+Most Holy Name of Mary+

A note to readers

A few words here about the assassination of influencer/Christian activist Charlie Kirk. Kirk began his career at 18, refusing to attend college because of the liberal indoctrination tactics common to academia and counseling others in his generation to do the same. He married in 2020, claiming that he remained a virgin until marriage. Kirk’s wife was raised in a Novus Ordo household, and according to some reports, Kirk was considering joining what he believed to be the Catholic Church. In a day and age when Our Lady is continually blasphemed by Protestants, he asked fellow Christians  to rethink their views regarding her. He also rejected the usurper Leo 14 as a Marxist and questioned Israel’s motives in its war against Gaza.

Six weeks ago, Kirk said in a podcast: “I think we as Protestants and Evangelicals under-venerate Mary. She was very important. She was a vessel for our Lord and Savior. I think that we, as Evangelicals and Protestants, we’ve overcorrected. We don’t talk about Mary enough. We don’t venerate her enough. Mary was clearly important to early Christians. There’s something there. In fact, I believe one of the ways that we fix toxic feminism in America is that Mary is the solution. Have more young ladies be pious, be reverent, be full of faith, slow to anger, slow to words at times. Mary is a phenomenal example, and I think a counter to so much of the toxicity of feminism in the modern era.”

This in a podcast that aired on July 16, Feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. We recently reported here that Kirk supported the NAR movement. Despite this fact, he was a zealous defender of Christ and believed America should be a Christian nation. He was a young person who may have eventually figured things out over time. He denounced the evils of abortion, gender identity and the plethora of immoralities plaguing this country today. It is our hope and prayer that, somehow, he saved his soul, even though we can never assume this. Certainly his death  saved him from being sucked into an even greater evil.

Introduction

A self-declared hermit and Novus Ordo, “priest,” David Nix, writing under the name “Padre Peregrino,” recently stated in a post on Substack that: “The saints seem to delineate between ‘material heresy’ (small points) and ‘manifest heresy’ (obvious heresy). The latter is held by saints to be easily identified by your average faithful layman or lay woman living in sanctifying grace.” He claims the Novus Ordo (and LibTrad) pseudo-clergy scoff at this idea, stating only “true” Catholic clergy can decide such matters. This he rightly calls, “Gnosticism… the old and tired heresy that only a certain group of ‘enlightened elites’ have access to ‘secret’ divine knowledge.” While these statements on material and formal heresy are more or less true, Nix has not consulted the proper sources to best explain the definition of these two types of heresy. And it is important that Catholics understand that even material heretics are outside the Church until a canonically elected Pope and bishops in communion with him declare otherwise. But sadly, we have no pope and no valid hierarchy left to elect one.

So in their absence, we must do what the Church commands us to do: we are bound to hold the teaching of the Continual Magisterium on this matter, NOT the teaching of the saints and early Fathers, although their opinions on doctrinal matters certainly have great merit. We are bound to obey Canon Law, since the primary source of Canon Law is the Popes and the Councils. The Fathers and Doctors contribute much that is good, but their opinions do not reflect the entirety of  papal decisions made since the time of their death. They Pope is infallible; they are not. Theologians and canonists are quoted below, but they only echo the most recent decisions of the Popes and Holy Office and the Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the (1917) Code. And we are bound by that same Code to follow more recent laws.

Canon 22 states: “A more recent law given by competent authority abrogates a former law if it expressly orders abrogation or if it is directly contrary to the former law or if it readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law. Archbishop Amleto Cicognani, in his 1934 work, Canon Law states that: “… Revocation is tacit when a new law is issued directly contrary to the former law or when a new law takes up and readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law… The competent authority means the Roman Pontiff, the Council, the Bishop, or the Ordinary in general.”

Three questions raised in this article must be addressed. The first concerns the matter of who can judge heresy and whether such heresy must be formal. The second addresses whether said heresy is to be considered material or formal. And the third regards the invalid election of Angelo Roncalli in 1958.

Canon 1325 and heresy

Canon 1325 tells us: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly whenever silence, subterfuge or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God or scandal to their neighbor.” If LibTrads only revered and followed Canon Law, they would know the answer to the questions they pose. But they cannot afford to do this, because  to do so would be their undoing. This canon would not be written as it is, if the faithful were not obligated by law to judge heresy. Furthermore, Can. 1935, under the heading “Criminal Trials,” states: “The faithful may, AT ALL TIMES denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” Neither of these canons exempt the clergy from these obligations laid on the faithful.

