Material-formal Hypothesis a Trojan Horse

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 27, 2022

CMRI’s papal authority kerfuffle

© Copyright 2022, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

The current buzz going across social media platforms reveals a bit of a war going on over the material-formal thesis. The “Bp.” Dolan crowd does not accept it and “Bp.” Donald Sanborn is defending it. I first exposed this hypothesis as untenable in 1990 and subsequent articles have appeared on the site below ever since. The latest article provides a history of the heresies that fuel it and also traces it to a series of errors taught since the close of the Vatican Council regarding infallibility. (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/material-formal-hypothesis-condemned-as-heresy/)

Guerard des Lauriers had access to Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio in Latin and quotes it in his article on the material-formal thesis, dismissing it as having been abrogated by the issuance of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. From the late 1970’s to the present, St. Pius X Society “theologians” also insisted the bull was abrogated with the issuance of the 1917 Code. Everyone believed des Lauriers was a learned theologian and so accepted this pronouncement on the bull, without bothering to investigate its truthfulness for themselves. This even though des Lauriers advanced material-formal against the wishes of the very bishop who “consecrated” him, promising first to promote it as a condition of his consecration, and later reneging on this promise. Sedevacantists could ill afford to contradict the thesis without also questioning des Laurier’s Cum ex… stance as well, or at least presenting some other explanation for their position regarding the Roman usurpers. When English translations of Cum ex… began to appear in the mid-1980s, so did renewed discussion of the bull’s authority. But again, Traditionalists reneged on doing any in-depth investigation into its history and its doctrinal value.

My 1990 book Will the Catholic Church Survive… was the first to explain at length that Cum ex… is a binding papal document and how it uniquely applies to our situation today. The bull declares all those who are heretics, schismatics or apostates prior to their election ipso facto deprived of all offices, without any declaration, or any possibility of regaining their offices. And in Can. 6 n. 4 the 1917 Code directs anyone with doubts regarding excommunications for heresy, apostasy and schism to the sources for the law, the old law, which then is to be used as the law itself to govern the situation. That such doubts have existed for decades is clear. The book and later articles prove Cum ex… is the source for nearly every law regarding heresy in the Code and its explanation of the bull also made people aware that Paul IV had pegged the Vatican 2 antipopes as Antichrist and his system. But stay away from that crazy “papal election” lady, even if she long ago recanted her errors and is telling the truth! Updated proofs that Cum ex… is indeed retained in the Code and is the old law now prevailing under Can. 6 no. 4, are now available on my site here: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/canonical-proofs-cum-ex-apostolatus-officio-is-retained-in-the-1917-code-of-canon-law/ Had Cum ex… been upheld as the binding and relevant document that it most certainly remains, des Lauriers could not have imposed his ridiculous theory, for Cum ex… declares that no such pre-election heretic raised to the papacy could ever be considered even quasi-legitimate.

The prejudices arising from this anti-Scholastic attitude have obscured the truth regarding the 1958 papal election ever since. Solidly grounded evidence based on papal decrees — not theological opinions — clearly show there was a way out of the invalid 1958 election had any of the bishops certainly validly consecrated under Pope Pius XII chosen to take it. Just because my 1990 book was used to help document a false election, held in good faith at the time, does NOT destroy the validity of the documents presented or the reasoning behind the presentation. Not one soul has ever taken this information and used it to verify John 23rd’s certainly invalid election, detailed in my most recent work, The Phantom Church in Rome, even though that information is the most conclusive proof available. And because of this prejudice, they have gone to unnecessary and extraordinary lengths to cite primarily pre-1959 theologians — not the laws and teachings of the popes as Pope Pius XII commands them to do in his encyclical Humani Generis below. And then they are only willing to admit des Lauriers ”thesis” was possibly “savoring heresy,” a minimalistic statement if there ever was one.

“God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, NOT EVEN TO THEOLOGIANS, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: “in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church.”

The doubtful pope rule

There is an old axiom and actual practice of the Church, first put forward by St. Robert Bellarmine, that a doubtful pope is no pope, just as in Canon Law a certainly doubtful law is no law. The latter principle has been used extensively by Traditionalists who, in erroneously invoking epikeia, have wiped out many of the Canon Laws which in reality still apply to them. And yet they shrink from invoking the very same principle when it comes to disputing a questionably valid papal election. But it is this author’s experience that such hypocrisy is simply the modus operandi they have always resorted to. An explanation of the doubtful pope teaching is provided below.

“When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case no one is bound to obey him for it is an axiom that a doubtful law begets no obligation — lex dubia non obligat.” But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. “Therefore,” continues the Cardinal, “if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter. For although the bishops without the Pope cannot define dogma nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide when occasion demands who is the legitimate Pope; and if the matter be doubtful they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the council of Constance rightly did” (Bellarmine’s De concilio, Chapter 2:19; taken from Rev. E. S. Berry’s The Church of Christ, B. Herder Book Co., 1927, p. 402).

St. Robert Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church. His opinion alone, theologians admit, coupled with Cum ex…, could have been used to justify any uncompromised bishops consecrated under Pius XII in proceeding to a new election. While this doubtful pope phrase was bandied about in different circles for years, its true source was never revealed, and we do not think this was simply a casual omission. For then it would have been given more credence, coming from a great Doctor, and that was not something that those comfortably ruling without a pope, given all the many problems such a venture would entail, had in mind. And there were other reasons that hit much closer to home that explain why neither Cum ex Apostolatus Officio nor St. Bellarmine’s teachings were invoked to at least attempt to end the painful crisis in the Church. These reasons are:

1.) If a doubtful pope is no pope, and they adopt this position, then a doubtful bishop also is no bishop, and plenty of doubt has been established regarding the consecration of Traditionalist “bishops” and ordination of “priests” by the schismatics Thuc and Lefebvre.

2.) If it once can be established with certainty that John 23 was never validly elected, (and it has been), and they admit this, then the next step would require them — rather than hang onto their titles and rule as “bishops” — to elect a true pope. And to be quite honest, that really is not something they are prepared to do; otherwise they would have done it long ago.

3.) They could not risk the possibility that in vetting such bishops for election using Cum ex…, in order to elect “a legitimate and undoubted pastor,” they would be disqualified as bishops. For all these men were at the very least supporters of the schismatic, heretical men who ordained and consecrated them and therefore, Cum ex… says, are to be held just as guilty as those they defend and cooperated with in the course of the offense. Ironically, Canons 2209 and 2316 regarding accomplices and their guilt in offenses have for their sources Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Referring to the the Codicis Juris Canonici Fontes in nine volumes, by Cardinal Peter Gasparri, Rev. Nicholas J. Neuberger, in his work on Canon 6 (Catholic University of America, 1927) writes on page 70: “These old laws have juridical force only inasmuch as they are embodied in the Canons. They are the interpretive norms of the new law whenever the new and the old law coincide… [These old laws] are destitute of legal value unless the Code has embodied it in Canons… Thanks to the eminent Canonist Gasparri, not a little chaotic interpretation has been averted through the alignment of the SOURCES under each Canon.”

We read from Can. 2316: “A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy OR who communicates in sacred rites (in divinas) with heretics in violation of the prohibition of Can. 1258 incurs suspicion of heresy,” and after six months falls under the prescriptions of Can. 2315 (Revs. Woywod-Smith). Canon 2315 states that if those communicating in the sacraments of heretics do not amend within six months, they are liable to the penalties for heresy. Any cooperation must be committed knowingly, yet Woywod-Smith comment under Can. 2200: “The authorities presume the subject knows the law and if he violates it he is considered to have broken it willfully. If he claims to be free from liability, the burden of proof rests with him.” Please tell me how those educated in these “erudite” Traditionalist seminaries, where students are supposed to complete the requisite courses in Canon Law, could have failed to apply these important canons to those ordaining and consecrating them?!! Not to mention Canons 2370 and 2372, suspending all these so-called clerics from acts of jurisdiction of any kind, even if received in good faith, until the Roman Pontiff lifts the suspension! Until it is lifted, they are forbidden to exercise the orders received.

But Traditionalists dismiss all these excommunications above to claim they act under the umbrella of Can. 2261 §2, a profoundly absurd conclusion. To begin with, they cannot even prove that they ever possessed any jurisdiction, which could issue only from certainly valid bishops commissioned by the Roman Pontiff they say does not exist. They freely admit they possessed no papal mandate to provide this ordinary (and delegated) jurisdiction. Their consecrators have even either publicly stated they DON’T possess such jurisdiction, or have insisted that Christ Himself provides it, a statement that contradicts the papal pronouncement by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and Ad Sinarum Gentum (that bishops can exercise their jurisdiction only through the Roman Pontiff). So please explain how they can invoke a Canon that presumes that either the clerics it refers to already possess it, and may then exercise it, or that the Church will supply it, the Church meaning the Roman Pontiff, who no longer exists! Some pretend that epikeia allows them to act in this present emergency, but again: epikeia, a shaky legal principle at best, can scarcely provide them with the necessary canonical mission. These are the fairy tales Traditionalists expect their followers to believe.

Can. 2261 §2 also does not apply here simply because it is not addressing those excommunicated as heretics and schismatics as a result of communicatio in sacris and the subsequent penalties for heresy under Can. 2314. This is cooperating and communicating with heretics or with those who belong to a schismatic sect, so is a separate issue. Rev. Francis E. Hyland, in his 1928 Canon Law dissertation, Excommunication, comments on Can. 2261: “The question of whether excommunicates cease to be members of the Church has given rise to quite a controversy among theologians. Suarez is under the opinion that persons under ban of excommunication continue to be members of the Church…Bellarmine maintains that excommunicates cease to be members of the Church… According to the more common opinion of most of the recent dogmatic theologians the tolerati do not cease to be members of the Church, [but] with regard to the vitandi, the more commonly accepted opinion is that, at least temporarily, they are cut off from all external communion with the Church… Tanquerey remarks that the question has little practical bearing since the Church is wont to declare as vitandi only notorious heretics and schismatics.” SO FROM THESE REMARKS IT IS CLEAR: THOSE EXCOMMUNICATES UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS CANON ARE NOT THOSE EXCOMMUNICATED FOR HERESY AND SCHISM, FOR THESE ARE ALREADY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, AS REV. TANQUEREY OBSERVES.

Tanquerey teaches in his Dogmatic Theology, Vol I, p. 160: “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, that is those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession or those who refuse the infallible teaching authority of the Church are excluded from the body of the Church even if their heresy is only material heresy.” This amounts to the unanimous opinion of theologians, which binds Catholics under pain of mortal sin. And as Msgr. J.C. Fenton reminds liberal-leaning theologians in his article “The Teaching Authority of the Theological Manuals,” to question Tanquerey’s theological works would be to insinuate he had misled the thousands of seminarians who trained from these works in the 20th century. Only the Roman Pontiff or a bishop or confessor authorized by him can lift these censures and none exist. Seminarians involved in the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects, all of which heretically teach that the Church can be constituted by bishops alone without the Roman Pontiff being one of those bishops, cannot receive valid tonsure according to Hyland. The web of lies, misinformation and deliberate confusion spun to entrap the uneducated is truly something tragic to witness.

