Category Archives: Modern Controversy

“A True Portrait of the Inner Modernist” : Mr. Craig Heimbichner’s ANALYSIS OF THE MASONIC AND DEMONIC SYMBOLISM in the 1977 “Portrait” of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI

Smithsonian Magazine, April, 1977, Page 60-61 :

“Those great patrons of the arts, the Renaissance popes, usually commissioned the artist in their employ – Raphael, Titian, Velazquez – to paint their portraits. The result was some of the greatest paintings ever produced.

“Since then the practice has fallen off (along with the art of portraiture). So it was with some surprise that the world learned last fall that a portrait had been painted of Pope Paul VI, even though he did not commission it or, for that matter, sit for it. Moreover, it was in a semiabstract style unlike that of any previous papal portrait.

“The artist was a 42-year-old German named Ernst Gunter Hansing. Pope Paul did not at first respond to having his picture painted with any enthusiasm, but he later relented. Hansing was given a small studio in the building that houses the Vatican gas station, and for the next two and a half years, during 13 separate visits to Rome, he observed his subject from the front row at papal audiences.

“The finished portrait has been accepted by the Pope. His Holiness described the painting as “a mirror of the situation in the Church today.” Earlier, on seeing a working sketch, he made what was probably his closest approach to art criticism. It was gracefully oblique: “One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context.”

From the Nov. 8, 1971 issue of TIME magazine:

Behind a locked door in Vatican City waits a present for Pope Paul VI that may conceivably please its recipient but has already shocked many who have seen photographs of it. The gift is a large (about 71 ft. by 12 ft.) portrait of His Holiness, painted in a semi-abstract mode, in which the Pope’s emaciated, suffering face and folded hands are the focus of splintering shafts of light. German Painter Ernst Guenter Hansing, 42, sketched his subject during twelve protracted stays at the Vatican over a period of 21 years. Though he never had a private sitting, he was given a front-row seat at papal ceremonies in which to work. “I wanted more than just a picture of a person,” says Hansing, a Lutheran. “I wanted to show the tension-fraught situation of the church, caught in a multiplicity of issues, as reflected in the countenance of the Pope.”

PAUL6

Mr. Craig Heimbichner’s Analysis of the Masonic and Demonic Symbolism in the 1977 “Portrait” of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI

1. Three pillars

2. Two columns

3. Cresent moon

4. Various Pentagrams

5. Sphynx at the top of the pillar

6. The columns and angles combine to form a square and compass

7. The point within the circle at the top is an old Illuminati symbol

8. Above Paul VI’s head an abstract “eye in the triangle” I.E. the Eye of Horus or Set

9. A dagger is thrust in the papal tiara in the 30th Knight Kadosh Degree; here the pope clutches a dagger with a malevolent look.

10. Inverted crosses are Satanic, but so is Freemasonry

2 Comments

Filed under Modern Controversy, The Sede Vacante

AN IMPORTANT LETTER ON THE NOVUS ORDO from the Founder of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

July 10, 1974

I would like to make clear what I hold about the Novus Ordo.

I say that the Mass in English may be valid, but I think that the Mass should be said in Latin and that those who are going over and saying the Novus Ordo are traitors to the Catholic Faith.

Father Leonard Feeney, M.I.C.M.

This letter is one of three taken from an article entitled: Three Important Letters From the Founder of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which can be found in the now impossible to track down “From The Housetops,” #24, 1983. pg. 54. Saint Benedict Center.

Leave a comment

Filed under Feeneyana, Modern Controversy

CHRISTMAS AND IRELAND : a Poem by Lionel Johnson (1896)

JMJ Ireland Stamp

THE golden stars give warmthless fire,
As weary Mary goes through night:
Her feet are torn by stone and briar;
She hath no rest, no strength, no light:
___O Mary, weary in the snow,
___Remember Ireland’s woe!

O Joseph, sad for Mary’s sake!
Look on our earthly Mother too :
Let not the heart of Ireland break
With agony, the ages through :
___For Mary’s love, love also thou
___Ireland, and save her now!

Harsh were the folk, and bitter stern,
At Bethlehem, that night of nights.
For you no cheering hearth shall burn :
We have no room here, you no rights.

