisfy everyone that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you”, while St. Paul admonishes Timothy (2 Timothy 2:14), “Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers”. So the ability to debate at all was restricted to the clergy.”

Under Can. 1325, the canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith note that an 1864 decree forbidding Catholics to participate in the discussions of a certain London group was ordered to be reissued by Pope Benedict XV in 1919 and was then entered into the AAS, (Acta Apostolica Sedis; XI, 309). A similar July 8, 1927, Holy Office decision forbade Catholics to participate in the Lausanne Conference on Christian Unity (AAS XIX, 278). So there can be no doubt that these prohibitions were only further reinforced.

And what do we learn from the above?

1. Those truly qualified to defend the truths of faith in debates with non-Catholics are a rare breed and certainly cannot be found among Catholics today. One presuming to possess such skills when only the Roman Pontiff could determine this is vain and presumptuous, to say the least.
2. Such debates are a grave danger to the faith and not conducive to deterring souls from error.
3. Laymen were long ago forbidden to engage in such debates under pain of excommunication.
4. Even priests cannot enter into such debates without special permission, in urgent cases, from their bishops, and in non-urgent cases, the Holy Office itself.
5. What is envisioned above were debates of a local nature, not video events available to the entire world with all the resulting scandal and harm to souls. And those who view or promote such events contrary to the orders of the Holy See are just as guilty as the one(s) debating.

This is the third or fourth time I have addressed this issue. It applies to forums and podcasts on the Internet and those existing on “Catholic forums” every bit as much as to the video debates themselves. It is not coming from me but straight from the Church. Truth is not up for debate. Orders of the popes are to be obeyed, not questioned and analyzed. And I have an observation to offer on the refusal of those who know the truths of faith and what is expected of them yet fail to adjust their thinking and behavior accordingly.

A relative trained as a counselor noted recently that when a counselor is treating a patient, if three or four months go by and the patient shows little or no progress in recovery, then it is the counselor’s job and duty to sever the relationship with the client. If the counselor DOESN’T do this, s/he faces removal by the state, and can no longer practice. Why? Because the counselor  is enabling the client, or in Church terms, s/he becomes a cooperator in his errors and sins by not refusing to tolerate the client’s behavior. This is similar to the priest whose penitent continues to confess the same mortal sins each week and does not make any progress in rooting them out. The priest is then obligated to refuse him absolution. Holy Scripture tells us that after the first or second admonition, a brother who is erring should be avoided and referred to the Church. And Our Lord told his Apostles to shake the dust from their sandals and move on when those to whom they were preaching showed no signs of repentance and conversion.

Those not obeying the binding teachings of the Church cannot be considered Catholic even though they may be praying at home. Obedience regardless of the cost is the only thing that will save our souls. When online forums warn members not to read the presentation by others of Catholic truth, they stray inro the realm of “Catholic” cults. Allowing those believing themselves to be Catholic to “debate” the truth and viewing or attendance at debates forbidden by the Church is offensive to God. We tell Him in the Act of Faith that we “believe ALL the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou has revealed them” — but do we? We aver in our Act of Contrition that we detest our sins and will amend our lives — but do we really mean it? This is not a game and I am not the master of ceremonies here. It is now Passion Week, and if we do not do penance for our sins and truly convert, all of us shall perish.

The interior life, conformist LibTrads, and technology today

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 31, 2024 | New Blog

+St. John Bosco+

Prayer Society Intention for the Month of February, Month of the Holy Trinity and the Holy Family 

“Most Holy Trinity we adore Thee, and through Mary we entreat Thee: Make all men one in faith and give them the courage to profess it faithfully.” (Raccolta)

Catholic Conformism

The first person to create a name for those praying at home was the late “Fr.” Anthony Cekada, who described us as “home alone.” I think the true psychological implications of this term, however, have been lost on those to whom it was applied. Cekada intended the term to be derogatory and to suggest that few held this position. But he also intended to appeal to the fear harbored by most LibTrads that they would more or less be outcasts or rejects, not members of any Catholic religious group or body. This fear of being isolated is a result of the herd mentality instilled into children in public schools and even private schools. They are taught that to be accepted by their peers and teachers one’s thinking and believing must coincide with the mainstream. Most LibTrads today are second and third generations issuing from the initial Vatican 2 breakaways, some of whom, at least, had attended Catholic schools, so they knew that their salvation could not be assured by conformity.

But Cekada’s characterization of those praying at home resonated with those not as well educated. They didn’t want to be excluded especially from “mass and sacraments,” to be seen as different, and so they went along to get along. But even before Vatican 2, the tendency to conformity had been chronicled by at least one Catholic theologian, Rev. Paul Furfey, who wrote: “[Certain] things are so perfectly plain and clear and obvious that no Catholic can logically hesitate for an instant to accept them. Yet some Catholics do hesitate. In defiance of all logic, they betray their hesitation not by positively denying any supernatural doctrine but by talking as though such doctrines did not exist. They can discuss the sociology of the family by the hour without ever once mentioning marriage as a sacrament They can discourse learnedly about the evils of modern war but not from the standpoint of the doctrine of the Mystical Body. They remain consistently silent about all these social doctrines which are peculiar to the Catholic Church.

“Thus they convey the impression they do not differ basically from materialists in their social thought. No one would gather from their language that there is sharp antithesis between the viewpoints of Catholics and unbelievers on social questions. Such persons may be appropriately dubbed Catholic conformists, for they are Catholics in the sense that they deny no doctrine of the Church outright and they are conformists in that they conform as closely as they dare to the viewpoint of unbelievers… This phenomenon cannot be explained by logic. It can be explained only in terms of cowardice. It requires unusual courage to break sharply with current opinion and this courage the conformist lacks. So he tries to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. He attempts to retain the respect of both Catholics and unbelievers. Of course in the long run the attempt is bound to fail but to the timid soul of the Catholic conformist it seems the easiest course.”

“…Many Catholics have lost their sense of horror and disgust at dogmatic error. Had they not done so they would not be so easily inclined to seek a common ground with heretics and infidels… A Catholic must love all heretics and infidels with the strong love of charity but he should have only an overwhelming disgust for the loathsome errors to which these heretics and infidels are a prey. The Catholic in the modern world must constantly rub shoulders with unbelievers. He should not love these men tepidly because of their errors neither should he abominate the errors the less because they are the errors of his friends… Catholics can never make their rightful contribution to social reform until they set a very high price on the dogmatic truths that are theirs. These are the truths which Christ himself brought to the world. They are the truths which countless martyrs loved so well that they died rather than abandon the smallest part of them. To overlook them, to abandon them — even in part — or to under emphasize them is to render ourselves ineffective against the mystery of iniquity. To hold them uncompromisingly without conforming to the spirit of the world to the slightest degree is they sure road to success” (The Mystery of Iniquity, 1945). And until these truths are held 100 percent in their entirety, the Mystery of Iniquity triumphs and Catholics remain divided.

