Contending For The Faith---Part 43

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Trans-ing Children to Death

On August 27, 2025, Robert Westman went to Annunciation School's church in Minneapolis (Vatican II sect) and shot through the windows. Two children aged eight and ten were killed in the attack and at least 17 other victims -- 14 children and 3 adults -- were injured before Westman turned the gun on himself, according to authorities. Robert had his name changed to Robin and "identified as female." This was done with permission of his mother, Mary, who signed to allow it when Westman was 17 years old.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said during a press conference Wednesday, “anybody who is using this as an opportunity to villainize our trans community or any other community out there has lost their sense of common humanity” and urged people to instead honor the children who were harmed.

The Westmans appear to have had close ties to Annunciation. O’Hara said in an interview on CNN Thursday morning that Westman both attended school at Annunciation and was a parishioner there.

(See https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/08/28/annunciation-shooter-appeared-to-have-fascination-with-mass-killings). 

Mayor Frey has it all wrong. Anyone who doesn't stop "transgender" insanity has lost their faith (if they ever had it) and their marbles--just like the "trans-people" themselves. If we want to honor the children harmed, we will begin by stopping the brainwashing of children and enabling perverse mental illness.

This post will show just how dangerous the LGBTQIA+ perversion is as it threatens us all. 

WARNING! This post contains some discussion of abuse and sensitive matters that some may find disturbing. Reader discretion is advised---Introibo

(N.B.  This post is a compilation of all the resources, both online and print, which I used in my research. I take no credit for any of the information herein. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post---Introibo).

What is "Gender Theory"?

Gender dysphoria is defined as the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex. It is a mental disorder which we are being asked to accept as normal, while those who oppose it are to be considered bigoted (at best) or having a neurosis or "phobia" (at worst). Children and adults who suffer from gender dysphoria deserve our sympathy and professional help to get better. Now, gender dysphoria has morphed into something to be encouraged and celebrated as "transgenderism."

To understand trans-insanity," one must first understand gender theory. It is the false and unscientific idea that each person is made up of different aspects of each gender. It is broken down as follows:

• Sex has to do with the body/biology (genitals, chromosomes, etc.)

• Gender Identity concerns the "self-awareness" of who you are "in your head"

• Gender Expression is how someone presents themselves to others in terms of clothes, actions, mannerisms, etc.

• Attraction is who or what someone is attracted to sexually; men, women, even animals (beastiality)

Allegedly, everyone has a gender identity which may or may not conform with their biological sex. 

The Four Falsehoods of Gender Theory

1. Binary is bad.

The claim: There are more than two genders. 

The truth: God created male and female--period. It is the very basis of the sodomites' "LGBT" label. Lesbians are women attracted to other women. "Gays" are men attracted to other men. Bisexuals are men or women attracted to both men and women. Transgenders are men or women who want to live as the opposite sex. 

2. Gender is a spectrum.

The claim: There are many different genders on a whole spectrum of identity.

The truth: There are many different ways we express masculinity and femininity because we are all different people. That doesn't imply there are roughly seven billion different genders. The reality remains that we are male or female. According to ABC News, there are 58 genders (See eroscoaching.com/2017/06/58-gender-options/). Does anyone even know what "Two-Spirit" means and how it differs from being "Genderqueer" or "Neutrois"? Sheer insanity.

3. Man and Woman are merely "social constructs"

The claim: The social roles of men and women differ according to time, place, and culture. There is nothing objective about those terms.

The truth: Social roles may change, but sexual differentiation is based on biological facts, not social constructs.

4. Gender identity is separate from biological sex.

The claim: How we live our lives is independent from our genitalia.

The truth: A comprehensive survey of the scientific evidence was published in 2016 in The New Atlantis. It discussed over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences. It concluded: 

The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex--that a person might be "a man trapped in a woman's body," or a "woman trapped in a man's body"---is not supported by scientific evidence. (See Meyer and McHugh, "Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences," The New Atlantic: A Journal of Technology & Society, 50, Fall 2016, pg. 8; Emphasis mine).

The Invented Vocabulary of a Warped Ideology

The following words and phrases are made up by gender theorists to make them sound as if what they are peddling is real instead of jabberwocky. 

Assigned at Birth: This made up phrase refers to the sex given on a person's birth certificate. It's as if some nurse puts a label in an arbitrary and capricious manner on a baby. The obvious attempt is to, once more, dissociate biological sex from gender. To label a child with male genitalia as a boy and female genitalia as a girl is biologically factual regardless of what that child may "feel like" in the future. Only in rare instances of a child born with a true intersex condition, having genitals of an ambiguous nature, would the term really apply.

Cisgender: "Cis" means "on the same side" implying that your gender lines up with your biological sex and plays into the lie that they can be separated. If anyone asks me if I'm cisgender, I always reply, "No, I'm a man." 

Preferred Gender Pronouns (PGPs) and Gender Neutral Pronouns (GNPs): This allows men who consider themselves women to call themselves "she" and "her" while women who think they are men can call themselves "he" and "his." Gender neutral pronouns such as "they" and "them"  are also used. About a year ago, I was reading an article in the New York Times. A trans-pervert was stopped from going somewhere and it read, "They were refused entry." As someone who reads English it was confusing because I thought several people were prevented from going some place when it was just one person. There are also made up pronouns like ze (pronounced "ZEE") and hir (pronounced "HEAR.").

Transphobic: A fictitious mental disorder by which people who don't believe there are 58 genders and you can "pick your pronouns" are thereby psychologically unsound, hateful, and bigoted. It is a way to bully Christians and those with traditional values not to speak out or else they will face consequences.  

Some Inherent Contradictions in Gender Theory: 

• Gender Theorists want gender dysphoria not regarded as a mental illness, but as something to be celebrated. This includes "transition surgery" at a time when insurance and health professionals should concentrate on cancer, heart disease, COVID, and never on unnecessary surgery to further the cause of mental and/or moral problems

• Gender Theorists insist that "gender is fluid," yet once you have surgery the damage is done permanently--there is no "going back." How is this "fluid"?

• The idea of "gender fluidity" being natural, goes contrary to surgical intervention. It doesn't "just happen naturally" as is claimed

Gender Theory's Origin: Perversion and Marxism

There are ten (10) individuals who made Gender Theory a force in modern society. I want to cite E.S. Williams, Lessons in Depravity, [2003],for much of the information in this section. 

1. Karl Ulrichs (1825-1895)

A nineteenth century German jurist and sodomite who campaigned for "homosexual rights." He advanced an esoteric and occult idea that homosexuality was innate because there was a female soul trapped in a man's body and vice-versa for lesbians. The term “Uranian” had been coined in the 1860s by the German Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, who used “Uranian” (frequently Germanised as Urning) to signify those who experienced “a congenital reversal of sexual feeling”. “Uranian” was also a term much used in astrological and esoteric circles – usually in reference to the planet Uranus, which was associated with “awakening the soul from lethargy, and bringing it into strange conditions and hazardous enterprises”. Esoterically, at the time, the influence of Uranus was very much bound up with the idea that human culture was entering a New Age.(See http://enfolding.org/occult-gender-regimes-reincarnation-and-uranian-souls-in-the-nineteenth-century/; Emphasis mine). 

2. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

The so-called "Father of Psychoanalysis," was an Austrian atheist who denied children had a latency period but were sexual from birth. God was a projection for the need of a father-figure, and shame regarding sex acts of any persuasion were not healthy. Freud's Projection Theory commits the genetic fallacy in logic. This occurs when you try to discredit an idea based on its origin. Even if belief in God came from an unconscious desire for a father-figure, this doesn't prove God non-existent. Perhaps the very reason we have such a desire is because Our Creator made it innate within us to seek Him out. But was Freud a man who "had it all together" and was a convinced atheist? Dr. Paul Vitz, a former professor of psychology at New York University, and a former atheist himself, gives us some insight into Freud in his book Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious. [1988]

Here are some interesting facts on the "Father of Psychotherapy:"

• Freud was very interested in occult phenomena such as telepathy and poltergeists

• On Saturday evenings, he would frequently play tarock - a form of a tarot card game associated with the Jewish Kabbala

• In 1937, when he was urged to flee Nazism, he responded that his real enemy was the Roman Catholic Church

• Was a cocaine addict and his excuse was  "I was making frequent use of cocaine to reduce some troublesome nasal swellings." 