Heresy, to be judged as such, need not involve other members of the faithful pronouncing any judgment of the person who professes it. THE LAW ITSELF judges them and places them outside the Church, even if their heresy is only material, and those observing their errors need only state that FACT. For all who belong to the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects belong to non-Catholic sects and therefore have incurred the excommunication in Can. 2314 §3 for communicatio in sacris. Material or formal, it doesn’t matter. Even material heretics remain in heresy because we have no pope to lift their infamy of law and their latae sententiae excommunication. And for this same reason, a new pope cannot be elected.

The Church’s teaching on material heresy

Revs. McHugh and Callan

1. Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it. But for formal heresy it is not required that that a person give his consent out of malice, or that he continue in obstinate rejection for a long time, or that he refuses to heed admonitions given him. Pertinacity here means true consent to recognized error, and this can…be given in an instant and does not presuppose an admonition disregarded,” (#829b).
2. Circumstances that aggravate the sin include: its external and manifest nature, manifestation to a large number of people joined with apostasy and adhesion to an heretical sect, denying several articles or defined truths at the same time, (#832b&c).
3. Faith…must be firm assent, excluding doubt, (#840). Real, voluntary but especially positive doubt, deliberately entertained with full knowledge, also constitutes heresy, (#s841-45).

Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey

Rev. Tanquerey’s  works were used as seminary texts internationally for decades. He  holds the same position as McHugh and Callan. “Apostates, heretics and schismatics incur, on the ordinary conditions of full guilt, knowledge, etc., an excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See…” Tanquerey then points out that, “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics,  those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching of the authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, EVEN IF THEIR HERESY IS ONLY MATERIAL HERESY,” (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II).

Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton

As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton notes in his “The Teaching of the Theological Manuals,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963: “If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of ‘the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages,’ then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error by the men whom Our Lord had constituted as the guardians of His revealed message.”

In another article Msgr. Fenton wrote: “[Cardinal] Franzelin popularized the process of distinguishing between material and formal heresy in treating of conditions for membership in the Church. He thereby did a definite disservice to the cause of theology,” (“The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine’s Teaching About the Membership of occult heretics in the Catholic Church,” AER, March 1950).

Rev. Ignatius Szal

In his Canon Law dissertation, “The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics” (1948), Rev. Szal rightly states that those raised in heresy or schism who convert to the true faith, even if no obstinacy was involved on their part, must be absolved from the censure for schism if they convert after reaching the age of 14. This has been confirmed by several decisions handed down by the Holy See and the Sacred Congregations. It is based on the rule expressed in Can. 2200 §2, (1917 Code) that they are bound by the censure of excommunication for schism or heresy given the external violation of the law.

Rev. Reginald Garrigou LaGrange

Rev. Garrigou LaGrange, O.P. states in his The Theological Virtues, Vol. I, (On Faith; written before V2 but translated afterwards): “The one thing that suffices for formal heresy is an obstinate denial of any truth which has been infallibly proposed by the Church for belief.  It is not necessary that the individual believer realizes that the truth in jeopardy has been revealed.”

Canonists Revs. Stanislaus Woywod and Callistus Smith

Based on decisions issued by the Holy Office, Revs. Woywod-Smith observe: “Nevertheless, in the external forum they are not free [from the penalties of Can. 2314] for, according to Can. 2200, when there is an external violation of Church law, malice is presumed in the external forum until its absence is proved. The Holy See insists that converts from heretical or schismatic sects be not received into the Church until they have first abjured the heresy or schism and been absolved from the censure, (Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, July 20, 1859). Children converted before the age of puberty need no absolution from the excommunication (cfr. Can. 2230) and, instead of abjuration, need only make the profession of faith, (Holy Office, March 8, 1882” (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1957).

Revs. Woywod-Smith on Can. 731: “All canonists and moralists agree that those who are heretics or schismatics and know they are wrong cannot be given the Sacraments of the Church unless they renounce their errors and are reconciled with the Church. Numerous decrees of the Holy Office put this point beyond controversy.”

Canonist Dom Charles Augustine

“Charity does not require mental gymnastics in order to excuse what is manifest, [evident, obvious, not obscure]… Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man” (Dom Charles Augustine: A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. 8, pg. 335; 1908).