The Mystery of Iniquity

How can we possibly reconcile the above with the most shining examples of our faith? Without the sacrifices of the heroic Christian martyrs of the early centuries who attended house churches and definitely were defying the religious norm, none of us would be here today! Those praying at home in these times who are constantly seeking out others of their same age group are missing the point. While it is true that in the past Catholic communities existed that functioned as such that is not the reality we face today. Rev Furfey calls his book The Mystery of Iniquity for a reason. He explains that such conformists are the very ones who will not see that that “mystery” was at work even in St. Paul’s day and was already well advanced in the 1940s. He comments further:

“The mystery of iniquity is mysterious because it is secret  — the forces of evil operate in devious and hidden ways. But it is mysterious also by its very nature for it represents a degree of evil which surpasses our comprehension…He explains how the passages in Apocalypse Ch. 13 concerning the land and sea beasts “typify the use of deception. Thus the symbolism of these apocalyptic beasts makes it clear that force and deceit, all power and all wicked deception, are the characteristic weapons of the mystery of iniquity… It is aided in its machinations by an organized society called the world or synonymously the Kingdom of this world, that is the Kingdom of Satan…” Therefore, he concludes, “The mystery of iniquity [is] …the Satanic plan to bring to naught the saving work of Jesus Christ… The use of force, violence and deception [accomplish] this end.” He goes on to name Communism and fascism as examples of this system, but he clearly refers to the forces of Freemasonry when he paraphrases Pope Leo XIII, describing this Mysteryas “a group of forces which at first glance appears separate and independent but which on closer examination prove to be interlocking so that in spite of their seeming separateness they actually cooperate surprisingly well against the Kingdom of God.”

Furfey then goes on to describe Catholic conformists as inclined to materialism and not truly appreciative of the dangers posed by the existence of this evil and the eventual arrival of Antichrist. And this is what we are seeing today, only to a much greater degree, because today it is clear that the “saving work of Jesus Christ” has effectively been brought to an end. And yet this does not seem to faze those living in these times in the least. They seem not to understand that a high degree of sanctity is now required of us. Dom Chautard said over 125 years ago: “In former centuries, ordinary piety was enough to preserve souls from the contagion of evil. Nowadays, for the poison of violence multiplied a hundredfold inoculated by the allurements of the world, a much more energetic, vigorous serum is required. For want of laboratories capable of producing efficacious antidotes, our workers have been satisfied with producing sentimental fervour, tremendous outbursts no sooner ablaze than extinguished; or else they have been able to reach only a small minority.”

True meaning of sanctity

Such sanctity cannot be measured by exterior conformity to standards set by LibTrads, exterior acts of piety that extend only to the appearance of true holiness — whited sepulchres filled with dead men’s bones, outwardly beautiful but filthy inside. (Matt. 23: 27-28). One cannot be truly holy unless they are actually members of Christ’s Mystical Body, obeying the Commandments, all the popes have taught and obeying Canon Law. And sadly those who are calling themselves sedevacantists who pray at home have not only adopted LibTrad standards of exterior piety, but have also adopted their attitude toward papal teaching, refusing to obey binding decrees and daring to pick and choose for themselves what to believe. They present as holy. They believe themselves to be holy and wish others to see them as holy. They fill the Internet with lengthy and raucous outbursts that are anything but holy, because they are not faithful to the laws and teachings of the Roman Pontiffs in presenting them.  And they do all this because they know nothing of true holiness as the Church has always taught it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us concerning holiness: “Sanctity, says the Angelic Doctor, is the term used for all that is dedicated to the Divine service, whether persons or things. Such must be pure or separated from the world, for the mind needs to be withdrawn from the contemplation of inferior things if it is to be set upon the Supreme Truth— and this, too, with firmness or stability, since it is a question of attachment to that which is our ultimate end and primary principle, viz., God Himself — “I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels. . . nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God” (Romans 8:38-39)… In the moral order sanctity is the assertion of the paramount rights of God; its concrete manifestation is the keeping of the Commandments… Thus to keep the Commandments faithfully involves a very real though hidden separation from this world, as it also demands a great strength of character or stability in the service of God…”

Worldliness and living with oneself

But many today do not embrace this separation. They live in the world and pretend that they are not of it, because their participation in worldly things bears a religious flavor, or so they delude themselves. Those saints and theologians writing on the interior life warn that without a close personal relationship with our Lord that can be gained only in solitude — by prayer and contemplation — we cannot hope to engage in any kind of meaningful action. Dom Chautard, in his Soul of the Apostolate (one of Pope St. Pius X’s bedside books) wrote:

“Saint Gregory the Great said of Saint Benedict: “He lived with himself.” To live with oneself, in oneself; to wish to govern oneself and not be governed by the exterior; to reduce one’s imagination, feeling even ones intelligence and memory to the part of servants of the will and continually to conform this will to the will of God, is a program that is less and less accepted in this century of feverish agitation which has seen a new ideal spring up: love of action for action’s sake. To escape from this discipline of the faculties any pretext is held to be good: business, family cares, health, good reputation, love of country, the honor of one’s congregation the pretended glory of God — all these vie with one another to prevent us from living in ourselves. This sort of frenzy for exterior life even succeeds in gaining over us an irresistible attraction…” And here we must pause for a moment to note what St. Francis de Sales taught: “Obedience to the Commandments, both divine and ecclesiastical, is of obligation for all, because there is question here of THE ABSOLUTE WILL OF GOD WHO HAS MADE SUBMISSION TO THESE ORDINANCES A CONDITION OF SALVATION” (Holy Abandonment, Rt. Rev. Dom Vital Lehody O.C.R., page 9).

Dom Chautard continues: “We should ask ourselves [if] we have not an excessive confidence not only in certain noisy amusements but even in various means (pilgrimages, ostentatious festivals, congresses, speeches, publications, syndicates, political action etcetera,) lavished so abundantly in our day and very useful, without doubt, but which would be lamentable to put in the first place. Preaching by example will always be the chief lever. Lectures, good books, the Catholic press and even excellent sermons ought to revolve around this fundamental principle: to organize the apostolate for the people by the example of fervent Christians who make Christ live again by sending forth the sweet odor of His virtues… Since holiness is nothing else than the interior life developed up to the closest union of the will with that of God, the soul as a rule, unless by a miracle of grace, does not reach this end until it has gone through all the stages of the purgative and illuminative life by means of continuous and laborious efforts…”

Helps to holiness

Who today, without a spiritual director, could even come close to this? And yet we must try our best. How, though, could Catholics ever hope to achieve such union and act as an example to others where there is no obedience to Christ’s Vicar on earth, no regard for the laws of the Church and only contempt for fellow Catholics who insist on upholding these laws and teachings? In this there can be no likeness of Christ or imitation of His virtues whatsoever. In past blogs we have recommended a simple work by Rev. Robert Eiten, A Layman’s Way to Perfection, that helps Catholics begin their journey to the interior life. It is available for free download on the Internet. Some excerpts are listed below:

““For one reason or another it may at times be difficult to find a suitable spiritual director. In this case good spiritual reading will be the best substitute since in reality spiritual reading is in a certain sense written direction for achieving sanctity. It is as it were written spiritual direction. In the matter of books, we ought to aim to read only the best since there is not enough time for reading even the best. Our first aim should be to read the great modern authors since besides giving what the older authors give, they will give us the latest results of modern scholarship. This is especially true of the lives of Christ. A list of such authors will include such names as Prat, Lagrange, Goodier, Boylan, Plus, Marmion, Tanquerey, Lehodey and Leen. In an appendix of Boylan’s This Tremendous Lover, a fine selective bibliography of great modern authors on various spiritual topics is given.

“After we have finished reading most of the great modern authors, we can turn to the great spiritual writers of the last few centuries. Such names as St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Paul of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross will be included here. We will also find selections from such earlier authors as St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas very helpful. After this field of spiritual reading has been covered, we will have rather definite ideas on what we need and like. Good solid spiritual books such as the Imitation of Christ should be read slowly, thoughtfully, and prayerfully. Other lighter books as biographies may be read more rapidly. We might even scan or skip certain parts of them. It is sometimes very helpful to re-read — even several times — certain passages which have particularly struck us.