All of this results from incurring the penalties listed under Can. 2314. The Code says those receiving orders from a heretic and/or schismatic are suspect of heresy under Can. 2315. If they do not amend after six months, they then incur all the penalties listed under Can. 2314, including infamy of law and tacit resignation of any offices, benefices etc. under Canon 188 no. 4, and also may be degraded. Yet many will have already incurred the penalty of Can. 2314 immediately, with their first public utterance of heresy or participation in schism. Everyone knew Lefebvre and Thuc both celebrated the Novus Ordo and signed documents at Vatican 2 — this is a matter of public record. They never really left the Novus Ordo church. So how is this not heresy given the change of Christ’s very words in the Consecration and the endorsement at Vatican 2 of John Murray’s religious liberty heresy?? Furthermore, Lefebvre’s contradiction of the Incarnation was well circulated in the early 1980s. Could anyone, then, possibly be exempt from these censures, given their supposed super Catholicity and “seminary training”?

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis invalidations ignored

What is stated above should be more than enough to convince any rational person that Traditionalists are simply not the continuation of the Catholic Church. But the material-formal theory needs to be fully explained here and the final blow delivered to all its pretensions. For the reason that CMRI apologists could never properly evaluate the material-formal theory is key to why it was allowed to stand unchallenged as long as it did: They could not use the strongest condemnation available to debunk this theory because it blows ALL of their operations clean out of the water, and they know it. They may mention Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis in referring to papal elections, but when they do so, a very strange thing occurs. They omit the very paragraphs that prove this document infallible because it then would condemn all their actions.

1. “…We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope)…”

Comment: And if the assembly of cardinals, primarily bishops, didn’t possess it, then bishops such as Lefebvre, Thuc, and others are certainly meant here and even more so: for these men did not possess universal jurisdiction as did the cardinals. No worries, then, about the validity, intention or the jurisdiction Lefebvre, Thuc, et al exercised: all their ordinations and consecrations were null and void; for they usurped papal jurisdiction in dispensing from the papal mandate, and therefore never operated under the required jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff as they were bound to do. The Roman Pontiff alone has the exclusive right to establish a diocese and approve the establishment of seminaries (Canon 215).

3. The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff. In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.

108. “…This present document and whatever is contained in it can by no means be challenged… and we command those individuals to whom it pertains and will pertain for the time being to vote, that the ordinances must be respectively and inviolably observed by them, and if anyone should happen to try otherwise relative to these things, by whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly, the attempt is null and void.

Comment: This means all papal laws (no. 3), and that includes the laws governing jurisdiction which largely emanate from the Council of Trent and were approved by the popes. The footnotes to the laws on jurisdiction show numerous papal documents listed regarding their origin. These are not simply human laws; many are dogmatic, as is jurisdiction itself. Traditionalists cannot and do not possess any title to jurisdiction, which they attempt to dispense themselves from by invoking epikeia, or various other subterfuges. This also applies to Can.147, to which Pope Pius XII attached excommunications specially reserved to the Holy See regarding those who “allow anyone to be unlawfully intruded… into an ecclesiastical office” or “have any part directly or indirectly” in the same (Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, under Can. 147).

We must also mention here their ridiculous moral/legal person principle, based on Canons 100, 101, that they have now invented to make it appear they have power and may yet rule over us for at least the next 35 years. They claim, using a “legal fiction,” which falls in the same category, from a legal standpoint, as epikeia, that this perpetuates the Church indefinitely. But no, Christ alone as the Head of His Mystical Body is what perpetuates the Church indefinitely whether it be a visible Church at this present moment or not. Canon Law clearly states that the perpetuation of the Roman Pontificate is accomplished only by his election, which “…is governed exclusively by the Constitution of Pope St. Pius X …, amended and completely revised by the Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of Dec. 18, 1945” (Woywod-Smith). Both Pope St. Pius X’s law, in equivalent language, and that of Pope Pius XII, as follows, read: “…These… documents are manifestly and will be always and perpetually true, valid, and effective… Therefore, let it be permitted to no man to weaken this… Our constitution, ordinance, abrogation, commandment, binding order, warning, prohibition, precept, and will, or to go against it by a rash undertaking. Moreover, if anyone presumes to attempt this, let him know that he will incur for it the anger of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

Obviously this warning, which also appears in Cum ex… and Quo Primum, does not phase Traditionalists, for they refuse to concede that Vacantis Apostolocae Sedis is the governing document for this interregnum. They will use the warning in Quo Primum to defend their rights regarding the Mass, then ignore it to avoid casting any doubt on their authority.

Material-formal thesis is actually heretical

And so we come to the grand finale. In his The True Story of the Vatican Council, Henry Cardinal Manning notes it was the Western Schism and the rise of Gallicanism that first brought up the question of infallibility. It was during this time-period the Gallicanists began to distinguish between the infallibility of the person occupying the See and the See itself. Manning then goes into greater depth regarding the line of popes versus the individual occupant of the See, writing as follows: “They distinguished between …the See and him that sat in it… [They] denied the infallibility of the person while they affirmed the infallibility of the See…The doctrine affirmed by the schools and by the Holy See was that infallibility attaches to the office, and that the office is held not by many, as if in commission, but by one… Peter’s office, with all its prerogatives, is perpetual and his office is borne by the person who succeeds to his place” (p. 59-61).

On page 130 of his Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I, quoted above, Tanquerey explains: “This distinction” (that the Gallicanists held between the chair and him who occupies it) “is entirely foreign to the minds of the Fathers. for they gave their obedience to the ruling Pontiff himself. Too, this distinction would take away from the pontiff all authority since each one could then declare that he was adhering to the infallible chair of Peter but not to the pontiff who at that particular time was occupying it and who was guilty of error.” So the material-formal hypothesis is only a regurgitated version of this heresy. It assigns jurisdiction to the office and not to the man, separating the two, when they cannot be separated. This denies the infallible teaching of the Vatican Council: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church… let him be anathema” (DZ 1831).

It also implicates des Lauriers in the following heresies:

• DZ 570d: “Whether you have believed, have held or are prepared to believe that…all the Roman Pontiffs… succeeding Blessed Peter have entered canonically and will enter canonically, [and] have [actually] succeeded Blessed Peter the Roman Pontiff…” (proposed for belief to the Armenians).
• Also DZ 674: “Likewise whether he believes that the pope canonically elected, who lived for a time after having expressed his own name is the successor of the blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God” (proposed for belief to the Wycliffites and Hussites at Constance).
Des Lauriers obviously believed that the cardinals, (who all later showed themselves to be the traitors they really were), were not deposed as a result of heresy and therefore conducted a legitimate election. But then he refuses to accept the result of that same election as fully legitimate. Therefore he denies, per the first proposition, that a truly canonical election has its inevitable full effect and per the second proposition he denies that such effect bestowed on the one elected grants full and supreme authority to rule.

Q. What is canonical election?
A. Election held according to the Sacred Canons (Canon Law).

Q. What canons govern a papal election?
A. Primarily Canon 160; papal election law is special law, so no other law really governs it. It is to be used primarily as its own interpretation. This is especially true since Pope Pius XII’s election law, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is clearly infallible.

Q. Can any other canons be used?
A. Those listed in Pius XII’s election law itself, including Can. 188 no. 4, para. 36, which has as its footnoted source Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. (See Latin Version of the Code). In cases of doubt, parallel passages of the Code also can be used under Can. 18 regarding ecclesiastical elections, since these, Rev. Anscar Parsons tells us in his work Canonical Elections, (CUA Canon Law dissertation, 1939) were used as the basis for papal election law. One other very important Canon also can be used and that is Can 2391 §1, which states under election offences: “A college which knowingly elects an unworthy person is automatically deprived, for that particular election, of the right to hold a new election.”

Can there still be a certainly valid papal election?

So what happens once it is realized there is an actual vacancy and an urgent need to elect a Roman Pontiff? Today, nothing. It takes certainly valid bishops, acting in place of the cardinals, to elect a true pope, and none today exist who could be confirmed as valid. Determining such validity would require a canonically elected pope, and the restoration of the papacy is a problem only God alone, in His infinite wisdom, can resolve. Evil men orchestrated the protracted vacancy we see today and attempting to fill the Papal See by electing another unworthy candidate will only set the Church on an even more dangerous course. In fact, it would make even less sense, and could be considered no different — since all potential electors could be considered only laymen — than the 1990 “election” of Michael in Kansas. At least in 1990 there was yet hope that bishops would rally who were consecrated by Pope Pius XII, but today they have all passed away. And the validity of any claiming to have received valid consecration, but who perhaps have been hidden or unknown, would need to be confirmed by truly unexplainable miracles, as St. Francis de Sales teaches in his The Catholic Controversy, echoing Pope Benedict XIV.

All of the above is solidly grounded on papal teaching and Canon Law, which in large part contains the laws of councils and the Roman Pontiffs. What is presented by CMRI “clergy” regarding the material/formal issue relies on the opinions of theologians, with a few papal quotes here and there, not all of them relevant. Their arguments are presented as though they follow scholastic form, but we are not dealing here with scholastic philosophy, which treats of opinions which must be proven, but with dogmatic theology, which must simply be believed! Canon Law is negatively infallibly, regardless of whether Traditionalists brush it off as mere “human law.” Even papal opinions are binding in many cases and are certainly more authoritative by far than those of the theologians. But what is cited above are not opinions but binding papal teachings that have been ignored for decades. Traditionalists need to decide if they want a CATHOLIC Church with at least obedience to all the papal decrees we have today or a PROTESTANT church with bishops and no pope — like the Old Catholics, the Anglicans, or even the Methodists — because that is what they have at the moment. And it was all by design, conceived long ago, as Our Lady warned at La Salette.

What des Lauriers did was not done just to keep Sedes “under the Novus Ordo umbrella.” It was done to make it impossible for even the educated laity to figure out how to determine with any certainty that the usurpers could never be considered even quasi-legitimate, that they were not popes at least materially and that a papal election was not only necessary but the only thing bishops could do to perpetuate the Church. And here we are speaking ONLY of bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII who were not mentally or canonically compromised as was Thuc. To the best of my knowledge, the only one suggesting an imperfect council or conclave at that time was myself and a few others who later disappeared from the scene. It was general knowledge in the late 1980s — when many of those Traditionalists now talking trash on social media were only youngsters — that such an election was not only possible but necessary and gravely urgent to preserve apostolicity. But not only was des Lauriers working against it but others as well, as can be seen in the Ramirez letter here (scroll down to the last several paragraphs) https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/intention-undeniably-lacking-in-trad-episcopal-consecrations-and-an-important-update/. This link also provides the rest of the documentation proving that bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII were obligated to elect a pope and shows how those now calling themselves Traditional bishops can in no way be considered certainly valid, according to papal teaching.

With a lot of prayer and hard work such a valid election might even have been possible. That it was not possible is because those claiming to be Catholic theologians and clergy suppressed and dismissed papal documents that should have led us out of this horrible nightmare. But they had their own plans: A Church without a pope, without doctrinal limitations, without scholastic theology, without the papal discipline that kept all the bishops and cardinals in line. In other words, the democratic church of the Gallicanists and the Modernists, hatched long ago. Read the chronicles of the heretic Marsilius of Padua in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia and Lemius’ Catechism of Modernism, if there are any doubts. Basically what des Lauriers and Sedes did was to allow all the bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII to slowly die while the controversies about “true papal restoration” raged and confusion reigned. They knew at some point the usurper situation would come to a head, as it has now done. This allowed them to ultimately monopolize the playing field as the only possible alternative.

Traditionalists have made pray-at-home Catholics out to be a bunch of lazy losers who prefer to neglect the graces offered by their “Sacraments” and can’t be bothered to attend a Latin “mass.” They ignore all their doctrinal objections to Traditionalism and do not even give them credit for following their conscience. They treat them as a threat to the membership of their churches, as if the adherents to this position are even organized or capable of organizing. They must see them as a real threat, if they felt compelled to ridicule and denigrate them as they have done. But why?

