Monday, March 27, 2023

The Heretical Catechism Of A False Sect


The Vatican II sect is counterfeit Catholicism, with new doctrine, a new "mass," new "sacraments," a new Rosary with "Illuminati Mysteries," and a new Catechism. The sect is the opposite of the One True Church. While much has been written on the Novus Bogus "mass" and "sacraments," this post will focus on the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism was promulgated by Wotyla (John Paul the Great Apostate) on October 11, 1992, the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Robber Council. Wojtyla's "Apostolic Constitution," Fidei Depositum, by which the promulgation was effectuated, had this to say:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. 
(See Part IV; Emphasis mine). 

Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teach the Catholic Faith, and is it a "sure norm for teaching the Faith"? This post will set forth the teaching of the One True Church and compare it to the CCC, letting the reader decide if it is really "a statement of the Church's faith."

False Sects and Salvation
CCC, section 819
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity." (Emphasis mine). 

Pope Leo XIII:
The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ....He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation" (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6) (Satis Cognitum, para. #5;Emphasis mine).

Pope Gregory XVI:
Now, We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate. (Mirari Vos, para. #13; Emphasis mine)

Pope Benedict XV:
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). (Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, para. #24; Emphasis mine). 

Who Belongs to the Catholic Church?
CCC, section 838
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."(Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius XII:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Mystici Corporis, para. #22; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Leo XIII:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos). (Satis Cognitum, para. #9; Emphasis mine).

Is The Church "Wounded" and Lacking Unity Because of False Sects?
CCC, section 817
In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism- do not occur without human sin (Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius XI:
And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils.  (Mortalium Annos, para. #7; Emphasis mine). 

Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, "On The Ecumenical Movement" 12/20/1949
However, one should not speak of this [heretics/schismatics returning to the One True Church] in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained. (Emphasis mine). 

Is Religious Liberty Good?
CCC, section 2106
"Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it." (Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius IX--Syllabus of Errors

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. 

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. 

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. 

What are The Primary and Secondary Ends of Matrimony?
CCC, section 2201 
The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses (listed first---Introibo)and to the procreation and education of children. (listed second---Introibo). The love of the spouses (first) and the begetting of children (second) create among members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities. (Words first and second in parenthesis mine--Emphasis mine).

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1013, section 1:
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary [end] is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence. (Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius XI:
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. (Casti Conubii, para. #17; Emphasis mine). 

This has been but a small sampling of what the CCC, "a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith," has to say on some subjects, and what the Church taught from 33AD to 1958. They are in stark contradiction. Both cannot be true. I kept commentary to a minimum, and let you, my dear readers, draw your own conclusions from the information in this post. 

Monday, March 20, 2023

Undeclared Heretics


This will be a controversial post, but I don't shy away from controversy. As I have written in the past, I do not subscribe to the so-called Una Cum position, i.e., Traditionalist Catholics are required not to attend the Masses of SSPX priests (and other valid R&R priests) who use the name of false "Pope" Francis in the Canon of the Mass. Likewise, I am adamantly opposed to the "Home Alone" position which states there aren't any true Catholic priests with jurisdiction to administer the sacraments, and/or canonical mission to do so. Therefore, they stay "home alone," like the 1990 movie of the same name--minus the joyful conclusion. 

I have received some information from readers regarding the above. After vetting the sources, I am not only more convinced of the correctness of my positions, but I'm certain the problem with both Home Aloners and the Una Cum position is the failure to correctly understand how undeclared heretics figure into our situation of the Great Apostasy. This post is a combination of my prior writing updated to include the new information, and I thank those who sent it to me. To them I give full attribution for providing the resources and allowing me to vet them. 

Furthermore, although I will be attacking the positions of such clerics holding the Una Cum position, this is not a personal attack

With all these things in mind, I hope this post will serve to further clarify the issues in the minds of those who read it. As always, as this matter has not been settled by a true pope, I will immediately submit to the decision of a true pope, should we ever have one again. 

Una Cum
Let me begin by defining what kind of Mass I refer to when using the phrase "Una Cum." It must be offered by a validly ordained priest who professes the Integral Catholic Faith whole and entire, who is not in actual union with Modernist Rome and specifically rejects all the errors of both Vatican II and the post-conciliar "popes." The priests of the SSPX and independent R&R priests fall into this category. My position is that if your conscience would not permit you to go, then don't. However, it is not wrong or sinful to attend. This problem is unique to the times in which we live and this issue (for obvious reasons) has never been explicitly decided by the pope. Therefore, Traditionalist priests and bishops have no business declaring attendance at an Una Cum Mass a "mortal sin." 

Fr. Anthony Cekada (RIP) was one of the most prolific sedevacantist writers and he did much good for  Traditionalist Catholics. Unfortunately, he was the strongest proponent of Una Cum Masses being off limits, and he took it to an extreme. Not only are these Masses "mortally sinful" to attend:

1) It's wrong to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in a chapel/church while such a Mass is being offered.

2) You can't receive Holy Viaticum from a priest who offers Mass Una Cum since the Sacred Host was consecrated during such a Mass.

3) It's OK to go to Confession to a priest where the Una Cum Mass is offered, provided it would not create a scandal.

(See The article also references his previous writings on Una Cum, most notably, "The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una Cum Masses"). Fortunately, none of the assertions above is true because the distinction between undeclared and declared heretics is not properly referenced.

Canon 2261, section 2

The Church's stance on receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics is spelled out in the 1917 Code of Canon Law Canon 2261, section 2. Canon 2261 states in full:

1. One excommunicated is prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the Sacraments and Sacramentals, except for the exceptions that follow.

2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.

3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.

Why is this Canon dispositive?  Most of those against the Una Cum believe that if a Traditionalist priest uses the name of Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass (perhaps thinking he's praying for him and his conversion, or mistakenly believes him pope and wants to be with the Church), it puts him in union with the heretic Francis, making the offering priest a heretic as well. I'm not claiming this to be true, but it is the worst thing that could result, and ad arguendo, I will consider it to be true and accurate for this post. It is the worst thing that could happen to the priest offering the Una Cum Mass. So, what is the problem with Una Cum now? 

Framed as I just described it, the issue was not: Is this priest a heretic? Rather, may one participate in public divine worship with him although he is a heretic? The answer is yes.

This is the case of one who incurs laetae sententiae [i.e., automatic] excommunication for heresy or schism without adhering to any condemned sect. 

According to theologian Hyland:

Canon 2261, section 2 has reference to petitioning the sacraments and sacramentals from excommunicates who are neither vitandi, nor tolerati against whom any sentence, either declaratory or condemnatory, has been issued. They will be spoken of as the simpliciter tolerati. For any just reason, the faithful may request a simpliciter toleratus to administer the sacraments and sacramentals, especially when there are no other ministers available. When so requested, the excommunicate may administer the sacraments and sacramentals and he is not obliged to inquire why the petitioner wishes to receive them.