“Finally let us never forget that the greatest of all books is the Bible, especially the New Testament. Let us make this our constant companion, be able to quote freely from it, and enjoy reading passages of it again and again.” After reading this list offered by Rev. Eiten, it is hard to see how there could be any real development of the spiritual life in watching rambling, lengthy videos or hearing DVD’s. The interior life involves communion with God in mental prayer, a development of self-realization regarding one’s own shortcomings; it is not focused on the voice and images of a facilitator. Visual or audio means of communications cannot produce the necessary reverence, devotion and union with God sought in mental prayer. And if many Catholics made excuses, they were not able to find time for mental prayer in the 1940s when Rev. Eiten wrote his work, as he notes, how could they make time for it now if they spend hourswatching videos and listening to DVD’s without neglecting their daily duties?!

A saintly author on solitude

To learn the value of such meditation, listen to the holy advice of one of the author’s Rev. Eiten recommends above:

“1. Seek a suitable time for thy meditation and think frequently of the mercies of God to thee. Leave curious questions. Study such matters as bring thee sorrow for sin rather than amusement. If thou withdraw thyself from trifling conversation and idle goings about, as well as from novelties and gossip, thou shalt find thy time sufficient and apt for good meditation. The greatest saints used to avoid as far as they could the company of men, and chose to live in secret with God.

“2. One hath said, “As oft as I have gone among men, so oft have I returned less a man.” This is what we often experience when we have been long time in conversation. For it is easier to be altogether silent than it is not to exceed in word. It is easier to remain hidden at home than to keep sufficient guard upon thyself out of doors. He, therefore, that seeketh to reach that which is hidden and spiritual, must go with Jesus “apart from the multitude.” No man safely goeth abroad who loveth not to rest at home. No man safely talketh but he who loveth to hold his peace. No man safely ruleth but he who loveth to be subject. No man safely commandeth but he who loveth to obey.

“4. …O how good a conscience should that man keep, who never sought a joy that passeth away, who never became entangled with the world! O how great peace and quiet should he possess, who would cast off all vain care, and think only of healthful and divine things, and build his whole hope upon God!

“5. No man is worthy of heavenly consolation but he who hath diligently exercised himself in holy compunction. If thou wilt feel compunction within thy heart, enter into thy chamber and shut out the tumults of the world, as it is written, ‘Commune with your own heart in your own chamber and be still’ (Psalm 4:4). In retirement thou shalt find what often thou wilt lose abroad. Retirement, if thou continue therein, groweth sweet, but if thou keep not in it, begetteth weariness…

“6. In silence and quiet the devout soul goeth forward and learneth the hidden things of the Scriptures. Therein findeth she a fountain of tears, wherein to wash and cleanse herself each night, that she may grow the more dear to her Maker as she dwelleth the further from all worldly distraction. To him who withdraweth himself from his acquaintance and friends, God with his holy angels will draw nigh. It is better to be unknown and take heed to oneself than to neglect oneself and work wonders. It is praiseworthy for a religious man to go seldom abroad, to fly from being seen, to have no desire to see men.

“7. Why wouldest thou see what thou mayest not have? The world passeth away and the lust thereof. The desires of sensuality draw thee abroad, but when an hour is past, what dost thou bring home, but a weight upon thy conscience and distraction of heart? A merry going forth bringeth often a sorrowful return, and a merry evening maketh a sad morning? So doth all carnal joy begin pleasantly, but in the end it gnaweth away and destroyeth. What canst thou see abroad which thou seest not at home? Behold the heaven and the earth and the elements, for out of these are all things made.

“8. What canst thou see anywhere which can continue long under the sun? Thou believest perchance that thou shalt be satisfied, but thou wilt never be able to attain unto this. If thou shouldest see all things before thee at once, what would it be but a vain vision? Lift up thine eyes to God on high, and pray that thy sins and negligences may be forgiven. Leave vain things to vain men, and mind thou the things which God hath commanded thee. Shut thy door upon thee, and call unto thyself Jesus thy beloved. Remain with Him in thy chamber, for thou shalt not elsewhere find so great peace. If thou hadst not gone forth nor listened to vain talk, thou hadst better kept thyself in good peace. But because it sometimes delighteth thee to hear new things, thou must therefore suffer trouble of heart“ (Thomas a’ Kempis’ Imitation of Christ, Ch. 20).

Conclusion

Modernism is a heresy with many faces. It was a system devised by men secretly selected to reform the Church and first weaken, then destroy, Her authority. This in preparation for what we later saw happen at Vatican 2. One of the errors they taught is that all things must somehow become modern to be acceptable and to attract others, especially the young — to be truly effective tools of conveying information — when this is not the case. Yet how is it that for 1900 years the Church managed to exist without radio, without television, without computers without cell phones and Her information and her teachings were nevertheless conveyed succinctly by the bishops and the priests and most especially by the Roman Pontiffs? If even the home-schooled young of a Traditional bent truly do better understand things if they are preached to them in audio and video form as they claim, then it would seem the aims of the neo-Modernists have been achieved.  Because all this amounts to is the fascination with the new and how things must evolve in order to be relevant; how we must adapt ourselves to these methods and abandon the old ways.

Why are we throwing away the best parts of our faith to bow down to technology? Because that is what this is really about. Yes, it’s true that this website is taking advantage of technology to spread the truth. I dare say that Pope St. Pius X who encouraged use of the press to spread the truth would not disagree that it should be employed to spread the teachings of the popes and the saints, approved theologians and canonists. But that is the right use of things — the videos on this site are only there because people requested them and claimed that they could not understand the faith in written form as well as they could  understand it through these mediums. But that does not mean that reading, study and meditation — which we have encouraged for decades — should ever be slighted or abandoned. Novelties and innovations are most dangerous when used in a manner that appears to promote the truth when instead they are actually teaching error and leading the faithful away from true spirituality. And sadly, this is what we are dealing with today.

It seems that everyone has forgotten why Vatican 2 happened and what went before it that brought about the changes in the first place. Certain left-leaning lay people calling themselves Catholic effectively lobbied for a more people friendly liturgy, greater participation in the liturgy and other Church functions, the removal of Latin because they couldn’t understand it, a more modern approach to education, a Catholic version of “fellowship,” and various other (basically Protestant) innovations. THEY WEREN’T INTERESTED IN MAKING THEMSELVES MORE PLEASING TO GOD, BUT IN MAKING GOD AND HIS CHURCH MORE PLEASING TO THEM. They welcomed John 23^rd’s aggiornamento, because it made them look good to their Protestant friends. They wanted a church more in tune with the times and that is exactly what they got. And it isn’t any different with those who want an up-to-date Church today, one Traditionalist enough to suit the LibTrads and conservative enough to hopefully draw in those who pray at home: true conformism. And here we see the good old Hegelian principles at work: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

The paragraphs above only echo what St. Paul taught in 1 Cor. 2: 12-16: “Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man. For whom hath known the mind of the Lord, that we may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”

May God’s peace be with you; never cease to pray and watch.

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

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

+St. Raymond of Penafort+

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Pius XII declaresTraditionalist orders invalid

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

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

The “bishops must always exist” error

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

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

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

Don’t fall for false shepherds, lay or otherwise

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

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

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

For Sale: perversions of the Truth

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Clarification on the points about Antichrist that are certain

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 15, 2024 | New Blog

+St. Paul the First Hermit+

(URGENT REQUEST: In light of the continuing attempts to infiltrate and divide those praying at home by various entities both known to us as well as others yet to be identified, we beg our readers to please join us in the Unity Octave novena beginning on January 18, Feast of St. Peter’s Chair in Rome. To recite these prayers, please scroll to the bottom of the blog HERE.)