Silence and suppression signal danger

The suppression of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio has been treated on my site at length. It can be traced to the very Masonic influences at play in the founding of the early Traditionalist organizations (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=Masonic+Origins) and this answers the question posed above in large part. The absolute silence surrounding Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is more ominous. For this is an indisputably infallible document that makes it crystal clear that no one may presume to pretend to possess any authority during an interregnum whatsoever; the only thing that can be done is to elect a true pope. And if they do so presume, it is null and void. It is the one document that provides a blueprint, in addition to Cum ex…, for restoring the Church. To the best of my knowledge, my site is the only place where these and other pertinent documents can be found. Is this not proof of suppression? As a community news reporter, I dealt with this sort of thing for many years while fighting government corruption and election fraud. I know suppression and concealment when I see it. It has been rampant in Traditional circles from the beginning, and I have observed it at work in both print as well as online Traditional publications for decades. It is no different than the dishonesty and corruption we see in media circles today. And it has deprived those seeking Catholic truth of the information they desperately need to make informed decisions about their faith.

Catholic restoration could have taken place long ago and the Francis dilemma is only a final culmination of the destruction wrought in the Church because Traditionalists fouled the waters. There was an answer to all this, one we were bound to follow, once it became clear there was no longer any way to elect a pope. But no one wished to hear it, least of all those parading as bishops. And no one has exposed the consequences of failing to acknowledge it and follow it. I am talking about following the safer course regarding the validity of the Sacraments. According to Canon Law, the theologians Revs. McHugh and Callan, Rev. H.J. Davis, Rev. Dominic Prummer and other theologians consulted, it is the unanimous opinion of all theologians that one is never allowed to use a probable opinion when administering or receiving the Sacraments. A probable opinion consists in finding at least six authors who will agree that the Sacraments can be received in a prolonged emergency from those who are not certainly validly ordained and consecrated. And all of us who were deceived by Traditionalists paid a very dear price for their failure to equip us for the very trying times that face us today. Now it is clear why they see homealone as such a threat. But they will never tell their followers that failing to form their consciences correctly can involve them in grave sin.

Failing to follow the safer course and its consequences

Traditionalists have never presented such an array of opinions as they are required to at least try to do to justify their actions because they will not even countenance the possibility that they are not certainly valid. This despite the penalties decreed by Canon Law, the irrefutable evidence in Mystici Corporis and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, also a host of other papal documents and those issuing from the Sacred Congregations. All of these binding documents teach that without the Roman Pontiff Traditionalists cannot function and that if they do so function, during an interregnum, all their actions are null and void. We are talking here about infallible documents so how could any true Catholic possible object that these do not apply to us today? But even if they could produce a probable opinion, it would be worthless in this situation because we cannot use probable opinions regarding the validity of the Sacraments. This is based on the condemnation of the following by Bd. Pope Innocent XI:

“It is not illicit in conferring the Sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the Sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned…” (DZ 1151). This is condemned as scandalous and pernicious, but we must remember what Pope Pius IX has said in this regard: “But since it is not sufficient to shun heretical iniquity unless these errors also are shunned which come more or less close to it, we remind all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which base opinions of this sort, which are not enumerated explicitly here, have been prescribed and prohibited by this Holy See” (DZ 1820, The Vatican Council).

Is there a penalty for ignoring something held by the unanimous opinion of theologians? Yes there is, and it is described as a mortal sin of temerity in Fr. Sixtus Cartechini’s On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them (1951). So by ignoring the obligation of acknowledging doubt regarding such validity, one is voluntarily committing mortal sin. But there is more involved here than just this. Refusing to accept an infallible papal decree forbidding the usurpation of papal jurisdiction and the attenuation of papal laws under penalty of nullity is an implicit denial of the supremacy of papal jurisdiction, defined by the Vatican Council. That is heresy and in fact, accepting bishops as the continuation of the Catholic Church without one of those bishops being the Roman Pontiff is also heresy, given the need for all bishops to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, particularly in receiving the papal mandate. All Traditionalists including CMRI choose to argue this in a fashion that excludes a host of papal decrees and focuses on only one papal document, Ad Apostolorum Principis, when this document does not in any way address the circumstances existing during an interregnum.

There was a solution to all this, one that those praying at home have practiced all these years. But this private existence gave no one any status, or pride of membership, or a hook to hang their hat on as Traditionalism offered its adherents. It is what the Apocalypse describes as the Church being swept away into the wilderness (Apoc. 12:6) following the death of Pius XII; and then again, being carried into the desert on the wings of a great eagle (Apoc. 12:14), which Fr. E.S. Berry interprets as prayer and contemplation. Rev. Leo Haydock says this means Catholics will worship God in a private manner. And this, I believe, is where we are today. Such a time was anticipated by the priest quoted below, an article kindly brought to the author’s attention by a regular reader. It is an excerpt from a column on Communism written by author Solange Hertz for The Wanderer in the 1980s, (followed by my comments).

“Fr. François Dufay, who witnessed the battle at close quarters in China [in the 1940s], says to lose no time in preparing the Church of the Catacombs: “Take as principle that normal exterior life – liturgy, teaching, apostolate – should continue as far as possible [but only when certainly valid clergy are available — Ed.]. But, at the same time, prepare Christians to preserve their essential religious life in the absence of priests, worship and Sacraments… Prepare memory aids on the dogmas of necessary means, marriage without clergy, perfect contrition, assistance to the dying, Baptism, child education, etc., and place these leaflets in safe places…”
Comment: This is what the Jesuits did for the Japanese, which allowed them to continue the practice of their faith for 200 years. Why have Traditionalists done nothing but teach their followers that they cannot possibly keep the faith without priests, when so many have been forced to do this in the past? Where is their real love for their flocks and the Church?

“It would be good if trustworthy priests of high caliber were to set themselves to living the life of the people. They need profound dogmatic and spiritual formation, especially on the theology of the Church, the meaning and value of persecution and suffering, and should be steeped in the remembrance of the great saints and martyrs of the past. Thus armed, the Christian faith will use its bad times for growth in charity,” making the most of the service Communism will render it by purifying and detaching it from all that is not God here below. And again, “Actually it’s solitaries who must be found and trained, in other words, Christians capable of living their faith all alone, amid the strongest pressures, the most painful happenings and the most forbidding of deserts.”

Comment: High Caliber priests? Living in with the people? This is dream stuff. And oh, please, don’t torment Traditionalists with the scary thought that they might be ISOLATED !! Hasn’t anyone read the Imitation of Christ on the value of shutting oneself away from the world? That’s what happens when spiritual formation is neglected; when “devout Catholics” are allowed to gossip and calumniate people on social media sites while the dance band on the Titanic is playing its last tune. Here we are, facing untold dangers, and these people have been given absolutely no tangible tools to help them save their souls.

“The Counter-revolution began in Eden with the Revolution itself, for there on the spot God told the serpent, “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed” (Gen. 3:15). Centuries later, when the battle was approaching a climax in Russia in 1917, this “woman” appeared on earth at Fatima to warn that “the errors of Russia” would overflow the whole world unless supernatural means were marshalled against them.

“Of necessity the “errors of Russia” can be overcome only by supernatural force because there are no natural means superior to them. Given the impairment of nature by original sin, there are no natural means which are even proportioned to these “errors”. Certainly no material weapons can destroy Communism’s battlements, let alone shoot down its ideas. No political position can withstand it. No mere strategy can outwit it that is not rooted in grace. The defeat of Communism will be effected by prayer and penance, in the name of Him who before His Passion said, “In the world you will have affliction. But take courage, I have overcome the world!” (John 16:33). It is not the dictatorship of the proletariat which is “inevitable,” but the triumph of the Church!”

Comment: The primary error of Russia, schism, has already devastated the Church. Obviously not enough people fulfilled Our Lady’s request for prayer and sacrifice. We now live in the times of Antichrist and Traditionalists need to accept this fact and prepare themselves accordingly. The Sacrifice ceased under Roncalli and Montini and will be seen no more, unless Our Lord in His goodness restores it to us. We see Antichrist’s system rushing to its inevitable grand finale as we speak. Those who prefer lies to truth will perish with him and his system, rather than acknowledge the truth. Hugo Maria Kellner was right when he went against the St. Pius X Society and its Masonic founder, Marcel Lefebvre, in the 1970s: those who cannot face the terrible fact that we indeed live in these times will never believe that Antichrist has come, no more than the Jews believed Christ was their Messiah. Henry Cardinal Manning also commented that Catholics would be incredulous when the time of Antichrist approached. If Traditionalists of every stripe wish to finish their days as the very enemies of Christ ended theirs, they can continue hiding behind the skirts of their “pastors.” Or, as Fr. Dufay urges above, they can unite, educate themselves, and finally become the Soldiers of Christ they were called to become and were always meant to be.

Conclusion

A Trojan horse refers to an ancient Greek strategy once used to fool an enemy. It is an idiom writers sometimes employ to indicate the secret penetration of a place previously believed to be secure. The material-formal thesis was just such a Trojan horse, a hollow proposition that allowed those not certainly validly consecrated or ordained to creep in and pose as the clerical heirs of the true Catholic Church. It enabled them to appear to reign over their non-assigned subjects with the illusion that they were operating either under an allowable emergency clause (epikeia, a quasi-legal principle employed by Gallicanist heretics) and/or a quasi-authority which might someday be restored. This is why Cum ex…, reaffirmed by Pope St. Pius V, had to be relegated to the garbage heap.

For it clearly stated that NO ONE could ever be restored to their offices in this case after committing heresy, apostasy or schism and that none of them could ever be considered even “quasi-legitimate.” If ever anyone set out to overthrow the papacy, as CMRI has accused pray-at-home Catholics of doing, it was Traditionalists. They had a plan and they executed it, running roughshod over canon law, the existing infallible law on papal elections, and a clearly infallible papal bull to rule unopposed as the mini-popes they pretend to be. They simply bided their time until all those bishops consecrated by Pope Pius XII expired, allowing them to move ahead for whatever they have planned regarding the papacy.

Truth has never been an easy thing to accept or practice. Catholicism was never intended to be a personality cult where bishops and priests were set on lofty pedestals and adored as idols, reverenced as gurus of a personality cult, never corrected, never questioned or held to account. Even St. Paul resisted St. Peter “to his face.” Such adulation is even more crass when it is offered to those who are grossly unworthy of such honors — men who were never vetted by the required ecclesiastical authorities to determine their fitness for the priesthood, never properly trained and who are only questionably valid; men who act as though they are both impeccable and infallible and answer to no one except the craven will of their followers, if that.

Rev. Aloysius Biskupek, S.T.D wrote in his 1941 work Priesthood that according to Can. 1371, “Disorderly, incorrigible, or seditious [rebellious] students, and those who because of their character or temperament do not seem suitable candidates for the clerical state, shall be dismissed from the seminary… If a seminarian should be guilty of an offense against good morals or the faith he shall be summarily discharged.” And many were the reports in these seminaries of such misconduct during the days of Sanborn and Cekada. But who was keeping score? Certainly not Traditionalists!

Biskupek defines incorrigible as those who: “know [their] faults and [do] not correct them despite repeated warnings…This indicates either lack of will power or pride or failure to grasp the import of priestly responsibility…As a very young man he is too proud to correct his faults. He has been warned, he has been shown that his conduct does not agree with the spirit of the seminary and is out of harmony with the ideals of the priestly life; yet he did not change. To do so would have been an admission that he was wrong, he would have had to submit to someone else’s will; this he could not bring himself to do.” It was precisely these sort of priestly candidates that Pope St. Pius X wished to root out from Catholic seminaries.