The principle reason for which the faithful may ask the sacraments and sacramentals from a simpliciter toleratus is the absence of other ministers. However, it is not the only reason; any just cause will suffice; a grave cause is not required. As examples of just causes which will permit the faithful to request the sacraments and sacramentals from a simpliciter toleratus may be mentioned, the earlier conferring of Baptism, the dispelling of a doubt concerning the gravity of a sin, the the intention of approaching Holy Communion with greater purity of soul, the intention of receiving the Holy Eucharist more frequently, etc. "Any reason may be called just which promotes devotion or wards off temptations or is prompted by real convenience, for instance, if one does not like to call another minister." [Citing the eminent canonist Augustine]. (See Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development, And Effects, [1928], pgs. 91-92). 

The Vatican II sect, obviously, was never declared a condemned sect, for there was no pope to do such. The "Una Cum priest" is therefore a simpliciter toleratus as mentioned by theologian Hyland above. I now credit Mr. John Daly for his insightful analysis of Cardinal De Lugo, one of the greatest approved theologians of the twentieth century, who wrote on this topic This work and its analysis by Mr. Daly are as follows:

On Communication in Religious Rites with Heretics--Cardinal De Lugo

Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio 1.

The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs, or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in a Catholic rite, etc.

This is denied by Basil. Pont. […] where he says, “one may not celebrate in the presence of a heretic on any grounds, not even by virtue of very grave fear,” and he takes this for granted and offers no proof of his claim. I am astonished that such a learned man should have failed to notice that the authority of all the Doctors is against him, and that they are followed by Sanchez […], Suarez […], Azor […] and others, followed by Hurtado […], and this [sc. the opposing view] is certain from what has been said, because an undeclared excommunicate who is not notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, need not be avoided even in sacred rites, as is established by the said litterae extravagantes (2), and the fact that he is a heretic is not a special reason why it should be unlawful unless on some other grounds there be scandal or irreverence against the faith, or some other such factor, all of which are extrinsic and not always found.


Thirdly however an object of greater doubt is whether Catholics may receive the sacraments from heretics who have not been declared to be such. This is denied by Azor. […], though he is scarcely consistent as to his grounds, for in the first place he says that this is due not only to the excommunication, but also to the heresy; but in the second place he says that it is on account not of the heresy but of the excommunication, inasmuch as every excommunicate, even occult, lacks jurisdiction. Soto agrees with him […], though on different grounds, since he thinks that all heretics and schismatics are deemed to have been excommunicated by name and to be vitandi.

But the opposite view is generally held [communis] and is the true one, unless it should be illicit in a given case for some other reason such as scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez […], Suarez […], Hurtado […] and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance […] and of matrimony and the other sacraments […]. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes(3) in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.

So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds it may often be illicit to do so unless necessity should excuse as I have explained in the said places.


Cardinal de Lugo holds that the law forbidding Catholics to participate in worship together with heretics or schismatics does not apply unless those in question have been declared to be such by the Church (or belong to a condemned sect). And de Lugo also shows that the majority of theologians hold his view on this subject, against a minority who disagree.

This teaching is supported by Pope Martin V's Ad Evitanda Scandala which expressly allows communion with excommunicates until they have been condemned by the Church. Naturally this does not apply to what is certainly forbidden by divine law – as would be participation in a rite which itself contained heresy or which exposed oneself or others to grave scandal.

It should be noted that there has been no noteworthy change in ecclesiastical law on communication in sacris since de Lugo wrote. The law forbidding communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics remains in force (Canon 1258). And the law authorizing the reception of the sacraments from uncondemned excommunicates (Canon 2261) remains in force also.

The purpose of drawing attention to this text is not to encourage Catholics to frequent uncondemned heretics or schismatics for the sacraments.

It is to show those who have written on this topic without even discussing this distinction are insufficiently well informed about the matter and are unworthy of trust. The whole issue needs to be re-examined.

It seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that in our days de Lugo would have considered it not intrinsically illicit to assist at Mass offered una cum the Vatican II pseudo-popes, since he allows what is in fact a greater departure from the principle of assisting only at a fully Catholic Mass.(Emphasis mine). 

A Twisted and Misleading Footnote

In Fr. Cekada's "Grain of Incense" article, he writes the following:

F. Participation in a Sin

More than that, de la Taille maintains that mentioning a heretic by name in any liturgical prayer is also a sin: “Moreover, since today neither in the commemoratio pro vivis nor in any other part of the Mass does the Church commend by name any living person except such a one as is considered to be in communion with her, today it would also appear sinful to mention by name in any liturgical prayer whatever, an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person. This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).” [51]

Nor would it be morally permissible to assist at a rite where this is done. In a 1729 the Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed:

… There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith… especially where a commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics— who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come together under circumstances like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal. [52] (Emphasis in original).

Footnote #52 states:

SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505. “Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur:... vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriacha- rum, et Episcoporum, schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut fidei catholicae praedicatores commendatur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus celebratione conveniunt in his facti circumstansiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perniciosi scandali purgari non possunt.”

Further on in that article, Fr. Cekada makes the following assertion under "Objections and Responses:"

B. No Official Declaration

Objection: Anyone who has not been officially declared a heretic or a schismatic may still be mentioned by name in the Canon of the Mass. But Benedict XVI has not been officially declared a heretic or a schismatic. Therefore, Benedict XVI may still be mentioned by name in the Canon of the Mass. Therefore, a sedevacantist is permitted to assist at a Mass where his name is so mentioned.

(1) The hidden assumption behind the major premise is false. As we have seen above, de la Taille says:

“This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).” [79]

The various Vatican pronouncements quoted above, moreover, made no distinction between “declared” and “undeclared” heretics. The 1729 decree said that Catholics who participated in rites at which heretics and schismatics were commemorated “cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship.”[80] It did not then add that no sin occurred if “undeclared” heretics and schismatics were commemorated. Nor in 1756, when Pope Benedict XIV forbade commemorating schismatics and heretics in the sacred liturgy, did he limit the prohibition to “declared” heretics and schismatics.

(2) Nor by analogy does the major premise make any sense in light of the general rules of canon law and pastoral theology. These norms prohibit offering Mass publicly for a heretic or schismatic, period. They do not limit the prohibition to one who has been “declared” a heretic — so you can put off planning that Requiem High Mass for your Methodist Uncle Wesley…

He claims that the Vatican pronouncements, as in footnote #52 made no distinction between “declared” and “undeclared” heretics. The 1729 decree said that Catholics who participated in rites at which heretics and schismatics were commemorated “cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship.”[80]. This is not true. One of my readers has the book referenced by Fr. Cekada of the Vatican pronouncements. It is very rare, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, not available online. This reader was able to get photos of the decree (the book is all in Latin), and it is nine paragraphs long. The pictures may be found at the following links:

(1); (2); (3)

Fr. Cekada used a snippet of a quote with an ellipsis. I wish Fr. DePauw were here to give me the perfect Latin translation. However, even when put through Google translate, it is enough to show the quote was taken out of context and actually teaches the opposite of what Fr. Cekada claims. Whether or not Fr. Cekada is morally culpable of any wrongdoing, I do not know. What matters is that the quote does not support his argument, but actually serves as a defeater. 

