Spiritual TEOTWAWKI

by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 6, 2022

Introduction

I remember the Y2K scare nearly 23 years ago, the urge by friends “in the know” to prepare for TEOTWAWKI — the end of the world as we know it. One even wrote a booklet about all the endless consequences of such a disaster and distributed it. Our family did prepare some but not to the point where our finances were stretched. And low and behold — Y2K never happened. (The Mayan Calendar predictions for 2012 never happened, either.) Those who had promoted Y2K, to save face, called it “a good test run.” Well maybe, but the emotional energy involved could not be recouped even if the survival materials purchased could be used at a later date. Since that time there have been numerous scares of various sorts to deal with, EMPs, comets, Planet X, you name it. Preppers always have something new to justify adding to their bug-out kits. But bug out — to where? as one savvy relative asked recently. The only way we are getting out of this mess is to take up residence in a box at the local cemetery.

What I have never figured out is where we find the bug-out kits for spiritual survival, the only thing that really matters in all this anyway. I guess that would mean a packet that would include a rosary, a scapular, a Sacred Heart badge, a Pardon Cross, a booklet with the basic truths of the Catholic faith and various other items that can be purchased individually, online or elsewhere. Physical preparation is a practical necessity, but spiritual preparation should be our utmost priority, needless to say.  So in exploring what follows below, I have no intention of creating alarm, urgency or distress. All of us reading this have to know that our days on this increasingly disgusting planet earth are numbered, just by observing all that has happened over the past several decades. TEOTWAWKI for us was the day Pope Pius XII died, and it has just been a waiting game ever since. Even Protestants expect Christ to return at any moment.

We are living in times when those of the Traditionalist mindset seem to expect a holy Pope and a Great Monarch to simply pop up out of the ether and set the Church right. They actually may have been preparing for this event behind the scenes for decades, harboring a “hidden” pope and courting some purported heir to European thrones. This despite all indications that no such thing can or will happen without a miracle, and that such a miracle cannot be fabricated as they have attempted to fabricate their very existence as the true Church itself.  While we will not exclude miracles here, neither will we easily lend ourselves to the conviction that the Church will be re-established on earth, at least according to their understanding of this event. The Jews expected an earthly king, and when Christ did not fit the bill, they crucified Him. It seems that history is simply repeating itself.

You will find speculations about TEOTWAWKI on paid Traditionalist sites, and others scattered here and there. Traditionalism is a business that many have profited from for decades. The information dispersed on this site is offered free of charge, thanks to my family and those generous donors who continue to help with expenses. Truth, especially, but also essential information should never be used for profit, particularly when our spiritual and physical survival are at stake. That they have been and that this information may be crucial to survive what lies ahead of us is why I have decided to make mention of it here, even though I am not pretending to know how it will happen exactly, when, or what we can expect once it occurs. God has kept this secret to Himself, and we will never be able to predict it with any real accuracy. We can, however, address it in a general sense and divest it of the Traditionalist spin that is being used to characterize what we can expect in its aftermath. (To view this author’s stand on where we are in apocalyptic time, read https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/end-times-teaching-and-traditionalists/).

So what are we looking at here?

There are any number of scenarios that have played out over the years but as we get closer to where I believe we are going, things become clearer as time goes on. To elaborate on the link above, I believe we are post-apostasy, post-Antichrist and that we exist in a time described by St. Thomas Aquinas: “Although men be terrified by the signs appearing about the judgment day, yet before those signs begin to appear the wicked will think themselves to be in peace and security after the death of Antichrist and before the coming of Christ, seeing that the world is not at once destroyed as they thought hitherto” (Summa supplement, Q. 73: 1). Although Antichrist is dead, his system and its leaders still live, so in a sense he lives on as well. Yet THE Man of Sin died in 1978, and that Paul 6 was indeed the Antichrist is something we have maintained for decades. Many disagree, but we have offered abundant proofs for this belief, while others have not come forward with equivalent proofs for why he is not.

The coming of Antichrist is what Traditionalists seem to pivot on in their evaluation of what we can expect in the future. Some believe in a general idea that the usurpers are Antichrist but are divided on whether Roncalli was one of the usurpers. Others believe that Francis is the Antichrist and that certain others were his system, and there are many variations of this belief. Yet others believe Antichrist has not yet come, so they are all over the place. Their inability to agree on this issue is what keeps them in limbo about what will happen in the coming months, or years, as God so ordains. One thing they are nearly all in agreement on is the coming three days of darkness, and this has been front and center for quite some time. This seems to follow the same parameters with all quoting the same sources, namely, private revelation.

Among these the most popular seem to be Marie Julie Jahenny and Anna Maria Taigi, also Bartholomew Holzhauser and the secret of La Salette. All of these are almost identical in what they predict. And they correspond with what some of the best minds today predict is going to happen very soon, with a few exceptions and some warnings. But comingled with these revelations are those regarding the coming of a great monarch, and these prophecies are being used to misdirect the faithful. To read how this is being done, see the article at https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/papal-teaching-on-church-and-state/can-catholics-expect-a-great-monarch/ Most Traditionalists assume the Great Monarch prophecies are of Catholic origin, since many of these prophecies are presented as proof of the Church’s belief in a Great Monarch. But doctrine, not prophecy is the bedrock of belief; prophecy and private revelations are proposed for belief on human, not Catholic faith. In fact Catholics need not even profess belief in revelations of this nature, even when they come from the mouths of saints, and in doing so they commit no sin. Even though a some saints foresaw the advent of a Great Monarch, many alternate explanations can be offered for their various predictions.

The Coming Chastisement of the World

While the three days of darkness tell a large part of the story, private prophecy doesn’t give it a place in time, or refer it to any specific set of events. The two personages missing from all of this are Enoch and Elias, who most commentators place in time before the defeat of Antichrist. But commentators have long been at odds over who these men might be and what role they might play. Some even believe they may have been Sts. Peter and Paul; others Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X. St. Robert Bellarmine insists it is heterodoxy to deny they will come before Antichrist’s defeat (although Pohle and Preuss deny this). Others assign to them a role purely spiritual, which would correspond with whoever gives witness to the faith in these times. But if we follow the events we know have already taken place, it is hard to weave them in anywhere if what we see is to be explained in any meaningful way. This is not to say they may not yet come, or that some details of these events have escaped us, and the timing is off. But it is to say that the rest of the events seem so compelling and completely fulfilled, for so many decades, that it is difficult to see the role they might play. One fulfillment has been mentioned before but does not seem to follow the timeline that is now evolving.

That timeline gives a name and a place to what is described as the three days, and some believe it could begin as early as December 2022. Others extend this time to 2025. One U.S. Army intelligence analyst, John Moore (The Liberty Man), has tracked it for years, and has revealed that the government has known about such an event since at least 1979. Several others, among them respected scientists, confirm his work. Moore explains that there really is such a thing as Planet X and that its near approach to earth, as it orbits around the sun, could easily initiate a pole shift that would effectively wipe out at least 80 percent of the world’s population. All the disturbances mentioned in the prophecies concerning the three days would then be confirmed – massive tidal waves in all coastal cities, earthquakes, volcanoes, great hail, asteroid strikes, violent winds, searing heat and total occlusion of sunlight, possibly for years. Those tracking the geomagnetic pole reversal that is currently in progress (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5eyItTI4iIx0kVBcpyGpRw) expect this to occur in March of 2023 or earlier. But no one can accurately predict any of this prior to the actual event.

This has happened several times before in history. There are many biblical references to similar events, or possibly this event itself. Exodus chapters nine and ten refer to the plagues Moses inflicted on Pharoah, one of them being three days of darkness. Others are listed below.