Canon E. J. Mahoney

In his work Questions and Answers: The Sacraments (1946), Canon E.J. Mahoney comments: “The LIBERAL VIEW [is that] baptized non-Catholics in good faith are members of the body of the Church precisely because they are not excommunicated…The view diametrically opposed to this is [that] the excommunication of heretics applies to material as well as formal heretics…If a choice had to be made between theses two views…, there is no question that the second fits in best with Catholic discipline, and, in particular, with our practice in reconciling converts…

The solution which I think is the correct one consists in perceiving a distinction which the Code itself supplies. The Sacraments are to be denied both to material and formal heretics but for different reasons; to formal heretics because they merit punishment, the censure of Can. 2314 §1; to material heretics because they are excluded by Can. 731 §2, which is a necessary deduction from the concept of the Church: [basically, the Church is a society of men professing the same Christian faith, participating in the same worship, receiving the same Sacraments, from lawful pastors in communion with the Pope, etc…] Those who reject the rule of faith proposed by the Church are not members of the Church and may not lawfully share in the privileges of members, as, for example, the reception of the Sacraments.”

Mahoney then cites Billot, who explains that formal heresy and schism cannot be excluded as a possibility in these cases. “…In reconciling converts…it is difficult in the first place to say with certainty that a given convert has not incurred the censure. It is not amongst those which crass ignorance excuses, and it is not unlikely that, during a given period previous to his submission, there was sufficient knowledge for incurring a censure. Therefore absolution from censure is given at least ad cautelam… Moreover, the important distinction between the internal and the external forum must always be remembered. The external government of the Church regards the external actions of people…It is open to the authority of the external government of the Church to regard the members of heretical sects as excommunicated, even though, in the internal forum of conscience, they may be guiltless of any act meriting punishment.”

The Jurist, 1948

We read also from The Jurist, volume 132, page 405: “Irregularity Arising from Sect Affiliation”: “Question: A young man in my parish joined the Methodist Church at the age of 15. He was baptized in it in infancy. At 16, through association with Catholic young men in high school, he became a convert to the Church. Does he labor under any irregularity from which a dispensation should be obtained? (signed, Pedagogous)

“Answer: Since the young man joined the Methodist Church after he had attained the age of puberty, he does not escape the penalties which the Code visits upon his act. Clearly it may be assumed that he has been absolved from the excommunication in accordance with the provisions of Canon 2314 §2, since it is apparent from the statement of the case that he is a good Catholic and proposes to study for the priesthood. It is very likely, however, that he has not been dispensed from the vindictive penalty of infamy of law (infamia juris).

1. Only the Holy See can dispense from this penalty.
2. One who labors under it is irregular ex defectu, not ex delicto. Of course, even considered as an irregularity ex defectu, its presence is prevented, in the internal forum, by the good faith of the party affected: that is,good faith prevents the incurring of the vindictive penalty of infamy of law, and in the absence of the latter, there is an irregularity ex defectu. In the external forum, however, the dispensation should be duly sought from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments.

“The young man also is subject to the impediment arising ex delicto from this heresy in accordance with canon 985, 1°. In the internal forum, good faith would excuse him; in the external forum, however, a dispensation should be sought from this irregularity also from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments. (I Cf. can. 2314, § 1, 3°. Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adhaeserint, ipso facto infames sunt et, firma praescripto can. 188, n. 4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur. Can. 2295. Infamia iuris desinit sola dispensatione a Sede Apostolica concessa).”

“All the above heresies are so-called silent heresies. No declaration of their individual existence is ever made by an ecclesiastical authority — except in the general way that all heresies have been condemned by the continual magisterium at some time, in one place or the other — and there is a record of this. To insist that one 14 and older cannot be held guilty of censures is to deny the Church’s right to establish and enforce censures. This teaching of the Jansenist heretics is condemned by Pope Pius VI:

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

“ ‘Likewise, the proposition which says, “useless and vain is the formula introduced some centuries ago of general absolution from excommunications into which the faithful might have fallen, — false, rash, injurious to the practice of the Church,’” (“Auctorem Fidei,” August 28, 1794).”

The 1958 papal election

Nix ends his article by commenting: “Indeed, the Catholic Church has always taught that a Papal Conclave electing a heretical man is certainly and without doubt an invalid Conclave. And yes, you do have the ability to recognize heresy in such a man…”  Of course, Nix will not take the invalid election Idea clear back to the “election” of Roncalli because he can’t afford to. That would defrock him as a Novus Ordo priest/hermit. So here he is talking about Leo, and before that, it was Bergoglio. Yet proofs clearly show it was Roncalli, and that afterwards, all other elections were automatically invalid.