Here is the pertinent part in Latin:

Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos, qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur: nam in eorum ecclesiis, vel dedicatio est in memoriam schismatici alicuius, quem ut sanctum venerantur; vel extant imagines, vel coluntur reliquiae vel festa celebrantur eorum, qui in schismate mortui, veluti sancti habentur, vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriarcharum, et Episcoporum schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut catholicae praedicatores commendantur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus conveniunt in his facit circumstantiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perniciosi scandali purgari non possunt. Ne ceos excusat assisteniae mere materialis praetextus; facto enim ipso excluditur, qui functioninus hisce haerticorum, aut schismaticorum intersunt, satis cum ipsis convenire in unitate orationis, in unitate cultus, in unitate venerationis et obsequii perversos ministros haereseos schismatisque praeseferunt.

Here is the Google Translate in English:

This is further confirmed by the fact that there is scarcely any rite among the heterodox that is not tainted by some error in the matter of faith: for in their churches, it is either a dedication to the memory of some schismatic whom they venerate as a saint; either images exist, or relics are venerated, or festivals are celebrated of those who died in the schism, as if they were considered saints, or, finally, there is a commemoration of living patriarchs, and schismatic bishops, and heretics who are recommended as Catholic preachers. For this reason, those who in these rites and prayer and worship meet in these circumstances, Catholics, cannot be cleared of the guilt of perverted communication, or at least of pernicious scandal. He does not excuse the gods on the pretext of merely material assistance; for by the very act he is excluded, those who are involved in the function of these heretics or schismatics, are sufficient to agree with them in the unity of prayer, in the unity of worship, in the unity of veneration and submission, they preside over perverse heretical and schismatic ministers. (Emphasis mine). 

When the entire paragraph is read in context, it becomes very clear that the Vatican Instruction from the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith was referring to schismatic sects declared as such. While true that the terms "declared" and "undeclared" heretics are not used, the Society of the Propagation of the Faith is specifically charged with the Church in non-Catholic lands. Hence, the very fact that this document came from that Congregation, it is obvious that this deals with sects, not undeclared heretics. The latter would have been dealt with by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (formerly known as the "Inquisition"). When the entire paragraph, and especially when the entire document is read, it's clear that this is only dealing with sects, who by the way claim to hold and preach the True Faith, pretending that they are the preachers of the One True Church. Catholics cannot go to schismatic rites, even though they are valid, and may seem Catholic.

The document has nothing to do with undeclared heretics--period. 

As to Fr. Cekada's second point, it is irrelevant to the issue. He wrote:

(2) Nor by analogy does the major premise make any sense in light of the general rules of canon law and pastoral theology. These norms prohibit offering Mass publicly for a heretic or schismatic, period. They do not limit the prohibition to one who has been “declared” a heretic — so you can put off planning that Requiem High Mass for your Methodist Uncle Wesley…

First, his analogy to "Uncle Wesley" is inapposite because Methodists are declared heretics from pre-Vatican II. Second, the prohibition of "offering Mass publicly for a heretic or schismatic" declared or undeclared, results in a sin for the priest offering the Mass, and has no bearing on the faithful who assist. If we are talking about an undeclared heretic priest, he is already outside the Church anyway. This also assumes the scenario in the light most favorable to those against the Una Cum Mass. If the "general rules of Canon Law and pastoral theology" make non-attendance at the Una Cum mandatory why did real canonists and theologians teach the opposite? Here I include Fr. DePauw, JCD, Fr. Stepanich, STD, and Bp. des Lauries, the very cleric who came up with the "Thesis."


The Una Cum Mass doesn’t require the layman in the pew to stay home alone rather than be present when the priest errs. The Church has not judged the question, so that the priest’s inclusion of the name is a sign that he wishes only to belong to the Catholic Church, even though mistaken/wrong as to the status of Bergoglio.  

The Home Alone Connection

The section will be brief, as everything necessary has already been written. Home Aloners must agree that the Vatican II sect is not a canonically and formally condemned sect as there was no one with Magisterial authority to do so. If Traditionalist clergy are "without jurisdiction" and "without a mission from the Church"--how could an undeclared heretic priest pre-Vatican II (i.e., outside the Church) have both jurisdiction and mission? 

Canon 2261, section 2 makes it clear that the faithful can approach said priest for the sacraments and sacramentals setting a very low bar for going to him, and having no limitation on how many times you can approach him.  The Canon does not restrict what sacraments can be received, and it therefore includes Penance; and that sacrament requires jurisdiction for validity.  How does a priest outside the Church get jurisdiction? Not from common error, for this Canon presupposes knowledge by the faithful that the priest is a heretic. It must be supplied by the Church.

Moreover, as the Church permits you to receive the sacraments from an undeclared heretic priest, whatever "canonical mission" the Home Aloners think the priest must possess is also granted. Unless you wish to subscribe to the prolix writings of pseudo-scholarship cranked out by Theresa Benns, Home Aloners can be "Home Free"!


I hope and pray this post has made the Una Cum and Home Alone issues more clear. If you still feel the need to avoid the Una Cum or to stay Home Alone, then follow your conscience. However, please refrain from burdening the consciences of others with made up "sins" over issues the Church has not resolved. 


There are a few things I would like to add to this post:

  • What I have written is not an endorsement or an approval of the "Recognize and Resist" position. This blog has always been sedevacantist, and remains such. The R&R position is not Catholic and its theology is severely flawed, to say the least. I hold the so-called "Thesis" (sedeprivationism) to be a mere possibility--and a very low possibility at that. 
  • While the Una Cum is lawful to attend, it does not always follow that it is desirable to do so under all conditions. For example, someone who is weak in the Faith might buy into the R&R position. There was one independent R&R chapel that required an "abjuration of sedevacantism." The Masses of sedevacantist priests are always to be preferred and attended whenever possible. 
  • In this age of Great Apostasy, we should not blindly follow clerics. To a large extent, that's how we got here in the first place. I had some disagreements with Fr. DePauw, and since it wasn't settled Church teaching involved, he had no problem with respectful disagreements. The anti-Una Cum clerics do their position little good by behaving boorishly like Fr. Despositio, or falsifying citations to make them say the opposite of what was taught, like Fr. Cekada. It seems they are more interested in pursuing an agenda then seeking and defending truth.
  • Why did I write a controversial post? It is because I don't shy away from any issue that affects Traditionalists. There's a lot we need to figure out. I believe in the old aphorism, "It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it." 
Is Una Cum "False Worship"?
No, it is not. Despite Fr. Despositio's contention to the contrary, the Una Cum Mass is not a mortal sin against the First Commandment, nor is it "worse than abortion" as he once had the temerity to tweet. 

1. There is ample evidence that the prayer in the Canon is merely intercessory, not an "offering with" the false pope. 

From the book The Heart of the Mass, [1936], which information comes from approved sources, has this to say on page 54:

After praying for the Church in general, a special petition is added for the Sovereign Pontiff and the diocesan bishop. Great responsibilities rest upon our ecclesiastical superiors; the welfare of mankind depends largely upon their fidelity to duty; therefore we implore the Divine assistance on their behalf. A third petition is added for the faithful Catholics throughout the world. (Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian Fortescue:
The Intercession (from "in primus"), now scattered throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop, and the faithful. Medieval missals have: "et rege nostro N." after the bishop. This was omitted in 1570, but certain Catholic countries still keep the custom of praying for the sovereign here. Before the XIth century, the local bishop was often not mentioned. In the middle ages the celebrant added a prayer for himself. (See The Mass: The Study of the Roman Liturgy, [1912], pg. 329; Emphasis mine). Do the anti-Una Cum mean to suggest those priests in the middle ages added a prayer mentioning themselves so they could pray "in union" with themselves? It's illogical, but maybe Fr. Despositio can explain "the ontology" of praying in union with yourself. 