• Isaiah 24:1, 3-6 – Behold the Lord shall lay waste the earth, and shall strip it, and shall afflict the face thereof, and scatter abroad the inhabitants thereof. With desolation shall the earth be laid waste, and it shall be utterly spoiled: for the Lord hath spoken this word. The earth mourned, and faded away, and is weakened: the world faded away, the height of the people of the earth is weakened.  And the earth is infected by the inhabitants thereof: because they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore shall a curse devour the earth, and the inhabitants thereof shall sin: and therefore they that dwell therein shall be mad, and few men shall be left.
• Isaiah 24:18-20 – “And it shall come to pass, that he that shall flee from the noise of the fear, shall fall into the pit: and he that shall rid himself out of the pit, shall be taken in the snare: for the floodgates from on high are opened, and the foundations of the earth shall be shaken. With breaking shall the earth be broken, with crushing shall the earth be crushed, with trembling shall the earth be moved. With shaking shall the earth be shaken as a drunken man and shall be removed as the tent of one night: and the iniquity thereof shall be heavy upon it, and it shall fall, and not rise again” (perfect description of a pole shift).
• Isaiah 24:23 – “And the moon shall blush, and the sun shall be ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Sion, and in Jerusalem, and shall be glorified in the sight of his ancients.” (When the sun stood still in the Long Day of Joshua, the pole was migrating to a new location.)
• Isaiah 38:8 – “Behold I will bring again the shadow of the lines, by which it is now gone down in the sun dial of Achaz with the sun, ten lines backward. And the sun returned ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down.” (This is the writing of Hezekiah king of Judah, when he had been sick and had recovered. Here is evidence of two polar shifts, one in the day of Ahaz and a reverse shift during the monarchy of Hezekiah.)

The accounts given in private revelation regarding the three days state that the evil primarily will die during this event, but that some of the just will also be taken. And there is another scriptural account in the Apocalypse that narrows this down considerably, and puts us in mind of the events occurring throughout the world today.

Apocalypse 16 and the final battle

The reign of Antichrist is predicted in Chap. 13 of Apocalypse and as mentioned above chapter 14 and 15 serve as introductory chapters to the next important event: the releasing of the last seven plagues and the Battle of Armageddon. I think most people realize that we are poised on the edge of war with both China and possibly Russia. No one can predict when (or even if) this event might happen but if we take Apoc. Ch. 16 literally, it would seem that it coincides with the advent of the pole shift and the destruction of Babylon described at length in chapters 17 and 18. An angel with seven vials is introduced in verse 1 and the plagues begin from there. The first plague announced in verse 2 mentions an affliction with sores that won’t heal. These could be STDs or many of the ailments suffered by those in the Middle East as a result of endless years of war and nutritional deprivation. The third verse describes the turning of the sea into blood, and this has been reported at various places worldwide, although it is generally attributed to chemical spills from mines or red algae infestations. These spills and infestations often are toxic to sea animals, and the verse depicts them as dying.

One of these seas is the Mediterranean. Internet sources describe the Mediterranean as currently one of the most dangerous seas because of an influx of Syrian migrants, military exercises conducted by Russia, Mideast tensions and dangerous animals in the ocean. Another worry is the danger lurking beneath the sea — what is described as the largest underwater volcano in Europe. “It is considered potentially dangerous, and while it has been silent for several thousand years, it is not exactly dormant.” https://volcanofoundation.org/potentially-dangerous-volcano-under-mediterranean-sea/  This could easily be activated and erupt during a pole shift. The fourth plague is the scorching heat of the sun which could occur worldwide as a result of the approaching pole shift and its geomagnetic effects on the sun. The fifth plague is darkness that surrounds the kingdom of the beast. While this could mean actual physical darkness, it also could be interpreted as the growing realization of the total corruption of Francis and his false church in Rome. The sixth plague is already taking place. The River Euphrates is drying up and has been for some time. https://phys.org/news/2021-08-euphrates-threatens-disaster-syria.html

Verses 13-16 explain how this river is dried up so that the “Kings that come from the rising sun” can march their troops through the dry riverbed and into the Middle East. This seems to clearly refer to China. China, India and the UN all still maintain cavalry units. And It does not seem necessary that the riverbed would need to be completely dry to allow troops to march through it. These Bible verses tell how “spirits of devils will go forth to the kings of the whole world” to
gather troops to fight this battle. Rev. H.B. Kramer says in his The Book of Destiny (1955) that while preparations for this battle are still being made, Great Babylon will fall (chapters 17-18). This may not just mean just Rome, but the United States and all other nations secretly in league with the Great Harlot all these years. But just as the battle begins, a worldwide earthquake will take place, and all the phenomena mentioned above will likewise occur. Kramer states: “That such an earthquake is possible and even probable someday is admitted by all scientists. The centrifugal force set up by the earth’s rotation can break the shell of the earth’s crust around the equator and cause the land masses to slip that way, flattening out the poles.” So this is something that was known long ago.

This chapter relates that this punishment of the wicked is in retribution for the shedding of the blood of the saints and the prophets (verses 5-6). The armies are swallowed up, their purpose is frustrated and the whole world is in ruins. “Great hail” especially will fall on these armies and kill them all; (this could mean bombs). The cities of the nations will fall, the islands will flee, and the mountains will not be found (verses 19-20). Is this the end of the world or a new beginning? God alone knows, and the commentators are entirely divided on this issue. Much depends on whether all parts of the world will be affected equally and to what degree.

Some speculate much of the east and west coasts of the U.S. will either be under water or whisked away. The midwestern states will fare the best but will still be subject to earthquakes and flooding. Eastern Canada is expected to be minorly affected. Europe will be largely under water. There again, nothing is certain, and all depends on God’s good pleasure. They have been building elaborate bunkers all over the world for the elite to comfortably weather this disaster for decades, with theaters, gardens, shops, homes, offices, you name it. But this does not mean they will survive.

Much of this depends on whether the current calculations about our time period are correct, and whether we are, as St. Thomas says, living in that time the wicked refer to as “peace and security” following the death of Antichrist. “Behold, I come as a thief,” Christ announces in Apoc. 16:15. He warns the faithful to watch and keep their garments without stain. But how could He come as a thief if everyone was expecting this pole shift? If no one believed that Antichrist had yet come, — and no one or very few were expecting it — then Christ would appear to come as a thief and this disaster to come from nowhere.

Conclusion

The problem with all of these commentators is that none of them ever envisioned the long-term loss of the papacy, or if they did, felt it best not to draw out the consequences. Had they foreseen the totality of that, perhaps they would not be so certain that the Church would simply pick up and go on about its business once again, after such a devastating catastrophe. That is what now makes the theory that there will be a restoration of the Church following the death of Antichrist — an opinion mainly promoted by more modern commentators — less tenable than it was previously.

Holy Scripture tells us to pray and watch. But what are the signs of this catastrophe we should be watching for? Drought, heat waves, solar flares, and especially a red sky; at anytime, but particularly in the morning. Some claim Planet X has already become visible in the night sky, seen as a sort of red sun. But the color of the sky itself did not change. When the sky itself begins to change and become red, people are cautioned to shelter indoors and close and shutter all windows. Most agree the darkness that follows will last 72 hours. Until it becomes light all are warned not to leave their homes. High winds, great hail, tsunamis, floods and earthquakes are predicted.

If this all comes to pass, small pockets of survivors will exist here and there. How do they communicate, who and how will the Church reorganize, who will evangelize? All of this would take a miracle of major proportions. Our Lord tells us that unless He returns, no flesh will be saved, and this alone tells us He is not just referring to spiritual death but to physical bodies. He also indicates that when He does return, He will scarcely find any faith left on earth. So the idea that the Second Coming will happen shortly after this disaster makes more sense, if indeed the pole shift/worldwide earthquake does take place.