The unanimous teachings of the Fathers on Antichrist

There has been much (unnecessary) confusion arising from the assertion on this site that Paul 6 was Antichrist. Some are suggesting that this belief is not in conformity with the unanimous opinion of the early Fathers and does not take into consideration Catholic prophecy regarding the reign of Antichrist. First, we will address the topic of the unanimous opinion of the Fathers.

The Council of Trent as well as the Vatican Council teach that whatever the early Fathers agree on unanimously regarding faith and morals must be accepted as coming from the Church Herself. Yet Pope Leo XIII wrote in Providentissimus Deus, (Nov. 1893): “Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for ‘in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,’ according to the opinion of St. Thomas.”

In other words, only the Holy See may determine when the unanimous opinion of the Fathers has rightly been stated or understood, and the only exception to this general rule is when a highly esteemed Church official has declared that something contained in Holy Scripture is indeed the unanimous opinion of the Fathers. The one issue that so many of these so-called Catholic writers on Antichrist consistently fail to address is the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice as the very act that will allow the correct identification of the Man of Sin. So many refer to the institution of the Novus Ordo as the “abomination of desolation” but neglect to identify the one instituting it as Antichrist! Henry Cardinal Manning succinctly states in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See that: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” This statement we can trust, but not the statement of those attempting to prove the unanimous opinions of the Fathers support their claims without even demonstrating that such an opinion is truly a) unanimous, as demonstrated by approved authors and b) to be believed as a matter of faith.

And Pope Pius XII writes in his encyclical on Holy Scripture, Divini Afflante Spiritu: “There are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the holy Fathers is unanimous.” We cannot take the word of lay people writing today that such texts are unanimous, for such writers often confuse the common opinion of the Fathers with their unanimous opinion. This is why we may only take the word of approved authors that a certain teaching is truly unanimous. But when a pope has himself taught infallibly on the subject of Antichrist the very fact he has thus taught demands our firm assent and obedience. Such is the case with Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which defines who and what is to be considered the abomination of desolation and how the abomination could enter into the Holy Place through an invalid papal election. (For those who object that Antichrist and the abomination are not the same thing, please see the article HERE.)  We also have the testimony of Pope Leo XIII in his long St. Michael’s prayer that: “In the Holy Place itself… they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep will be scattered.”  Popes Pius XI and Pius XII also warned that Antichrist was already within the gates. The Holy Place also is designated as the Church in St. Jerome’s commentary in the Breviary for the 24^th and last Sunday after Pentecost.

The second objection, that Paul 6 as Antichrist does not reflect the predictions contained in private revelations is not a valid accusation. Those evaluating these revelations are nearly always of the LibTrad persuasion, including the Lefebvrist and Monarchist Yves Dupont, whose The Antichrist is provided on one site to “refute” the idea that Paul 6 was the Antichrist. While Dupont’s writings on other topics are not objectionable per se, his estimation of the prophecies cannot be said to amount to anything a Catholic is required or even advised to believe regarding the advent of Antichrist. The theologian Gerson, in his Treatise on the examination of doctrines, relates that Pope Gregory XI, when on the point of death, holding the sacred body of Christ in his hands, protested before all, and warned them to beware both of men and women, “who under the guise of religion, speak visions of their own head” for that he, seduced by such, had neglected the reasonable counsel of his friends, and had dragged himself and the Church to the hazard of imminent schism, if her merciful spouse Jesus had not provided against it.” Pope Benedict XIV said these revelations: “…ought not to, and cannot receive from us any assent of Catholic, but only of human faith, ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PRUDENCE, according to which the aforesaid revelations ARE PROBABLE, and piously to be believed.” Today we cannot even be certain these prophecies are faithfully reproduced. 

Catholics must not consider such revelations equivalent to a papal pronouncement, or the unanimous consent of the Fathers and/or approved theologians. (See the article HERE.) As one theologian has remarked: “Many of these revelations are beyond the needs and the intelligence even of persons already far advanced in the spiritual life and are often clothed in language quite unintelligible. And herein precisely lies a new source of anxiety, BECAUSE A NEW DANGER, NAMELY, THE DANGER OF UNDERSTANDING THE REVELATION IN A WRONG SENSE, WHICH MAY EASILY LEAD TO POSITIVE ERROR AND SIN AGAINST THE “RULE OF FAITH.” And this is what has happened with many of these revelations regarding Antichrist. Also, some of these revelations contain errors later condemned by the Holy See, such as the teaching regarding the Great Monarch and an earthly millennium as taught by Joachim of Fiore, also others (see HERE).

Grades of certainty regarding Antichrist

Given the confusion created by these LibTrad writers, a reader has requested “a more detailed description and analysis” of the points offered on this site and attributed to the work of an approved theologian, Fr. A.  Lemman’s The Antichrist. These points and their commentary can be found in Rev. Denis Fahey’s The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, pgs. 175-190. We intended, in offering reference to this work, that readers study Fahey’s work itself for a better understanding of the topic.  But to avoid any confusion for those not able to access this work, quotes will be taken from it below to better explain the basis for Fr. Lemman’s evaluation of these points.

1. Things that are certain about Antichrist;
2. Things that are probable;
3. Things that are undecided;
4. Things that have not a solid foundation

1. Things that are CERTAIN (that is, those things which must be believed either from Holy Scripture or the unanimous opinion of the Fatherss. These include:

1. He will be a trial for the good (Apoc. XIII, 7), and a chastisement for the impious and the apostates (II Thess., II, 9-11). TSB: This is all that is provided, Holy Scripture being sufficient.
2. He will be a man, a human person. (Lemann: “Antichrist is not a myth or a fiction, as Renan, in his silly fashion, tried to show.1 Neither must he be confused with a sect, a collection of impious men, an atheistic environment, or a period of persecution, as certain pious persons have imagined. Antichrist will be a human person, appearing in an epoch of atheism and of wicked sectaries.”)
3. He will not be Satan in human form but only a man (Suarez, De Antichristo, Sect. 1, n. 4 and 5). (TSB: it could be said, however, that he might be possessed by the devil.)
4. He will have great powers of seduction, owing to certain personal qualities. (“Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish,” II Thess., II, 9, 10).

TSB: Paul 6 undoubtedly charmed the Protestants, the Orthodox and the Jews, who he invited to the false Vatican 2 Council. He won the applause of world figures and the admiration of the “faithful” with his address to the UN. The theological world gloried in his Modernistic teachings, and nearly all accepted and taught them. He gave every appearance of being a true pope and reconciling all world religions, including  Communism and Freemasonry, to Catholicism, when this was a doctrinal impossibility.)

5. His career beginnings will be lowly (“The horn is called small, because it will grow little by little, and because it will arrive at domination, not by hereditary right, but by fraud” Cornelius a Lapide, in Ep. ad Thess., II, II.)

TSB: Montini was sickly and studied for the priesthood at home. He initially rose through the ranks as any other cleric. He did not receive the formal position of Secretary of Vatican State but acted only as a “pro-secretary.” Owing to the deceptions he perpetrated during Pope Pius XII’s reign, he was refused the cardinalate.)

6. He will increase in power and make conquests. (TSB: Over time, Paul 6, as a Vatican official, secretly became involved with the British intelligence agency the OSS during WWII, and after the war ended, the CIA, preparing to align himself later with world governments. As a cardinal under the false prophet Roncalli, he continued this campaign openly until his invalid election as “pope.” See Lemann on no. 7 below.)
7. His rule will be worldwide. (Lemman: “With the help which will be furnished him by the anti-Christian societies, this enemy of Our Lord Jesus Christ will be able to form a gigantic empire in a short time.” Pope Leo XIII warned: “What is aimed at and what is intended is the overthrow of Christian institutions and the reconstruction of States on the basis of Pagan Naturalism” (Letter to the Sacred College of Cardinals, 1901).