• The Catholic psychiatrist Gregory Zilboorg concluded: "Religion was, for Freud, a field of which he knew very little and which moreover seems to have been the very center of his inner conflicts, conflicts that were never resolved."

(See also The Freudian Fallacy: Freud and Cocaine by E M Thornton [1986]).

3. Magnus Hirschfeld (1894-1956)

Hirschfeld was a sodomite doctor and activist. He founded the Institute for Sexual Science at Berlin in 1919. He oversaw the first "sex reassignment surgeries." The most famous was that of Einar Wegener portrayed in the 2015 movie The Danish Girl. Hirschfeld believed all people were a mixture of male and female. In 1930, he gave the first scientific lecture on "transsexualism."

4. Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956)

Alfred Charles Kinsey, was raised the son of a strict Methodist Sunday School teacher. He went to Bowdoin College where he majored in zoology, and developed a fascination with insects. He continued his studies at Harvard after graduation. He eventually severed all ties with his parents, and declared himself an atheist. Some of his biographers portray him as shy and disinterested in sex, but later biographers unearthed Kinsey's personal correspondence, wherein it was revealed he was a bisexual with a strong sexual desire for young boys.

His career as a "sexpert" began when the Association of Women Students at Indiana University (where he taught zoology/biology) asked him to teach a marriage course on human sexuality for engaged and married students. Kinsey went to great lengths to keep his personal dark predilections a secret. When Ralph Voris, one of his best friends, died, Kinsey drove from Indiana to Ohio with his wife Clara. He had a wife and kids as a "cover" for his deviance. Once in Ohio, he removed correspondence from Voris' office in which Kinsey brags to Voris about his collection of "gorgeous" photos of homosexual men. 

  Kinsey revolutionized the world with the publication of his books Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (published in 1948 and 1953, respectively). It was based on 350 questions on a questionnaire that asked such things as when (not if ) the interviewees had participated in sado-masochism, homosexual acts, pedophilia, and bestiality. His assistants, Clyde Martin, Paul Gebhard, and Wardell Pomeroy, were all required to be filmed performing sex acts with others either at the university or in the attic of the Kinsey home. The questions were so sick, that most of the respondents were either those who engaged in unnatural sex acts or were incarcerated sex offenders. The peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet decried the research as having "questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of normal sexual behavior." In a 1992 telephone interview, Paul Gebhard, one of Kinsey's assistants, admitted that some of the men interviewed were convicted pedophiles.

 As a result of his pseudo-scientific research, the American public began to see homosexuality and pornography as normal. Kinsey believed no sex act was unnatural, nothing was off-limits, and you could define your sexuality any way you wanted. He even approved of beastiality.

5. Harry Benjamin (1885-1986)

Benjamin was an associate of Kinsey. In 1966, he wrote the first textbook on transsexualism. In the book, he argued that Darwinian evolution proved gender fluidity, and pioneered the idea that if someone thought they were the wrong sex, the body should be made to align to the thoughts rather than helping them mentally so their mind would conform to objective biological reality. Benjamin (like Kinsey) endorsed a book by their friend Rene Guyon, The Ethics of Sexual Acts, [1948], which advocated pedophilia and its decriminalization. 

6. Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957)

An Austrian medical doctor and psychoanalyst, Reich taught that suffering and cruelty in society are due to Christian morality. In his 1933 book, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, he argued that fascism arose from sexual oppression. He was pressured to leave Catholic Austria and came to the United States where he promoted sex education for children, so they could become sexually active and "liberated." In the 1940s he promoted divorce, contraception, abortion, and promiscuity. He eventually settled in Arizona where he came to believe that the planet was under attack by UFOs and his father was an extraterrestrial. 

7. John Money (1921-2006)

A psychiatry professor, Money campaigned to legalize pedophilia and the "freedom to change gender." He co-founded the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic. His most famous case involved David Reimer, whose circumcision had gone wrong. Money pressured the boy's parents to agree to an experimental surgery in order to "change the little boy into a girl." Money wanted to prove gender is all about socialization and not biology. Since David had a twin brother named Brian, if David (now called Brenda) could be successfully raised as a girl, while twin brother Brian would be a boy, his theory would be vindicated. 

It would be later revealed that Money forced the two children to engage in incestuous acts with each other while he photographed them. When David found out the truth about being a boy, he wanted to transition back. Not being able to do so, he tragically committed suicide at age 38. As a result of the abuse, Brian became a drug addict and died from an overdose at age 36. (See David van Gend, Stealing from a Child: The Injustice of "Marriage Equality."[2016], pgs. 152-153). 

8. Robert Stoller (1924-1991)

A Professor of  Psychiatry at UCLA, Stoller presented his ideas that gender and biological sex are distinct and separate in his influential book Sex and Gender (1968). He denied that there was any distinction between normal and perverted sex; the only thing that is wrong is to infringe on the rights of other people. 

9. Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937)

An Italian Marxist, Gramsci believed in the complete overthrow of Christian morals in society. Complete license to act as you wish (especially in sexual matters) was of paramount importance, and must only be curtailed when absolutely necessary by the State. You achieve this by distancing youself from the label of Marxism, and use the language of "equality" and "freedom."

10. Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979)

Marcuse was a Marxist philosopher and sociologist. His lasting and destructive legacy was destroying any confidence in objective truth. He achieved this by claiming words don't actually mean anything; they are just tools to achieve what the writer or speaker wants. It is often called "critical theory" and has had great success. 

The evil influence of these characters, exacerbated by the Great Apostasy of Vatican II, has brought society to a place where one can say with a straight face, "A man can be a woman and a woman can be a man."

Transgenderism is Based on the Heresy of Gnosticism

Gnosticism flourished during the second century and taught that the material world is bad and dominated by evil and ignorance, but the spirit world is good. Since a good God could not have created an evil world, Gnostics taught that the world must have been created by a flawed "God." Yet within this corrupt world remains a spiritual component, fragments of the true and good God.

In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word "create" is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) "emanated" or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshiping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence. (See http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm). 

This distorted worldview had a profound impact on how Gnostics perceived the human person. They believed most people possess a "divine spark," a piece of the true God, within them. However, this spark is trapped within a corrupt body, which few people recognize, and as a result, live in ignorance and attachment to the material world. A person can achieve salvation, however, by attaining secret knowledge of his or her true self and eventually leaving the prison of the body at death (If a person fails to become sufficiently enlightened, this spark again becomes imprisoned in another body.)

Some Gnostics were pagan, but many others combined it with Christianity and considered themselves to be higher and more enlightened Catholics. These "Gnostic Catholics" denied the Incarnation of Christ. After all, how could a good God possess an evil body? Instead of salvation coming through Christ's death on the cross, they taught it came through attaining secret spiritual knowledge, or "gnosis." Gnostics, therefore, would agree that what you think and feel is more real and important than your material body, and determines what's "real."

Dr. Deanna Adkins, a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015), has stated, "From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity." Does this rule apply to all mammalian species? Why should sex be determined differently in humans than in other mammals? If medical science holds that gender identity determines sex in humans, what does this mean for the use of medicinal agents that have different effects on males and females? Does the proper dosage of medicine depend on the patient’s sex or gender identity?

The American Psychological Association (APA) defines "gender identity" as “a person's internal sense of being male, female, or something else." This clearly indicates there is more than just "male and female." There are (literally) bathroom signs which read "Whichever" and show a half-male, half-female body as shown at the top of this post. The APA still classifies Gender Dysphoria (or "GD")---formerly Gender Identity Disorder (or "GID")--- as a mental disorder. Yet they tow the line of the "LGBT" activists and promote it. These LGBT perverts used massive PR and political pressure to have the APA remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. Can the removal of GID/GD as disorders be far behind? We've come a long way---away from sanity, morality, and the One True Faith. 

Transgnders are Prone to Violence

Transgender Mental Problems

• People with gender dysphoria or transgender identities are more likely than the general public to engage in high-risk behaviors, which may result from or contribute to psychological disorders (or both). Some of the high-risk behavior is directly related to their desire to change sex. For example, some people who identify as transgender self-mutilate or undergo procedures in non-medical settings. (See Janice Raymond, The Transgender Empire: The Making of the She-Male, [1979], pgs. 34-35). 
• High rates of suicide exist even among those who have already received gender reassignment surgery, which suggests that suicidal tendencies result from an underlying pathology. Ironically, some argue suicide is a reason for reassignment surgery.