There are many unanswered questions. Even though we consider the above a distinct possibility, look at how many Scriptural commentators in the past were mistaken about their interpretations, and they were trained in theology! Could the powers that be have concocted this Planet X/pole shift business in an attempt to appear to fulfill prophecy, or is it real? Could they manufacture such a thing? Are the people promoting it, including Traditionalists, making money off this? Yes, to all these questions. There is just so much we don’t know. One Scripture verse indicates at some point two-thirds of the population will be destroyed (Zach. 13:8); but again, commentators are divided on when in time this will occur and how many will actually perish. If we were meant to know specifics, we would know them. But God has decided we will only know things in general outline, and that is what we must resign ourselves to.

The only advantage to anticipating such an event must be spiritual. If these predictions are true, we have months, perhaps a few years, to put our affairs in order and to pray and do penance. Most of those who pray at home already live the rural life and have for some time. They are faithful to their prayer life and avoid those who traffick in the sacraments. They are prepared physically to some extent as well, and trust God to take care of the rest. How all this comes to pass will tell us a great deal about what might lie ahead in the future.

Will the elite survive in their bunkers and emerge to terrorize us once again? Will Traditionalist organizers be able to maintain contact with whoever they are courting to implement their Great Monarch/Holy Pope fantasy? Will the world start over again or will Christ come in the clouds to gather us together and take us home? Seeing how wicked the world has become, many would welcome such an event just to escape the evil that threatens to engulf us. Some of us among the older set may never live to see it or live long after it occurs without medical care. And that will be the end of the world as we know it. Fr. Frederick Faber said it long ago, as only he could express it.

The Right Must Win

What Happened to the Church

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 18, 2022

© Copyright 2022, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Many people want a short and sweet explanation of what happened to the Church that caused the disappearance of everything it was for nearly 2,000 years. I provide the long version of that explanation in my work The Phantom Church in Rome, available in the book section. While I am not sure a short version is possible to do justice to what happened to the Church, I will try to provide a brief summary here.

Poison imbibed over time in small doses is just as effective in most cases as a massive dose administered all at once; it simply takes a little longer to achieve the desired result. Parading as various “isms” over many centuries, this is how the Church was finally brought to her knees – small doses of poison, secretly doled out over time to those in seminaries, Catholic universities and parochial schools. Gallicanism and Protestantism are the two “isms” most liable in all this, for both shared a common denominator that appeared to be an outside entity but in reality was also the driving force behind all the “isms” generated after the Reformation. This includes but is not limited to Naturalism, Jansenism, Quietism, Illuminism, Regalism, Rationalism, Fideism (also called Traditionalism), Humanism, Nationalism, Socialism, Communism and Modernism. This force was itself fed by ancient heresies that can be traced back as far as pre-Christian times. For even St. Jude warns of “certain men secretly entered in.” This driving force is, of course, Freemasonry.

Gnosticism

The Church has battled heresies from the beginning. As Holy Scripture tells us, there is nothing new under the sun. Numerous offshoots of the first major heresy combatted by the Church, (Gnosticism, manifested in the various sects of Freemasonry and related secret societies), is what plagues the Church today. Modernism is often cited as the primary heresy, even in my own book, which finally toppled the juridic Church, but Gnosticism is part and parcel of it. Modernism is described by Pope St. Pius X as “the synthesis of all heresies.” Gnosticism, then, emerges from Modernism’s core to serve as its polar or guiding star. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Gnosticism as:

“The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were ‘people who knew,’ and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings.” Because they despised matter, they reduced Christ to a mere phantasm, denying the Incarnation.

Sound familiar? Not only does it describe the ruling elite today, but the “mysteries” and Satanic teachings of Freemasonry and its upper echelons to whom those elite belong. They just “know” what is best for us; they “know” things we cannot and do not (nor ever want) to know. On the religious spectrum, “They possessed what may be called ‘theosophic’ treatises and revelations of a highly mystical character,” and placed “unshakable trust in astrology, the persuasion that the planetary system had a fatalistic influence on this world’s affairs,” so the science of the day was an important part of their belief system (M.L. Cozens, in his 1928 A Handbook of Heresies).

Cozens also says of Gnosticism: “The Gnostics taught salvation not by faith and love but by speculative knowledge and in more degraded development, by magic rites…” Like Freemasonry, Gnosticism “was but a large conglomeration of sects,” among them Manichaenism, and the Catholic Encyclopedia demonstrates the diverse teachings and beliefs of several of these. Cozens explains that trying “…to describe it is like trying to describe the ever-changing pattern within a revolving kaleidoscope. Each teacher reforms it or adds some startling revelation of his own.”

Modernism

The similarities to or affinity with Modernism lie in its elusive nature, “its ever-changing pattern” as Cozens characterizes Gnosticism above. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as follows: “Etymologically, modernism means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an infatuation for modern ideas, ‘the abuse of what is modern,’ as the Abbé Gaudaud explains (La Foi catholique, I, 1908, p. 248).’ …The spirit of this plan of reform may be summarized under the following heads:

• a spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority;
• the emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear of conflict with the Church;
• the emancipation of the State, which should never be hampered by religious authority;
• the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas;
• the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in agreement;
• A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.”
• And to this we must add Pope St. Pius X’s teaching in Pascendi that “…sentiment and experience alone, when not enlightened and guided by reason, do not lead to the knowledge of God…”

According to the New Catholic Dictionary (Conde Pallen and Wynne, editors; 1929) the teaching and belief of secret societies is nothing more than Positivism. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that Positivism “…denies the validity of metaphysical speculations, and maintains that the data of sense experience are the only object and the supreme criterion of human knowledge; as a religious system, it denies the existence of a personal God.” This is identical to what Pope St. Pius said above in Pascendi.

We also see on the list above the same superiority of the Gnostic, the reverence for science, the disparagement of any authority other than their own (superiority) and a different interpretation of reality, placing feelings over intellect. The ever-evolving nature of Modernism, to remain “current” with technology and the ongoing doctrinal revision they prescribe is like the ever-changing pattern Cozens describes above. Like Gnosticism, Modernism leads to Pantheism, and this is the teaching of Pope St. Pius X. “That every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from man as man… is the identity of man with God, which means Pantheism” (A Catechism of Modernism, p. 118). And both Gnosticism and Freemasonry have the hidden meanings behind their symbolism in common. Also, Gnosticism and Modernism both reduce belief to religious sentiment, or “quasi-intuitive knowledge” and falsify Catholic reality. There are amazing correlations between the properties of Modernism listed above and the teachings of the various interconnecting heresies as found in the Catholic Encyclopedia below:

• So Jewish Kabbalism is “theosophy mixed with various forms of magic and occultism.” It can be traced to “the Oriental or Egyptian Pantheists, and the Gnostics of the earliest Christian ages.
• Theosophy is “the knowledge of God supposed to be obtained by the direct intuition of the Divine essence… In method it differs from theology, which is the knowledge of God obtained by revelation, and from philosophy, which is the knowledge of Divine things acquired by human reasoning… It receives its knowledge by intuition or illumination.
• Theosophy is inherent in Gnosticism: “The Gnostic systems reveal more theosophy than theology.” The professed objectives of the Theosophical Society in New York City founded by Madame Blavatsky in 1875 are to form the nucleus of a universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color; to encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, and science; to investigate the unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man. This last clause gives occasion to include magic, the occult, the uncanny, and the marvelous in any and every form.
• Madame Blavatsky was the founder of a branch of Freemasonry known as Co-Masonry.