TSB: Paul 6 helped prepare the way for the democratization of all Christian states by the U. S. Because he pretended to be the head of what the world perceived as the Catholic Church, his reign was universal.

8.He will wage a terrible war against God and the Church. Fr. Fahey: “Father Lemann indicates some of the measures which, to judge by the experience of past persecutions, Antichrist will enforce more thoroughly and more cruelly than ever before. Two of them are: Proscription of Christian teaching and obligatory teaching of error. We can see them already in force in the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Father Lemann adds that ‘The schools without God or rather against God are a preparation for the second measure.’ In that he is perfectly correct, for the Declaration of the Rights of Man of the French Revolution, in the name of which these schools function in France, signified repudiation of membership of Christ, and was thus a declaration of war on the Divine Plan for Order.”

TSB: Christian teaching was removed from public schools in the U.S. during Paul 6’s reign. Following Vatican 2, the catechisms were all revised and error taught to previously Catholic school children worldwide. Error was officially taught by command of a pretended pope from the Holy Place with the adoption of “for all men,” first in the missalettes distributed to the faithful beginning in 1959, and later formally by the abrogation of the Latin Mass in 1969.)

9. He will claim to be God and will demand exclusive adoration. (Fr. Fahey: In 1903 Pope St. Pius X wrote: “So extreme is the general perversion that there is reason to fear that we are experiencing the foretaste and the beginnings of the evils which are to come at the end of time, and that the Son of Perdition, of whom the Apostle speaks, has already arrived upon the earth.” (Note: Leo Panakal later pointed out that when St. Pius X wrote these ominous lines in 1903, Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Paul VI, was six years old.) “So great are the fury and hatred with which religion is everywhere assailed, that it seems to be a determined effort to destroy every vestige of the relation between God and man. On the other hand — and this is, according to [St. Paul], the special characteristic of Antichrist— with frightful presumption man is attempting to usurp the place of his Creator and is lifting himself above all that is called God. Thus, powerless to extinguish completely in himself the notion of God, he is attempting to shake off the yoke of His Majesty and is dedicating the visible world to himself as a temple, in which he has the pretension to receive the adoration of his fellow men, ‘So that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God.” (II Thess., II, 4 ; Encyclical Letter, E Supremi Apostolatus Cathedra, Oct. 4, 1903).

TSB: Francis teaches: “A spark of the Divine is in each of us; therefore, Man is God.”  Both Paul 6 and John Paul 2 taught the same. Paul 6 taught: “Are you looking for God? You will find Him in man.” (John Clancy, Dialogues: Refelections on God and Man, 1965). Paul 6 placed himself above all that is called God by pretending to speak in His name as pope. As Pope Pius XI taught: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means I am God on the earth” (April 22, 1930).

10. By means of diabolical prodigies, Antichrist will seek to prove that he is God. (Lemman: “The question is often asked,” writes St. Augustine, “whether these expressions ‘signs and lying wonders’ are to be understood in the sense that the prodigies wrought by Antichrist will be only apparent, not real; or as signifying that the really extraordinary feats performed by him will draw on to error and falsehood those who accept them as proofs of a divine mission ?’* The great Doctor replies: ‘This will be known later’ (City of God). This hesitation has given rise to two currents of opinion (Suarez, de Antichristo). Some think that the prodigies wrought by Antichrist will be real prodigies and that they will lead to the acceptance of falsehood, that is, to belief in the divinity of Antichrist. Others hold that all the miracles of Antichrist will be false and unreal and that they will be accepted as true thanks to the action of the demon on the senses of his followers. ‘”He will come, when he comes, with all Satan’s influence to aid him: there will be no lack of power, of counterfeit signs and wonders” (The New Testament, by Mgr. R. A. Knox; also agreeing with these works as entirely false prodigies is 1 Cornelius a Lapide., II Thess., II, 9; Bern, a Piconio, II Ep. ad Thess., c. 11, 9.; also St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis de Sales).
11. Antichrist will cause the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to cease.

TSB: This is not contained in Fr. Fahey’s coverage of Fr. Lemman’s points. Fr. Lemman admits in the introduction to his points that “Space will permit of only a brief outline of what is contained under A, B, and C.” Henry Cardinal Manning clearly states in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See that: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” I dare say that Card. Manning is a greater authority on this topic than Fr. Lemman. And not only is this a unanimous opinion of the Fathers; three notable Doctor of the Church — St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Francis de Sales — also teach this as well. St. Bellarmine is adamant on this matter, stating no one can claim Antichrist has come as long as the Mass of Pope St. Pius V is in place (De Contoversiis: on Antichrist, Ryan Grant translation, p. 67). For, having written his work in 1590, St. Bellarmine was undoubtedly referring to the Mass of Pope Pius V, since Pope St. Pius V promulgated his constitution Quo Primumin 1570.

12. The domination and persecution of Antichrist will be merely temporary. The Man of Sin will be destroyed (Dan., VII, 26; Apoc, XIX, 20; II Thess., II, 8).

TSB: Paul 6 died like any other man, although his system remains. Although he was a Traditionalist, Francis Panakal did support his work with solid proofs regarding Paul 6’s identification as the Man of Sin. In his 1983 work, The Man of Sin, Panakal noted that Montini died on the feast of the Transfiguration, Aug. 6, 1978, relating it to 2 Thess. 2: 9-10: “And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”

During the Transfiguration, Christ’s countenance and entire Body became dazzlingly bright, signifying his identity as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The spirit of his mouth Panakal associates with Christ actually addressing Paul 6 as he did St. Paul, asking, “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecuteth me?” He opines that Paul 6 did not know he was the Antichrist until the moment of his death, and that after he learned his true identity he was destroyed by this revelation. Panakal points to one unconfirmed report in a Catholic publication which related that Paul 6 cried out and his face became contorted shortly before he breathed his last, and the putrefaction of his body began immediately after his death.

Things that are PROBABLE

First Probability: The Jews will acclaim Antichrist as the Messias and will help to set up his kingdom.

Lemman: “I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive ” (St. John, V, 43).” It is upon” this reproach addressed by Our Lord Jesus Christ to the Jews, his contemporaries and adversaries, that this belief is based, and it can be said that it is the common opinion of the Fathers of the Church, for example, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Ephraim, St. John Chrysostom, etc., etc.. . . . When we see the enormous financial power of the Jews increasing daily, when we consider their intrigues, their successful occupancy of the chief places in the principal States, their mutual understanding from one end of the world to the other, then in presence of such a preponderance, we have no difficulty in realizing that they will be able to contribute to the establishment of the formidable empire of Antichrist.”

TSB: To be accepted as the Messias, Antichrist would need to be of the Jewish race. That Paul 6 presented as a Jew and was of Jewish heritage was pointed out by Fr. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga in the 1970s. (See the proofs HERE.) It is also a matter of established fact that both he and Angelo Roncalli, the false prophet, pandered to the Jews and absolved them of all guilt in Christ’s Passion and death on the Cross. In his de Controversiis on Antichrist, St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that it is a certainty that Antichrist will be of the Jewish race and will be received by them as the Messiah. P. Huchede teaches the same in his History of Antichrist,

Second Probability 

The persecution of Antichrist will last three years and a half.