According to the pro-sodomite Human Rights Campaign:

More than half of transgender male teens who participated in the survey reported attempting suicide in their lifetime, while 29.9 percent of transgender female teens said they attempted suicide. Among non-binary youth, 41.8 percent of respondents stated that they had attempted suicide at some point in their lives. (See https://www.hrc.org/news/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen).

A psychologically healthy person accepts the reality of his or her sexual identity. Grief and anger over one’s genetic makeup signal mental health problems that can and should be addressed through psychological counseling. The academic literature includes some clinical accounts of successful efforts to overcome gender identity problems. Decades ago, there were already findings pointing “to the possibility of psychosocial intervention as an alternative to surgery in the treatment of transsexualism.” (See David H. Barlow, Gene G. Abel, Edward B. Blanchard, “Gender Identity Change in Transsexuals,” Archives of General Psychiatry 36 [1979]). 

Trans-Mass Shooters

The Westman mass shooting is the fifth such crime perpetrated by a “transgender” since 2018.

• On March 27, 2023, 28-year-old “trans man” Aiden Hale, who was born Audrey Elizabeth, murdered three nine-year-olds and three adults at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.
• On November 19-20, 2022, 22-year-old Anderson Lee Aldrich, who called himself “non-binary,” murdered five and wounded 25 others at a mass shooting at the Club Q bar for homosexuals in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 
• On May 7, 2019, 16-year-old “trans boy” Alec McKinney and an accomplice murdered one and wounded eight students at the STEM School Highlands Ranch in Douglas County, Colorado.
• On September 20, 2018, “trans woman” Snochia Moseley, 26, murdered four and wounded three people at the Rite Aid Distribution Center in Aberdeen, Maryland, before killing himself.
• Police stopped a massacre by a “trans man” in 2024 when they arrested Alex Ye, given name Andrea, who planned mass shootings at a high school and elementary school in Montgomery County, Maryland. Ye, 18, had written a 129-page manifesto that included the tale of a fictional “transgender” bullied into a mass shooting. In May, she was sentenced to 10 years in prison but will serve only one. 

Public Schools: Promoting Mental Illness and the Violence That Follows

Students—especially young ones—look up to their teachers. Teachers know everything and are never mistaken. When classrooms are decorated with trans posters, rainbow flags, and slogans,6 it shapes students’ attitudes. One California teacher packed up the American flag in her classroom; it made her feel uncomfortable. After a student asked to which flag he should pledge allegiance, she suggested the gay pride and trans flag. (See nypost.com/2021/08/30/ca-teacher-encouraged-students-to-pledge-gay-pride-flag-video)

When an elementary school teacher displays a “pride library” in his class, with rainbow banners and books about changing pronouns, students perceive his wishes, what he hopes they’ll believe Speaking of books, entire sections of school libraries feature transgender content. The Los Angeles Unified School District received “an enormous donation of LGBTQIA-themed books” from Open Books (previously called Gender nation), an organization that celebrates transgender identities in children.

Haim Ginott, a famed child psychologist, said, “Children are like wet cement. Whatever falls on them makes an impression.” Parents should know that everything your child sees and hears shapes his/her  heart, mind, and soul. Activist “educators” know that. From the youngest age, children absorb beliefs about transgenderism in their classrooms, their books, from the Disney Channel, even from their Legos.

(See cnn.com/style/article/lego-lgbtq-set-pride-intl-scli).

The bombardment of falsehoods without opportunity to question is called indoctrination.

The Vatican II Sect Supports Trans-Insanity

Bergoglio (Francis) began the full promotion of perversion, and now Prevost (Leo XIV) continues his legacy. Prevost will not rescind one iota from the "blessing" of same-sex couples and has not renounced anything his predecessor in the Vatican II sect began. To remind everyone how bad Bergoglio really was, consider:

The Vatican has announced sweeping new policies welcoming transgender people in the church’s sacramental life, further reflecting Pope Francis’ pastoral focus on LGBTQ people.

In October, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández signed a statement, with the approval of Pope Francis, affirming that transgender people can be baptized, become official godparents, and act as a witness for weddings in the Catholic faith. That statement was made public this week, by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and can be found here. In the last year alone, the Pope has taken many steps towards the inclusion of  the LGBTQ+ community in opposition to the Catholic community of the U.S which has continually rejected such progression.

The response came as a result of what’s known as a Catholic dubia on the matter, questions brought before the pope and the appropriate Vatican office that seek a simple “yes” or “no” response in order to clarify disputed matters of Catholic teaching and practice.

GLAAD President & CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis, expressed GLAAD’s support for such inclusive steps forward: “Pope Francis’ latest LGBTQ affirmation sends an unequivocal message to political and cultural leaders around the world to end their persecution and exclusion of transgender people. Pope Francis is continuing to break down barriers that have kept LGBTQ Catholics away from full participation as members of the Roman Catholic Church and is instead calling on global leaders to create welcoming spaces for LGBTQ people.” (See GLAAD [Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Deformation] glaad.org/pope-francis-calls-for-the-inclusion-of-trans-people-in-catholic-practices).

Conclusion

Transgender children are in need of mental help, not surgical mutilation or affirmation of their illness. Education and the Vatican II sect embrace trans-insanity and promote it. Westman was failed by both (and his mother). The result was a Vatican II sect school shooting. Until gender theory is banned universally, and "transgender" children are treated for their gender dysphoria, we can expect more tragedies like Minneapolis. May God and the Blessed Virgin Mary help us. 

Dimondites

 

Feeneyites is the name given to those who deny the dogma of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). They derive their name from the excommunicated Jesuit, Leonard Feeney (1897-1978). Feeney was surrounded by Modernists who gave a heretical meaning to BOD. According to them, every (or almost every) non-Catholic who died was in good faith and was saved by BOD. This was never the teaching of the Church.

In response, instead of giving a clear exposition of BOD and BOB, Feeney went to the heretical opposite error of denying they could save anyone, and taught that only the sacrament of baptism ("water baptism") could save someone. In 1953, Pope Pius XII solemnly excommunicated Feeney for heresy (not "disobedience" as his followers falsely declare).  Feeney claimed BOD confers sanctifying grace yet you cannot enter Heaven until water baptism. In other words, you can have sanctifying grace, but die and go to Hell unless you receive Baptism by water! A person in sanctifying grace is a child of God with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in his soul. How could such a person go to Hell? They can't. 

Modern day Feeneites realize the illogical position and "improve" on it by claiming BOD does not justify. 

As with most heretics, the errors rarely stop at just one point of departure from the One True Faith. In Bread of Life, pgs. 97-98, Fr. Feeney writes these most disconcerting words, "I think baptism makes you the son of God. I do not think it makes you the child of Mary. I think the Holy Eucharist makes you a child of Mary. What happens to those children who die between baptism and the Holy Eucharist?...They go to the Beatific Vision. They are in the Kingdom of Mary, but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother. They are like little angels. There was a strong tradition in the Church that always spoke of them as 'those angels who died in infancy.' They have the Beatific Vision, and they see the great Queen, but not move in as part of the Mystical Body of Christ...I say: If a child dies after having received baptism, he dies the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary..."

Baptism makes you part of the One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, yet Feeney talks of infants who die after baptism as not moving in Heaven as "part of the Mystical Body of Christ"? They are not true Catholics? Isn't Feeney contradicting his so-called "strict interpretation" of "Outside the Church no salvation"? The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ, the Invisible Head of the Church, and by extension, to each member of His Mystical Body. How dare Feeney call baptized infants who die before First Communion as "not a child of Mary." Note well he never cites to even one approved theologian, canonist, Encyclical, or other authoritative Church declaration in support of his novel ideas--and with good reason: there aren't any. More heresy.

I could go on about Feeney's creation of a cult consisting of "married nuns" and "married brothers" who raised their children "communally," contrary to both Divine Positive and Natural Law. However, my point has been made that from one heresy, more inevitably follow. Since Feeney began the crusade against Church teaching on BOD and BOB, his followers are rightfully called Feeneyites, as they are not Catholic; just as Lutherans are named after the heretical excommunicated priest they follow. 

(To read more about Leonard Feeney, please see my post "A Sickness Of Soul;"introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html). 