___O Mary and Joseph! hath not she,
___Ireland, been even as ye?

The ancient David’s royal house
Was thine, Saint Joseph ! wherefore she,
Mary, thine Ever Virgin Spouse,
To thine own city went with thee.
___Behold! thy citizens disown
___The heir of David’s throne !

Nay, more! The Very King of kings
Was with you, coming to his own :
They thrust Him forth to lowliest things;
The poor meek beasts of toil alone
___Stood by, when came to piteous birth
___The God of all the earth.

And she, our Mother Ireland, knows
Insult, and infamies of wrong:
Her innocent children clad with woes,
Her weakness trampled by the strong:
___And still upon her Holy Land
___Her pitiless foemen stand.

From Manger unto Cross and Crown
Went Christ: and Mother Mary passed
Through Seven Sorrows, and sat down
Upon the Angel Throne at last.
___Thence, Mary! to thine own Child pray,
___For Ireland’s hope this day!

She wanders amid winter still,
The dew of tears is on her face :
Her wounded heart takes yet its fill
Of desolation and disgrace.
___God still is God! And through God she
___Foreknows her joy to be.

The snows shall perish at the spring,
The flowers pour fragrance round her feet:
Ah, Jesus! Mary! Joseph! bring
This mercy from the Mercy Seat!
___Send it, sweet King of Glory, born
___Humbly on Christmas Morn!

On Lionel Johnson (1867-1902), Louise Imogen Guiney, writing in the Catholic Encylopedia, states : “He was a small, frail, young-looking man, with a fine head and brow, quick of foot, gentle of voice, and with manners of grave courtesy. He greatly loved his friends in a markedly spiritual way, always praying for them, absent or present. His sound Catholic principles, his profound scholarship, his artistic sensitiveness, his play of wisdom and humor, his absolute literary honour, with its “passion for perfection” from the first, show nobly in his prose work. His lyrics are full of beauty and poignancy…

Leave a comment

Filed under Bardic Poetry & Christian Verse, Celtic Miscellany, Modern Controversy

IDIOTIC MAN-CHILD STILL REBELLING AGAINST GOD & DADDY: James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword (DVD) Reviewed by J. Michael (Now Born) 

A few years ago, ex-priest James Carroll wrote a fatuous and flatulent book called “Constantine’s Sword”, which purported to be a history of the Catholic Church’s crimes against the Jews, arguing that the Gospel’s natural fruits are anti-semitism and violence and that Christianity directly led to the Holocaust. Carroll’s book was praised by atheists, dissident Catholics and professional Semites, while being mocked as feeble-minded drivel by serious scholars. This self-indulgent and incoherent documentary is Carroll’s attempt to squeeze a little more notoriety and a few more bucks out of a very bad book.

¶ Since Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate diluted the Catholic Church’s Gospel message in the 1960s, in his search for Christian “anti-Semitism” Carroll was forced to find his villain in the protean and rather ridiculous specter of American Evangelicalism. We travel to the U.S. Air Force Academy where we discover that there is an improper relationship between the administration and Colorado Springs’ myriad evangelical sects, and that some Jewish cadets are subject to proselytization by other cadets. Could a more innocuous threat possibly be imagined than slavishly philo-Semitic American evangelicalism? After all, what horrible ordeals did the Jewish students have to endure? Well, they once received an official advertisement for a campus showing of Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”, and some evangelical cadets frequently try to convert them. Wow. No, it wasn’t right for the administration to favor any one particular creed, (Editor: Well actually…) but there’s a big difference between being inappropriate and being anti-Semitic. No one even claims that their academic standing was effected one iota because of their religion. As for the conversion attempts, the Jewish students should familiarize themselves with life as adults in a marketplace of ideas. Yet Mr. Carroll seems to think that pogroms will soon be the order of the day at the Academy.