Lemman: ”And they [the Saints] shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time” (Dan., VII, 25). “And power was given him to do two and forty months ” (Apoc. XIII, 5). It has been pointed out previously (eleventh point that is certain), that the power and the persecution of Antichrist will be only temporary. That is certain. Is it possible to determine their exact duration? One can give only a probable, not a certain, answer, according to the two texts quoted.” (See HERE for proofs showing that belief in the literal three years and a half are not a matter of faith and Catholics should adopt an opposite view whenever reason or obvious facts would dictate otherwise.)

What constitutes true probability? The scholastic theologian Rev. A.C. Cotter, S.J., in his work, The ABC of Scholastic Philosophy defines a probable opinion as follows: “Probability admits degrees; for one motive may be better and more solid than another. Thus if ten scientists testified to the truth of the atomic theory the layman has a stronger motive for assenting than if only one scientist proposed it. Hence:

1. a) One opinion may be more probable than another, as happens when better arguments are had for the one than for its opposite.
2. b) An opinion is said to be highly probable if there are excellent reasons for it and hardly any against it.
3. c) An opinion is most probable if there are excellent reasons for it, hardly any for contrary opinions on the same matter.
4. d) An opinion is the only probable one if there are solid though not infallible reasons for it and if all other opinions concerning the same matter are certainly wrong or devoid of any solid foundation.
5. e) Two contradictory propositions may be probable at the same time. This happens when the motives for them are disparate so that they do not destroy each other.

Things that are UNDECIDED

(These are four points that are not based upon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or upon precise texts of Holy Writ.)

1) His name; 2) his nationality; 3) the seat of his empire.

TSB: Given that Montini corresponds to all the points that are listed above as certain, and even settles those that are probable, it can then be deduced that he does fit the description of Antichrist. The final undecided point is 4)The temple in which he will present himself. Once it is proven that a) Montini b) was of Jewish heritage and c) pretended to reign in the Church itself, from d) Rome, all four undecided points are then settled.

Things that have not a solid foundation

— The date for Antichrist’s coming (The Church forbids anyone to set a future date for his coming, but neither can anyone deny clear signs he has come. All the commentators writing on Apocalypse and the end times assume that those living in these times will be able to “read the signs of the times.”)

Conclusion

This is not intended to be an exhaustive evaluation of the Antichrist question. This study of Antichrist’s appearance has been spread out over several decades and is presented in different articles on my website. It also is addressed at length in my 2018 work, The Phantom Church in Rome. What many fail to understand regarding Antichrist is that the prophecies contained in Apocalypse are intended primarily to be taken in a spiritual or mystical sense and only secondarily in a literal sense. As Rev. Huchede points out in his work, some passages are amphibological, that is, capable of more than one interpretation. What also is not appreciated here is that some teachings even of the early Fathers were later condemned, such as that of millenarianism. The Great Monarch prophecies first taught by Joachim of Fiore were an instrumental part of this false millenarianism, and the Church later condemned his teachings. Pope Pius XII then determined that millenarianism cannot be safely taught. (See HERE).

According to Holy Scripture, Antichrist’s coming will be preceded by the Great Revolt, most often referred to by Scripture commentators as a general falling away of both the Catholic hierarchy and faithful. Henry Cardinal Manning says this began with the Reformation. This Man of Sin will be revealed only after “he who witholdeth” is taken out of the way,” most likely meaning the Pope. Pope Paul IV tells us in his 1559 bull that the abomination will be revealed following an invalid papal election. The early Fathers teach unanimously he will cause the Holy Sacrifice to cease, and will pretend to speak for God, as if he were God. Please tell me this: If Antichrist has yet to come, WHO will revolt from the Church (hardly any Catholics left anywhere), WHAT sacrifice will cease (no valid sacrifices are now being offered), and HOW would anyone ever believe such a person could speak for God in wreaking all the havoc that was Vatican 2 (since this is a privilege reserved only to a validly elected Pope?!) I have explained in the work HERE that Antichrist’s system could possibly produce a final physical and literal manifestation of Antichrist who would attempt to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. But this person would not himself be the Man of Sin in a spiritual sense.

No one has all the answers on this topic, but if they attempt to address it, they must follow all the rules in place. I have tried to do this to the best of my ability. The saints and Scriptural scholars writing on Antichrist left his final identification to those living at the time of his appearance on the world stage. St. Bellarmine writes: “All prophecies when they are fulfilled are made evident” (Ibid). Rev. Huchede agrees, writing: “The events connected with the end of the world will alone remove the mystery in which the sacred text is at present enveloped… What is mysterious [can only] be explained by the event.” For a better understanding of the situation today, in light of what was already occurring in the 19^th century, please read the works of Henry Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ and The Present Crisis of the Holy See. Both are available for free download at archive.org.

New pray at home converts: beware of video & CD “Catholicism”

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 31, 2023 | New Blog

+The Circumcision+

Prayer Society Intention for January, Month of the Holy Name

“We wish to make reparation each day, dear Jesus, for those who profane Thy Holy Name.”

A reader has recommended as excellent the sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori HERE. Video sermons are one of the ways that the wisdom of the saints can be made available to Catholics today. Such unabridged sermons  in audio form coming from saints and approved members of the hierarchy are what true Catholics should be accessing, and this is the topic we are addressing here.

An unsettling beginning to the New Year

It has come to my attention that once again, there is an ongoing effort by certain individuals also advocating praying at home to “collect” those exiting the Novus Ordo and various LibTrad sects by appealing to this younger set via videos, podcasts and other venues. The reasons for concern regarding these efforts will be explained below.

In 1990, my first work Will the Catholic Church Survive…? was released to the public, calling for a papal election. At that time I had been praying at home since 1985. The book explained in depth why Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini were ineligible for election to the papacy, offering proofs of their ineligibility and using Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio to prove they could never have been validly elected. It also provided dogmatic and canonical proofs that LibTrads possessed no jurisdiction, were at least questionably valid and were committing sacrilege by offering mass and sacraments to their followers. The case for praying at home was then presented on the basis of Bd. Pope Innocent XI’s teaching that one cannot receive questionably valid and illicit sacraments without sinning mortally against the first commandment. That was 35 years ago, when those now promoting praying at home on their blogs and social media platforms were still members of the Novus Ordo sect.

These important proofs were the fruits of long years of study, 10 to be exact, and many trips to the local seminary library to purchase books and fill my library with theological works. But it is following the inevitable consequences of these proofs made public so long ago that people find so challenging, even mind-boggling. For once it is realized that both Roncalli and Montini were heretics (Modernists not to mention Freemasons) prior to their respective elections, as even sedevacantists realized in the early 1980s, such elections were then considered non-existent, as explained in my 1990 book. This was clear from reading Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, first available in English in the mid-1980s. The 1990 book was the second published defense of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, first translated into Spanish by Dr. Carlos Disandro in 1978, following the attacks of the St. Pius X Society and other LibTrads. So since the elections of these men were invalid as the Bull infallibly proclaims, nothing whatsoever which followed really happened; it was all an illusion.

 And if an illusion, there was no need to spend any time tediously refuting the errors introduced by Montini and Roncalli — ALL their acts could be dismissed wholesale. This is a truth infallibly confirmed by Pope Pius XII in his 1945 papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. No election of Roncalli and hence Montini means there was never a false Vatican 2 council; nor were there ever changes to the liturgy, the sacraments or Catholic doctrine. And ecumenism, condemned as a heresy by both Pope Pius XI and Pius XII was never endorsed by a true pope. All of these things were made null and void by Roncalli’s non-election and Pope Pius XII’s election law and are entirely unworthy of any consideration. THAT is the reality all have failed to grasp. It is further confirmed by St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching that a doubtful pope is no pope, a principle evidenced in the actual practice of the Church.