However, most (not all) Feeneyites today were introduced to the heresy by Fred and Bobby Dimond of "Most Holy Family Monastery" here in New York State. They claim to be "Benedictine brothers" and have followers who are nothing short of fanatical.  (My favorite definition of a "fanatic:" one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject). The followers mimic what Fred and Bobby say, write, and they adopt all their views in addition to the rejection of BOD and BOB. It is these other views which shall be the subject of my post. As I already stated above, heresy rarely stops at one point of departure with the Church. Fred, Bobby, and their followers all display a "sickness of soul" endemic among Feeneyites, as my friend Steve Speray once wrote. Perhaps it's time to give these Feeneyites a new moniker---Dimondites. 

The (Very Unimpressive) CV of Fred and Bobby Dimond

One would think that with so many fanatical followers, Fred and Bobby must have outstanding credentials. Nothing could be further from the truth. Before you entrust the care of your immortal soul to Fred and Bobby Dimond, here are the facts about them I have published in the past. They:

• Claim to be Benedictines, yet are sedevacantists. Having been born in the 1970s, they could not be members of the Traditional Benedictines, so they either are "self-appointed" or were made such by someone in the Vatican II sect they claim to abhor. 

• Have no education beyond high school, and possess no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and "damn to Hell" anyone who disagrees

• Claim to understand Church teaching on BOD better than Doctors of the Church, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori

• Have spread the Feeneyite heresy denying Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as forcefully as possible, and have made an excommunicated Jesuit, reconciled to the Modernist Vatican and holding to many strange ideas and practices ( Leonard Feeney), an ersatz "hero." They never mention the cult he founded and the children he abused

• Have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs, and material that's fit to be published in supermarket tabloids

They are not exactly "theological giants," and were it not for gullible followers donating to them, they would probably be working the cash register at McDonald's (provided they didn't tell all the customers they're going to Hell). Now let's dive into their strange teachings on matters besides denial of BOD and BOB.

You Can Know With Certainty Who is in Hell

There's an old aphorism, "A proof-text without context is a pretext." If you take something out of the context in which it was written and hold it up as "proof" for a preconceived notion, you're not interested in the Truth, just validating your point; "My mind is made up, so don't bother me with the facts." This is the hallmark of Fred and Bobby Dimond. In their article Catholics May Not Pray For Deceased Non-Catholics, Fred and Bobby contort Church teaching. They begin with this general statement:

It’s a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  All who die as non-Catholics go to Hell.  Therefore, prayers may not be offered for people who die as non-Catholics.  If a person was a non-Catholic or a heretic during life, unless there is evidence of a conversion to the true faith in the external forum, the person is considered to have died as he or she lived (i.e. as a non-Catholic and outside the Church).  Therefore prayers may not be offered for a person who, based on the last available evidence, was a non-Catholic or a heretic on the hope that there was a conversion in that person’s final days.  Prayers may only be offered for people who die with the true faith.  Here are some quotes that reiterate the Church’s teaching that Catholics may not pray for (or consider among the faithful departed) those who die as non-Catholics or without the true faith. (See http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholics-may-not-pray-deceased-non-catholics/#.WYvioNQrKt_).

It is true that there is no salvation outside the One True Church and all non-Traditionalist Catholics who die as such go to Hell. The rest is woefully wrong. They claim that unless there is evidence that the person converted, prayers may not be offered in the hope that there was a conversion in the person's final days.

Let's see what the Church has to say:

1. 1917 Code of Canon Law 
Canon 1240 speaks to the types of persons to be denied ecclesiastical burial. They include Masons, excommunicates, those who committed suicide, those who live as public and notorious sinners, etc. However, Canon 1241 says a person deprived of Christian burial "shall also be denied any funeral Mass, even an anniversary Mass, as well as all other public funeral services. Priests may say Mass privately for him and the faithful may pray for him. (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 495-497; Emphasis mine). Obviously the Church does not give up hope in a last minute repentance/conversion, but Fred and Bobby do.

2. Theologian O'Connell
"So far as the dead are concerned, the Exequial Mass and Anniversary Mass (or other public funeral offices)may not be offered for a person to whom ecclesiastical burial had been denied...It is not, however, forbidden to offer a Mass privately for such persons." (See The Celebration of Mass, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee [1941], pg. 45; Emphasis mine).

3. Theologian Szal
"But if he [a schismatic] gave no signs of repentance, then Mass can still be said for him, but only privately and in the absence of scandal." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 181; Emphasis mine).

What proof did the Dimond brothers give for claiming Catholics can't pray for deceased non-Catholics? A quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, "St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5. “Gregory says (Moralia xxxiv): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers…” Yes, THE SAINTS do not pray for dead and unbelieving men because they know for certain who they are, and we do not (except for Judas Iscariot, for the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, "...but the priesthood brings to them [i.e., evil clerics] in its train the same rewards the Apostleship brought to Judas--eternal perdition." pg. 213).

The other quotes from, e.g., Pope Gregory the Great, clearly mean prayers are not offered for non-Catholics publicly, because no one but God knows what happens between Him and a soul prior to death except by special revelation. We know the canonized saints are in Heaven; that is an infallible decree. We know Judas is in Hell. We know the Antichrist and the false prophet will go to Hell. For everyone else, we may hope they were saved by God in the last moments of life, being brought into the Church infused with faith and sanctifying grace, because nothing is impossible with God. Prayers said for them, if they did not convert, are not "wasted;" they will be used by God for another poor soul--the same as prayers for someone whom is now (unknown to us) in Heaven are never "wasted."

This also puts Fred and Bobby in a conundrum. The Code of Canon Law is infallible, but even if it were not, they have a difficult choice to make. The pope cannot teach heresy, even non-infallibly

.

(See my post introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2025/05/can-true-pope-teach-heresy.html).

 If Pope Benedict XV promulgated heresy in Canon Law (Canon 1241), then he could not be a true pope. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). Therefore, if praying for the dead who died outside the Church in the external forum is heresy, Pope Benedict XV was not a true pope. If he was a true pope, then Canon 1241 is not heretical, and the Dimond's teaching collapses. Which is it, Fred and Bobby? 

Calling Mary "Co-Redemptrix" is Heretical

The Dimonds do not state that calling Mary Co-Redemptix is heresy in the article found here: vaticancatholic.com/mary-co-redeemer-co-redemptrix. 

However, that is the logical and necessary conclusion one must draw if the teaching and title derogates from the infallible teaching that Christ alone redeemed us. Thankfully, it does not contradict any dogma. It has not been defined that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, but there are many and weighty arguments for the privilege and title when rightfully understood. 

The Dimond brothers attack those who wish to honor Our Lady with the title Co-Redemptrix as heretics-in-fact because it (allegedly) contradicts the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent. They write:

 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987) (Emphasis in original).

What the Diamonds, in their duplicity, choose to omit are the following words between the ellipsis, "and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ...(Emphasis mine). It's clear that Trent was condemning the Protestants who think that because there is ONE MEDIATOR (not two or more--See 1 Timothy 2: 5-6), that saints are not to be invoked and cannot pray and intercede for us without derogating from the one Mediator, Jesus Christ. The Dimonds have no problem calling Our Lady Mediatrix, with no fear of minimizing Our Lord's unique role as the one Mediator. Likewise, Trent was not defining Christ to be the only Savior so as to exclude the possibility of Our Lady having a secondary and subordinate role in redemption. Just as Mary has a role in dispensing all grace (subordinate to and united with Her Divine Son) so as to merit the title Mediatrix without dishonoring or denying Her Son as the one and only Mediator, the title Co-Redemptrix would be given in the same manner.  So much for their contorting the meaning of Trent, just as they do in regards to its decrees on Baptism and the sacraments.

Also of note, Fred and Bobby cite to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine, and theologian Pohle in favor of their position. Isn't it interesting that approved theologians are only cited when Fred and Bobby seem to agree with them? (I say "seem to" because neither Bellarmine or Pohle thought the title/privilege contradicted Church dogma). Otherwise, citing to theologians is useless "because they are not infallible." Can you say "hypocrite"? But I digress.

What about the theologians and popes who spoke of Mary as having a role with Her Divine Son in the redemption of humanity? According to MHFM, There are a few non-infallible quotations that people bring forward to attempt to show that Mary is Co-Redemptrix.  The answer is that they are not infallible and they are simply wrong.  They cannot be defended. Yet if it contradicts dogma, it is heretical, and Fred and Bobby have another conundrum.