Scholasticism

As Michael J. Mahoney, S.J. tells us in his 1918 work Formal Logic, “Untrained reason is liable to err, especially in the solution of more difficult problems… The laws of thought put us in touch with reality…” And the Church for this reason prescribes the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Scholastic method, to keep us grounded in reality. Pope St. Pius X said of the Modernists’ aversion to Scholastic philosophy in his Pascendi dominici gregis:

1. Do dislike and hatred of scholasticism go hand-in-hand with Modernism?
2. “Certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method.”
3. Hasn’t their ignorance of scholastic philosophy given birth to Modernism itself?
4. “The whole system, with all its errors, has been born of the alliance between faith and

Modernism teaches that dogma must be adapted to the times, that it can change, that reality can change. But as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

“Assuredly Catholic truth is not a lifeless thing. Rather is it a living tree that breaks forth into green leaves, flowers, and fruits. There is a development, or gradual unfolding, and a clearer statement of its dogmas. Besides the primary truths, such as the Divinity of Christ and His mission as Messias, there are others which, one by one, become better understood and defined, e.g. the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and that of the Infallibility of the Pope. Such unfolding takes place not only in the study of the tradition of the dogma but also in showing its origin in Jesus Christ and the Apostles, in the understanding of the terms expressing it and in the historical or rational proofs adduced in support of it. Truth consists in the conformity of the idea with its object. Now, in the Catholic concept, a dogmatic formula supplies us with at least an analogical knowledge of a given object. For the modernist, the essential nature of dogma consists in its correspondence with and its capacity to satisfy a certain momentary need of the religious feeling.”

The author of the Encyclopedia article then goes onto explain how Modernism took hold in Catholic universities and seminaries.

“The insufficient cultivation of Catholic philosophy and science is the second deep explanation of the origin of modernist errors. Both have too long confined themselves to answers which, though fundamentally correct, are but little suited to the mentality of our adversaries, and are formulated in a language which they do not understand and which is no longer to the point. Instead of utilizing what is quite legitimate in their positive and critical tendencies, they have only considered them as so many abnormal leanings that must be opposed . . .” (Gaudeau, “La Foi Catholique”, I, pp. 62-65). Another point is that the intrinsic nature of the movement of contemporary philosophy has been too much despised or ignored in Catholic schools. They have not given it that partial recognition which is quite consonant with the best scholastic tradition: “In this way, we have failed to secure a real point of contact between Catholic and modern thought” (Gaudeau, ibid.). For lack of professors who knew how to mark out the actual path of religious science, many cultured minds, especially among the young clergy, found themselves defenseless against an error which seduced them by its speciousness and by any element of truth contained in its reproaches against the Catholic schools. It is scholasticism ill-understood and calumniated that has incurred this disdain.”

This is nothing more than the result of a continuous infusion of poison into the veins of Catholic intellectuals.

Cozens explains how this happened as follows: “Among the clergy ordained during the past quarter of the century were some who, finding it impossible to reconcile the dogmas of certain modern scientists with the dogmas of the faith, despaired not of modern science but of the faith. Instead of holding firmly that God’s revelation is infallibly true, and that all other truth must eventually be found in harmony with it, they decided that whatever in Christian doctrine was out of harmony with the spirit of the age must go — or, as they would say, be so reinterpreted as to harmonize with it. It would seem simpler having decided that the Church’s creed was untrue to leave the Church — this these worshippers of the age refused to do, claiming a right to remain within the visible Church and form therein an esoteric body who instead of molding their beliefs to her creed, should mold her creed to their beliefs.”

Gnostic technocracy and Modernism

The Gnostic heresy seemed to die out, although it was reborn with the establishment of Freemasonry in 1717. That Modernism as described above, with its ideas of complete emancipation from all religious authority, subservience to the state, superiority of science to religion, total freedom of conscience and ecumenism surely corresponds with every goal ever expressed by Freemasonry is beyond any doubt. And now we also have technocracy, which the Internet author Douglas Beaumont links to both Modernism and Gnosticism as follows:

“The modern infatuation with technology is implicitly Gnostic. Technology replaces physical reality with mere images (representations / simulations) of reality – removing us, by degree, from the reality we are meant to live in. When we allow ourselves to accept technology’s replacement of reality (the simulacrum) as our reality – confusing information with matter – we are essentially embracing Gnosticism.” To emphasize the unreality of today’s Modernism with its technical gimmicks, he quotes a dialogue with Plato from The Sophist below:

“Theaetetus: How, Stranger, can I describe an image except as something fashioned in the likeness of the true?

“Stranger: And do you mean this something to be some other true thing, or what do you mean?

“Theaetetus: Certainly not another true thing, but only a resemblance.

“Stranger: And you mean by true that which really is?

“Theaetetus: Yes.

“Stranger: And the not true is that which is the opposite of the true?

“Theaetetus: Exactly.”

This, uncomfortably, reminds us of two things. First the Novus Ordo church, which bears only an outer resemblance of the “true” Church. And second, Traditionalism, which also bears only a certain resemblance to the true Church, yet is not that Church. People do not realize that by accepting such diabolical substitutions, not only have they become practicing Gnostics, but they have lost all touch with reality. If we understand only these two heresies, throughout the entire history of the Church, we have the answer to what caused Her destruction, without needing to understand much more. And yet there is one other heresy that brewed for centuries just beneath the surface, a heresy with Gnostic origins that eventually contributed to Modernism. This is addressed below.

The origin and rise of Gallicanism

The definition of infallibility, as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains, was intended to wipe out all traces of Gallicanism in the Church. But what appears to have happened instead is its early migration to schismatics and heretics with Gnostic tendencies (the Old Catholics and their offshoots) and its later manifestation among Modernists, with their hatred of dogma and papal authority. It appears to this author that this could not have happened without there being some hidden, longstanding effort to infiltrate the clergy and destroy the Church. Masonic documents clearly state this was always their intention, and the Alta Vendita detailed their plans to achieve it. While Henry Cardinal Manning clearly perceived the Gallicanist heresy as the primary reason for calling the Vatican Council to define infallibility and stamp out this error, he could not have seen the ultimate success of the Modernists and the extent of the inroads made by the Masonic element, which came only after his death.

What exactly is Gallicanism? Cozens, cited above, writes: “The Gallican school held 1) that the Pope’s definitions were not infallible in themselves but only after acceptance by the Universal Church and 2) that a general council’s authority was above that of a Pope. Some French ecclesiastics also claimed that the king had the right to forbid the publication in France of papal bulls that no act done by the king’s agent on his authority could involve excommunication and that the king could prevent any bishops recourse to Rome even if the Pope commanded his presence.” To this should be added the errors of Febronianism, first advocated by the German  bishop of Trier, Johann Nickolaus von Hontheim, (using the pseudonym Febronius), in 1763. Hontheim taught that Christ did not give “…the power of the keys to Peter but to the whole Church; that the pope’s power, as head of the whole Church… is of an administrative and unifying character, rather than a power of jurisdiction;” that the appointment of bishops and the establishment of dioceses should be left to provincial synods and metropolitans and even the determination of matters of faith should be left to these same authorities. “Hontheim advanced along the same lines, in spite of many inconsistencies, to a radicalism far outstripping traditional Gallicanism” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This proposed expansion of Gallicanism, condemned by Clement XIII, is interesting because of its place in time. This will be discussed further below.

Manning on Gallicanism

Writing in his The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, 1875, Cardinal Manning explains the origins and nature of Gallicanism:

“It has been acknowledged by the adversaries of the doctrine [of infallibility] that from the Council of Constance in 1414 to this day the doctrine [of infallibility] has been the predominant belief of the Church. I gave evidence of its existence from the Council of Constance upwards to the Council of Chalcedon in 445. Next, I trace the history of the growth of the opinions adverse to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff from the council of Constance to the year 1682, when it was for the first time reduced to formula by an assembly of French ecclesiastics under the influence of Louis XIV. Lastly, I showed how this formula was no sooner published than it was condemned in every Catholic country by bishops and universities and by the Holy See. Gallicanism has no warrant in the doctrinal practice or tradition of the Church either in France or at large in the 1000 years preceding the Council of Constance. The first traces of Gallicanism are to be found about the time of that council. After the council of Constance they were rapidly and almost all together effaced from the theology of the Church in France until their revival in 1682. In another work Privilegium Petri, written in 1867, Manning writes:

“The main principle of Ultramontanism [unflagging loyalty and unquestioning obedience to the papacy] was distinctly recognised and put in act by the Council of Constance. Does anyone imagine that in this the Council of Constance differs from the Councils of Chalcedon or of Trent, or that its acts embody any other principles than those of the universal tradition of Christianity namely, the supreme authority of the successor of St. Peter ruling and teaching the whole Church on earth?