¶ Perhaps realizing that his entire premise is baseless, Carroll spends the rest of the video droning on about his pathetic personal history. I’m not sure if he is descended from the eminent Carrolls of Carrollton, but he came from a strong and pious Catholic family, the son of prominent Air Force General Joseph Carroll. Carroll fills us in with details of his childhood growing up a military brat in occupied Germany, and retrospectively ridicules his family’s Catholic devotional activities. He relates how he decided to become a priest during the Cuban Missile Crisis because, tellingly, he was drawn “not to the Jesus of miracles but the Prince of Peace who hates war”. Already we see Carroll veering away from seeing the Gospel as supernatural revelation and more towards valuing it for its potential to effect political change. Carroll’s seminary experience obviously changed him. In a revealing statement, he tells us that he was “shocked to learn” in his study of history that “priests sinned”. Now, if that ludicrous statement is actually true, and not just a calculated lie to portray pre-conciliar Catholicism as developmentally arrested, then Mr. Carroll was an idiot man-child who should have been fitted with a cap ‘n’ bells instead of a clerical collar. However, as earlier Communist infiltration of the seminaries was beginning to bear fruit in the 60s, the obviously vapid Carroll was a prime candidate for indoctrination and came out as an obedient agent of the Internationale. The degree of Carroll’s devotion to his left-wing gospel can be judged by his conduct at his first Mass. In front of his entire family and his father’s military colleagues, the arrogant Carroll preached that the bones in Ezekiel’s famous vision had been bleached by napalm, and denounced the Vietnam War from the pulpit, humiliating his father and family. All I could think of when I heard that was “What a little $h!t.”

¶ Carroll spent the next four years protesting the war and agitating for various leftist causes. He then left the priesthood, married (a woman, surprisingly), and has made a living mining Catholicism and his childhood for material to fill his boring and worthless books. He continues to tear down the Church, advocating for gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, Scriptural expurgation and all the rest of the immoral planks on Satan’s party platform. This evil old hack is a good representative specimen of the 1960s university generation, who esteem themselves wise because of their vaunted “education”, which actually consists of nothing more than the ability to parrot the dogmas of leftist ideology. Critical thinking is deprecated by these intellectual myrmidons; having “orthodox” sentiments is the ultimate value. Liberal fools like Carroll don’t care about truth, but only want to be on the side of the “angels” when some histrionic old Jew starts tearing up over a 1000 year old atrocity. And when that happens, people like Carroll instinctively grovel in the dust and seek absolution through self-destruction—whether of Faith, race or nation. A truly objective scholar would examine history in context. Atrocities have been committed both by and against the Jews. We could just as easily turn our anthropological microscope upon the Chosen People and attempt to learn what it is in the Talmud that has driven its adherents to oppress and exploit Gentiles throughout the ages, such as in early medieval Europe (see Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe) or modern Palestine, or even commit genocide against the goyim such as is documented in Judeo-Soviet Russia. But that doesn’t exactly fit the “script” of modern historiography.

¶ I can’t even begin to enumerate everything else that was so infuriating and frustrating about Carroll; his stupidity, his inconsistency, his mendacious history, his bovine mien, his continued subversion of the Catholic Church, his posse of Judaizing priests who are exorcised over Mel Gibson’s “Passion”, et al. The most frustrating thing though is that the media allows him to continue presenting himself as a “devoted Catholic” who only wants to make his church a little more sensitive. He’s nothing of the sort. He’s a full fledged enemy of the Church who is devoted to nothing but its castration, neutralization and eventual destruction. He only refrains from avowing outright atheism because he sees a role for a new Catholic Church, stripped of most supernatural beliefs and tightly controlled by a leftist clergy of his ilk, in bringing on his Novus Ordo Seclorum. Carroll needs to be exposed, excommunicated, shunned and slapped down. Let him fly his true colors outside the body of Christ and be recognized not as the critical Christian he poses as, but for the enemy of God he is.

Leave a comment

Filed under Modern Controversy

The “Extremely Wild and Striking” Legend of the Slaying of Julian the Apostate by GREAT-MARTYR SAINT PHILOPATER MERCURIUS.

Saint_Mercurius_killing_Iulian

Taken from Volume II of Jameson’s Sacred and Legendary Art. Containing the Patron Saints, the Martyrs, the Early Bishops, the Hermits, and the Warrior Saints of Christendom, as represented in the Fine Arts. Riverside Press, 1896.