2. On December 20, 1949, The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office promulgated the decree Instructio ad locorum Ordinarios, “De Motione Ecumenica” which declared that the recitation in common by a mixed group of Catholics and non-Catholics of the Our Father or of a prayer approved by the Church does not constitute a forbidden act of communicatio in sacris (loosly, "communication in sacred things" or worship/sacraments in common with non-Catholics). Divine Law does forbid communicatio in sacris if the (a) minister is not validly ordained, if (b) the rite used is not wholly Catholic or if  (c) the circumstances are such that sacramental communion is equivalent to a profession of heresy — or  (d) on grounds of scandal. In regards to "scandal" it must be noted that it does not mean people would be "shocked" ("oh, my goodness!"), nor does it mean "shocking to the senses" as in civil law ("how dare someone do that"!). In theology, it means something that provokes others to commit sin.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on the anti-Una Cum to show (a) the priest is not validly ordained, or (b) the Missals of 1954, 1958, or 1962 are heretical and not Catholic, or (c) receiving Communion from an SSPX priest is "profession of heresy" or (d) it provokes other people to commit sin. Furthermore this analysis isn't even necessary as the non-Catholics mentioned in the decree belong to DECLARED heretical sects--a higher bar to pass than UNDECLARED heretics. 

My final word in this post to the anti-Una Cum:  Stop enforcing theological issues upon which there can be honest disagreement, and there is no Magisterial authority to decide. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."---Introibo

Monday, March 13, 2023

Bp. Miles: A Forgotten Missionary


To My Readers: This week's post is about the illustrious Bishop Richard Pius Miles, one of the great missionaries of the 1800s. My deepest thanks to my guest poster Lee for having written it. Feel free to comment as usual. If anyone has a question or comment specifically for me, I will answer as I always do, but it may take me a bit longer to respond this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Bishop Richard Pius Miles: A Forgotten Missionary of the 1800's
By Lee

Proselytism is solemn nonsense. Proselytism leads to a cul-de-sac. Proselytism is pagan.  Therefore, the most serious sin that a missionary can have [commit] is proselytism. Catholicism is not proselytizing. These are the words of Jorge Bergoglio (A.K.A "Pope" Francis). How does this translate to the average person today? The answer would be NOT to attempt to convert somebody (or a group of people) to a certain way of thinking in regards to religious beliefs. Is this the spirit of Catholicism? Hardly; because if it was, then the whole purpose of spreading the Gospel, the propagation of the Faith, and being concerned for the salvation of souls, was all done in vain by every single missionary in the history of the Church. All of them strived to achieve that goal.

Many remarkable stories could be told about the success of missionary activity. Over and over again we see clergymen sacrifice their entire life for the benefit of their neighbor, not just in preaching and teaching, but also in many other works of charity. Therefore, when we see Catholicism spread throughout the world in every territory, it is because of those who came before us who had the mark of faith and who tirelessly worked to establish Catholic culture even to the point of their deaths. Some missionaries, however, are not well known. A chunk of them were great saints while others were very holy and while they may not be declared saints, could very well be saints. 

One such man, whose body was found in-corrupt in 1972 (112 years after his death), and who during his life accomplished much of his work alone, can be found right here in the United States. He was not in a historically Catholic-settled area such as Maryland, or a Catholic-influenced city such as Chicago or St. Louis. Instead, he is located right in the "bible belt buckle" of Nashville, Tennessee and his name was Bp. Richard Pius Miles, first bishop of Nashville.

Life of the Good Bishop  

Back in his day, Nashville was not known for its Honky Tonk highway, country music, or for its replica of the Parthenon. In fact, it wasn't even the state's capital until five years after he arrived. At that time, Nashville had scarcely 6500 hundred people with no Catholic Church, a handful of scattered faithful, and no easy access to find them or get to them other than by horseback or on foot. How did he manage?  We shall see because Richard Clark in his book Lives of the Deceased Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States Vol. II: explains what he was able to do in the course of 22 years. Below he gives an account of his life:

Richard Pius Miles was born in Prince George's county, Maryland, May 17, 1791. At that time there was a considerable emigration from Maryland to Kentucky. The celebrated Daniel  Boone had advanced the frontier of civilization in that region, and Bishop Miles' parents, themselves connected with the Maryland branch of the Boone family, which was of the same stock with that of the great explorer and pioneer, were among those who followed in the westward current young Miles, then at the age of five years, emigrated with his parents to Kentucky, in 1796. With many instances of religious vocations in his family before him, and educated in piety from his infancy by his good parents, as soon as he was capable of choosing a vocation he chose the better part, and resolved to enter the Dominican Convent of St. Rose, Washington county, Kentucky. He received the white habit of St. Dominic, October 10, 1806, being then only fifteen years old. During his entire life he was most affectionately attached to his brethren of the Dominican Order.

Ten years of study and application to the various offices of the Order prepared him for the sacred ministry, to which dignity he was raised in September, 1816. For twenty-two years he devoted himself with great zeal and untiring energy to the missions of Ohio and Kentucky, having been pastor of the congregations of Somerset KY and Zanesville OH, where the memory of his labors and of his kind and genial manners is still cherished. The models after which his missionary life was formed were such men as Bishops Flaget and David, and Fathers Nerinckx and Badin, all missionaries of the severest and most laborious apostolic schools, and men of the most pious, simple, and humble lives. 

From the earliest days of  his priesthood he was a favorite companion of, and valuable assistant to, Bishop Flaget, in some of those great visitations of his diocese, each of which was a fruitful and consoling revival of faith and piety in the country through which they passed. In 1830 he accompanied Bishop Edward Fenwick, of Cincinnati, in a visitation of the State  of Ohio, which was fruitful in great results, and rendered invaluable services to that venerable and good Prelate. Like the other missionaries of the West in those early days, Father Miles had to hunt up the scattered Catholics of his mission; long journeys on horseback were the usual task of the priest, and the severity of his labors was greatly increased by the roughness of the roads and the inconveniences of the traveling vehicles. It was under such circumstances that Father Miles performed his missionary labors in the various parts of Kentucky and Ohio.

The Dominican Fathers of St. Rose were anxious to establish houses of their Order for nuns, to satisfy the religious vocations of many pious ladies of the West. The Superior, Father Thomas Wilson, approved this suggestion, and regarded the rules of the Third Order best suited to the country and the circumstances. It was with his approbation that Father Miles established the Convent of St. Magdalen, now known as St. Catharine of Sienna, near Springfield, Kentucky. Miss Mary Sansberry, herself a Marylander, and Miss Mary Carrico, were the first nuns; the former of whom, under the name of Sister Angela, was the first prioress. Father Miles' wisdom and prudence in the establishment and guidance of this institution, of which he was the ecclesiastical Superior, were much commended. 