“It would seem that some suppose the Catholic Church to be a system, like the Austrian or the British empire, in which nationalities are to play their part, balanced by constitutional checks. This Judaic notion began to rise when the idea of Catholic unity began to decline. The assimilation of all national distinctions to a higher type — the extinction, that is, of nationalities in Christ Jesus — eliminated Jew and Greek, Teuton and Latin, from the sphere of faith. It was the rise of modern nationalities which caused the great Western Schism, for the termination of which the Council of Constance was assembled. The schism was healed, though the Council of Basle for a while re-opened it. The national spirit continued still to work, and in a part of Germany and England grew to a head, which in the sixteenth century issued in the Protestant schism… It was not the infallibility of the Pope, ex cathedra, which drove Protestants into schism. It was the denial of the infallibility of the Church which made them heretics.

“Gallicanism is nationalism: that which the Gospel casts out; that which grew up again in medieval Christendom. It is the Christian Judaism which strove to elect its own High Priest; the national factions which rent the Sacred College; the nationalism which set up two or three uncanonical Popes, and two or three national obediences; the spirit of egotism, worldliness, and avarice, which caused whole nations of Europe to apostasize from the Divine will, from the unity of the Church, and to erect Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism on the schismatical basis of national Churches.

“Gallicanism is no more than a transient and modern opinion which arose in France, without warrant or antecedents in the ancient theological schools of the great French Church: a royal theology, as suddenly developed and as parenthetical as the Thirty-nine Articles; affirmed only by a small number out of the numerous episcopate of France, indignantly rejected by many of them; condemned in succession by three Pontiffs; declared by the Universities of Louvain and Douai to be erroneous; retracted by the Bishops of France; condemned by Spain, Hungary, and other countries, and condemned over again in the bull Auctorem Fidei… They had no antecedent traditions, no roots in the theology of the great Church of France. Cardinal Aguirre has abundantly shown that the Saints, doctors, episcopate, and schools of France taught one uniform doctrine with the Church of all other countries, as to the supremacy and infallibility of the Chair and successor of Peter. The Gallicanism of 1682 was a feeble imitation of the preamble of the 24th of Henry VIII, by which the schism of England was accomplished.”

Some 20 years after Manning’s death, the Catholic Encyclopedia had a somewhat different view of Gallicanism’s transient nature. “But, if its provisions disappeared from the laws of France, the principles it embodied for a time none the less continued to inspire the schools of theology and parliamentary jurisprudence. Those principles even appeared at the Council of Trent, where the ambassadors, theologians, and bishops of France repeatedly championed them, notably when the questions for decision were as to whether episcopal jurisdiction comes immediately from God or through the pope, whether or not the council ought to ask confirmation of its decrees from the sovereign pontiff, etc. Then again, it was in the name of the Liberties of the Gallican Church that a part of the clergy and the Parlementaires opposed the publication of that same council; and the crown decided to detach from it and publish what seemed good, in the form of ordinances emanating from the royal authority.” Yet later in the same article, they declared that Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy. True, but as experience has shown it certainly was not a “lesser” heresy; it became a driving force behind the “synthesis of all heresies” — Modernism.

Secret societies

And standing where we are today, Manning’s hope that Gallicanism was entirely quashed was a hope not realized; far from it. His underestimation of what Cozen’s classifies as only a “lesser” heresy can be attributed to the Masonic forces that appear to have wormed their way into this religious and political movement, possibly from the very beginning, but definitely following the Reformation. Here we are speaking of what merely began as an underground current following the disbanding of the Templars in 1312, during the reign of the Avignon popes. Supposedly some of those disbanded, perhaps bearing grudges against the Church, continued under other names and in secret. In his Freemasonry and the Vatican, quoting from several sources, Comte Leon de Poncins states that “In reality, there was an ancient Catholic Masonry, about which little is known, which gradually fell into abeyance” (p. 115). He here seems to refer to a Catholic Masonry in existence that was centered around the masonry, or brick and stone laying guilds. But he also quotes another source that claims the Stuarts and Irish/Scottish aristocracy also belonged to a type of Catholic Masonry, in the 1600-1700s, which was later infiltrated by Protestant Freemasons.

Quoting from what he claims to be the most comprehensive and well-documented history of Freemasonry ever written, by one N. Deschamps, de Poncins relates that: “In the Middle Ages and at the time of the Renaissance, the Freemasons in Germany and Italy were overwhelmed with favors by the sovereign pontiffs and there is not a trace of heresy or hostility against the Church in the statutes of Stroudsburg of 1462 or as revised in 1563. However, in 1535 we come across a document which reveals the existence of an order under the name of Freemasons whose anti-Christian principles are absolutely in harmony with those of modern Masonry, and this time it is no longer a question of builders protecting their arts… The oldest and most authentic document of the Masonic Lodge, known as the charter of Cologne, dates back to the year 1535. It reveals the existence already going back sometime perhaps even two centuries of one or several secret societies which eked out a clandestine existence throughout the various states of Europe in direct antagonism with the religious and civil principles that formed the basis of their constitutions.

Deschamps then goes on to quote from Michelet regarding the hotbed of Jewish influence and heresies existing in the Languedoc region of southern France. De Poncins concludes his quotes from this author with the following: “Sixteenth century Freemasonry arose out of the ruins of the Knights Templar…” This leads us directly back to the Avignon papacy and the advent of the Gallicanist heresy. Disbanded and frustrated, it appears they managed somehow to influence those in positions of authority in the Church, men who most likely took them for good Catholics and trusted them, and it is into their ears they began to whisper doubts regarding papal supremacy and early ideas of democracy such as Marsilius of Padua taught. In short they began the campaign to democratize and modernize the Church, to align Her with the state once they had toppled the monarchies, to strip the Church of Her rightful power. If their efforts are viewed over time with the hindsight afforded by history, it can easily be seen that this is what they did gradually over the centuries until the time of the Vatican Council.

Hiéron du Val d’Or

According to Wikipedia and other sources, “The Hiéron du Val d’Or (English: “Sanctuary of the Golden Valley”) was a Catholic esoteric secret society in France, which existed from 1873 until 1926. It was founded by a Jesuit Victor Drevon and the half-Basque, half-Russian Alexis de Sarachaga. It was allied to concepts of royalism and was culturally conservative; it sought to erect a Catholic hermetic Freemasonry, contrary to the anti-clerical Freemasonry of Grand Orient de France and was particularly devoted to Christ the King.”

According to authors Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent, in their work Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Hieron du Val d’Or admitted the existence of a hidden pope and his entourage, which of course would include bishops, waiting in the wings to act either as a replacement for or an alternative to the current church in Rome: “The Hiéron’s agenda was the creation of a new Habsburg and Catholic Holy Roman Empire with a French temporal and spiritual head in the manner of the Grand Monarch, an association of Europeans bound by common law and dedicated to advancing the mission of Christ the King.” (Here they cite sources linked to the “Catholic” secret society Marcel Lefebvre reportedly belonged to, the Priory of Sion.) “They [the Hieron] claim the existence of a secret parallel Catholic tradition called l’Eglise d’Avignon (Church of Avignon), which they trace to the medieval Papacy installed in Avignon from 1309 to 1378. The claim is that it continued in secret with a Pope who represents the esoteric aspects of the Catholic Church. L’Eglise d’Avignon is said to serve as an intermediary between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox tradition.”