So all the time spent in various debates, also constant Internet coverage and criticism of Novus Ordo events and errors has only made it more difficult to discover, address and denounce the true consequences of the vacant see, also Modernist tendencies within the Church pre-1959 that led to Vatican 2. Had the line been firmly drawn at the death of Pope Pius XII and the invalid election of Roncalli and the pre-1959 errors that LED to Vatican 2 addressed once the full extent of the damage was realized, the Traditionalist movement with all its errors would never have predominated.

St. Paul taught, “But prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:2). The Jews of Berea “Received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so,” we read in Acts. Who among even those still calling themselves priests really did this? It was laymen, not the clergy, who uncovered Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. It was a layperson who insisted upon obedience to Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and his teaching that the bishops are entirely subordinate to the pope. Rev. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga may have commissioned Anacleto Gonzalez-Flores to write The Plot Against the Church, attempting to halt Vatican 2, and he did declare the see vacant and Montini the Antichrist in the mid-1970s. But what was the true value of what he did seeing that he founded the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM) and was later discovered to be a Freemason?!

Failure to provide proofs, credit others

Any research conducted then was never followed through to its logical conclusions where jurisdiction and the necessity of the papacy was concerned. And those still muddling around in the errors of the Novus Ordo sect are only returning to the vomit that led us down the wrong path in the first place. The teachings of the Continual Magisterium must be the focus of any attempts to win souls today, and those still mucking around in the Novus Ordo or LibTrad sects simply need to be told that the burden of proof, according to Canon Law, is on THEM, not on us — no debates, no back and forth, nada. Pope Pius XII drew the line in VAS and we are merely holding that line. If they could prove that infallible document does not apply to them, THEN there might be a discussion, but that can never be the case. Signed papal documents entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis can never be contested.

Unfortunately other bloggers and social media personalities promoting praying at home today refer to these decades-old proofs but do not refer them to any source; or they act as though these proofs are self-evident or known to their audience in some other way. They do not themselves produce proofs drawn from Scripture, the continual magisterium, Canon Law and the scholastics, as Holy Scripture and the Church demands but only vaguely reference them. And what they do produce is often taken from what is quoted by others. (And my sincere thanks to those who do give proper attribution in their efforts to promote praying at home.)

And while they may warn others against practicing doctrinal minimalism or insist that one must carry the logical consequences represented by the facts through to the very end, they do neither of these things and only continue to further confuse those already swimming in a sea of confusion. This because they resort to sophistry by begging the question, assuming as true that which they have not yet proven as true to those they are addressing. They then proceed to the illogical scholastic arguments known as false induction and false interpretation, owing to the errors mixed in with their assertions.

They are thus in violation of the moral law and Catholic ethics by failing to render attribution to those before them who have resolved theological issues by quoting the popes, the councils, Holy Office decisions, Canon Law  and the works of approved authors. The collection and actual presentation of those facts in logical order, from various sources, is a product of the intellect and is considered intellectual property. And yet individuals presenting as bona fide Catholics and defenders of the faith encourage others to pray at home but do so only by accommodating the research and conclusions of previously copyrighted works written by others.

And what is even worse is their subtle addition of errors to these teachings, making it appear that other authors also endorsing praying at home are in agreement with them. All this is then passed off as THEIR OWN invention and conclusions, and this can result in grave moral and legal consequences. For this sin against the seventh commandment they are bound to make restitution, for some even sell works over the Internet based on the non-attributed works of others. Are we not justified then in questioning their sincerity, honesty and motives and in demanding an accounting?!

Not only do they fail to condemn all LibTrad clergy and their operations as invalid per Pius XII’s VAS, but they also maintain “friendships” with those in that sect and even continue to promote the writings of those who frequent or have frequented it. After a second warning, a heretic avoid is the general rule. Yet despite solid evidence readily available for review that these pseudo-clerics and lay leaders have led others astray and have been guilty of errors in their thinking and writing, these “friendships” are not abandoned. Instead, the same attitude prevalent among the LibTrads is adopted — to label anyone of that sect a heretic is a gross violation of charity. This can only be described as cooperation in heresy and a perfect example of liberal charity in action. And this we have already addressed at length before.

Do videos, podcasts etc. effectively convey the faith?

One of the requirements most crucial to theological discussion (NOT debate) is the following: “Theologians must… be able to teach effectively and clearly” as Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton notes, and any credible journalist knows the value of clear and concise verbiage in explaining complicated issues to the public. Video and Internet commentary and debate, especially if lengthy (some run into several hours!) and punctuated with unrelated queries and minutiae, often interrupts the listener’s ability to absorb the essential elements of theology necessary to understand the true teachings of the Church. Few people have time to sort through such lengthy discourses, and yet this is what they are expected to do to learn the truth.

Such presentations have even been touted as “brilliant.” But discriminating readers who want the full story, as one reader pointed out, will demand more than such disjointed presentations of the faith. They will take the time to read written works examining the various errors of the day condemned by the popes and councils and will ponder them, for this is the way taught by the theologians to truly arrive at a better understanding of the truth. Confusion is to be avoided at all costs.

Until the advent of television in the 1950s, faith was either received by hearing or in written form — study meant reviewing written notes from lectures or taking copious notes from textbooks to process or memorize.  Pope Pius XII heartily approved of the modern means to transmit the faith (movies, television, radio) in his Miranda Prorsus, but only when free from any hint of doctrinal or moral error.  And certainly he was not aware at that time of the actual mesmerizing effects of television, something that would only later be discovered. Over time, television also was linked to anti-social behavior among young people and a lowering of their IQ scores, and this is no surprise. For it is by our use of language that we communicate our thoughts to others by talking, reading, and writing, not just talking alone.

Television, videos and CDs  provide no such exchange. They are a one-way form of communication with no question-and-answer period or the ability to challenge or evaluate content. If not carefully monitored for subject matter, it is more akin to a propaganda tool than an educational vehicle. So if these mediums are employed to promote the faith it must be sparingly, and only in a judicious manner, since these means have never been properly vetted or evaluated by the Church.

One of the reasons CD, podcast and video “Catholicism” is so popular is something I will call fad Catholicism.  Written presentation is “old hat” because it requires the application of the intellect and the understanding.  Videos and podcasts are the way to go, the “in” way to get your daily dose of “truth” from a popular personality appearing on a well-traveled social media platform. It tends to the adoption of a modern-day outlook on things, the development of personality cults and the fan club mentality. It measures truth by “likes,” a nod to the opinions of the mob.

These communication methods may be used productively to summarize truths of faith and direct people to source material where everything appears in written form, confirming those truths. But the complexity of the situation in the Church today is not suited to glib video or audio presentations. Explanations of the various errors and the truths they contradict must be read, understood, studied and studied again. Notes must be taken, if one is serious about understanding it. Questions must be asked and answered by those knowledgeable about the subject, and I have answered my fair share of these. None of this can be effectively accomplished with podcasts and videos, which only produces and further encourages the practice of intellectual laziness.

Are Catholics allowed to debate non-Catholics?

We are obligated by Canon 1325 §1 and §2 to profess our faith and defend it publicly whenever silence, subterfuge or our manner of acting would indicate our acceptance of such errors; that is all. But Can. 1325 §3 must also be carefully considered: “Catholic shall not enter into any disputes or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without the permission of the Holy See, or in urgent cases, of the local ordinary” (Revs. Woywod-Smith commentary). Revs. T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis comment on this canon:

“This prohibition applies only to matters of faith and to public discussions viva voce; printed debates or conferences are subject only to the rules regarding books.” Dom Charles Augustine states in his commentary on this same canon: “The Sacred Congregation has often expressly forbidden [such debates] on the ground that they do more harm than good, since false eloquence may cause error seemingly to triumph over truth… When such disputations are expressly permitted, care should be taken that only capable and prudent speakers be employed to defend the Catholic side.”