… the legend of Mercurius is extremely wild and striking. Julian the Apostate, who figures in these sacred romances not merely as a tyrant and persecutor, but as a terrible and potent necromancer who had sold himself to the devil, had put his officer Mercurius to death, because of his adhesion to the Christian faith. The story then relates that when Julian led his army against the Persians, and on the eve of the battle in which he perished, St. Basil the Great was favoured by a miraculous vision. He beheld a woman of resplendent beauty seated on a throne, and around her a great multitude of angels ; and she commanded one of them, saying, “Go forthwith, and awaken Mercurius, who sleepeth in the sepulchre, that he may slay Julian the Apostate, that proud blasphemer against me and against my son!” And when Basil awoke, he went to the tomb in which Mercurius had been laid not long before, with his armour and weapons by his side, and, to his great astonishment, he found neither the body nor the weapons. But on returning to the place the next day, and again looking into the tomb, he found there the body of Mercurius lying as before; but the lance was stained with blood; “for on the day of battle, when the wicked emperor was at the head of his army, an unknown warrior, bareheaded, and of a pale and ghastly countenance, was seen mounted on a white charger, which he spurred forward, and brandishing his lance, he pierced Julian through the body, and then vanished as suddenly as he had appeared. * And Julian being carried to his tent, he took a handful of the blood which flowed from his wound, and flung it into the air, exclaiming with his last breath, ‘Thou hast conquered, Galilean! thou hast conquered!’ Then the demons received his parting spirit. But Mercurius, having performed the behest of the blessed Virgin, re-entered his tomb, and laid himself down to sleep till the Day of Judgment.”

I found this romantic and picturesque legend among the Greek miniatures already so often alluded to, ** where the resurrection of the martyr, his apparition on the field of battle, and the death of Julian, who is falling from his horse, are represented with great spirit.

* Julian was killed by a javelin flung by an unknown hand. — Gibbon.
** Ninth Century. Paris Bib., Gr. MSS. 510.

san mercurio

Great-Martyr Saint Philopater Mercurius confound the enemies of Holy Church and triumph over all their designs. Amen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Modern Controversy, Uncategorized

ARCHITECTS OF CONFUSION : The Unmasking of the Plot against the Church’s Foundational Doctrine on Salvation

Here for your perusal, dear Christian Reader, is a little known but important pamphlet published by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Still River, Massachusetts in 1975 following the supposed “lifting” of the supposed “excommunication” of Father Leonard Feeney. The pamphlet is little known partly due to its scarcity (only three copies found in WorldCat) but really because the regularized followers of Father Feeney do not make it available to the public in its entirety. It is important chiefly because it is one of the few controversial documents produced by the Saint Benedict Center after the Second Vatican Council and before the death of Father Feeney and the Center’s dramatic fracturing in the mid-to-late-70’s. After reading this short pamphlet, any unbiased reader should be able to proclaim along with the great Scottish Apostle of Christ the King, Hamish Fraser:

“For there is no doubt that had the initiative of the St. Benedict Center been allowed to proceed unchecked, decisive progress towards the conversion of the U.S. to the Catholic faith could have been made in the years prior to Vatican II… [Father Leonard Feeney was] one of the most outstanding prophets of our time. For not only did he most accurately diagnose the contemporary malaise, long before others became aware of it; he also put his finger on the very omission which was both symptom and cause of the plague of liberal indifferentism which eventually surfaced as post-Conciliar Neomodernism and oecumania.”

From the Preface

These are disturbing times indeed. In former times of uncertainty and unrest, when men knew they could expect no solutions from their secular leaders, they could always turn to the Church for comfort and guidance. But today, with the world in a state of greater turmoil than ever before, one discovers with dismay that there is no certain solace to be found even in that haven, as the Edifice which Christ founded upon the Rock seems now to drift on a sea of shifting sand.

The account which follows is the factual story of Saint Benedict Center: why it was founded; how it was discredited; where it stands today. It is the story of a thirty-year crusade to repropagate in the hearts of the faithful the sustaining doctrine of the Church—without which she cannot survive.

This story will help to clarify the perplexing state of the Church today. At the same time, it will correct the misunderstanding of many people, effected by the media, that Father Leonard Feeney and his Order have capitulated to the Modernists who have worked their way into positions of authority in the Church.