•  Pope Benedict XV, in his Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia (March 22, 1918), wrote, "To such extent did she (Mary) suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son, and to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man's salvation, and immolated Him, insofar as she could, in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ."

•  Pope Pius XI called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix at least six (6) times. In the radio broadcast to the world at the solemn closing of the Jubilee Year which commemorated the Redemption of humanity (April 29, 1935) he prayed, "O Mother of piety and mercy who, when Thy most beloved Son was accomplishing the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, didst stand there both suffering with Him and as a Co-Redemptrix; preserve us we beseech thee, and increase day by day, the precious fruit of His Redemption and of thy compassion."

• Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam (October 11, 1954) distinguishes Mary's role in the Redemption from her role as Mediatrix of All Grace. 

• On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined.

If calling Mary Co-Redemptrix goes against dogma, it means Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII were all false popes. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). 

When the Church has not settled a question and leaves it open to discussion among the theologians, Traditionalist Catholics are free to accept any answer the theologians offer as long as it is not censured by the Magisterium. Such is the case on whether the title Co-Redemptrix properly belongs to Mary. The strongest (and most numerous) arguments come down on the side favoring Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Theologian Pohle's objections are more about the fear of misunderstandings that could derogate from Christ's unique salvific role, not a condemnation of the correct understanding of Mary's role in redemption.

Now that Fred and Bobby will cite theologians that suit them, let's move on to the next whacky teaching.

Modernist Theologians were Receiving Imprimaturs Before Vatican II

Besides claiming, "theologians are not infallible" followers of the Dimonds like to intone that the Modernist takeover of the Church "couldn't have just happened" in the 1960s, and will trace it back to the late 19th century. Besides, they argue, bishops and censors couldn't review all theological books, and Imprimaturs were being given out which should not have been. Hence, you cannot cite any approved theologians without them being called "Modernists." All are unreliable and full of error. 

First, let it be noted that not all approved theologians hold the same degree of authority. Doctors of the Church, have all their writings examined in the most minute detail for anything that might go against Church teaching, or even be perceived as such. The pope, exercising his full Apostolic Authority after the long investigation, declares the theologian a Doctor of the Church based on (a) the excellence of his teachings and (b) his unwavering orthodoxy on every point of theology. 

For example, the Sacred Penitentiary, in answer to a query of the Archbishop of Besancon, and dated July 5, 1831 (under Pope Gregory XVI) had this to say:

Question: May a professor of sacred theology safely hold and teach the opinions that Blessed Alphonsus Ligouri teaches in his moral theology?

Response of the Sacred Penitentiary: Yes, yet those who follow the opinions handed down by other approved authors should not be considered blameworthy. 

(The answer was approved by His Holiness on July 21, 1831).

Here's one of St. Alphonsus' teachings:

It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.(See Theologia Moralis, [1909] 3:96-7). 

Yet, Fred and Bobby say that St. Alphonsus "made a mistake." Apparently so did all the theologians who examined his works for years checking it for the slightest error, and Pope Gregory XVI who gave final approval and declared him a Doctor of the Church. The theologians at the Sacred Penitentiary also gave a wrong answer about his works, and Pope Gregory made another "mistake" in approving it. 

Moreover, the Sacred Penitentiary says opinions of other "approved authors" may be used. The term "author" used to describe a theologian, denotes the very best of the best--short of being a Doctor of the Church. These authors have, in addition to all the basic requirements to be a theologian, a full professorship at a Pontifical University, authorship of  a multi-volume manual in dogmatic or moral theology that is considered an outstanding contribution in its field, and  have it used in seminaries and universities throughout the world. The Church uses these authors to form Her priests, and their works are inspected by the hierarchy the world over (including the Roman Pontiff) to check that there are no errors. 

Therefore, while a theologian who just wrote one or two papers for a theology journal might "slip under the radar," there is no chance of an author being a Modernist writer disseminating heresy. While it is true that individual theologians are not infallible, theologians as a corporate body are protected from error, as they are part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). The extraordinary Magisterium declared the UOM to be equally infallible during the Vatican Council of 1870. 

Theologian Scheeben teaches, Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.' 

(A Manual of Catholic Theology, pg. 83; Emphasis mine). 

The followers of Fred and Bobby will say, "You are using a Modernist theologian to prove theologians are not Modernist." The objection fails miserably. Scheeben was an author of the highest caliber and his works were endorsed and promoted by Pope Pius XI himself:

MATTHIAS JOSEPH SCHEEBEN (1835–1888) was a German priest and scholar whose theology points to the inner coherence of the Christian faith and its supernatural mysteries. Notable in his own time, Scheeben later received praise from Pope Pius XI, who in 1935 encouraged study of the late theologian’s works, reflecting: “The entire theology of Scheeben bears the stamp of a pious ascetical theology.” 

Carl Feckes, Scheeben's successor at the Cologne seminary, named him "the greatest Mariologist of our time." 

(See philpapers.org/rec/KOOOSP-3#:~:text=In%201935%2C%20during%20the%20centenary,much%20praised%2C%20but%20seldom%20read; and See also stpaulcenter.com/emmaus-academic/handbook-of-catholic-dogmatics-3; Emphasis mine)

If Scheeben was a Modernist heretic spreading error, and Pope Pius XI encouraged the study of those works, Pius would be spreading Modernist heresy and  be himself a heretic. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). 

Finally, Fred and Bobby (with no ecclesiastical education and training, and whose highest level of secular education is high school), found errors in the works of an approved author!  In an article entitled, The Revealing Heresies in Msgr. Van Noort's Pre-Vatican II Dogmatic Theology Manual, the theologian is attacked for his position on (what else?) "Outside the Church No Salvation." 

(See https://vaticancatholic.com/revealing-heresies-msgr-van-noorts-dogmatic-theology-manual/)

The flawed Dimonds write, Many supporters of BOD actually argue and believe that theology manuals and texts, if they were produced by ‘approved’ priests and/or bishops in ‘good standing’ prior to Vatican II, are necessarily safe or reflective of sound Catholic teaching.  They are quite wrong.  They don’t understand what the Magisterium is and what it is not, when it is exercised and when it is not.  Unless a theology manual is simply repeating what the Magisterium has already taught, the conclusions found in it are not protected or guaranteed by the Magisterium.  Moreover, the power of the Magisterium is not exercised when such works are approved by bishops, or even by popes in a non-solemn or universal way. Their proof? Their own ipse dixit since they reject the UOM. It has been amply demonstrated that Fred and Bobby are the ones who  don’t understand what the Magisterium is and what it is not, when it is exercised and when it is not. 

Their attack on theologian Van Noort:

VAN NOORT REJECTS AND REDEFINES THE TWO RELATED DOGMAS: 1) OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION AND 2) WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC FAITH THERE IS NO SALVATION

Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church, p. 265: “From the matter previously discussed, it should be relatively easy both to explain and to defend that slogan – often misunderstood and bitterly complained against by non-Catholics – which the fathers of the Church and the Church itself take as an axiom: ‘outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation.’  The axiom should be strictly understood as referring to actual union with the visible Church; but its full and correct meaning is: anyone who by his own fault lives and dies outside the Church will definitely be damned.  That the axiom is understood by the Church only with that qualification is obvious from its clear teaching that no one will go to hell without serious guilt on his part.”

Here Van Noort states that the solemnly defined dogma, Outside the Church There is No Salvation, should be understood to mean that only someone who is outside the Church “by his own fault” cannot be saved.  That is heresy and modernism.  The dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation does not teach that only someone who is outside the Church “by his own fault” will not be saved.  Rather, it teaches that all who die outside the Church are not saved, and that all who die without the Catholic faith are not saved.  The Church has proclaimed this dogma from the Chair of St. Peter approximately seven different times.  The formulation is always the same.  Not once did the Church define that only someone outside the Church “by his own fault” cannot be saved, as Van Noort declares.

What MHFM omits is Van Noort's citation to Pope Pius IX: There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, #7). 

MHFM tries to brush off Pope Pius IX by stating: The notion that all the dogmatic definitions on this matter [EENS] should be set aside, and that the entire issue hinges on non-universal, non-infallible (and misinterpreted) statements of Pope Pius IX, is absurd. There is no misinterpretation; Pope Pius IX made it clear that those who are invincibly ignorant, live honest lives by following the natural law, and ready to obey God can be saved --not by water baptism--but by "divine light and grace." God can enlighten their minds and infuse sanctifying grace bringing them within the Church before death. Moreover, all theologians interpreted his statements as saying such and he did nothing to stop them. Nor did Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII.  Therefore, we have a Church that cannot teach according to the Dimonds. No one understood the real meaning (not even Pius IX himself and the five popes who followed). 