An academy and day-school were commenced by the Sisters of St. Catharine's Convent at the same time, and have ever since proved the sources of immense good in the West, through the exertions of the good Sisters of St. Dominic, in dispensing a Catholic education to many thousands of young ladies. The first branch from the Convent of St. Catherine was that of St. Agnes, at Memphis, introduced during the episcopate of Bishop Miles in the diocese of Nashville, of which Memphis is a part, at the solicitation of Father Thomas L. Grace, now Bishop of St. Paul, Minnesota. Since then its branches have multiplied, and its blessings to the community have increased a hundredfold.

The Council which assembled at Baltimore in 1837 proposed to the Holy See the erection of several new episcopal sees, and amongst these the See of Nashville for the State of Tennessee, and nominated Father Miles as its first Bishop. His labors in the West, his zeal for religion, and the high and responsible offices he had held in his Order, of which he had been provincial,  marked him out as eminently qualified for this exalted station, and though his loss was severely felt by the Order of St. Dominic, all acknowledged that his capacity for good would be enlarged in the more extensive field of the episcopate. He was consecrated in the Cathedral of Bardstown, September 16,1838. The venerable Bishop Flaget was engaged to perform the consecration, but his infirmities rendered him unable to do more than assist by his presence. Bishop Rosati became consecrator in his place, assisted by Bishops Brute, David, and Chabrat The Very Rev. John Timon, afterwards Bishop of Buffalo, preached the consecration sermon.

Bishop Miles proceeded at once to Nashville and took possession of his see. No new diocese ever erected in this country, probably, was so destitute as that of Tennessee when its first Bishop entered it. He stood alone in that large diocese, without support, sympathy, or means. There was not a priest in the diocese; occasionally it was visited  by some zealous missionary from Kentucky in search of the few scattered Catholics, to strengthen them in their faith and console them with the sacraments of the Holy Church. One or two miserable sheds, in a dilapidated and falling condition, were the only places  in the State in which the faithful could assemble to attend divine service. 

The bishop, having no residence, was compelled to take board at Nashville, and commence the work of organizing, or rather of erecting the Church of Tennessee. At this disheartening crisis the Bishop was taken ill with the prevailing fever of the climate, so fatal to the unacclimated. " Stretched upon a bed of sickness," writes one who received these particulars from the Bishop's mouth, " he was looking hourly for his dissolution, with no familiar face to cheer him, no priest to minister to his spiritual wants, or to aid him with his corporal works of mercy. 

Thus he lingered on for several days, with a high fever raging upon him, till at  last, as if by a special mercy and providence of God, a priest, traveling through the Southern country, casually stopped at Nashville, and in accordance with duty as well as with courtesy, his first thoughts were to report himself to the Bishop. His presence at so critical a moment sent a thrill of joy through the house. 

God did not forget the Bishop who had so often administered the consolations of the Church to the sick and dying. From the moment the good priest appeared at his bed- side, the fever began to abate; he saw in the minister of his religion a friend and a comforter; he no longer felt alone in his new habitation. His health soon returned, and with it his proverbial energy; an energy which  is manifested in the increase of his flock and in the number of churches built under his auspices." 

Bishop Miles immediately commenced his arduous mission. Not only was he without a priest to share his labors and take part in his counsels, but the labor of reaching the members of his flock, who did not exceed one hundred families, was immeasurably increased by their being scattered all through the entire state. He began by traveling over his extensive diocese on horseback in search of his children, finding here and there an isolated Catholic, " to whom his visit brought hope of a better day for the Church in Tennessee." Religion, from this moment, began to look up in that extensive region. When the people heard their religion preached in fervid and eloquent terms by a consecrated ruler in the Church, in the court houses and other places, where it was never heard before, and assisted at the divine service before altars, improvised though they were, began to rally around their pastor, and small congregations of pious Catholics soon began to form in various parts of the state. 

During this, his first visitation of the new diocese, the Bishop paid his first visit to Memphis, where he was received with great joy by the people; he preached three times for them, and made arrangements for a church and priest. He experienced great difficulties in getting priests, so great was the demand for them throughout the country, and so little means for their support were available in Tennessee. The Rev. Mr. Clancy, from Spring Hill college, near Mobile, was the first priest who generously volunteered to attach himself to this poor and arduous mission. The Bishop visited Somerset, Kentucky, where he was surrounded by the fruits of his own generous labors in that state, and there he ordained two young priests, who nobly resolved to work in the new diocese of Nashville.

A beginning being once made, in a short time new churches began to spring up,  and Tennessee seemed at once to experience a new creation. He had an arduous task in sustaining these struggles of the infant Church of Tennessee. For several years he was only able to assign one priest to several counties, and in 1844 a single  missionary, Father Schacht, had as many as eight large counties to attend. It may also be mentioned, as an instance of Bishop Miles's labors for the benefit of the Catholic population of his diocese, that he provided a large tract of land in Humphrey county, as a place of settlement for them, where they soon began "to enjoy the comforts of a peaceful and independent home." 

In March, 1840, Bishop Miles revisited St. Rose, in Kentucky, one of the scenes of his former labors. Here he joined Bishop, now Archbishop, Purcell and Rev. Father McElroy, S.J., who were then also paying a visit to that  interesting place. Bishop Miles accepted the earnest invitation of his brethren of St. Rose to spend a few days with them, and while there he ordained, at the request of Bishop Flaget, several young priests, conferred confirmation, and conducted in person the examination of the young ladies of the academy of St Catharine, which, as has been stated, was founded by himself.

His visit to his former children, after the severe and exhausting labors of his first few months of episcopal administration, was one of unalloyed pleasure; and fervent indeed were the prayers of all for his health and prosperity, and for a safe return from the visit to Europe which he was then about to make. Proceeding at once to the East, he embarked for Europe, to visit Rome and other places on business for his diocese.

Bishop Miles took part in the ceremonies of consecrating the Cathedral at Cincinnati, on November 2, 1845, and chanted the solemn Requiem Mass, which occupied one of the days of this great gathering of Bishops, priests, and people. On his way to embark for Europe he also took part in the ceremony of laying the corner-stone of the Church of St. Vincent de Paul at Baltimore. He was ever fond of the historical glories of his native state, and was on several occasions, after attending the Councils at Baltimore, one of the most delighted guests at the celebrations of the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers of Maryland, so nobly gotten up by the Philodemic Society of Georgetown College.

At a spiritual retreat, which he gave in Nashville shortly after, his arrival there in 1839, there were but nine communicants; in a few  years the number of communicants was increased to four hundred, and the number of Catholics reached nearly a thousand. In a visitation of the diocese, which he made in 1847, he confirmed nearly four hundred persons, of whom nineteen adults were converts. In the same year he had the consolation of dedicating the Church of St. Peter at Memphis, erected by the exertions of Rev. M. McAleer, and of preaching and giving confirmation on the same day. In the following year he had the happiness o  dedicating his own Cathedral, under the name and patronage of the Blessed Virgin of the Seven Dolors, at Nashville, assisted by Bishops Portier and Purcell, and a large body of clergy. This fine structure cost thirty thousand dollars, and its erection was due to the indefatigable exertions of the Bishop. He also succeeded in erecting a fine episcopal residence, and in enriching it with a well selected ecclesiastical library. 