In his encyclical condemning the Modernists, Pope St. Pius X wrote: “It is owing to their pride that they seek to be the reformers of others while they forget to reform themselves, and that they are found to be utterly wanting in respect for authority, EVEN FOR THE SUPREME AUTHORITY. … For this reason, Venerable Brethren, it will be your first duty to resist such victims of pride… Examine most carefully your young clerics by yourselves and by the directors of your seminaries, and when you find the spirit of pride among them reject them without compunction from the priesthood. Would to God that this had always been done with the vigilance and constancy which were required!” (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This utter want of respect for the Supreme Authority — the papacy, and ultimately Our Lord Himself — is certainly the manifestation of an almost Satanic pride. This is especially evidenced in the absolute refusal of these men to cease functioning until their status is determined by a canonically elected Pope. Rev. F. McElhone, in his Particular Examen, 1951, asked penitents the following questions to determine the existence of pride of authority: “Have I a superior, know-it-all attitude in arguments? Do I refuse to give consideration to what they state? Do I try to see both sides of a question? Have I tried to argue reasonably? Is it hard for me to yield a point? Do I argue in my own defense, even when I know I am wrong? Have I lied about others? Am I prone to belittle persons, places or things? Do I argue with anger, personal animus (ad hominem attacks), uncharitableness?” And a quick glance through these questions easily shows that Traditionalist pseudo-clergy have consistently violated every one of them. They have not even hesitated to lie in order to defend their validity (Cekada’s falsification of the wording in DZ 960 and 967 from the Council of Trent).

They have refused for decades to answer serious charges in the manner demanded by scholastic theologians, using ad hominem attacks and belittling techniques to shame opponents instead (Cekada and the homealone tag). No consideration whatsoever has been given to valid points made and the demands for proofs that these pseudo-clerics are indeed worthy of the lofty status accorded them, proofs they strictly owe their followers, have been met with absolute silence. There has been no rational argumentation whatsoever and no consideration in the least of anyone’s objections that might interfere with the Traditionalist/ Sedevacantist agenda. So where is the REAL dedication given their much-vaunted “obligation” to effect the “salvation of souls?

As McElhone notes, “Pride is an excessive love of self [that] places one in opposition to God, since it makes one work for one’s own glory… [it] is a complete or a partial forgetfulness of God… [God] commands those following a vocation to help others. That obligation of leading others to holiness and salvation is ever present.” If any of these men truly believed they had a vocation and were really dedicated to saving souls, they would have the humility to admit they cannot function as clerics and resign. That is true humility — for as St. Vincent de Paul says: “The reason why God is such a great Lover of humility is that He is a great Lover of truth. Humility is in fact truth, while pride is nothing but lying.” The entire Traditionalist trap was a lie from the beginning, as Catholic writer Mary Lejeune warned in the 1970s. Traditionalists would rather remain in mortal sin and lose their very souls, defending their deceivers to the very end, rather than admit that there are, at the very least, grave doubts regarding their validity. Such doubts (those regarding the Thuc consecrations) have even been documented by those of their own ilk, such as “Bp.” Clarence Kelly in his The Sacred and the Profane.

These men belittle every layman who crosses them, simply because they can point to their pretended elevated status as bishops or priests to dismiss their objections. They hang on to their claim to the episcopacy for dear life, for then they can point to the very Canon Laws they misinterpret and summarily dismiss and triumphantly (but falsely) pronounce they are immune from censure. Clearly it is Satanic pride that causes them to remain in their self-appointed positions, primarily to appear to have the authority to condemn, instruct and direct others, when this is in direct contradiction to God’s will and the teachings of His Vicar on earth. Is it not the earthly equivalent of the very same sin, committed by the wicked angels, with Lucifer at their head, who refused to believe God was not Lucifer’s equal and who then spat at Him, “I will not serve”? But people forget, Christ and His earthly vicar rule as one Head. Therefore these Luciferian men and those defending them have refused to serve both, by failing to follow papal teachings. And Lucifer’s new angels are following their lead.

It was Christ who entrusted St. Peter with the keys to rule in His stead and the power to bind and loose. The pope is Christ on earth; the popes have told us this themselves. Deny Christ’s Vicar and deny the Incarnation; this matter of sorting out what the Church truly expects Catholics to believe in order to be saved is a deadly serious business. This is not a childish game to gain likes and followers; it is not a cutesy debate forum; it is not a hotly contested high school football team rivalry. This is a life and death struggle for souls and spiritual survival, and as seen above, Traditionalists are the ones who are losing.

Pride earned Hell for Lucifer. Traditionalists alone can decide if it will be their downfall as well.

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.

What Every Catholic Needs to Know About Cults

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 5, 2022

Part One: ‘Cults of Catholicism,’ The Operation of Error
Are You at Risk?

© Copyright 2009, revised 2022; T. Stanfill Benns (None of what appears below — in whole or in part — may be used without the express and written permission of the author.)

Introduction

The Catholic Church requires that when Her teachings are violated, the faithful must defend the truths of faith even if it means sacrificing their lives. The Church requires it, and She is our first priority and allegiance. Every ethical journalist has the obligation to demand responsibility and honesty from public figures. And for this reason, we present what appears below.
Those operating destructive religious groups are not just guilty of endangering the faith of Catholics; they also endanger the basic rights of all Americans, under the U.S. Constitution, to freedom of speech and belief, freedom of worship and freedom of the press. In this they violate the civil law (which Catholics are obliged to obey whenever this does not violate Church teaching) and the consciences of those invincibly ignorant, at least, (since all Catholics know that no one is ever “free” to worship as they please). They do this by resorting to the tactics common to all who would, by unethical and occult means, deceive others concerning their true intentions, beliefs, past histories and present agendas. In modern day parlance, where religion is concerned this is known as cultism and is separate from genuine religious doctrine itself.

It is the false use and pretense of such doctrines to coerce others into harmful and destructive behaviors that endanger their physical, emotional and spiritual well being and that of others in the specific cult in question. It is the subtle employ of those very mind-altering tactics condemned as the stock in trade of Communists by Pope Pius XI, and hence a practice that is, itself, at least proximate to heresy if not actually heretical. Heresy concerns primarily the violation and falsification of dogma; cult practice concerns the psychological methods used to induce others to follow the heretical teachings of one using unethical, illegal and dishonest methods to propagate these false doctrines, and preying on the vulnerable, the uneducated, the compromised and the gullible to do this.

St. Paul foretold in 2 Thess. 2:10 that in the latter days, those who did not sufficiently love the truth would be sent the operation of error to believe in lies, and this prophecy has been fulfilled. No better description of cults can be found, since in countless underhanded ways, cult leaders attenuate the truth, cloak it with believable trappings, conceal it, rearrange it and in many cases simply do away with it altogether and/or replace it with their own “truths.” Many of us have at one time accepted such cunning and cleverly formulated lies for the truth. It has perhaps taken months or years to sort the heretical flyspeck from the pepper. Once the methods and maneuvers of cult leaders are revealed, however, those faced with deciding whether this or that group is a practicing cult or a destructive religious sect becomes much easier. Below we will examine cult practice and demonstrate that not only are many claiming to offer Catholics the truth today false
prophets, they are the leaders of actual cults, according to the research and definitions of the experts.

Definition
of
a
cult
From the Latin, the word cult means to adore, to venerate, to worship or to till, as in to cultivate (Attwater’s “A Catholic Dictionary”). In the early ages of Christianity, the word was used interchangeably in reference to the cultus of the pagan gods or the Christian God. A cult is devoted to a specific person or persons, a particular thing, a certain carefully defined ideology or all of these things. This is the definition found in Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition. Today this definition is necessarily extended to also include a literary work or movie, some new movement, fad or craze, devotion to a rock group or movie star and so forth. Experts point out that cults can be sociological and theological; Christian and non-Christian. But originally the term cult was used in a religious, not a sociological context, and this is the sense in which we use it here. In his work “Unmasking the Cults,” author Alan Gomes, a Protestant, states that cult is a good word to describe “religious heterodoxy,” which for Catholics means the denial of some truth found in the Deposit of Faith, (not always necessarily schismatic or heretical in nature).

Because the Church forbids Catholics to hold those beliefs also proximate to heresy, Gomes basic definition of a “cult of Christianity” is true of a cult of Catholicism: “a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrine system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines,” of the Catholic faith. So basically a cult of Catholicism, while its origins may be Catholic, deviates in some way from those doctrines held by the original parent group. The leader or leaders usually tweak these doctrines in some way to suit their own purposes. They also incorporate some variation of coercive persuasion/behavioral change tactics. Dr. Margaret Singer, recognized as a world authority on cults, describes these tactics below.

“The coercive psychological influence of these programs aim to overcome the individual’s critical thinking abilities and free will – apart from any appeal to informed judgment. Victims gradually lose their ability to make independent decisions and exercise informed consent. Their critical thinking, defenses, cognitive processes, values, ideas, attitudes, conduct and ability to reason are undermined by a technological process rather than by meaningful free choice, rationality, or the inherent merit or value of the ideas or propositions being presented.” It is mainly these behavioral changes and the techniques used to induce them that constitute the “sociological” or scientific aspect of cults. Many of the volumes written on cults that are condemned as “New Age” by conservative Catholics overemphasize the scientific aspect and underemphasize doctrinal perversion. This allows cult leaders to condemn them out of hand or place them on “the forbidden book list.”

Yet far from rejecting the use of psychology, the Church has used it responsibly to train priests and religious, to better understand human behavior. Before the death of Pope Pius XII many advised that the Church should send those aspiring to be priests and religious for psychological evaluation before accepting them into the convent, monastery, or seminary. Had this been done, the abuse issues and other scandals plaguing the Church could have been prevented. To help determine who today is not suited for the leadership stature they have assumed in the Church, the following description of cults of Catholicism has been compiled for those confused by the more sociologically oriented literature and the rantings of cult leaders.