Van Noort even explains with two reasons why the words "by his own fault" are not usually explicitly added:

First, because the axiom is a penal sentence, and the notion of penalty by its very nature presupposes guilt. Secondly, because the axiom helps to inculcate the truth that by the ordinary decrees of God's Providence only the Church can lead one to salvation and consequently that anyone who is outside the Church, no matter how he got there, is there where salvation is per se unobtainable. (pg. 266). This was conveniently omitted by the heretics of MHFM. 

Theologian Salaverri explains this truth of being outside the Church "by one's own fault" thus: But adults because of their full use of reason, who have died without Baptism and lacking at least an implicit desire of belonging to the Church, in the present order of grace, de facto, are lacking such a desire not without their own fault and are damned, as Pius IX taught. For according to the teaching of St. Thomas [Aquinas]: "This pertains to divine providence that He gives to each one the things necessary to salvation, provided on his part he does not place an obstacle. For if someone, raised in a forest or among brute animals, were to follow the lead of natural reason in the search for good and flight from evil, it must be held for certain either that God will reveal to him by an internal revelation the things necessary to believe or will send to him a preacher of the faith, as He sent Peter to Cornelius" (Acts 10). (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pg. 451; Emphasis mine). 

Van Noort neither rejects nor distorts/redefines "Outside the Church There is No Salvation." As to the charge Van Noort rejects the Catholic faith for "supernatural" faith, it is without merit. The Dimonds criticize those like Bp. Sanborn and the late Fr. Cekada's position on ‘supernatural’ faith denies the dogma that ‘Catholic’ faith is what’s absolutely necessary for salvation. Pure ignorance from the Dimonds. The Catholic Faith alone has the property of supernaturality. According to theologian Rivas, The act of faith is supernatural...The Pelagians, by denying internal grace for salvific acts, thereby deny the supernaturality of the Act of Faith. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB, pg. 303). The only act of faith that is supernatural is an act of Catholic Faith, for faith comes from God.

Suffice it to say, the Dimonds are clueless and Van Noort is brilliantly Catholic! I will not address all the other alleged heresies of Van Noort, as it is clear his opponents don't understand the topics upon which they write.

I will end this section with the most impressive CV of author Van Noort:

Gerard Van Noort (1861-1946) studied at Hageveld and Warmond. Following his ordination in 1884, he served as chaplain in Medemblik and Amsterdam. From 1892 to 1908 he was professor of dogmatic theology at the seminary of Warmond, and it was here that he completed his ten-volume manual of dogmatic theology, Tractatus apologetici et dogmatici (Leyden 1898–1908). It is a model of clarity and conciseness, with a judicious blend of positive and speculative theology. It is in use all over the world, and has gone through several editions. In 1908 Van Noort left seminary work to become a pastor in Amsterdam, and in 1926 he was named a canon in the cathedral chapter of Haarlem. He received a Roman doctorate honoris causa [papal approval] in 1930 and in 1934 Pius XI appointed him a domestic prelate. 

(See encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/van-noort-gerard). 

Nevertheless, no one found errors in Van Noort until Fred and Bobby looked it over. If that wasn't such a sad statement, it would be funny. 

Married Couples Must Have as Many Children as Physically Possible

Yes, Fred and Bobby think that to make use of the infertile period (sometimes called "Natural Family Planning" but which, more correctly, I shall deem "periodic abstinence" [PA]) by married couples is sinful contraception. The question I shall now address:

Is Periodic Continence The Same As Artificial Contraception and Thereby Evil?

Periodic Abstinence (or "PA" as above) is the practice of purposefully limiting the marital act to sterile periods. Feeneyites, and others who hold to the absurd idea that PA is the moral equivalent of contraception, fail to make various distinctions. First and foremost, they reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). The unanimous teachings of the approved theologians is to be discarded, and only private interpretations of ex cathedra statements is to be believed. They fall under the condemnation of Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors:

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #22:The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.

The UOM is equally infallible to the Extraordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, we are bound in conscience to believe e.g., teachings of papal encyclicals, decrees of Roman Congregations, etc., with reverential acceptance. Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter :

"But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure."

The Church has always held artificial contraception to be intrinsically evil. Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:
"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (para. #54; Emphasis mine).

The dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church guarantees that the Church cannot give to Her members that which is evil or erroneous. Hence, if PA was equivalent to artificial contraception, it would indeed be against both the Natural Law and Divine Positive Law. The Church would be incapable of sanctioning PA if it were intrinsically evil. Yet, as will be shown below, the Church has sanctioned PA, therefore it is not the equivalent of artificial contraception, nor in any sense "intrinsically evil."

1. Three Times the Holy Office of the Sacred Penitentiary Approved PA
The Sacred Penitentiary, the official Church body that decides definitively questions of morality, especially as they pertain to the sacrament of Penance, rendered three decisions on PA under three different popes.

March 2, 1853. During the reign of Pope Pius IX, the Sacred Penitentiary was asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?"

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation."

This gives the lie to the Feeneyite who claimed Pope Pius IX condemned PA.

June 16, 1880. During the reign of Pope Leo XIII, two pertinent questions were submitted to the Sacred Penitentiary:
1. Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?
2. Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism (i.e., "withdrawal") of her husband but cannot correct him; or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism."

June 20, 1932. Under Pope Pius XI, the Sacred Penitentiary was asked, "Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons."

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880." [It reaffirmed the 1880 decision in full].

2. The Teachings of the approved theologians give the green light to PA
The decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary should end the matter. However, we also have the testimony of the approved theologians who teach in favor of PA. None of them were ever censured for their teachings. Had PA been against Natural and Divine positive Law, the popes would have an obligation to condemn those teachings and the theologians who taught them. What good is a Magisterium that can't teach and allows error to go unchecked? The Church would be allowing Her children to believe and practice something evil; but the Indefectibility of the Church will not allow such. Here is a sampling of some of the major approved theologians (authors) of the 20th century before Vatican II:

According to theologian Jone:
 "Abstaining from intercourse during this [infertile] period has come to be known as the Rhythm Method of Birth Control [later NFP]. For a proportionate reason and with the mutual consent of husband and wife it is lawful intentionally to practice periodic continence, i.e., restrict intercourse to those times when conception is impossible...[it is subject to three conditions] (1) Both parties must freely agree to the restrictions it involves; (2)The practice must not constitute an occasion of sin, especially the sin of incontinence; (3) There must be a proportionately grave reason for not having children, at least for the time being." ( See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 542).

According to theologian Prummer:
"To make use of the so-called safe period has been declared lawful..." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1955], pg. 413).

According to theologians McHugh and Callan:
"(b) If birth control refers to a means of family limitation, it is lawful when that means is continence or abstinence from marital relations, not if it is onanism or the use of mechanical or chemical means to prevent conception." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:604; Emphasis in original).

The primary theologian who drafted the monumental encyclical Casti Connubii (1930), which condemned artificial contraception, was Fr. Arthur Vermeersch. The encyclical was a response the the Anglican sect which became the first denomination calling itself "Christian" to allow artificial contraception among married couples. I mention Vermeersch because one of the biggest complaints by MHFM supporters against PA is that the intention and purpose of PA is the same as artificial contraception.

Let us remember that the intrinsic end of an action is that which tends towards it's very nature. (For example, almsgiving has the intrinsic purpose of giving relief to one in need). Extrinsic motives don't change the nature of an action. For example, someone might engage in the act of almsgiving to flaunt his wealth and to receive praise from people rather than caring for the poor. However, the nature of the act is unaffected--the poor do indeed obtain relief. (See e.g., theologian Prummer, Ibid, pg. 5).

Vermeersch and canonist Bouscaren, in What is Marriage?(1932), a catechism based on Casti Connubii, point out:
"As long as the [marital] act takes place normally it remains objectively directed towards its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. (pg. 44; Emphasis mine)

Who better would understand the intent of the encyclical than the theologian who wrote it under the direction of Pope Pius XI? However, is it the purpose of marriage to have as many children as physically possible? In a word: No. This will be discussed in the next section.