He established a charity hospital at Nashville, under the care of the Sisters of Charity from Nazareth KY, and gave them the old church, which he caused to be fitted up for that purpose. The academy of St. Mary, under the care of the Sisters of Charity, which became in his lifetime one of the most useful and flourishing educational institutions of the West, is a monument of his zeal. He rallied around him thirteen zealous priests, as sharers of his labors and rewards; he built fourteen churches and six chapels, and established thirteen stations for the mission. 

He also established a Theological Seminary, three female religious institutes, nine parish schools, a colony of the Dominican Order at Memphis, and a fine orphan asylum, under the care of the Sisters of St. Dominic. The Catholic population, which at his appointment was counted  by individuals, increased under his energetic administration to twelve thousand. The first ordination ever witnessed in Tennessee was that performed by Bishop Miles, November 29, 1842, when he raised to the priesthood Rev. John O' Dowd, a student of the bishop's Theological Seminary at Nashville.

Bishop Miles took part in the Councils which assembled at Baltimore, in 1840, 1843, 1846, and 1849, and at the First National Council, which assembled there in 1852. At the first  of these there were twelve Prelates assembled, representing that number of  dioceses; at the last  there were six Archbishops and twenty-four bishops in session, facts showing  the great progress of the Church during Bishop Miles' time.

During several years, Bishop Miles' health was very feeble, owing to a chronic cough with which he was greatly troubled. Many of the labors of his arduous mission were performed by him while thus  in infirm health. The  assistance of a Coadjutor became necessary to him, and the Right Rev. James Whelan was appointed to that office, and consecrated May  8, 1859.

Bishop Miles was remarkable through life for his cheerful disposition, which he preserved to the last, although his decline became more and more apparent every day. On February 17, 1860, he was kept awake all night by his cough; on the following morning he was found sitting before the fire in the position he usually occupied while reciting the sacred office; on raising him from his chair, it was found he could not stand; he was carried to  his bed, from which he never arose; he departed this life on the 21st.  

He received the last sacraments from the hands of his Coadjutor, and his death was calm  and resigned. His loss was universally lamented in Nashville and throughout Tennessee, and by all religious denominations. A  profound respect was manifested by the entire community for his memory and virtues. His remains were interred under the high altar of his Cathedral. It has been well said of him: " Never morose, and seldom low-spirited, Bishop Miles had the happy faculty, in his social relations, to be able to impart to all around him a portion of his own cheerful spirit. He was pious without affectation, charitable to the poor and kind and affable to all.
Proselytism is a Solemn DUTY

Unlike hearing the nonsense coming straight out of the Jorge's mouth, real popes such as Pope Gregory XVI, who appointed Bp. Miles to Nashville had this to say in Probe Nostis regarding the propagation the Faith:

Venerable Brothers, We Give You Greeting and Our Apostolic Blessing.
You are well aware, venerable brothers, of the many misfortunes which now afflict the Catholic Church. You know, too, that holy religion is being attacked by the pollution of errors of every kind and by the unbridled rashness of renegades. At the same time heretics and unbelievers attempt by cleverness and deceit to pervert the hearts and minds of the faithful You are aware, in shore, that practically no effort has been left untried in the attempt to overthrow the unshakeable building of the holy city. In particular, We are obliged, alas! to see the wicked enemies of truth spread everywhere unpunished.

They harass religion with ridicule, the Church with insults, and Catholics with arrogance and calumny. They even enter cities and towns, establish schools of error and impiety, and publish their poisonous teachings which are adapted to secret deceit by misusing the natural sciences and recent discoveries. Furthermore they enter the hovels of the poor, traverse the countryside, and seek the acquaintance of the farmers and the lowest classes. They try every method of attracting the uneducated, especially the youth, to their sects, and of making them desert the Catholic faith, whether by means of Bibles inaccurately translated into the vernacular, pestilential newspapers and pamphlets of little weight, or by seductive speeches, pretended charity, and gifts of money.

We mention events which you yourselves witness. For despite your sorrow and your pastoral denunciations, you are obliged to tolerate in your dioceses these men spreading heresy and unbelief, these assertive preachers who ceaselessly waylay and ravage your flock by going around in sheep’s clothing while inwardly they are ravening wolves. What more can We add? There is hardly any uncivilized district left in the entire world to which headquarters of the main societies of heretics and unbelievers have not sent scouts and emissaries without counting the cost. These men, by waging secret or open war on the Catholic religion and its pastors and ministers, tear the faithful from the bosom of the Church and prevent unbelievers from entering it.

You can easily imagine the straits in which We live, since We are laden with the care of Christ’s flock and the churches, and must therefore render a detailed account to the divine Prince of Shepherds. For this reason We decided to recall in this letter the causes of the troubles which beset both Us and you. You can then reflect how important it is for all the bishops to redouble their efforts so as to break the assault of the enemies, to beat back their attacks, and to forewarn and protect the faithful from their clever appeals. We have been doing this, and We shall not stop. We know that you have likewise done so, and We are confident that you will continue.

However, in order not to lose heart, “we should all be sure not to fear them as if We had to overcome them by our own strength, since Christ is both our counsel and our courage. As we can do nothing without Him, with Him we can do all things. To give strength to the preachers of the Gospel and ministers of the sacraments, He says, ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the end of the world’ and also, ‘I have spoken these things to you that you may have peace in me; in the world you shall have affliction but take heart, I have overcome the world.’ So clear and indisputable are these promises that no scandals should make us weak lest we seem un-thankful for God’s choice of us even though His help is as effective as His promises are true.

Even in our time all can see those clear results of the divine promise which never have failed and never shall fail in the Church. They are plainly seen in the unconquerable constancy of the Church amid so many enemy attacks, in the spread of religion amid such disturbance and dangers, and in the consolation which “the Father of Mercies and the God of all Consolation gives us in every trial.” On the one hand, We have to lament the loss which the Catholic religion has suffered and continues to suffer in certain districts. But the many victories which the unconquerable constancy of Catholics and their priests has won and continues to win even in those districts gives us ground for joy. We rejoice greatly also at its marvelously abundant gains despite so many hindrances. This proves even to our enemies that oppression of the Church frequently contributes to its glory and strengthens the faithful.

We are thankful for the success of apostolic missions in America, the Indies, and other faithless lands. The indefatigable zeal of many apostolic men has led them abroad into those places. Relying not on wealth nor on any army, they are protected by the shield of faith alone. They fearlessly fight the Lord’s battles against heresy and unbelief by private and public speech and writings. They are inspired with a burning love and undeterred by rough roads and heavy toil. They search out those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the Catholic Religion. So, fearless in the face of every danger, they bravely enter the woods and caves of savages, gradually pacify them by Christian kindness, and prepare them for true faith and real virtue. At length they snatch them from the devil’s rule, by the bath of regeneration and promote them to the freedom of God’s adopted sons.

However, We are reduced to tears both of sorrow in Our detestation of cruel persecutors and executioners, and of consolation in beholding the heroic constancy of the confessors of the faith, as We recall here the glorious deeds of the new martyrs in the Far East. We have already praised them at length in an address to the consistory. Tonkin and Cochin are still wet with the blood of many bishops, priests, and faithful. They have repeated the achievement of the early Christian martyrs in facing a cruel death for Christ undismayed by torture. This is a major victory for the Church and for religion. It casts the persecutors into confusion when they see that even today the divine promises of unending protection and help are really fulfilled. This is the reason why, in the words of St. Leo: “the religion established by the sacrament of the Cross of Christ cannot be destroyed by any kind of cruelty.”