Cults
of
Catholicism
A Distinctly Separate Group – A breakaway or brand new group with its own teachings, whether from the Church as it existed after the death of Pope Pius XII or the Vatican II church under John 23 or Paul 6.
Change in Doctrine and Theology – Different for each group
One True Church – Often claims to be the sole possessor and interpreter of truth
One Special Leader – or one small group running cult
Mystical appointment – The leader insists that God Himself, the Blessed Virgin, a saint or an angel is the source of his power or enlightenment. Followers cannot successfully corroborate the leader’s beliefs from the sources of revelation or Catholic teaching. Must believe in leader’s entire set of beliefs for things to make any sense.
Only way to verify truth – The leader’s claim to mystical appointment gives followers the impression that the leader has specialized Divine knowledge and is the only one who can verify and substantiate, adjust or revise Church teaching. This leads to followers’ dependence on personal credibility only — not the clear teachings of the Church — for certainty.
Enforced “Confession,” spiritual direction – The leader uses mandatory “general 
 confession” to intimidate followers, bind them to him and obtain blackmail material for future use. In some “Catholic” cults these leaders also demand that followers subject themselves to spiritual direction, and consult him for his ruling or advice, even when making minor decisions
Enforced Financial Support – Uses Scripture or Church teaching to exact tithes and other donations to group as a Scriptural precept binding under pain of sin.
Separation from Others – To exert control, the leader isolates members in order to exploit their intellect, finances, and emotions
Manipulation – This is a topic that deserves a special section of its own. Various tactics used in manipulation as described in the link that follows. (See link below).
Coercive persuasion – Unethical means used to propagate and affirm cult beliefs. False arguments are advanced, and the views of others are misrepresented, unfairly derided or presented in a false light.
Prescribed prayers or rituals – This varies from group to group; with Catholic oriented groups, it can be the insistence, dependent on group membership, to attend Mass and receive the Sacraments, even when this is not necessary and otherwise violates Church law. It can be mandatory belief in private revelations (over dogma), received by the leader or others, when the Church says private revelations are not binding on the faithful.
Method of Operation – Use of slogans or catch phrases, practices such as meditation and the performance of leader assigned penances, “assigned reading” and/or production of cult propaganda.
Regulating sleep and food – Prescribing a special or limited diet and assigning prayer and work tasks that make it impossible to think properly for lack of sleep and adequate nutrition. This can be done subtly or in more rigid cults, can be more severe
Persecution Ruse – Uses claims of unjust persecution as an excuse for objections to the cult; warns followers that if they are not persecuted for their beliefs, they are not believing as they should and are not the chosen ones.
Followers often cannot successfully corroborate the leader’s beliefs from the sources of revelation or Catholic teaching. The leader insists that God Himself, the Blessed Virgin, a saint or an angel is the source of his power or enlightenment. Must believe in leader’s entire set of beliefs for things to make any sense
End times orientation, expectation – Many predict the end of the world is coming soon or anticipate the restoration of the Church.
This results in the leader being the only one who can verify and substantiate his own teaching, leading to his followers’ dependence on his personal credibility only — not the clear teachings of the Church — for certainty.
Cult Leaders
Often (but not always) are charismatic and unique or set apart in some way because: • The leader is specially marked or chosen by God
Often (but not always) are charismatic and unique or set apart in some way because: • The leader is specially marked or chosen by God.
• The leader was designated by some saint or angel, even God or the Holy Ghost Himself • The leader claims he has received a Divine mission.

• The leader believes himself possessed of special abilities.
• The leader cannot be questioned or criticized.
Cult operations, member behavior
•Present as anxious to give good example, spread the faith, perform corporal and spiritual works of mercy
• Generally follow accepted standards of faith and morals, but leaders often dispense themselves from these rules
• Use Church teaching, Canon Law, Holy Scripture but add to the Deposit of Faith or do not follow the Law
• Holy Scripture, Tradition, Church teaching subject to private interpretation, even change.
How Cults Differ
• Some are extremely pious, others violate moral teachings
• Some use only basic doctrine to appeal to the simple; others appeal to intellectuals with more highly developed theological hypotheses
• Some cults cater to the wealthy and those in positions of power; others to the lower socio-economic classes who tend to be more docile and gullible.
Those most vulnerable to cult influence
Everyone is vulnerable. Atheists, agnostics, the godly and the not-so-godly; both upper and lower classes; from all walks of life, every age group and every intelligence level — all can be seduced by cults.
Which Catholics are most likely to become cult members? (some or all of the following):
• Those who believe the Church in Rome is no longer Catholic
• Catholics confused over the Church’s true teachings on faith, morals, philosophy and other issues
• Those who feel Freemasons and other enemies have successfully infiltrated the Church
• Those needing reinforcement in the correctness of their belief • The scrupulous and those with a tender conscience
• Those seeking to spread the Faith

• The poor, who Christ says will always be with us
Recruitment techniques
Cult leaders find a need and fill it. One of the ways they do this is that they…
• Emphasize charity, (later they de-emphasize justice). Promote a perversion of the Catholic teaching concerning charity, above all in early stages, as the best means to reach heaven and frown on all “negative” comments as “gossip.” Later this is extended to even justified criticisms or objections to the group as mortal or venial sins (calumny or detraction) or as disobedience
• Encourage members to practice fraternal correction among themselves but this does not extend to leader, group hierarchy
• Stress practice of external religion, devotions
• Flatter and groom new members; praise their devout demeanor and good morals (Done first with me, then the others; done for ulterior motives.)
Theological gymnastics
• Interpret truths of faith, opinions of theologians in a way not intended by the Church.
• Introduce leader’s private dogmas gradually (How do you boil a frog…)
• By insistence and repetition enforce practice of leader’s ideas on dogma
• Eventually members either believe these dogmas are consistent with faith or become weary of the rhetoric and accept them.
• Use the testimony of other cult members to impose these teachings on the reluctant.
What makes Catholics join?
The cult satisfies various needs:
• Intellectual confusion about which church is the true church (Or, “Where is the Church?”);
• Psychological difficulties – Easily led, not well instructed in faith, lack of confidence, inability to make decisions on their own;
• Recent emotional upheaval – Divorce, death in the family, problems with the law, substance abuse, exit from another cult or destructive sect;
• Leader and members of cults offer unconditional approval (we are all sinners) remedies for their problems, spiritual goals and a sense of Catholic community.
The group espouses goals they want to achieve, such as:
• Instruction in faith and morals
• Help with family and finances
• “Little way” to achieve salvation, closer personal relationship with God, advancement in spiritual life
Reasons people stay in cults
Denial
Members want to see things as they believe them to be, not as they really are, because they have been through so much and made so many sacrifices
Lack of social skills
Members feel weak and threatened by outside influences inimical to their beliefs; don’t feel able to adequately live or promote their faith without help. Thus they are easily persuaded to isolate themselves, which then allows leader to enforce an “us vs. them” mentality.
Coercive persuasion
Members are convinced of past laxity in faith by leader(s) and re-educated not necessarily according to Catholic beliefs, but the leader’s perception/interpretation of those beliefs.
Dependency issues
Cult leaders bind followers to them by teaching that no one else can be trusted to give right answers; members not able to decipher the vast deposit of Church teachings themselves; spiritual direction unable to be received from anyone but the priest in confessional/pulpit or the “pope” speaking infallibly
Guilt trips
Necessary loyalty to God, the priest or pope, the Mystical Body, used to keep people from leaving or objecting to policy and practice
Retribution
Threats of retribution by God for abandoning his truth; sanction, excommunication, rejection by relatives and friends used as incentives to stay.
Retaliation
Cult leaders and members often pursue those who leave, harassing them, threatening them, and ruining their reputations. It is one of the most telling marks of a cult. What respectable religious organization would do this to former members?
Helping others exit the cult
If you see a leader or leaders exhibiting any of the signs or exerting any of the influences described above on others, try to dissuade them from joining to begin with. For those already in the group, outsiders or former members must:
• Go individually to members who have expressed doubts and then tackle leader

• Be willing to devote the time, effort and lend moral support necessary to convince them they are in a cult
• Show them what the true Church teaches • Replace the false with the true
• Demonstrate all inconsistencies in cult teaching and practices compared to Church teaching.
• Closely examine the group, its leader and cult history to gather useful information and arguments to use against the cult concerning what one is to do when there are doubts
about any matter, and what must be done to resolve those doubts.
• Encourage them to do as the Church commands if they admit doubts: that is, suspend active membership and judgment until they can thoroughly study the situation.
• Provide emotional support and counseling options or other resources.
• Explain that the Church does NOT teach that leaving such groups will condemn them to hell or cost them Church membership; the opposite is true.
• Realize that cult members will retain a loyalty to and respect for the leader and proceed cautiously, but don’t be afraid to:
• Confront them with any blatant dishonesties and inconsistencies. God and HIS rights are superior to the cult’s existence.
• Do not encourage cult members to join another group; don’t supervise or dictate their spiritual re-creation. This is a highly personal matter that can take months, even years. The choice is theirs. There is nothing wrong with simply praying at home and trying to lead a good life. In fact it is the only thing the Church recommends as not fraught with danger in these times.
Traits
of
cult
leaders
The following is a summary of traits possessed by leaders heading destructive religious groups/cults, taken from the various works of leading experts on cults and mind control. They state that the leaders of these groups:
1. Demand absolute obedience; tolerate no criticism, correction or dissent; refuse to admit they can err or need to correct their behavior.
2. Often have been the victims of cults/destructive religious groups themselves.
3. Are adept at exploiting turmoil, (such as the crisis in the Church).
4. May be charismatic or possess the ability to easily persuade.
5. Are good at convincing others to accept glib answers to the most complex problems.
6. Befriend, flatter, take into confidence those they intend to make their allies.
7. Possess a sense of entitlement; what is required of most people is beneath them. Others must recognize their superiority and cater to them, support them accordingly.
8. Present as “geniuses,” have been “wunderkind” or required special attention in childhood.
9. Practice a type of pathological lying, which some leaders really believe to be true and others use only to deceive. It often is difficult to tell whether they are fully aware of these lies and their effects or not.
10. Shamelessly use others to achieve their goals. In their Captive Hearts Captive Minds, Madeline Landau Tobias and Janja Lalich write on pp. 67-79: “These manipulators are rarely original thinkers…[Cult leaders] have an innate ability to attract followers who have the skills and connections that they themselves lack… Plagiarists and thieves, they seldom credit the true originators of ideas, often co-opting authorship. They are extremely convincing, forceful in the expression of their views, and talented at passing lie detector tests. For them, objective truth does not exist. The only ‘truth’ is whatever will best achieve the outcome that meets their needs,” (all emph. within quotes in this section is mine).
11. Exhibit a frightening absence of normal emotions; are emotionally blank. Cult leaders are generally cold, resent the ability of others to experience a full range of emotions and pass off their inability to experience or relate to these emotions as a sort of “supreme control.”
12. Make targets of those who dare disagree with or criticize the leader by singling them out for surveillance, character assassination and punishment.
13. Accuses targeted followers, nearly always, of the very things of which he himself is guilty.
Part
Two: Cult
Leader
or
Catholic
Leader?
(Based on guidelines provided by various cult experts)