It is with great concern for the welfare of the One True Church that we invite the reader to continue with us as we relate those events.

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

May 13, 1975

Feast of Our Lady of Fatima

Follow the Link below to download the entire Pamphlet.

Architects of Confusion Scanned by Hieronymopolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Feeneyana, Modern Controversy

ON THE “SEDE VACANTE” THESIS by James Larrabee : “The best brief summary of the sedevacantist position ever penned.”

197611-vatican-pope-circusThe Circus comes to Saint Peter’s (Dec. 1, 2012) or another sign of the Sede Vacante?

This essay was posted in 2006 on the Bellarmine Forums by Mr. John Lane, a friend of Mr. Larrabee. The author presents the central arguments of the Sede Vacante thesis modestly, without pride or contempt for authority. Criticism of Sedevacantism predicated upon the few kooks, quacks, and cultists holding to the position is no longer tenable. Anyone seeking to attack the Thesis must now fling themselves upon a seemingly unassailable citadel of dogmatic theology and sharp logic, thanks to a few courageous and clear-sighted writers like Mr. Larrabee.

Ray,

¶ Thanks a lot for your message. Here’s some comments on the thesis of St. Robert Bellarmine that you could pass on to Fr. Gruner.

¶ There are many particular objections which have been made against the so-called “sedevacantist” thesis, which is simply that of St. Robert Bellarmine, of the other Doctors of the Church, and of canon law itself. Generally speaking, these objections are not difficult to answer. It should be enough for any Catholic to know that they are contrary to the common teaching of the Church. But they can be refuted by arguments as well. The objections to St. Robert Bellarmine seem to arise from a failure to accept or understand the visible unity of the Church, as has always been held by the Church against the Protestants.

¶ The position of St. Robert arises by simple logic from his definition of the Church as a visible institution. As such, it must have a visible membership, distinguishable from other men by visible (perceivable) means. The Church is a visible unity of faith. One who departs from that unity by a perceivable rejection of her teachings (a heretic), by this very fact ceases to belong to that unity, by his own act.

¶ This position is taught clearly by the Popes. First of all, Bellarmine has been made a Doctor of the Church by them, and he is probably the leading theological authority on the Church and the papacy since the Reformation, whose errors he dedicated himself to refuting. Thus his teaching is recognized as solidly Catholic, on the highest authority. It is borne out both by the legal sources cited by St. Robert Bellarmine in the chapter on a heretical Pope (in the text “Si papa”), and by the Code of Canon Law (1917). Canon 188 clearly states, “Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clerus … (4) a fide catholica publice defecerit.” This canon is based in part on the constitution of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus, which clearly teaches that no office can be held by a manifest heretic, and that if a man is a manifest heretic before being elected Pope (as well as any other office), the election is void, even if (as he explicitly states) the whole Church should recognize him as Pope.

¶ In addition, Bellarmine’s doctrine on the membership of the Church is the basis for the presentation in Mystici Corporis. There, four requirements for membership are given: those who are baptized, who profess the Faith integrally, who submit to the lawful authority of the Pope and hierarchy in communion with him, and who have not been excluded from the Church by excommunication. Thus, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and excommunicates are excluded from the Church, even though they are baptized. Heretics and excommunicates are two different categories. In the case of the former (and schismatics as well), they are excluded by their own actions; in the case of excommunicates, they are excluded by the Church’s judgment, in punishment of crimes committed.

¶ Those who claim, by whatever reasoning, that John Paul II is truly Pope, implicitly accept that the Church has no visible unity in faith. They accept as members of the Church not only him, but all the bishops in his communion, and all those who openly reject both the teachings and the authority of the Church, none of whom, or virtually none, have been excommunicated. Thus they deny, in effect, the unity of the Church. The abbe de Nantes has no difficulty admitting that Paul VI and John Paul II are heretics, as well as schismatics, apostates, and scandals, and he proves this abundantly, but he still claims that they remain members of the Church. This is to deny the teaching of the Doctors, the Popes, and canon law itself. It is to reduce the Church to a mere political unity, like the Protestants, who have no unity of faith at all, even within a single sect.

¶ It is argued that we “cannot judge.” But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to “judge” in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.