These events bring consolation and glory to the Catholic religion. But there are other grounds of consolation for the Church. Pious organizations are developing for the good of religion and Christian society. Some of these assist the work of the holy apostolic missions. God, who ceaselessly protects His Church, raises up within it new societies as times, places, and circumstances require. Under the Church’s authority each society in its own ways devotes its full energy to works of charity, the instruction of the faithful, and the spread of the faith.

Likewise a source of joy to the Catholic world, and a wonder to non-Catholics, are the many widespread sodalities of pious women. Under the rule of St. Vincent de Paul or in association with other approved Institutes, they are remarkable in their practice of the Christian virtues. They devote themselves entirely either to saving women from the way of perdition, or to training girls in religion, solid piety and the tasks suited to their state in life, or to relieving the dire want of their neighbors with every assistance. No natural weakness of their sex or fear of any danger holds them back.

A similar cause of joy for Us and for all good men are those groups of the faithful who recently have begun to meet regularly in many cities, especially the larger ones. Their purpose is to combat bad books with good ones written by themselves or others, displaying purity of doctrine instead of foul forms of error and Christian gentleness and charity instead of insults and attacks.

Finally, We must praise most highly the well known society which is constantly expanding, not alone in Catholic territories but even in the countries of non-Catholics and unbelievers. This society enables the faithful of every class to help the apostolic missions and to have a share themselves in the spiritual graces of these missions. We are referring, as you realize, to the famous Society for the Propagation of the Faith.

Now you know both the sorrows which afflict Us for Our losses and of the consolations which sustain Us in the victories of the Catholic religion. We are concerned though that these societies should continue to grow. We earnestly urge you, then, to cherish, protect, and augment them in your own dioceses.

The principal society which We recommend to you is the Society for the Propagation of the Faith. First organized in Lyons in 1822, it spread with marvelous speed and success. But certainly We recommend equally other societies of this type founded at Vienna and elsewhere. Their names are different, but they work at the same task of the propagation of the faith, a task which enjoys the religious support and favor of Catholic princes.

This task is sustained and strengthened by the moderate offerings and daily prayers to God said by each of the members. It is directed to practicing the works of Christian charity towards neophytes, and to delivering the faithful from the attack of persecution. Consequently, We consider it deserving of the admiration and love of all good men. A work so beneficial to the Church can have begun so recently only by the special design of divine providence. For when every kind of plot of the infernal enemy besets the beloved spouse of Christ, the Church could have no more timely good fortune than this ardent desire of the faithful to spread Catholic truth.

For this reason, established as We are despite Our unworthiness in the Papacy, We Ourselves affirm with Our predecessors Our complete support for this great work. Sharing Our concern, you should see to it that this important work flourishes among your flock. “Sing with the trumpet in Sion” and by your fatherly advice see to it that those not already members of the pious society are eager to become members, and that those who are members persevere in their purpose. This is surely the time “when the Christian battle line should smash the devil as he rages all over the world;”it is indeed the time for the faithful to join in this holy union with the priests. We have the strongest hope that God, who ceaselessly supports His Church in its long hard fight with its enemies and also gives it joy in the firmness, love and devotion of the faithful, will grant it the peace it desires when He is placated by Our combined prayers and pious works.

In the meantime We lovingly impart the apostolic blessing to yourselves, venerable brothers, and to all the clergy and lay faithful entrusted to your charge.

Given in Rome at St. Mary Major with the seal of the fisherman on the 18th day of September 1840, in the tenth year of Our Pontificate.


If proselytizing leads to a cul-de-sac, we wouldn't be able to hear about inspirational stories, such as Bp. Miles. There would also be no need to be Catholic and worry about one's salvation.

In these times of apostasy, where real Catholics are scattered just as they were in the humble state of Tennessee (and still are), it's a good reminder to ourselves that we are really not as bad off as we think Catholics used to be. They had to ride on horseback and walk on foot with unpaved roads. We have comfortable vehicles with air conditioning and heat. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was at first celebrated in dilapidated sheds and smaller uncomfortable homes. The Holy Sacrifice is in many instances still offered in homes and other similar places but with much cleaner and comfortable conditions. Word of mouth and old fashion maps was how Catholics kept in contact and met up. Now we have cell phones, GPS, and Google Maps to help guide us.  

History teaches us many valuable lessons but when they are not told, they are forgotten, just as a reed scattered in the wind. May we continue structuring our lives after the example and memory of true heroes of the Catholic religion in order to receive the crown.

Monday, March 6, 2023

Contending For The Faith---Part 13


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 has 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.

An Occult Would-Be President
To My Readers: The announcement by occult author Marianne Williamson to run for President of the United States as a Democrat next year, is cause for grave concern. Williamson (b. 1952) ran for the first time in 2020, and was easily defeated in the Democratic Primaries. She endorsed Socialist Bernie Sanders, who ultimately lost to the Alzheimer's Patient, who then allegedly "won"  in November. A candidacy by one such as Williamson was unthinkable even 23 years ago. The fact that her occult ties are largely ignored or downplayed by the media, makes exposing her imperative. She poses a very real threat to Catholic Faith and morals. As such, she is proper subject matter for this series.---Introibo

Background: A Course In Miracles [and the Occult]
Marianne Williamson is a follower of the teachings of one Helen Schucman (d. 1981) who wrote the occult book A Course in Miracles (1976). In October of 1965, then 56 year old Schucman, a Jewish atheist psychologist and associate professor of medical psychology at Columbia University in NYC, began receiving what she claimed were channeled messages from a "spirit guide" identifying itself as "the voice of Jesus Christ." Soon, Schucman became used to the "voice" which dictated things for her to write down. She acted as a scribe, with her hand moving in what is known as "automatic writing." Popular in occult circles, this automatic writing means that the writer's hand forms the words, but the person is unaware of what will be written.

The result of Schucman's automatic writing was the book A Course in Miracles. The book tells us that our beliefs are unimportant. What is important is the application of the book's ideas which will bring you into a "higher form of consciousness." It further states that what is important is the "inner core of our own being" that unifies all religions of the world. This is a sample of what the "spirit guide" pretending to be the voice of Jesus Christ dictated to Schucman:

Some of the ideas the workbook presents you will find hard to believe, and others may seem quite startling. This does not matter. You are merely asked to apply the ideas as you are directed to do. You are not asked to judge them at all. You are asked only to use them. It is their use that will give them meaning to you, and will show you they are true.

Remember only this; you need not believe the ideas, you need not accept them, and you need not even welcome them. Some of them you may actively resist. None of this will matter, or decrease their efficacy. But do not allow yourself to make exceptions in applying the ideas the workbook contains, and whatever your reaction to the ideas may be, use them. Nothing more than that is required. (See A Course in Miracles: Text, Workbook for Students, Manual for Teachers, Glen Ellen, CA, The Foundation for Inner Peace [Reprint 1977], pg.ix).