“The Templars, like all other secret orders and associations, had two doctrines,” the Mason Pike says in his Morals and Dogma, “one concealed and reserved for the Masters, which was Johannism; the other public, which was the Roman Catholic.” So what was Johannism? Eliphas Levi informs us that although outwardly Catholics the secret cult of the Templars was Johannism… The Johannites, who were Kabalists and Gnostics adopted part of the Jewish traditions and talmudic accounts. They regarded the fact of the gospels as allegories of which Saint John had the key. Their grand pontiffs assumed the title of Christ” (Trail of the Serpent, 1936). Pike explained that the Templar founders “…took an oath between the hands of the Patriarch of Constantinople, a See always secretly or openly hostile to that of Rome from the time of Photius. The avowed object of the Templars was to protect the Christians who came to the Holy Places: their secret aim was the rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon on the model prophesied by Ezekiel. “This rebuilding… had become the secret dream of the Patriarchs of the Orient. The Temple of Solomon, rebuilt and consecrated to the Catholic worship would become, in effect, the Metropolis of the universe. THE EAST WOULD PREVAIL OVER THE WEST AND THE PATRIARCHS OF CONSTANTINOPLE WOULD POSSESS THEMSELVES OF THE PAPAL POWER.”

Neo-Modernism equals Freemasonry’s triumph

The timing of the emergence of this organization is important, because it occurs only seven years after the close of the Vatican Council. I say emergence because that it existed secretly for centuries is proven by what is said above by de Poncins. Undoubtedly Modernist tendencies were already secretly at work in the Church, but this is an indication that far more was going on than was initially realized. “Catholic” Freemasons no doubt went to ground following the condemnations against Freemasonry that began in the late 1700s and continued in earnest through the reign of Pope Leo XIII. When they briefly came up from underground, it was only under the guise of renouncing “anti-clerical Freemasonry” while retaining all of the esoteric symbols of Freemasonry. Wikipedia claims the The Hiéron du Val d’Or gradually disappeared after 1925, but as we know, it only went to ground once again. Did it re-emerge in the 1940s?

The following 1950 instruction from the Holy Office seems to indicate that it did:

“Among the things which are springing up again with renewed vigor and not only in Italy is Freemasonry with its ever-recurring hostility to religion and to the Church. What appears to be a new feature in this Masonic renaissance is the rumors circulating in various social classes that a particular rite of Masonry might no longer be in opposition to the Church whereby even Catholics can enroll at their ease in the sect without fear of excommunication and reproach. Those responsible for propagating these rumors must surely know that nothing has been modified in the Church’s legislation relative to Freemasonry and if they continue this campaign it can only be in order to profit from the naivete of simple folk. The bishops know that Canon 684 and especially Canon 2335 which excommunicates those who have given their names to Masonry without any distinction between rights or as full in force today as they always have been; all Catholics ought to know this and remember it so as not to fall into this snare and also so as to know how to pass do judgment on the fact that certain simpletons believe they can call themselves both Catholics and Freemasons with impunity. This, I repeat, applies to all Masonic rites, EVEN IF SOME OF THEM IN VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES DECLARED THAT THEY ARE NOT HOSTILE TO THE CHURCH” (Most Reverend Mario Cordovani, Master of the Sacred Palace; printed in Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1950, as quoted by de Poncins).

So was this revived Modernism, neo-modernism, only a resurfacing of that “ancient Catholic Masonry,” meaning that it did not remain in abeyance? It surely is no coincidence that only six years later, in 1956, an organization surfaced in France appearing to be a Catholic form of Masonry. Fascist and royalist in nature, documents show, it has been linked to Marcel Lefebvre and Abbe Ducaud-Bourget, even Angelo Roncalli himself. This is the Prieure de Sion or Priory of Sion; its subtitle is Chivalry of Catholic Rules and Institutions of the Independent and Traditionalist Union. (To read more on this subject visit https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=Masonic+origins). Does the papal document above not also condemn the founders of Traditionalism who belonged to the Shickshinny Knights of Jerusalem? This Masonic sect appears to be an organization founded at the same time as the Priory of Sion. John Wathen, who wrote a book defending the non-Masonic orientation of the Shickshinny Knights, obviously was ignoring this pronouncement from Rome. And how do those upholding the Gallicanist heresy fit into the Gnostic/Modernist framework?

Following the definition of infallibility, those already lodged as “serpents in the bosom of the Church,” undoubtedly opposed to the definition of infallibility, launched a retaliatory attack from within Her own ranks where many of them were already lodged — a carefully calculated, pervasive infiltration of Catholic thought processes, later identified as Modernism. It was the final, less diluted dose of the poison that had been circulating in the veins of certain Catholic “intellectuals” for centuries. And by the time the source of the poisoning was discovered, it was too late to save the patient. Modernism had already so weakened the Church She was unable to recover, and the extent of the internal damage done and the two World Wars prevented the popes from taking the drastic measures necessary to successfully treat and cure it. The Catholic Encyclopedia terms Modernism as a tendency, a proposed remodeling and reforming of the Church according to 20^th century ideas and ideals.

But in reality, it was much more than it appeared to be, otherwise it would never have been successful. Even Pope St. Pius X in his Pascendi noted that “…the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has, in these last days, increased exceedingly” and that their ultimate plan was to “overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself.” And that goal has now been achieved. But who are those most dedicated to overthrowing the Church if not Freemasonry and its numerous satellite organizations? In giving Modernism an actual name, was Pope St. Pius X possibly only acknowledging the existence of an anti-dogmatic, anticlerical “Catholic Freemasonry” within the Church? Could this Freemasonry have consisted in opposing sides so to speak, or perhaps methods — each just as dangerous, but one more subtle — that bore a greater sympathy for “Tradition” — as in Traditionalists?!  As de Poncins and other authors explain, Freemasonry plays both sides — the left AND the right — and tolerates division even within its own ranks.

Author Craig Heimbichner, in his Blood on the Altar (2005) notes that many of those initially singing the praises of the Latin Tridentine Mass in the late 1960s, early 1970s were practicing theosophists, who succeeded in luring traditionalists into “Latin Mass” groups. He links the awe for the old Mass to C.W. Leadbetter, founder of the Liberal Catholic (Theosophical) church in Sydney, Australia in 1917, citing several quotes proving theosophic occultism later was introduced into Traditional circles. He quotes Wasserman as stating that “Persons of Gnostic-hermetic interests have more in common with traditionalist Catholics than with either modernist Vatican II Catholics or with Protestants…The Right-wing exploits a superstition among some Catholics who hold to a kind of unspoken “magic sacramentalism,” [condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis against Modernism], i.e, the notion that being present at the Holy Mass itself, with its awe-inspiring solemnity and its bells, incense and candles — not one’s state of grace, fidelity to the Commandments of God or relationship with Jesus Christ — becomes the individual’s guarantor of sanctity.” Heimbichner calls this a “Satanic perversion” of Catholicism, mixing Gnostic/pagan elements with the true, much as is done in the Satanic rituals connected to Voodoo and Santeria. And if this is what those investigating Traditionalism really wish to expose themselves to, they definitely are not looking for the true faith as taught by St. Peter through Pius XII.

Traditionalism and Gallicanism

Let us surmise here that “traditionalists” represent the “Catholic” side of Freemasonry, as expressed in the subtitle of the Priory of Sion. This would mean that what the Hieron du Val d’Or expresses was a correct assessment of its ultimate aims and can be interpreted as a reflection of Gallicanism. That this tendency still existed among the episcopacy, after the Gallicanist contingent put forward the question at the Council of Trent some 400 years prior: “…whether episcopal jurisdiction comes immediately from God or through the pope, whether or not the council ought to ask confirmation of its decrees from the sovereign pontiff, etc. is proven in Pope Pius XII’s answer to this longstanding question in Mystici Corporis. The pope decided that the bishops’ jurisdiction is transmitted to them only through the pope, and this was not a decision well-received in some quarters. Had he not seen danger ahead on this score, would he have defined it? If Gallicanism was not still alive after the 1869 Vatican Council, it would scarcely have been necessary.