Most LibTrad adults living in the 1980s know full well that the first exposition of Roncalli as a heretic and the proofs necessary to show the invalidity of his election were published in the book, Will the Catholic Church Survive…?  by T. Stanfill Benns and David Bawden in 1990. The problem here is that their children and grandchildren, now following such figures as Nix, most likely do not know this. Regardless of Bawden’s co-authorship, there were many Catholic truths presented whole and entire in the book (although I have withdrawn it from circulation). Since the 1980s to the present time, these fully developed and incontrovertible proofs been expanded upon and restated so many times, in various places, that it is preposterous for those now writing to pretend they have not seen or considered them. This is certainly true of “Padre Peregrino,” who traipsed across the same stomping grounds and frequented the same seminary library I myself frequented — St. Thomas Seminary, now renamed Abp. Urban Vehr Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He must, at some point, have been aware of this website and the proofs presented here. But no one seems to believe these proofs or value them. And if mentioned at all, they frequently quote them completely out of context and without attribution.

To pretend to reinvent the wheel at this late date is nothing short of a travesty. Unless something recognizably credible can be added to already existing proofs of Roncalli’s invalid election, it is both a waste of research hours and a waste of time for readers, when such demonstrations  were long ago drawn out and publicized. In reality, Roncalli would have been ineligible for election even as a material heretic, for then he was no longer a member of the Church as pointed out above.  And a non-Catholic cannot become pope. For as Can. 2200 states, those suspected of such heresy must first be cleared of all guilt. And St. Robert Bellarmine writes: “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and others” (De Romano Pontifice,
lib. II, cap. 30).

A material heretic’s heresy has already become manifest in some way, either in speech, writing or actions. It is material only in the sense that it may be, but has not yet, been denounced. Far from denouncing such heresy, Roncalli compounded it when he usurped the papal see, proving that his suspicion of heresy notice filed with the Holy Office was indeed justified. Of course the canons would later clarify how material heretics are to be viewed nearly 500 years after St. Bellarmine wrote, for even prior to any denouncement, they are presumed to be heretics. This topic has been much misrepresented and misunderstood. This is something Bellarmine himself anticipated, when he wrote in the same chapter:

“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. FOR ALTHOUGH LIBERIUS WAS NOT A HERETIC, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, et al).”  

Quite simply, Liberius was suspected of heresy. And Bellarmine quotes several notable Fathers, not just the few Nix cites in his article, quoting the author Paul Kramer. With this consensus of the ancient Fathers, in addition to Bellarmine’s own teaching as a Doctor of the Church, the saint has resolved the entire issue singlehandedly. After all, Bellarmine was a teenager during the reign of Pope Paul IV, so Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was fairly recent when he wrote. Here, however, the lapse of Liberius did not happen before his election, as in the case of Roncalli. The issue in Roncalli’s case is resolved by Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

Conclusion

For the sake of people such as Charlie Kirk, we cannot let the delusions of Novus Ordo and LibTrad sect leaders predominate without protest. Truth mattered to Kirk — by all accounts, he was sincere in his beliefs, erroneous though they were. He opposed liberal indoctrination, and yet it appears he was about to become indoctrinated in the biggest lie of all. God spared him that. But what about all the others he fought for and loved who are now left behind?

Nix and others believe that if they can just “elect a true pope,” then the real Church will be vindicated and the evil purged. I thought the same thing myself at one point and was foolishly misled by a liar. Twenty years of additional research helped uncover the carefully woven layers of heresy implanted by the Modernists (and other secret societies) that have been so cleverly embedded into the fabric of modern-day “Catholic” belief. Traditionalist sects were one of their greatest weapons, just as Protestant sects helped spread error far and wide 500 years ago.

If the lying visions now guiding the world could ever be dispelled, it could only come from the admission of the fact that evil became most prevalent following the death of Pope Pius XII, although it was fomenting long before his demise. The real betrayal began with Roncalli, and until his election is investigated and publicly recognized as invalid, and the entire façade that has prevailed in Rome for 67 years is ripped away, there is no hope of leading others to the truth. Pseudo-clerics such as Padre Peregrino and LibTrads in general are the obstacle to recognizing that truth, a necessity for them if they wish to stay in business. But it is as Christ meant it to be, for as Louis Cardinal Pie of Poitiers (1815-1880) wrote:

“It is certain that as the world draws towards its end the wicked and the seducers will increasingly have the upper hand. Faith will hardly be found any longer on earth; that is to say that it will have all but completely disappeared from the institutions of the world. Even believers will scarcely dare to profess their beliefs publicly and collectively… The Church, though of course still a visible society, will be increasingly reduced to individual and domestic proportions… And finally the Church on earth will undergo a true defeat: ‘…and it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them’ (Apoc. 13:7) The insolence of evil will be at its peak.” And this, he says will last until the very end. The Church already has seen the defeat he mentions. We yet exist that She remain visible on earth until the Second Coming.