Here we provide the true teaching of the Church on what is owed to those claiming to lead the faithful and what is not owed to them.
1. The cult leader may be judged by no one; all must obey without question
If it is absolutely certain that one elected pope has been validly and canonically elected by legitimate ecclesiastical authority, according to all the norms of the current election law in effect, (Pope Pius XII’s “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”); if the one elected possesses all the qualifications demanded by the Divine and natural law; and if the one elected has been accepted by the faithful as a true pope, then it is assumed that no one can question a papal election, (see the truth about papal claims under false popes on our articles page.) If these conditions are not in place ,then the faithful are not required to hold the one elected as a true pope, but they must work to resolve the question of the election. A certainly qualified, validly and licitly elected Pope accepted by all must be obeyed absolutely, unless, St. Thomas Aquinas says, he deviates from the faith. Then, Pope Paul IV teaches, the faithful can leave him without any fear of censure. A doubtful pope may be judged and deposed by the bishops and clergy in council, and cannot demand obedience.
2. Not even legitimate objections or the correction of mistakes detected in presenting Christian doctrine can be tolerated by the leader.
Even the popes have faithfully documented all their decisions and teachings, as evident from the abundant footnotes in their papal documents. It has never been a teaching of the Catholic Church that the pope is infallible as a private person. In normal times, the Popes had an entire staff of eminently qualified assistants to help research and cross-reference every doctrinal and moral detail that goes into these decisions and teachings. ordination.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
The Vatican always had a separate department of qualified individuals to do all of this and the faithful never had any reason to question them. Parish priests also had to keep careful financial records and make an accounting to their bishops, who then had to make an accounting to Rome.
4. Cult leaders preach a plethora of disasters and calamities, as well as promoting an “us vs. them” mentality.
In these times there are valid and reasonable fears on the part of the faithful, and the Church Herself has warned of the Masonic conspiracy and its undeniable and self- proclaimed aim to destroy the Church. The Church has been the object of persecution throughout Her entire existence. There is every reason to believe today that we live in the latter days according to the Church’s own teaching. But cult leaders exploit and capitalize on these rational fears to promote themselves, their own agendas and keep their followers in a state of spiritual and emotional dependency. As Alan Scheflin and Edward Apton wrote in their “The Mind Manipulators,” this continued catastrophe talk enhances, “mobilization of guilt and anxiety and intensifies…inhibition of judgment processes that leads to heightened suggestibility.”
5. There is no such thing as an amicable departure from these groups. Followers never have a good reason for leaving.
True Catholics under an unquestionably true and legitimate pope never have a valid reason to leave the Church and are always considered heretics and/or schismatics for doing so. Those unwittingly or otherwise become involved in heretical or schismatic sects are always under a strict obligation to leave these sects. But if they do not, they are never pursued or harassed and ordinarily they are never even personally named by the Church as heretics or schismatics.
6. Those who have left the group all have the same objections to the leader and share similar stories.
Those involved in various cults of Catholicism all have similar stories to tell and there several of these groups have been identified by others as cults since the death of Pope Pius XII. These include the Feeneyites, the Shuckhardt group, the Jovites in Canada, Tradition, Family and Property, Opus Dei, the Legionnaires of Christ, Briton’s Catholic Library, the Little Pebble in Australia, at one time various branches of the Pope St. Pius X and Pope St. Pius V groups as well as others.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
Many Traditionalists who have published on this topic do not do a good job of pinning down the problem. To the best of my knowledge, no TV shows or documentaries have ever comprehensively treated these issues as they exist in Catholic fundamentalist groups. One international cult expert has stated that no truly objective documentary on cults has ever been produced, and that generally speaking, those creating documentaries on cults fail to understand the damage that they do and the cunning involved in deceiving and retaining their followers. Like many others at first, they become completely taken in by the cult leader.
8. Regardless of what followers do, it is never good enough.
Followers generally believe that these leaders will direct them, teach them, advance the truths of faith and defend them, and be a voice for the continuation of the Church of Pope Pius XII. These imposters have done none of these things, first of all because they are not valid and licit leaders nor teachers. Not being valid or licit, they cannot solicit and receive such tithes or other benefits in the name of the Church. They have no right to command or guide the faithful, who are told to avoid them as wolves in sheep’s clothing.
9. Cult leaders are never wrong.
A doubtful pope is no pope because, as Rev. Cicognani tells us, it is essential that the faithful have certainty in matters necessary to salvation. A true pope is to be believed even when stating only an opinion on secular affairs, although the faithful are free to believe that a future pope could teach the opposite, (in matters of opinion only). Even so, until such a future pope expresses a contrary opinion, Catholics must follow the opinion of the last presiding legitimate pope. If a person refused to follow the opinion of even a certainly valid pope or the hierarchy as a matter of conscience for a very serious reason, however, the Church says they may do so without fear of sin. This is especially true where the case of a pope who has expressed manifest heresy is concerned, and all these men were either public heretics or schismatics who expressed such heresies prior to their election.
10. The cult leader has a monopoly on the truth and controls the methods and means by which it is disseminated to followers.
Even the faithful may respectfully and cautiously question teachings of the Church which are not infallible, or may ask that even infallible statements be clarified or expanded upon. Until the pope issues a normative decision on a disputed or previously undefined matter, Catholics are free to research and develop opposing opinions under the direction of their respective bishops/superiors. Above all, Catholics are taught that their consciences must be followed in all things, even where papal teaching and the pope’s validity is concerned, since conscience is the voice of God.
It is easy to see here that even if a true pope could be validly and canonically elected in opposition to the Roman usurpers, and unquestionably valid and licit bishops and priests surfaced to restore the papacy, this could be falsely construed as cultistic. This is true because of the “changes” made at the false Vatican II council, where the “papacy” relinquished much of its sovereignty. In contrast any other organization, true or not, will appear tyrannical and even schismatic by comparison. The true Church is not and cannot be a cult or ever portrayed as such. But the powers that be, those very principalities and powers spoken of by St. Paul, have successfully labored for years to paint Her as such, and in the process have Her perceived by all as dictatorial, a transgressor of human rights and a threat to “true” freedom of religion, speech and worship, (as these are mistakenly understood by non-Catholics). When false popes and other leaders muddy the waters and insist on being recognized as true clergy or popes, they become cult leaders and this makes the claims of the Church’s enemies appear to be true. This is one of the reasons why theologians commonly teach that even doubtful popes have no rights and can never be counted as true, hence capable of ruling the Church validly or lawfully in any way. This is true provided that serious reasons exist concerning the doubtfulness of an election, the person of the pope himself and/or the qualifications of the electors.
“The pope has [jurisdiction] immediately from God on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election…In the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatsoever is granted, neither de jure, nor despite what some have tried to maintain, de facto… A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power, but he has not practically in the Church the same right as a certain pope — he is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim,” (“The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays,” Rev. Edmund James O’Reilly, S. J., as quoted by John Daly; from the chapter “The Pastoral Office of the Church,” all emphasis by Rev. O’Reilly in the original. Rev. O’Reilly was the theologian of choice in Ireland for local Irish Councils and Synods, was a professor of theology at the Catholic University of Dublin and was at one time considered as a candidate for a professorship at the prestigious Roman College by his Jesuit superior. The Catholic Encyclopedia under “O” has this to say about him: “Dr. Ward wrote of [“The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays,]: ‘Whatever is written by so able and so solidly learned a theologian, one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths, cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these perilous times…’” (See also the criteria to necessary to determine doubtful popes here).
Rev. O’Reilly also solves the question of an extended interregnum as follows: “That the Church should remain thirty or forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head and representative of Christ on earth, this could not be, [Catholics reason]. Yet it has been, and we have no guarantee that it will not be again…We must not be too ready to pronounce on what God will permit…We, or our successors in future generations, may see stranger evils than have yet been experienced…contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing.”
The best way to explain the situation in which we find ourselves is expressed in the words of a respected Jesuit professor who taught Scholasticism for many years: “Authority is not the last criterion of truth or motive for certitude…Authority clothed with the necessary conditions is true authority; false authority makes the same claims, although it lacks these conditions…[Even] lunatics are very logical if you grant them their first premises,” (Rev. A. C. Cotter, S. J. “ABC of Scholastic Philosophy,” 1949; all emph. his. Rev. Cotter taught theology and philosophy for over 30 years at Weston College, Weston, Mass.)
Exposure to destructive religious groups can take a heavy toll mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Some never recover from their experiences with these groups, or never recover completely, experts say. Many have sought and win damages for their abuse in court. They report that they often find it impossible to ever trust a spiritual leader again. But they must never lose their trust in God. If sect members can somehow manage to break the spell of the “operation of error” these sects practice by using the graces God grants, one’s mind can be opened once again to receive and believe the Truth.
Part
Three:
Manipulative
maneuvers
in
cults
(Before reading what follows, please visit https://www.gotquestions.org/spiritual-manipulation.html).
Process
of
Victimization
Especially at first, cult leader aggression is not obvious. Such aggression often becomes more obvious only in retrospect. The signs are there after the fact, but are easily missed at the time.
Cult leaders are careful to have a plausible enough explanation to squeak by, even though some may feel they are being dishonest about their real motives. They keep others off balance by failing to react to what is really important or key to an issue and overreacting to those things that stand in the way of what they want to do or don’t want to do. They push others “buttons,” and push them to good effect.
Cults of Catholicism often preach charity, charity, charity, the better to excuse their own misbehavior, my dear. Yet all the time they violate every rule in the book ever written about charity. Those acting on actual knowledge and well-founded intuition or experience are accused of rash judgment. Telling it like it is it is always detraction, not trying to make others aware of dangerous company or dangerous situations. Contradicting anything they think or say is always calumny. Failing to give others the benefit of the doubt, is uncharitable and exercising a critical spirit. If fears and intuitions prove to be justified, it is a fluke or coincidence. If the cult leader is proven wrong, the issue can never be addressed. In short, members are eventually plagued with self-doubt, some more than others.
Offensive
tactics
aggressors
use
Denial — Alcoholics Anonymous long ago defined this term, and cult leaders have many traits in common with alcoholics. Cult leaders deny that their operations are in any way unchristian or unCatholic. They refuse to hear the criticisms of their members and others that the treatment they are receiving is unfair or abusive. They retaliate when confronted, projecting blame for unpleasant and worrisome situations onto others. Members of the group play all the roles usually played in individual alcoholic scenarios. Some cult members act as enablers by going along with things and not complaining, even though deep down they know there are serious problems. Others are victims who unwittingly protect or bail out the cult leader(s) by covering up for inadequacies, making excuses and cleaning up the messes. Provokers, often the wives or mothers of the alcoholic (or cult leader), keeps the alcoholic dependent and needy by presenting him to others as a responsible adult. These people “run the show,” and make things at home seem normal to others, when in fact they are anything but.
Selective Inattention — When approached or upbraided for refusing to face reality, provokers simply deny it. “This ‘Who… Me?’ tactic is a way of ‘playing innocent,’ and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior. It’s also the way the aggressor gives him/herself permission to keep right on doing what they want to do,” George K. Simon says in his book “In Sheep’s Clothing.” This tactic also is called avoidance. Provokers are, in actuality, usually controllers, and they view heeding any advice as an act of submission. They cannot lose power and control or be shown to have erred or misinterpreted anything wrongly. They will not listen and will not learn, no matter how many people may tell them the exact same thing.
Rationalization — Catholic psychologists define this psychological maladjustment as “Seeking sound reasons and good excuses for wrong or unworthy actions,” (“Psychology in Questions and Answers,” by Rev. Hilarion Duerk, O.F.M.) Any “excuse” made to cult leaders often are called rationalizations by the cult leader, even though he may engage in the same activity or more damnable activities. Canon Law admits that circumstances and conditions of persons can mitigate or excuse entirely from liability and even penalties, (Can. 2218-19). Cult leaders magnify the faults of their followers to hide their own misdeeds. Shaming, guilt-tripping, and mixing in just enough truth to appear to justify any of their actions that a conscientious person feels are wrong are what cult leaders do. Cult leaders often are expert at convincing others to ignore the voice of conscience. Some tell followers that even if they are not true leaders the followers have no worries, since superiors can take people’s sins on themselves, excusing followers from personal sin.
This is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches, for as Rev. Alan McCoy observes, an excusing spiritual necessity exists when “a real command, given in virtue of true authority recognized by law and intimated to one who is really a subject” is given, (“Force and Fear in Relation to Delictual Imputability and Penal Responsibility”). “When an ecclesiastical superior possessing true jurisdiction gives a command which contravenes a spiritual law [telling others to disregard any doubts about validity and follow the command to accept and obey] then all criminal imputability is taken away from an inferior, if the action commanded is within the superior’s power, and its malice be not altogether certain and evident to the subject.” Current Trad leaders and “popes” are not valid or licit and possesses no authority whatsoever; they have no real subjects and possesses no jurisdiction of any kind. So the criminal imputability is not taken away from inferiors, who are simply being bullied into ignoring their God-given consciences.
Diversion — Changing the subject or diverting attention to the “bad” behavior of others is a tactic used to deflect deserved blame or criticism. If the leader is criticized by a member or outsider, the accuser immediately becomes the instigator, the scapegoat and the focus of attention, not the leader’s lame behavior. Failing consistently to answer questions directly and honestly, arguing in circles, ambiguous answers, evasive responses all are part and parcel of this behavior, and are forbidden by the eighth commandment, also Catholic teaching on Scholasticism.
Lies — “Covert-aggressive personalities… lie in subtle, covert ways… Manipulators often lie by withholding a significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the truth. They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This is an especially slick way of lying omission.” What is produced is either beside the point, assumes as true that which has yet to be proved (begging the question) or evades the issue entirely.
Covert Intimidation — Shaming, scapegoating, guilt tripping, withholding spiritual goods or favors (annulments or the “Sacraments” for one; permission to act in some special capacity in the group another) and threats of sanction, excommunication or damnation of self or others — all is used to good effect.
Guilt-tripping — Some have larger guilt buttons than others and are more likely to respond to guilt cues. Cult leaders use this vulnerability to good effect, meaning such people often are kept in submission and abeyance longer than others.
Shaming — Shaming members to others and using guilt to produce the desired results is a favored tactic of cult leaders. This may be done without the victim member’s knowledge, causing trouble in personal and other relationships that is not understood because the calumny is secret. Children may be shamed in the presence of parents, thus subtly suggesting parents are not really in control of their children and ultimate control belongs to the leader. Wives may also be shamed in the presence of (often complicit) husbands, friends in the presence of friends.
Playing the Victim Role —When cult leaders are investigated, it often becomes clear that they have suffered from problems leading back even to childhood or adolescence. They were unable to assimilate into society and often were loners. They have lost jobs, positions and often have no commensurate education or work history to support the role of leader. They will tell members that these difficulties all arise from persecution or circumstances beyond their control.
Vilifying the Victim —Cult leaders vilify their victims and impute their valid fears and defenses to evil motives to escape scrutiny and mutiny among their ranks. They demonize certain followers to avoid being demonized themselves.
Playing the Servant Role — Even though leaders often lie back and rest on their adulation by members and often do not work a steady job to support themselves, they present to members and the world as servants of their group or cause, busy in the service of God and the faithful. They cunningly coerce others to do their work and later take credit for what their followers actually do.
Seduction — This type of seduction becomes a finely honed skill and is accomplished in many ways: by flattery, praise, encouragement, support and recommendation of others as going above and beyond. Cult leaders invite loyalty and confidence then later use these confidences and member loyalty as tools to shame followers, threaten them and unduly influence them to do things against their better judgment.
Projecting blame —Catholic psychologists describe this maladjustment to adverse situations as, “The mind’s attempt to defend itself against the painful experience of self- condemnation by transferring blame to someone or something else.” Cult leaders cannot admit mistakes, and will go to any lengths to make it appear they cannot be blamed.
Minimization — This is related to denial, the favored tactic of cult leaders. When they are not denying things outright, they are minimizing the harm done to others and especially to the Church. This is particularly true where minimizing dogma is concerned. These leaders consistently refuse to present dogma in its entirety, or reduce it to absurd conclusions.
Conclusion
Manipulators and especially cult leaders target easy-going, conscientious people who will overlook their foibles and excuse any missteps by exercising “charity.” They know just how far to push and when to pull back, how to cover their tracks, how to disguise their motives, when and how to provoke sympathy and most importantly, how to get others to do exactly what they want them to do and believe exactly as they wish them to believe. Power is the name of the game. It is the old story of how power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Part
IV:
How
to
Spot
a
Liar
Lying is something that cult leaders have perfected to a fine art. So what are the signs that someone is lying? Various articles written on the subject by law enforcement and judicial
– Failure to make eye contact.
– Being fidgety, nervous or acting uncomfortable.
– Inconsistencies and contradictions; story changes over time.
– Exhibiting a pleasant manner and relying on others’ assumptions, (nodding lot, allowing others to assume agreement or at least not disagreement)
– Accusing others of lying when they are not and it is obvious they are not, (projection).
1. Increase in anger and defensiveness, (arms crossed, evasiveness, vague statements).
2. Lack of detail or “pat answers” (easier to keep stories straight).
3. Pausing, looking to left.
4. Protesting too much; clear over reaction to certain statements.
5. Unpleasant manner, abruptness, rudeness.
Those who convert to a specific person or religion over the Internet are especially vulnerable to the lies of cult leaders. Internet “converts” will never understand the importance of personal contact; how different things appear up close. As one magazine article states, “Lies told on the printed page or on a TV screen [also a computer screen or documentary] may be the hardest to detect. When a journalist at a respected publication tells a tall tale…those of us without reams of time on our hands aren’t likely to uncover it on our own,” (Forbes Magazine, November 2006). So beware of truncated and false presentations of the Catholic truth, the demonization of former followers and salacious tales of their personal lives. Demand positive proofs, verification of personal information and check out facts on the other side. Omission is as much a sin as commission. If you are missing these clear signs, why are you missing them? Is it possible that lies are easier to believe than the truth, or that it conflicts with something you really want to believe? This is how cult leaders become cult leaders and why they remain in power. Demanding an accounting is the only way to avoid being trapped in their web of deceit and eventually becoming their victims.
What does the Church offer in way of evidence that someone is lying? Rev. Joseph Walsh S.J. lists Traditional and Conclavist methods as fallacies in his 1940 work Logic. Under the heading “Ignoratio elenchi” (Missing the Point at Issue, Arguing Beside the Point, Avoiding the Issue, Proving the Wrong Conclusion) Walsh comments, “Debaters and attorneys with a weak case sometimes resort to it deliberately.” He then lists the subordinate forms of ignoratio elenchi as “a.) argument ad balculem, or appeal to physical force by threats, actual violence, violent demonstration, to win one’s point…and f.) argument ad hominem, or personal attack, effected by abusive language or ridicule of an adversary, or charges of inconsistency, etc…” Logic is a science that supplies us with the rules that govern scholastic philosophy. No science or art can be said to be true if its rules are disobeyed. Unfortunately others do not seem to hold these rules in high esteem. Below we will demonstrate how these rules can be violated.
I. Fallacies in diction
A. Equivocation: Using the same word(s) in different senses within the same argument.
B. Amphiboly: A sentence or phrase whose structure makes its meaning ambiguous.
C. Composition: Taking collectively what should be taken separately.
D. Division: taking separately what should be taken collectively.
E. Accent: When two similar words are confused by wrong accentuation or when a wrong meaning is given to a sentence by stressing the wrong words, (in verbal argument only — Walsh).
II. Fallacies extra dictionem
A. Accident or A Dicto Simpliciter ad Dictum Secundem: Assuming that what is true generally is true in every circumstance, when circumstances alter the case.
B. A Dicto Seundum quid ad dictum simpliciter or Special case: Concluding what is true in a certain restricted case or cases is true generally.
C. Ignoratio Elenchi: Missing the point, arguing beside the point, evading the issue, proving the wrong conclusion.
1. Appeal to the populace by arousing passions and prejudices.
2. Appeal to the venerated positions of those holding the same opinions.
3. An appeal to the ignorance of the hearers, tricking them by statements they are unable to test. ignorance. Thus Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Benedict XIV before him rightly taught: “We declare that the greater part of those who are damned have brought the calamity on themselves by ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, which they should have known and believed, in order to be united with the elect.”
4. Argumentation ad miseracordium, or an appeal for sympathy.
5. Argumentation ad hominem, including personal attack, abusive language, ridicule of an adversary, charges of inconsistency.