3. The Practice of the Church
That the Church has not "defined" marriage as a Sacrament meant only and exclusively to be used as a vehicle by which the marital act must produce as many children as physically possible is proven by: (a) the fact that the Church does not prohibit couples past their fertile years from engaging in the marital act, and (b) She has never condemned or prohibited senior citizens (e.g., a 70 year old widower and a 68 year old widow) from getting married even though it is obvious the union cannot produce any children.

To those who object that married couples are required to have as many children as physically possible (usually citing St. Catherine of Sienna who was the 25th of 25 children), the Church teaches no such thing. Married couples should be generous and have many children. However, God's plan is different for each couple. According to theologian John O'Brien, "Contrary to the impression that prevails in some quarters, there is no obligation on any couple to beget any specific number of children, much less to give birth to the largest number possible." (See Lawful Birth Control, [1934], pgs. 61-62).

The proper principle is to use the sacrament of Matrimony as God intended; to bring the man and woman closer to each other and closer to Him; begetting children insofar as the couple may be able to do so under their circumstances in life.

Conclusion

This was a long but necessary post. The Dimond brothers have a whole host of errors they spread in addition to their denial of BOD and BOB. Their crazed followers will make the strangest comments, just to spread error. One of their followers commented that "Ozzy Osbourne is in Hell," on a post that never mention the late singer or anything even remotely related. (While I'm not optimistic about the fate of Osbourne who led a wicked life, without a special revelation from God, no one can say for certain he is damned). 

The Dimonds are the Westboro Baptists of Feeneyism. As the severity of errors surpasses that of most Feeneyites, we should start calling the heretics who follow them Dimondites.

Conspiracies, Traditionalists, And Vatican II

 

Nothing is what it seems to be. Consider the following:

• All classical and medieval literature is a forgery produced after the Renaissance. Troy, Jerusalem, Constantinople and London were originally one and the same place, and King Arthur was a Russian prince. The Old and New Testaments describe the same events. Jesus did exist but was also the Prophet Elijah and Pope Gregory VII rolled into one and lived in the 11th century in what is now Istanbul

• The Earth is not a globe, it is flat. Space agencies, especially NASA, are engaged in a massive effort to conceal the true nature of our planet

• There are no nuclear weapons. No atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; it was an elaborate hoax

• The 1969 Moon landing was a hoax. One of the astronauts even admitted it

• The world is secretly manipulated by the English monarchy. They are behind all illicit drug operations. The ultimate goal is to start a nuclear war between the United States and Russia that will decimate most of the world's population. They will then re-colonize the survivors for English rule

• Giovanni Montini was a true Catholic and a true pope (Paul VI). Vatican II became evil after the real Pope Paul VI was kidnapped by Freemasons and locked away in the basement of St. Peter's Basilica. A Freemasonic agent then underwent enormous plastic surgeries to look just like him, and the fake Paul VI governed the Church to try and destroy Her

The "facts" above are what some groups of people actually believe. Like the blockbuster 1999 movie The Matrix, it's as if the entire world is manufactured and only an enlightened few realize what's going on. It's astounding how many otherwise intelligent people fall for bizarre nonsense. I haven't even touched on other conspiracies such as "Hitler was a good Catholic who was just misunderstood," and "all modern medicine is bad." 

To be certain, conspiracies are real. There's even the crime of conspiracy, as spelled out in New York's Penal Code:

Section 1500.00 Conspiracy in the Sixth Degree.

A person is guilty of conspiracy in the sixth degree when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct. Conspiracy in the sixth degree is a class B misdemeanor.

The dictionary defines a conspiracy as a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. Yet not all conspiracies are true. We need to be able to distinguish between them. At this point you may be asking why am I writing a post on conspiracies. Haven't I often stated that whether or not you believe in something like Bigfoot's existence is being hidden by the government, or that Elvis faked his death 48 years ago, has nothing to do with the Faith, therefore such beliefs need not be discussed? I found the need for this post for three reasons.

First, it can endanger your faith. I knew a Traditionalist that fell for a whacky conspiracy theory that Jesus Christ wasn't real, but an invention of the Jews to weaken the Roman Empire with "turn the other cheek" morality. He became an atheist. Luckily, by God's grace, he saw the errors and returned to the One True Church. It's another reason I don't get caught up in making apparitions the focus of faith (they are not). I believe in all approved apparitions, but I refuse to get into arguments over the "real meaning" of alleged messages, and the cover-up conspiracies which almost inevitably follow.

Second, it makes the sedevacantist position seem implausibly strange and dissuades others from converting. When some Traditionalists talk about, e.g., the flat Earth, most people will dismiss whatever they have to say about Vatican II as "kooky," just like their other ideas. 

Third, some conspiracy theories are discussed as "dogma."  Geocentrism and a literal six- day Creation are said by some to be "dogmatic," while heliocentrism and the Big Bang Theory are a plot by atheist scientists to undermine the faith. If you choose to believe in geocentrism and/or a literal six days of Creation, you can do so and be a good Catholic, but such belief is not dogmatic or required in any way. 

The first part of my analysis will focus on how to distinguish a false from a plausibly true conspiracy. The second part will explain why Vatican II as a Robber Council (and sedevacantism) are not a "crazy conspiracy theory" as our enemies like to claim. 

   True or False Conspiracy?

Real conspiracies do exist. I will name two. There was a cover-up by tobacco companies to hide the proof that their product was unsafe and was linked to cancer. From The Washington Post:

In these boxes [of documents], Minnesota lawyers found evidence that tobacco companies had known for decades that smoking caused cancer, that nicotine was addictive and could be manipulated, and that filter and “light” cigarettes were not safer. The files revealed that tobacco companies targeted children and conspired to hide damaging evidence in ways that a federal court declared to be racketeering. Though the original documents dated to Minnesota’s 1994 lawsuit, they were released to the public in 1998 under a settlement between the state and five tobacco companies just before the case went to a jury. (See washingtonpost.com/outlook/minnesota-tobacco-document-depository/2021/08/25/cdc1ecfc-050c-11ec-a654-900a78538242_story.html). 

In 1973, L. Ron Hubbard's cult of Scientology conspired to infiltrate the U.S. government to purge unfavorable records about Scientology and its founder. It was uncovered by the FBI. (See e.g., medium.com/@osirisuap/operation-snow-white-and-the-modern-ufo-narrative-the-complex-interplay-of-scientology-8d1badc1ebd4). 

Questions to Ask Yourself in Evaluating a Conspiracy Theory

1. What evidence exists?

In the true instances cited above, there were leaked records at first in regards to tobacco, and a few Scientology operatives spoke with the FBI. In false conspiracies, the evidence is one or more of the following:

• anecdotal 
• based on one or more "experts" (who may or may not be truly considered such)
• incomplete because "the powers-that-be are covering it up"
• purposefully twisted out of context

Examples:

"My uncle fought in World War II and he said no atom bombs were dropped on Japan." (Pure anecdotal speculation which proves nothing)

"Robert Sungenis is an expert in physics and knows the Earth is the center of the universe." (Sungenis holds no doctorate in physics and makes fundamental scientific errors. He is also not a theologian.)

"There's lots of evidence that Paul VI was an imposter. The Masons destroyed it all." (So how did you get this esoteric information?)

"Buzz Aldrin publicly admitted the astronauts never went to the moon." 

(Pure hogwash. His quote was taken out of context; See fullfact.org/online/buzz-aldrin-moon-landing-fake/#:~:text=We%20have%20written%20about%20this,things%20need%20more%20money%20too.%E2%80%9D)

2. What evidence contradicts the conspiracy? Has said evidence been debunked?

A commenter claimed in a prior post claimed that nuclear weapons are not real and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were "carpet bombed;" there were no atom bombs. Other than his uncle's ipse dixit, he provided no evidence. Moreover, he would need to show that the proof for atomic bombings is false, to wit: There is the eyewitness account of Fr. Siemes. There's scientific proof of black rain. There is detailed medical accounts of radiation sickness. The hibakusha, the videos, the Manhattan project, etc. all need to be refuted. The usual response from a believer in a false conspiracy is that the counterevidence is "faked" (offering no proof of such), and you are benighted for believing "mainstream narratives" (yet they offer no proof for truth of the assertions of their "non-mainstream" sources/narratives other than they are "not mainstream"). 