¶ The Abbe de Nantes seems to argue that the teaching of Bellarmine no longer applies. (Why, he does not say.) If this argument is based on the reasoning that there isn’t a specific provision in the 1917 Code, nevertheless it comes under canon 188:4, as stated above. Furthermore, Bellarmine answers similar arguments by saying that the conclusion arises from the very nature of the Church and of heresy, as shown by the citations from the Fathers which he gives. It is not a matter of human positive law.

¶ De Nantes further argues that disorders would arise if every “Tom, Dick and Harry” were able to challenge the Pope for heresy. This seems a frivolous objection. First of all, only in the rarest of instances has a Pope ever been accused of heresy, and even more rarely has one given reasonable grounds for such an accusation. (For example, Liberius, Honorius, and John XXII.) And it seems unthinkable that a particularly large number of people could ever be brought to do so; far more likely that, as at present, a manifestly heretical Pope could draw the bishops and many of the people over to his heresy. This is an incomparably worse situation than any conceivable alternative, and it is exactly the reality now. If Montini had been openly challenged as a non-Pope back in 1964, when he issued “Ecclesiam Suam,” it hardly seems that the conciliar revolution (or new Reformation) could have taken place. It seems absurd to hold imaginary disorders up against the total chaos we see as a result of De Nantes’ error. Secondly, if the conclusion arises from the nature of the Church and jurisdiction, no consideration of consequences can be relevant. This objection seems to arise from Bouix and John of St. Thomas, who hold that a heretical Pope retains his office. Their opinion has been rejected by all other canonists since the time of Bellarmine, as well as most of them before, so this ought to be a moot opinion.

¶ It is also objected (by De Nantes and others) that some legal process is required, before the Pope actually loses office. This seems to imply the grave error of conciliarism. If a council, or any other authority in the Church below the papacy, can carry out a legal action resulting in the Pope’s deposition, no matter how explained, it is clear that they are superior to him. Cajetan, who argued this, tried in vain to reconcile it with the Pope’s supremacy (which he also firmly maintained). St. Robert Bellarmine refutes his arguments convincingly, and the arguments of John of St. Thomas, attempting to defend Cajetan, make little sense by comparison.

¶ Furthermore, this same argument, in general, confounds the process of excommunication (which also requires deposition from office) with the self-departure from the Church by a heretic, thus failing to comprehend the whole nature of the question as shown above. The categories of heretics and schismatics are implicitly eliminated, and only that of formal excommunicates is left, among baptized non-Catholics. This is simply to deny Mystici Corporis. John of St. Thomas is so far from understanding Bellarmine’s argument that he claims that the words of St. Paul “after one or two admonitions” refer to legal warnings, when St. Robert cites the Fathers to prove that this has nothing to do with formal legal warnings. This is an arbitrary argument. Excommunicates are to be shunned AFTER judgment by the Church; heretics are to be shunned when their contumacy is evident, that is, after one or two warnings. This is the point of Bellarmine’s whole argument, and that of the Fathers he cites.

¶ The same is apparent from the fact that the section of canon law cited (188:4) is not in the criminal law at all, where excommunications are considered, but in the section on resignations (renunciations) of all kinds. It is not considered in the light of criminal actions at all, though it is the result of a criminal action (as are some of the other actions listed in 188, such as attempting marriage). It is essentially no different from the loss of office by death.

¶ It is argued (apparently by John of St. Thomas, among others) that jurisdiction is maintained in heretics according to canon law. However, this again is to confuse legal provisions concerned with the effects of EXCOMMUNICATION, in the criminal law, with the natural effect of manifest heresy. It simply makes canon law contradict itself, in view of canon 188:4, which states that the office is lost ipso facto, by a resignation accepted by the law itself, and without any declaration at all. To lose or resign one’s office, of course, is the same thing as to lose or resign one’s jurisdiction, since they are one and the same thing. While jurisdiction can be supplied by the Church in a given case (as to absolve a Catholic in danger of death), heresy is incompatible with ordinary jurisdiction. The same is shown by the case of Nestorius, cited by St. Robert. The Pope of the time, when the case came to his attention well after the events at Constantinople, clearly stated that his jurisdiction ceased to exist from the time he began preaching his error, so that all his subsequent acts of deposition and excommunication directed against those orthodox Catholics who resisted him were simply void. This case seems to be ignored by all those who generally ignore or spurn Bellarmine’s teaching. In fact, the behavior counseled by the Abbe de Nantes and many others at present is directly opposed to that which was clearly approved by the Pope at that time.