6. Argumentation ad balculum: appeal to physical force by threats…
7. Petitio principii or begging the question: Assuming as true that which has yet to be proved.
8. Consequent: An ill-constructed syllogistic demonstration resulting in a false conclusion.
9. False cause: reducing a proposition to an absurd consequence.
10. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Attributing an effect not to its true cause, but to something antecedent in time.
11. Many questions: So phrasing a question that to answer either way will affirm or deny something the one asking doesn’t wish to confirm or deny.
12. False analogy: When an argument is drawn from another subject which only in appearance resembles the subject in question.
If one can demonstrate that at least an attempt has been made to follow the rules of Scholastic philosophy, then certain conclusions can be drawn from this. For an opponent who cannot follow the rules of scholastic philosophy most likely does not possess the proofs necessary to establish a defense. As the rule of law goes, facts are not presumed; they must be demonstrated. Here we have readily demonstrated the facts not from merely probable sources, but from unimpeachable sources. These infallible sources themselves cannot be questioned, as Rev. J. C. Fenton explained in his work Sacred Theology.
“Since the certitude of theology is from divine knowledge, it cannot be explained merely in function of the syllogistic process by which its conclusions are derived…Theological demonstration is a complex process, and the theological conclusion is not extrinsic to the body of actually revealed doctrine…The meaning of divine revelation, as it is proposed in the infallible magisterium of the Church, is so clear that demonstrations directed toward bringing out that meaning can possess a superior certitude…It was precisely the certitude of sacred theology that led to the unmasking of the various heresies which have appeared during the course of Christian history.”

Part
V
(COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This material is copyrighted. Free, unrestricted use is allowed on a non-commercial basis. The author’s name and a link to this Website must be incorporated in any reproduction of the material for any use and by any means.)
Proposed
Amended
Criteria
for
the
Narcissistic
 Personality
Disorder
(by Dr. Sam Vaknin http://samvak.tripod.com/)
Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);
Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcisissist);
Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high- status people (or institutions);
Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply);
Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favorable priority treatment;
Is “interpersonally exploitative”, i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends; Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;
Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly;
Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, “above the law”, and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.