3. Does the conspiracy involve everyone, and only a chosen few have knowledge?

Do you realize how many people would have to be in on a plot to:

• fake the six moon landings?
• hide the cabal of English operatives plotting WWIII?
• fake all of history?
• keep a fictitious story of a spherical Earth for centuries?
• fake nuclear weaponry for 80 years?

Yet the "gnostic few" know better; they have the secret. 

4, What is the main source for the conspiracy?

"Our Lady of Bayside said..." an apparition (esp. one not approved by the Church), should never be the main or sole source for an alleged conspiracy.

Before moving on to the next section, I would like to let you know about the six conspiracies I listed at the beginning of this post.

The first conspiracy theory is the "New Chronology" conspiracy. It has two brilliant mathematicians and former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov as proponents. This proves that just because you are very intelligent or an expert, you are in no way immune from believing something whacky and false. 

(See e.g., telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1311163/Email-from-Russia.html).

The second conspiracy theory is from the Flat Earth Society.

The third conspiracy theory is from a commenter on a prior post. Some Flat Earthers believe this also.

The fourth conspiracy is from many moon landing conspiracy theories that can be found on the Internet. 

The fifth conspiracy theory was from the followers of Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019), who started a strange political movement. (See Dope, Inc., [1978] by LaRouche follower David P. Goldman.).

The sixth conspiracy theory is from the Palmar de Troya cult. Clemente Dominguez (later "Pope" Gregory XVII) claimed to have  seen an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She allegedly told him the "real Pope Paul VI" was held prisoner by the Freemasons and replaced with a double who underwent plastic surgery. Any other "proof"? Sure! If you look carefully at pictures of Montini pre- and post- January 1964, you will see the Masons made one mistake---the ears of the evil double were crooked, unlike pictures before 1964. If that's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't know what would count as such.

Is the Rejection of Vatican II based on a False Conspiracy Theory?

In a word: NO! There were Masons and Modernists trying to change and destroy the Church for a long time. Satan, their master, has been doing so since Christ founded His One True Church. The Alta Vendita, and any other sources lay bare the goals of the Masons. The Modernists make it clear in their censured writings that they want to turn the Church into a broad and liberal Protestantism. That's lots of proof. The Pontiffs have written about their machinations:

If the right hand of God had not given Us strength, We would have drowned as the result of the terrible conspiracy of impious men. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, para. #1)

Some of you may perchance wonder that the war against the Catholic Church extends so widely. Indeed each of you knows well the nature, zeal, and intention of sects, whether called Masonic or some other name. When he compares them with the nature, purpose, and amplitude of the conflict waged nearly everywhere against the Church, he cannot doubt but that the present calamity must be attributed to their deceits and machinations for the most part. For from these the synagogue of Satan is formed which draws up its forces, advances its standards, and joins battle against the Church of Christ. (Pope Pius IX, Esti Multa, para. #28). 

The Roman Pontiffs Our predecessors, in their incessant watchfulness over the safety of the Christian people, were prompt in detecting the presence and the purpose of this capital enemy immediately it sprang into the light instead of hiding as a dark conspiracy; and, moreover, they took occasion with true foresight to give, as it were on their guard, and not allow themselves to be caught by the devices and snares laid out to deceive them. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, para. #4). 

A third powerful factor in the diffusion of Communism is the conspiracy of silence on the part of a large section of the non-Catholic press of the world. We say conspiracy, because it is impossible otherwise to explain how a press usually so eager to exploit even the little daily incidents of life has been able to remain silent for so long about the horrors perpetrated in Russia, in Mexico and even in a great part of Spain; and that it should have relatively so little to say concerning a world organization as vast as Russian Communism. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, para. #18). 

Unlike false conspiracies, there were many Modernists and Masons among the clergy, substantiated by multiple lines of evidence. There are those who try and demonstrate that pre-Vatican II teachings can be reconciled with post-Vatican II teachings. They have been consistently refuted. The conspiracy did not involve all Catholic clergy, and the contradictions to pre-conciliar dogma, championed by the Modernists, is there for all to see. The main source confirming a conspiracy are the authoritative teachings of the true popes. It passes all the criteria above. 

However, I will not go into any of this in detail, and the reason is simple. No conspiracy is necessary to show Vatican II as a Robber Council and the Vatican II sect it spawned as a false religion.  

The Effect Proves the Cause

Everyone recognizes that there are serious differences with what purports to be the Roman Catholic Church today and how She existed prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). What was always believed and taught was now outright contradicted. The Mass and sacraments were substantially altered. It is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible and will exist until the end of time. This presented a big problem for Catholics worldwide. It seemed like there was a new religion operating inside formerly Catholic churches. The clergy tried telling the people that only outward appearances changed, but the "substance" of the faith, morals, Mass, and sacraments remained. 

This simply was not the case. The teaching of the Church regarding such topics as ecclesiology, religious liberty, and collegiality was completely different. The "Mass" was now identical to the invalid bread and wine "Lord's Supper" at the local  Lutheran church, and it introduced practices that had been condemned pre-Vatican II. Either the Church had been wrong from its founding by Our Lord Jesus Christ until Vatican II (in which case the Church was never founded by Christ and is a lie), or the Church was wrong after Vatican II (however, the dogma of Indefectibility teaches that the Church cannot teach error or give evil and She will last until the end of the world). The answer is to be found in the traditional teaching of the approved theologians and canonists: that it is possible for the pope, as a private theologian, to publicly profess heresy as a private theologian and fall from the pontificate by Divine Law. It is also taught that a heretic cannot obtain the papacy. These very real theological possibilities are referred to as sedevacantism (meaning "the seat/See of St. Peter is vacant). Sedevacantism, broadly speaking, is the position that there is currently no pope, and the man Jorge Bergoglio, commonly accepted and called the pope, is in fact a false pope, with no known real pope at present. More specifically, it is the position that the men considered successors to Pope Pius XII are not legitimate successors, and the last known pope was Pius XII.

Vatican II was convoked by Angelo Roncalli, the man known to the world as "Pope" John XXIII. Just as a cause is known by its effects (e.g., the fine-tuning of the universe points to the transcendent God Who created it), Roncalli did things which no true pope, protected by the Holy Ghost, could do. For a complete analysis of John XXIII, see my post:
 The Case Against Roncalli: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html

The Church under Pope Pius XII had the Four Marks and was clearly the One True Church in continuity with all popes before going back to St. Peter. The problem began when Roncalli started to rehabilitate all the Modernist theologians censured under Pope Pius XII and called the Council to "update" the Church. Roncalli either never obtained to the papacy (in my opinion the more likely scenario) or lost his authority after the election by public profession of heresy as a private theologian. Only a false pope could have signed Pacem in Terris. 

Solid Catholic Theology

The Church has always taught that the pope, as a private theologian, can profess heresy and fall from office immediately by Divine Law:

Proof: 

Doctor of the Church St Alphonsus Liguori: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes 9:232.

Theologian Iragui: "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."

(See Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], pg. 371). 

Canonist Badii: "A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."( See Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina [1921], pgs. 160, 165). 

Theologian Prummer: "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943],  2:453). 

1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 188, section 4: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” 

N.B. Theologian McDevitt writes:

"The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands." (See The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, [1946], pg. 139).

The great canonist Ayrinhac taught in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law,:

Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices. Canons 185-191 “...applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” (p. 346). 

Heretics cannot attain the papacy

Canon 188 simply restates that a heretic is barred by Divine Law from obtaining the papacy. The pre-Vatican II canonists affirm that it is not canon law, but rather God's Law that prevents a heretic such as Bergoglio from obtaining the office of pope in the first place.

Proof: According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)

According to Wernz-Vidal: "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…" (Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine).

Notice that no citation here mentions (or requires) the existence of a conspiracy.

Conclusion

Conspiracies have happened and continue to take place. However, all conspiracy theories are not true; especially when those theories make it seem as though the entire world is fictitious and nothing is as it appears. Use reasoning skills to see how an alleged conspiracy holds up to critical thinking. 

Modernists and Masons have been proven to plot against the Church, yet we know Vatican II to be false wholly apart from any conspiracy. If you still want to believe the Earth is flat and the center of the universe, you can do so and still be a Traditionalist Catholic. Just please don't (a) tell others they must believe it and don't (b) share it with others unless/until they know you well. These conspiracy theories will only make obtaining converts very difficult, and make an already complicated position (sedevacantism) seem crazy to those who don't understand both the facts and theology behind it.