No individual can be a judge in their own case of whether they are capable or prudent. Nor can anyone but the Holy See or the bishop act as judges in such cases. Some have argued that the prohibition of Can. 1385 forbids anyone to publish without ecclesiastical approval, but this is an impossible law to obey in these times since there is no hierarchy to grant such permission. Therefore the law ceases to bind. The higher law prevails, and that law is to defend the faith re Can. 1325 §1 and §2.

There is also the  obligation to aid our neighbor in extreme spiritual necessity, obey the longstanding papal command to supply for the absence of the hierarchy by engaging in Catholic Action and the catechetical apostolate and the duty to avoid the heresy of quietism, which teaches: “…the desire to do anything actively is offensive to God and hence one must abandon oneself entirely to God and thereafter remain as a lifeless body” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912). All this can be fulfilled by producing written refutations of error, which is less dangerous by far than debates.

And something else should be considered here — those watching and promoting such debates are guilty of cooperating in the sin of the one conducting them, since the Church forbids  it. Here we see the value of obedience, not attachment to our own will and the desire to engage in worldly novelties.  This is the reason for not presenting our own suppositions and opinions, to obey the teachings of the Continual Magisterium and those theologians approved by the Church and not follow those who have never been approved by the Church to instruct or debate. In this way those approved by the pre-1959 Church are still teaching us, even if we place these teachings in context regarding our current situation. Videos, CD’s and podcasts cannot successfully convey these teachings in their entirety. Readers should not confuse what I only RELAY on this site with my status as a writer or presenter. As Catholics we are obligated to defend the faith publicly — it is not an option.

Putting a price on the faith

So although I greatly appreciate and depend upon the generosity of my donors to meet maintenance costs for my site, I have not stressed the need for readers to donate or made appeals for monetary contributions. I do what I do because God requires an accounting from me. Making an actual business of defending the faith is tantamount to the moneylenders selling their goods in the Temple. Christ did not put a monetary value on what He taught, although he did say that the laborer is worthy of his hire. Therefore, while it is commendable to help support the maintenance of websites that teach the truth it is a voluntary thing. The Church has never demanded that one tithe any given amount under pain of sin.

But on the other hand Catholics should be very conscious of who they are donating their money to and where it might be going. Many people will take the comments or advice of those who they are promoting as great orators or defenders of the faith without really looking into their background and it’s essential that such a thing be done. In many cases these self-proclaimed experts sport degrees or credentials from non-Catholic (including LibTrad) sources, and these should be considered as a detriment, not a recommendation (see the article here). There are those who now promote praying at home who have inexplicably bounced around in their thinking processes and their stated beliefs to such an extent that one could justifiably question the reasoning behind their many inconsistencies. This is especially true if they advertise themselves as well-educated and well-connected.

Case in point: David Bawden once chastised me for neglecting my daily duties to my family by writing to defend the faith instead of devoting time to these duties. This even thought I was writing with my husband’s express permission and my children were nearly grown. Also, I had worked full time or part time since 1987 (retiring in 2020) in addition to my household duties and writing efforts. I felt this was quite presumptuous of Bawden, particularly since he had seldom been gainfully employed and was at the time demanding that we support him (as “pope”). I later found other instances among those claiming to defend the faith full time without a steady income of any kind, relying mainly on their supporters to fund their defense of the faith.

This certainly is not Catholic since our daily duties must always come first. And as stated above, our efforts should not be considered as optional or a service provided to others that should be compensated, but our bounden duty as Catholics commanded to profess their faith when not doing so would constitute a denial of that faith.

Spotting written or spoken red flags

Most of us have been mistaken and fallen into error at different times in matters of faith. But those who then go on to try and defend the faith after publicly renouncing their errors and making reparation for the damage they have caused (whenever possible) must then hold themselves to a certain standard, especially on the public forum that is the Internet. Recent examples of renewed efforts to attract members of the Novus Ordo sect and LibTrads to pray at home are sadly lacking in a complete grasp of the true status of Traditionalist pseudo-clergy, despite their claims to the contrary.  Prudence demands we vet these individuals carefully, especially when we detect the following:

1. Doesn’t use proper Catholic terms
2. Inconsistency in statements related to truths of faith
3. Promotion of works produced by non-Catholics
4. Cooperation or the appearance of cooperation with non-Catholics
5. Skirts issues regarding the validity of Traditionalist orders
6. Does not openly condemn Traditionalism including sedevacantism as heresy (when as one reader has aptly pointed out, Traditionalism is worse by far than the Novus Ordo sect)
7. Vague references that are not fully explained (ambiguity) or sufficiently cross-referenced
8. Failure to practice what they preachSelf-promotion, name dropping
9. Repeated appeals for financial support, especially when voluntarily unemployed
10. Failure to:

• follow scholastic form, as they are bound by the Church to do
• properly attribute sources and faithfully cite the works of others
• make the necessary theological connections
• address, correct and renounce errors when corrected (incorrigibility, pertinacity)
• renounce previous false teachings publicly and retract any errors
• advise readers of his/her non-approved Church status by insisting on adherence to the teachings of the popes, Councils, Canon Law and approved theologians.
• Refer readers to the original sources, not their commentaries or thoughts on these sources.

Conclusion

If efforts be made to attract those trapped in non-Catholic sects to the practice of praying at home are to be successful, there must first be a meeting of the minds among those promoting the practice of the faith at home regarding the dogmas on which our faith is based. I have long advocated for this united effort but I have been consistently shunned, falsely charged with teaching error, and my attempts to correct others who likewise advise Catholics to pray at home but who hold false doctrines have been ignored. What I have insisted upon is that the Church’s clear teachings regarding heresy and jurisdiction be properly understood and obeyed if one is to truly sever ties with Traditionalists and other non-Catholic sects and keep the faith at home. The Church teaches only one truth. In accord with the scholastic method, I have repeatedly offered numerous proofs from papal and conciliar documents, also Canon Law, to demonstrate what the Church teaches.

Similar proofs, however, have not been produced by those claiming to lead others to the conclusion they must practice their faith at home. Nor have they bothered, as they are obligated to do, to refute any of these proofs by producing credible evidence they are in error, even though this is required by Canon Law.  Time is a precious commodity and our time on earth is short. Christ could return at any moment, asking why we have not prayed and watched. Praying and watching does not include wasting our time “watching” hare-brained videos. Watching means setting a guard over oneself to avoid the snares of the enemy as outlined above, not credulously lapping up the visually regurgitated meanderings of those fascinated with Novus Ordo deviancy. Those considering praying at home deserve the truth; they deserve a united dogmatic front which the Church has always maintained to support them in making such a life-changing decision. They do not deserve to be led down yet another rabbit hole or diverted from verifying what is said for themselves, only later to discover they were misled and misinformed.

What all should seek is the highest possible degree of unity we can obtain among those praying at home without a visible Roman Pontiff and hierarchy. As Henry Edward Cardinal Manning wrote: “Truth goes before unity. Where truth is divided, unity cannot be. Unity before truth is deception. Unity without truth is indifference or unbelief. Truth before unity is the law and principle and safeguard of unity” (The True Story of the Vatican Council, 1877). Do those accommodating the works of others and sidestepping issues of heresy and sacramental invalidity show any respect for the truth? Are they ”consistent Catholics?” You decide.