We know from above that there is a link between the descendants of the disbanded Templars and the Hieron du Val d’Or because the latter mentions itself as an envoy of sorts between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox, and Pike links the Templars to the Orthodox. In the same breath they mention the Avignon papacy. So was that “papacy” united to or absorbed by the Eastern Patriarchate? The last of its claimants was Clement VIII, made cardinal by Avignon pope later antipope Pedro de Luna and elected pope by three remaining “cardinals” on his death. Clement VIII eventually gave his allegiance to the true Pope Martin V, but what happened to his “cardinals”? Much of this can never be known and is only a matter of speculation, but there are four things we do know today.

• Since the 1980s, bishops calling themselves Traditionalists have “consecrated” bishops without the necessary papal mandate. The consecrations of these men were null and void according to Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election law, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and as indicated in the consecration rite itself. These bishop claim to possess their jurisdiction directly from God and behave in every way according to the principles espoused by the Gallicanists.
• There are those calling themselves Traditional Catholics who maintain an air of secrecy, claim allegiance to a hidden pope and who are in touch with a French “Great Monarch.” Some belonging to this sect even say they have met him.
• There are others, constituting a much larger group, who are working in tandem with the group above to restore the Church and the papacy. Among them are those posing as valid Catholic clergy (which they definitely are not).
• There are even those not affiliated with Traditionalism who insist that bishops (not bishops and a true pope, only bishops) yet exist somewhere in the world, and even demand that others believe this as an article of faith. This is yet another manifestation of Gallicanism, for the Church clearly teaches that during an interregnum especially, unless bishops are in communion with a true pope, they cannot validly function nor do they constitute Christ’s Church on earth.

If the Gnostic, Gallicanist, Modernist connection does not exist, why do we see so many parallels today among the three? And why do these three heresies all lead us down the path of Freemasonry? Isn’t this really the most logical explanation of what happened to the Church?

Conclusion

Many years ago, I read somewhere that the Vatican in the 1800s made a deal of some sort with the Freemasons of Italy to protect Catholics in other lands from destruction: they would not mention the sect by name anymore but would only allude to them. I dismissed it because there was no source for the report and it could not be verified. But I have often wondered since if such a secret deal might explain why Pope St. Pius X tagged these heresies appearing in the late 1800s, early 1900s as Modernism. We will never know. We only know what we see today and everything we see tells us that Freemasonry has triumphed and only an act of God will save the Church at this point. As de Poncins points out, the full acceptance of Freemasonry by the usurper Roncalli took place in the early 1960s. The false Vatican 2 council fully embraced ecumenism — the liberty, equality and fraternity touted by Masonry.

I have tried to explain here how Freemasonry under the guise of Modernism has triumphed and what groups have contributed to that triumph. On splitting the Church into Liberal, Conservative and Traditional camps, we see the old Communist tactic of perpetual class struggle used to create the desired melding of all three — thesis (true Church) antithesis (the NO, NO conservatives, Traditionalists) synthesis, . All seem to be heading in the same direction.  It is not the whole story but hopefully it will answer some questions about what happened to the Church, how it happened and why, once the enemy was detected, it was too late to save the Church we love.

Why Should We Believe You?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 30, 2022

Why Should We Believe You?

“Let him who reads understand,” (Matt. 24: 15).
I constantly field the accusation that I present here in these pages only my opinion on what has happened to the Church, the status of the Novus Ordo church and Traditionalists and the current state of affairs today. But nothing could be further from the truth. Opinions aside for a moment, I have an OBLIGATION to do this work to the best of my ability; it is not an option. I am creating a record that will be archived and will stand as truth taught by the Church Herself, right up to the end, so that Deposit of Faith will be represented on this earth for as long as I live. That is what I believe my mission to be and what God requires from me.

Readers should be fully aware that the Church teaches it is an error to believe that one cannot arrive at the certitude ALL Catholics are bound to obtain before acting (see Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, Errors of Nicholas Autrecourt, DZ 553-570). This is achieved by utilizing evidence from Church teaching itself to reach conclusions which firmly establish that degree of certitude necessary to arrive at the truth. Certitude then, when it is based on the teachings of the Church Herself, is not an opinion, but a reasoned and wholly reliable exposition of faith. That truth is inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be trusted and believed because it issues not form man, but from Divine authority.

As one dear friend summed it up, I am only a presenter and facilitator of the teachings of the Church as they existed before the death of Pope Pius XII. I primarily present the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, the Holy Office and Sacred Congregations, the ecumenical councils, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, also the teachings of approved theologians and Canon Law, which itself is negatively infallible. These are not opinions. They constitute, in varying degrees, truths of faith Catholics must believe to be saved. Once these truths have been presented, I then proceed to facilitate, meaning I try to make it possible or easier for those reading what I write to relate what they are reading to what exists today. I bridge this gap using the Church’s own methods and laws to try to explain how the Church views the situation we find ourselves in today, and what we must do to remain members of Christ’s Mystical Body and preserve the faith.

Should women teach?

Again, it is the Church teaching and a woman presenting; I am not doing the teaching here. Since I began writing for the Church in 1979, various Traditionalists have tried to steer me into the field of devotional articles only, or into a more neutral field where all is presented as potentially true, and readers would be allowed to sort things out for themselves, (modern-day journalism). The reason given for this was primarily that I am a woman, and women must not venture into the theological sciences. Had they been able to point to authentic decisions of the Church barring women from such occupations, I might have considered their objections seriously. Instead I have found only facts that refute what they ascertain, mainly in the works of Pope Pius XII regarding the apostolate of women, where he writes: “The Apostolic See does not simply tolerate your action, it enjoins you to exercise your apostolate, to devote your efforts to fulfilling the Christian’s great missionary duty, that all the lost sheep may be assembled in one fold and under one shepherd” (The Mission of the Catholic Woman, Sept. 29, 1957).

Chiefly Among Women, a work describing the many contributions of Catholic women, (http://www.betrayedcatholics.com/pdf/Chiefly_Among_women.pdf) also refutes those who think that the role of women is limited to the care of children, duty to husbands and goes no further. One Traditionalist forum administrator years ago, in commenting on my website “demoted” me to the kitchen to bake cookies for neighborhood children, (but since I love to cook, that is where I have always spent a good amount of my time anyway, and gladly). In reality, many of the Traditionalist males who spend their excess energy in bashing women also share a common orientation: they tend to favor certain falangist beliefs and practices which predispose them to a peculiar disregard for the opposite sex, which explains a lot.

As the bestselling author Umberto Eco has observed: “Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to [less savory] matters. This is the origin of machismo, which implies…disdain for women…” The Ur-fascist harbors a fascination for weapons, verbal and otherwise, and this Eco says is to be viewed as an extension of their exaggerated notion of “manhood,” (Ur-Fascist book review, New York Times, 1995). We must remember the peculiar hero/messianic mentality of fascists, which Eco notes; all were prepared to die glorious deaths for the Fatherland during WWII. This same trend can be noted among those Traditionalists with monarchical tendencies who believe the Great Monarch will be established and will return Christianity to its medieval purity. Odd that in their reveries they fail to remember the deference to and respect for women innate in the medieval period.

Even great saints made mistakes

Aside from the women bashers, there are those who point to the fact that I have taught numerous errors during my writing career, and that is a point well taken. I would like to point out, however, that in writing the 1990 book promoting a papal election, I did ask those who objected to the thesis presented to correct me and offer serious reasons for why what I was proposing was wrong. I received several discourteous, sometimes outright rude letters from the women bashers, and others from various Traditionalists objecting to typos, or to actual statements made they “felt” were wrong, (and only two that I can remember touched on the important issues). But these people failed to provide serious, irrefutable theological arguments, teachings, or laws that forbade me to act. This was a task I would be forced to undertake myself many years later. The insinuation is always that “You were wrong once, you could be wrong again and cannot be trusted.”