The
Narcissist
as
a
Cult
Leader
The narcissist is the guru at the centre of a cult. Like other gurus, he demands complete obedience from his flock: his spouse, his offspring, other family members, friends, and colleagues. He feels entitled to adulation and special treatment by his followers. He punishes the wayward and the straying lambs. He enforces discipline, adherence to his teachings, and common goals. The less accomplished he is in reality – the more stringent his mastery and the more pervasive the brainwashing.
The – often involuntary – members of the narcissist’s mini-cult inhabit a twilight zone of his own construction. He imposes on them a shared psychosis, replete with persecutory delusions, “enemies”, mythical narratives, and apocalyptic scenarios if he is flouted.
The narcissist’s control is based on ambiguity, unpredictability, fuzziness, and ambient abuse. His ever-shifting whims exclusively define right versus wrong, desirable and unwanted, what is to be pursued and what to be avoided. He alone determines the rights and obligations of his disciples and alters them at will.
The narcissist is a micro-manager. He exerts control over the minutest details and behaviors. He punishes severely and abuses withholders of information and those who fail to conform to his wishes and goals.
The narcissist does not respect the boundaries and privacy of his reluctant adherents. He ignores their wishes and treats them as objects or instruments of gratification. He seeks to control both situations and people compulsively.
The narcissist claims to be infallible, superior, talented, skilful, omnipotent, and omniscient. He often lies and confabulates to support these unfounded claims. Within his cult, he expects awe, admiration, adulation, and constant attention commensurate with his outlandish stories and assertions. He reinterprets reality to fit his fantasies.
His thinking is dogmatic, rigid, and doctrinaire. He does not countenance free thought, pluralism, or free speech and doesn’t brook criticism and disagreement. He demands – and often gets – complete trust and the relegation to his capable hands of all decision-making. He forces the participants in his cult to be hostile to critics, the authorities, institutions, his personal enemies, or the media – if they try to uncover his actions and reveal the truth. He closely monitors and censors information from the outside, exposing his captive audience only to selective data and analyses.
The narcissist’s cult is “missionary” and “imperialistic”. He is always on the lookout for new recruits… Often, his behavior on these “recruiting missions” is different to his conduct within the “cult”. In the first phases of wooing new admirers and proselytizing to potential “conscripts” – the narcissist is attentive, compassionate, empathic, flexible, self- effacing, and helpful. At home, among the “veterans” he is tyrannical, demanding, willful, opinionated, aggressive, and exploitative.
As the leader of his congregation, the narcissist feels entitled to special amenities and benefits not accorded the “rank and file”. He expects to be waited on hand and foot, to make free use of everyone’s money and dispose of their assets liberally, and to be cynically exempt from the rules that he himself established (if such violation is pleasurable or gainful).
In extreme cases, the narcissist feels above the law – any kind of law. This grandiose and haughty conviction leads to criminal acts…Hence the narcissist’s panicky and sometimes violent reactions to “dropouts” from his cult. There’s a lot going on that the narcissist wants kept under wraps. Moreover, the narcissist stabilizes his fluctuating sense of self- worth by deriving Narcissistic Supply from his victims. Abandonment threatens the narcissist’s precariously balanced personality…
The narcissist sees enemies and conspiracies everywhere. He often casts himself as the heroic victim (martyr) of dark and stupendous forces. In every deviation from his tenets he espies malevolent and ominous subversion. He, therefore, is bent on disempowering his devotees. By any and all means.
The malignant narcissist is dangerous.
Can
narcissism
be
reconciled
with
a
belief
in
God?
The narcissist likes to belong to groups or to frameworks of allegiance. He derives easy and constantly available Narcissistic Supply from them. Within them and from their members he is certain to garner attention, to gain adulation, to be castigated or praised. His False Self is bound to be reflected by his colleagues, co-members, or fellows. If a clergyman, he is overly devout and orthodox and places great emphasis on the proper conduct of rites, rituals and ceremonies…
The narcissist develops a reverse (benign) form of paranoia: he feels constantly watched over…If a religious man, he calls it divine providence. This self-centered perception also caters to the narcissist’s streak of grandiosity, proving that he is, indeed, worthy of such incessant and detailed attention, supervision and intervention.
From this mental junction, the way is short to entertaining the delusion that God…is an active participant in the narcissist’s life in which constant intervention by Him is a key feature. God is subsumed in a larger picture, that of the narcissist’s destiny and mission. God serves this cosmic plan by making it possible.
Indirectly, therefore, God is perceived by the narcissist to be at his service…The narcissist is likely to say that he IS the army, the nation, the people, the struggle, history, or (a part of) God…As opposed to healthier people, the narcissist believes that he both represents and embodies…his God…or anything else he feels a part of. This is why individual narcissists feel completely comfortable to assume roles usually reserved to groups of people or to some transcendental, divine (or other), authority.
This kind of “enlargement” or “inflation” also sits well with the narcissist’s all-pervasive feelings of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. In playing God, for instance, the narcissist is completely convinced that he is merely being himself. The narcissist does not hesitate to put people’s lives or fortunes at risk. He preserves his sense of infallibility in the face of mistakes and misjudgments by distorting the facts, by evoking mitigating or attenuating circumstances, by repressing memories, or by simply lying.
In the overall design of things, small setbacks and defeats matter little, says the narcissist. The narcissist is haunted by the feeling that he is possessed of a mission, of a destiny, that he is part of fate, of history. He is convinced that his uniqueness is purposeful, that he is meant to lead, to chart new ways, to innovate, to modernize, to reform, to set precedents, or to create from scratch.
Every act of the narcissist is perceived by him to be significant, every utterance of momentous consequence, every thought of revolutionary caliber. He feels part of a grand design…and its ideology must conform to his pre-conceived opinions and prejudices.
In short: the group must magnify the narcissist, echo and amplify his life, his views, his knowledge, and his personal history. This intertwining, this enmeshing of individual and collective, is what makes the narcissist the most devout and loyal of all its members.
The narcissist is always the most fanatical, the most extreme, the most dangerous adherent. At stake is never merely the preservation of his group – but his very own survival… In extreme cases, he might even wish to destroy it (as a punishment or revenge for its incompetence in securing his emotional needs).
The “small people”, the “rank and file”, the “loyal soldiers” of the narcissist – his flock, his nation, his employees – they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated – is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of the narcissist. This is his sole legacy: a massive post- traumatic stress disorder.
Confabulations are an important part of life. They serve to heal emotional wounds or to prevent ones from being inflicted in the first place. They prop-up the confabulator’s self- esteem, regulate his (or her) sense of self-worth, and buttress his (or her) self-image. They serve as organizing principles in social interactions…
His very self is a piece of fiction concocted to fend off hurt and to nurture the narcissist’s grandiosity. He fails in his “reality test” – the ability to distinguish the actual from the imagined. The narcissist fervently believes in his own infallibility, brilliance, omnipotence, heroism, and perfection. He doesn’t dare confront the truth and admit it… The narcissist countenances no disagreement, alternative points of view, or criticism. To him, confabulation IS reality.
The coherence of the narcissist’s dysfunctional and precariously-balanced personality depends on the plausibility of his stories and on their acceptance by his Sources of Narcissistic Supply. The narcissist invests an inordinate time in substantiating his tales, collecting “evidence”, defending his version of events, and in re-interpreting reality to fit his scenario. As a result, most narcissists are self-delusional, obstinate, opinionated, and argumentative.
The narcissist’s lies are not goal-orientated. This is what makes his constant dishonesty both disconcerting and incomprehensible. The narcissist lies at the drop of a hat, needlessly, and almost ceaselessly. He lies in order to avoid the Grandiosity Gap – when the abyss between fact and (narcissistic) fiction becomes too gaping to ignore.
The narcissist lies in order to preserve appearances, uphold fantasies, support the tall (and impossible) tales of his False Self and extract Narcissistic Supply from unsuspecting sources, who are not yet on to him. To the narcissist, confabulation is not merely a way of life – but life itself.
We are all conditioned to let others indulge in pet delusions and get away with white, not too egregious, lies. The narcissist makes use of our socialization. We dare not confront or expose him, despite the outlandishness of his claims, the improbability of his stories, the implausibility of his alleged accomplishments and conquests. We simply turn the other cheek, or meekly avert our eyes, often embarrassed. Moreover, the narcissist makes clear, from the very beginning, that it is his way or the highway…
Gradually, the narcissist distorts the personalities of those he is in constant touch with, casts them in his defective mould, limits them, redirects them, and inhibits them. When sufficiently cloned, the narcissist uses the people he affected as narcissistic proxies, narcissistic vehicles of vicarious narcissism.
The narcissist provokes in us emotions, which are predominantly negative and unpleasant. The initial reaction, as we said, is likely to be ridicule. The narcissist, pompous, incredibly self-centered, falsely grandiose, spoiled and odd (even his manner of speech is likely to be constrained and archaic), often elicits smirks in lieu of admiration.
…At the first sign of trouble, he goes missing. This vanishing act is not necessarily physical or geographical. The narcissist is actually better at disappearing emotionally and at evading his moral and legal obligations (despite his constant self-righteous moralizing).
It is then and there that his family and coterie discover his true colors: he uses and discards people off-handedly. To him, people are either “functional” and “useful” in his pursuit of Narcissistic Supply – or not. But, in both cases, to him, they are not human but objects, or mere cartoons. Of all the hurts that the narcissist inflicts this abrupt and contemptuous disregard, probably, is the strongest and most enduring one.
Control
by
Proxy
If all else fails, the abuser recruits friends, colleagues, family members…in short, third parties – to do his bidding. He uses them to cajole, coerce, threaten, stalk, offer, retreat, tempt, convince, harass, communicate and otherwise manipulate his target. He controls these unaware instruments exactly as he plans to control his ultimate prey. He employs the same mechanisms and devices. And he dumps his props unceremoniously when the job is done.
One form of control by proxy is to engineer situations in which abuse is inflicted upon another person. Such carefully crafted scenarios of embarrassment and humiliation provoke social sanctions (condemnation, opprobrium, or even physical punishment) against the victim. Society, or a social group become the instruments of the abuser.
Abusers often use other people to do their dirty work for them. These – sometimes unwitting – accomplices belong to three groups: The abuser’s social milieu, the victim’s social milieu or the system.
Narcissistic
supply
…The normal person is likely to welcome a moderate amount of attention – verbal and non-verbal – in the form of affirmation, approval, or admiration. Too much attention, though, is perceived as onerous and is avoided. Destructive and negative criticism is avoided altogether.
The narcissist, in contrast, is the mental equivalent of an alcoholic. He is insatiable. He directs his whole behaviour, in fact his life, to obtain these pleasurable titbits of attention. He embeds them in a coherent, completely biased, picture of himself. He uses them to regulates his labile sense of self-worth and self-esteem.
To elicit constant interest, he projects to others a confabulated, fictitious version of himself, known as the False Self. The False Self is everything the narcissist is not: omniscient, omnipotent, charming, intelligent, rich, or well-connected.
But the picture is more complicated. There are two categories of Narcissistic Supply and their Sources (NSS):
The Primary Narcissistic Supply is attention, in both its public forms (fame, notoriety, infamy, celebrity) and its private, interpersonal, forms (adoration, adulation, applause, fear, repulsion). It is important to understand that attention of any kind – positive or negative – constitutes Primary Narcissistic Supply. Infamy is as sought after as fame, being notorious is as good as being renowned.
To the narcissist his “achievements” can be imaginary, fictitious, or only apparent, as long as others believe in them. Appearances count more than substance, what matters is not the truth but its perception,” (end of Dr. Vaknin’s quotes).
Conclusion
Doctrinal error is one thing. All of us have seen groups totally invincibly convinced that the doctrine they teach and the beliefs they hold are entirely Catholic or Christian when this is certainly not the case. These groups are dangerous doctrinally to those who follow them but they are benign in the sense that they do not resort to unethical, immoral or deceitful means to convince, hang on to or pursue their members. They do not manipulate their followers, are relatively transparent and at least try to practice what they preach.
If we read St. Paul’s verse on the operation of error, (2 Thess. 2:10), we realize that it is God who sends it as a punishment for failing to love the truth. While error entrapped us, how many times did we feel uncomfortable and look the other way? Failed to speak up when we disagreed with something out of human respect? Knew we were wrong and refused to admit it? Ignored the urgings of conscience to avoid reprimand or ridicule? Allowed others to be reviled in our presence because we secretly resented or disliked them? Neglected to study the faith to confirm our doubts? There is no victimization here; only God’s loving and correcting hand. By allowing us to be deceived, He forced us to seek the truth in order to end our pain; He captured our complete attention.
God’s grace alone allowed us to find the truth. He used the repercussions of finding it and seizing it to teach us humility and patience. As so often happens, He used evil that good may triumph, and continues to do so still. Seek and you shall find, and the finds have been many and mind-blowing. It is humiliating to discover that one has been scammed. But it is gratifying to learn how and why the deception succeeded and how to prevent others from being deceived in the future. I included a section on cults in the pre-election book, but the analysis provided did not really go into any detail and did not pinpoint the various manipulative tactics that can wreak so much havoc over time. And over the years, as cult tactics are refined and evolve, cult leaders learn to be more careful once their operations and methodology are revealed. I needed to update my information on this, and have learned a great deal in the process. I thank God for affording me the opportunity to warn others. I pray always that He grants me the grace to persevere in the truth and grants others the grace to escape the enslavement of error and sin.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have pity on us!