This is pure religious indifferentism combined with a blind trust in something that will comport with all beliefs. A Course in Miracles teaches people that for physical and spiritual health, they must accept “proper” attitudes toward themselves, life in general, and the world. What are these proper attitudes? In essence, they are 1) the rejection of  the Catholic understandings about such issues as sin, guilt, and atonement, and 2) the acceptance of  heretical pantheism ("All is God; God is All") as well as "psychic development." 

Specifically, the Course offers a form of “Westernized” Hinduism with the distinct goal of changing its readers’ perceptions into conformity with the non-dualistic school of Vedanta Hinduism. This school maintains that the world is ultimately a dream or illusion, and that all men are inwardly God. Another chief goal of the Course is to encourage the student to accept psychic (spiritistic) guidance. It is not a stretch of the imagination to state the Course is demonically inspired. 

Williamson: A Return to Love [and Paganism]
Marianne Williamson calls herself "an American spiritual teacher" (although what qualifies her for this title remains an enigma). Her life was transformed by reading Schucman's Course. Williamson's first book, A Return to Love, is a popular exposition of A Course in Miracles. The original book by Schucman contains a lesson for everyday, or 365 "lessons" per calendar year. The detestable Oprah Winfrey pushed Williamson's book on her TV show in 1992, the year of its publication, and it spent 39 weeks on the New York Times Best Sellers List. Williamson then began to teach her lessons, based on those of Schucman, on XM radio to even more millions of people. 

Here are some of the "life lessons to be learned" from Marianne Williamson:

Lesson #35: "My mind is part of God's. I am very holy."
Lesson #38: "There is nothing my holiness cannot do."
Lesson #61: "I am the light of the world"
Lesson #96: "Salvation comes from my one self."
Lesson #191: "I am the holy Son of God Himself."

These "lessons" are pure blasphemy from the Father of Lies himself. A single Jewish mother (who refuses to identify the father of her child), Williamson used to run a "metaphysical bookshop" (occult themes, not philosophy) before Oprah catapulted her to fame and fortune. Williamson is therefore not unacquainted with the demonic, and actually calls herself a witch:

During the wee hours of the morning, both angels and demons take shape...In those hours that I've lain so inconveniently awake, I think I've begun to know at last what awakened means. Noting the witching hour---4:15---at which I awake more often than not, stealing outside to look at the stars and marvel at the moon, I return again to my ancient self. In those hours, I am not a menopausal nutcase, I'm a magical witch, and I can feel it in my bones. (See Williamson's book The Gift of Change, [2004], pg. 244; Emphasis mine). 

Yet, two-faced Williamson will lie and state that the Course is not a religion and has no dogma or doctrine. On TV with that sorry excuse for a human being--Bill Maher--she stated the following:
A Course in Miracles [is] a self-study program in spiritual psychotherapy. It is a book that is based on universal spiritual themes. It is not a religion. It does not claim any kind of monopoly on truth. It has no dogma. It has no doctrine. It talks about love and forgiveness and I think that many of the people who are students of A Course in Miracles come from all religions and even no religion. People like you [Maher].  (See; from 1:00 to 1:45). 

The "Occult Task Force"
Sounding like a nutty new Netflix series, a group of occultists were using their magick to gain Williamson more visibility in the 2020 presidential race as an "occult task force.". That would also get more people to know about her, buy her books, and get entrapped in the occult too. Yet Williamson will disavow any connection with the occult and hates when she is (correctly) called an "occultist."

Some supporters of 2020 presidential candidate Marianne Williamson have reportedly organized an “occult task force” on her behalf, however, her campaign has tried to distance itself from such activities. 

The person organizing the task force told The Washington Post anonymously that a group of 13 chaos magicians, witches and energy workers were doing synchronized “gestures” to help their candidate gain more visibility in the presidential race and more airtime during Tuesday’s Democratic debate. 

{mosads}“The whole orb gang community is tapping into the power of memes to reflect back on, and multiply, the sort of pulsing undercurrents of our collective unconscious,” the person told The Post in an email.

The author and spiritual adviser’s campaign, however, has expressed some discomfort over the matter, specifically the association with the world “occultist.” 

“I am very, very concerned about the word occultist,” campaign spokeswoman Patricia Ewing told The Post. She said she did not know about the task force. 

Williamson last week in a tweet said she is “not a cult leader” or anti-science. 

I am not a cult leader. I am not anti-science (that one is almost funny, given how much I quote Einstein). And I am not an anti-vaxxer. Hoping that if I repeat it 3 to 4 times a day I might penetrate the field of lies created to keep some people out of the conversation.

— Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) July 23, 2019 

The Hill has reached out to the campaign for additional comment. 

The Post also reported that some followers of Williamson call themselves the “orb gang,” posting memes and emojis.

Williamson appeared in Tuesday night’s Democratic debate and is among more than two dozen people running for the party’s 2020 presidential election.  

She was the most searched candidate during of Tuesday’s event, according to Google Trends and searches for the phrase “dark psychic force” also trended after Williamson used the term to illustrate her concerns about the Trump administration. (See; Emphasis mine). 

A Political Platform from Hell
In 2020, Williamson's campaign slogan was "Join the Evolution." Many occultists hold to an ongoing evolution whereby everything is merging (e.g., the Nirvana of Buddhism). Her 2024 slogan appears to be "America Needs Transformation" (I say "appears to be" because while appearing on her campaign site, nothing definitive is said. If true, it's frightening on multiple levels to think of what that "transformation would entail). Only a few issues will make my point of how evil Williamson would be as president:

On "Reproductive Justice:"
Regarding abortion rights, I am one hundred percent pro-choice.

I believe the decision of whether or not to have an abortion lies solely with a pregnant woman, according to the dictates of her conscience and in communion with the God of her understanding.
(Unborn children are non-persons to her. God is the Masonic "whatever you think" Great Architect of the Universe. Williamson speaks of "love" yet promotes the MURDER of innocent unborn babies).

On "LGBTQIA+ Rights:"
Certain parts of the LGBTQIA+ population, particularly transgender women of color, are at higher risk for marginalization and even violence. This makes them a population that needs not only equal rights but the specific status of special protection. Under a Williamson administration, they would have that.
(So a mentally disturbed black man who thinks he's a woman, would get a "specific status" of "special protection" from Williamson. I shudder to think what that might mean). 

On "Reparations:"
I do not believe the average American is a racist, but I believe the average American is undereducated about the history of race in America.  When our history is viewed through a clear lens – historically, economically and morally – white America is seen owing a debt to the descendants of enslaved people. That is why I support, and have a plan for, a program of reparations to the descendants of American enslaved people.
(In her last time out, she pledged to give $500 BILLION dollars to "descendants of slaves." Really? How are these descendants to be determined? Will non-white and non-black citizens also subsidize this insanity? As someone asked, "Are we to pay taxes to give "reparations" for something we never did to make others feel better about something they never experienced?" Yeah. All she is doing is promoting racial dissention, not "love"). 

Marianne Williamson is an occultist trying to deny what she is, and bring her Satanic doctrines and platform into the lives of millions of Americans as she campaigns for president. As bad as the current occupant of the White House is, Williamson would be far worse. Be forewarned and make who she is known to anyone even considering supporting her.