But even great saints such as St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas clarified or corrected positions they held which they later discovered were not in keeping with Church teaching. It should be remembered that no less than St. Vincent Ferrer, the miracle worker, supported the election of an anti-pope — his good friend Cardinal Pedro de Luna — and followed him for 22 years before finally rejecting him in 1416. Those following this site will be aware of the fact that I have gone to great lengths to correct any errors I have made in the past, making my corrections as public, and even more so, than my support of a papal election, (since the Internet did not even exist yet in 1989). No one understood the primary message of the 1990 book: that without a Pope, Traditionalist priests and bishops cannot function, and the Church exists in name only, having lost its juridical aspects. This is an event foreseen both by Catholic saints and theologians.

Duties of the Scholastic theologian

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, speaking of the responsibilities of scholastic theologians writes: “When a scholastic sets down a thesis, he is expected to offer evidence to show that it should be accepted as a correct explanation of Our Lord’s method. Other theologians, who deal with the same matter, must examine and evaluate the evidence which has been brought forward. If the proof is valid, the thesis stands. Should the evidence not be forthcoming, then the proposition has no legitimate place in the field of sacred theology on the authority of the writer,” (The Concept of Sacred Theology, 1941). “…When any man acts as a teacher or writes on theological subjects, he automatically lays himself open to criticism. It may well be that a certain amount of that criticism is motivated by unworthy reasons. It may well be that some critics oppose the books or teachings of others within the Church because they dislike the authors or their associates. If they act in this way they will answer to God for the sins against charity or justice involved in their conduct.

“[But] if a critic should make the assertion that a definite statement is contained in a book [or article] and that this statement is opposed to theological truth, and if anything like serious evidence should be brought to bear in favor of this assertion, it is definitely the business of the writer thus accused to examine his own teachings. Where the accusation turns out to be accurate, it is his duty to withdraw and to disavow the error he has propounded. Where the accusation turns out to be inaccurate, it is his duty, or at least his privilege, to defend his own position. In any event, it is unworthy of the calling of a theologian to repel adverse criticism by alleging that the men who sponsored it are troublemakers, heresy-hunters… adherents of an unpopular or dead political group [or, we may add, are of the female sex],” American Ecclesiastical Review, February 1952, “Reform and Integralism,” Rev. J. C. Fenton).

It needs to be noted here that contrary to Msgr. Fenton’s recommendation and Church practice, those who ignore the truths taught by the Church integrally — in their entirety — have themselves corrected none of their errors. What they generally object to are actual truths of faith, and neither this author nor any theologian cited presents these truths; the Church Herself presents them. Such truths cannot be questioned, they cannot be argued against. It is only for us to accept them with a firm and unwavering assent.

Catholics must defend the truth

The common enemy we are battling today is the Father of Lies and those lies themselves. If you are reading this you are most likely seeking the truth. You may be confused, angry, anxious and/or on the verge of hopelessness concerning the situation in the Church today. I have tried to provide what answers I know here, taken from the pre-1959 works I possess. I am not the last word or even a degreed professional, but it does not take a degreed professional to accurately quote the teachings of others. I can tell you I have devoted my life to studying the truths of faith, but I leave it to God to determine the value of that study. In Where is Your Imprimatur? I have demonstrated that we are always and everywhere, regardless of our circumstances, required to give reason for our faith. In the works on this site, I give my reasons for believing what I present. To do this I follow Church teaching and Canon Law to the best of my ability.

Pope Pius XII taught that, “The initiative of the lay apostolate is perfectly justified even without a prior explicit ‘mission’ from the hierarchy…Personal initiative plays a great part in protecting the faith and Catholic life, especially in countries where contacts with the hierarchy are difficult or practically impossible. In such circumstances, the Christians upon whom this task falls must, with God’s grace, assume all their responsibilities… Even so, nothing can be undertaken against the explicit or implicit will of the Church, or contrary in any way to the rules of faith or morals, or ecclesiastical discipline,” (“The Mission of Catholic Women,” Sept. 29, 1957, The Pope Speaks, Vol. IV; AAS 49: 906-922). In following primarily this Pope’s laws and those of his predecessors, I have tried my best here to obey this teaching. If others believe that I have taught contrary to the will of the Church, faith or morals, or ecclesiastical discipline, it is their strict obligation to make this known first, to myself, so that if anything needs correcting it may be corrected, then to one or two others who may have some interest in the affair and finally to the Church, should proofs demonstrate that such a correction is truly in order.

Family members often have scolded me for writing for people who will never listen, people who have no real love for the truth. But I don’t write with the idea that anyone will listen, or to amass “followers.” I write out of obedience to God’s laws, laws that command me to defend the faith, simply because I have the means and the ability to do so. That is what I believe my mission to be. Those who choose not to listen must answer to God, but that has nothing to do with what God requires from me.

Pope Pius XII urges cooperation

A great teacher on the spiritual life, Rev. A. D. Sertillanges O.P. writes: “The wise man begins at the beginning, and does not take a second step until he has made sure of the first. That is why self-taught men have so many weak points. They cannot, all by themselves, begin at the beginning,” (The Intellectual Life, 1956). I did not have the great privilege of reading this work until long after I had made many mistakes and begun my studies in the middle of things, owing to the errors of an ill-instructed tutor. I have tried to retrace my steps to get back to the beginning, so that others who might try to travel this path will be better able to understand things. The beginning, for adults would be Rev. Thomas Kinkead’s Baltimore # 3 Catechism, followed by Rev. Morrow’s My Catholic Faith and finally by The Catechism of the Council of Trent. Much better to learn a little well than to know only a little about many different things. As the saying goes, some learn only enough to make themselves dangerous. If something here is lacking or is not understood, if a step has been missed, please advise.

Finally, Rev. Sertillanges says this about the those who pursue a life of study: “The first association of the intellectual, which will show him for what he is…is association with his fellows…I should prefer to say cooperation, for association without co-operating is not doing intellectual work. But how rare, in this age of individualism and social anarchy, is such a kinship of minds! Pere Gratry deplored it: he dreamt of Port Royal [where the Jansenists congregated] and wanted to make of the Oratory a ‘Port Royal without the schism. What labor could be saved,’ he said ‘if people could join and help one another! If six or seven together, with the same idea, worked by way of mutual teaching, became by turn pupil and master of the others…,’ (les Sources). Without pride or the spirit of rivalry. Seeking only the truth, the friends thus gathered together would so to say multiply one another, and their common soul would reveal a wealth of which no sufficient explanation would appear to be discoverable…”

And this sentiment is expanded upon by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi: “But a body calls also for a multiplicity of members, which are linked together in such a way as to help one another. And as in the body when one member suffers, all the other members share its pain, and the healthy members come to the assistance of the ailing, so in the Church the individual members do not live for themselves alone, but also help their fellows, and all work in mutual collaboration for the common comfort and for the more perfect building up of the whole Body.”

Conclusion

If I have offended those of good will in the past, I beg their forgiveness. If I have unintentionally led them into error, may God forgive me. The goal of this site has always been to right those wrongs and try to return to the beginning by “putting on the new man.” I do not want to be the master of anyone, only the friend of the True, as Sertillanges describes them. I am not presenting this site as a means to promote another papal election (far from it), or found a new sect as some have alleged. The purpose of this site is to gather the truths of faith necessary to these times into one place, in an orderly and understandable manner; to add to them, perfect them and make them available to others. I do not ask anyone to believe me, but to believe only the truths of Divine Faith taught by the continual magisterium, and set down in Her Canons Laws. On the contrary, I ask for and will accept the correction of any inaccuracies or errors of any kind and will make those corrections, unless, as Msgr. Fenton notes above, these corrections prove to be inaccurate or specious in and of themselves.

For those who wish to check quotes, copies are available. Please recite at least a brief prayer to the Holy Ghost before reading the articles on this site.

The Author