¶ John of St. Thomas and some at present further argue that the Pope’s heresy is not manifest until it is declared so by a general council. This is an arbitrary argument, with no proof given. It contradicts, again, Bellarmine’s whole argument on the visible nature of the Church, as well as the authorities he cites. “Manifest” is not a legal category arising only from a legal procedure, but a matter of fact (though it must be defined in the law, like other terms). (If it were, this would render useless the distinction made in law between notoriety by law, and notoriety by fact; canon 2197:2-3; nor does “manifest” require the same degree of publicity as “notorious”.) Either it supposes that personal heresy is something different in a Pope than in anyone else, or it does not. If the former, it is refuted by saying that it is clear that the Pope, as a person, is no different from anyone else, and manifest heresy in his case is no different from the same thing in anyone else. Possessing office, even the highest office in existence, does not have any effect on the nature of the individual or on his personal actions. If the argument does not suppose a difference in regard to the Pope, then it must be based on the same supposition that an authority lower than the Pope is capable of taking a legal action resulting in the Pope’s loss of office, which has already been refuted.

¶ Some argue that we cannot know if the “Pope” is a formal or merely a material heretic, because only God can judge the interior, and heresy is a matter of interior rejection of Catholic doctrine, not merely exterior. It’s amazing to me that any Catholic could make this argument, but many do, among many supposedly traditional priests and laymen dedicated to defending conciliar “pontiffs.” It utterly destroys the visible nature of the Church. The question is entirely in the external forum, thus it relies solely on externally verifiable evidences, as in every other legal proceeding. If this argument were valid, no one could ever have been condemned as a heretic, or indeed could be condemned of any crime at all, either by the Church or by secular authorities, since the guilty intention essential to any crime could never be judged. The fundamental principle of reason is that people are responsible for their actions. If a criminal act is committed, it is assumed, until proven otherwise, that the person is liable for it. This is stated in canon law (2200:2): “Posita externa legis violatione, dolus in foro externo praesumitur, donec contrarium probetur.”

¶ It is further argued that, in the case of heresy, dolus consists in the pertinacious rejection of Catholic teaching, which cannot be assumed merely from a denial of a doctrine. This is true, but pertinacity can also, and must also, be inferred from the person’s actions. That is why one or two admonitions are mentioned by St. Paul. These admonitions do not need to be formal and explicit, to judge that pertinacity is present, at least they do not need to be made by every individual. If the public evidence is sufficient for a moral certitude of pertinacity, then the conclusion follows. In the case of men who are well versed in Catholic theology, and who were well aware of their opposition to the teachings of past Popes, who heard in person the rejection and refutation of many of their errors at Vatican II, as well as having studied the condemnations of Modernism by all the Popes since Pius IX and by the Vatican Council, it cannot reasonably be denied that they were well aware of their rejection of the past teaching of the Church. So in the case of many (not necessarily all) of their teachings, pertinacity is morally certain from any intelligent consideration of the history of the Vatican revolution. In addition, the inveterate complicity of those at Rome, Wojtyla and Ratzinger most evidently, with the far more open heresy of their fellows such as Kung, Kasper, Schillebeeckx, Rahner, De Lubac, and so on ad infinitum, along with their universal toleration of any and all errors by lesser men, would alone suffice to judge pertinacity. In addition is their use of all convenient means to suppress the orthodox and destroy tradition. None of these things is compatible, to any Catholic with the least common sense and knowledge of the Faith, with an intention to profess the Catholic Faith, and essentially the same has been stated by Popes and Councils. Pope Pius VI, in the bull Auctorem Fidei, depicts the use made of ambiguity by heretics, in the Synod of Pistoia; St. Pius X, citing the Council of Constantinople, in Pascendi, refers to heretics as those who would overturn even a single one not only of the Apostolic, but even of the ecclesiastical traditions. Those engaging in ecumenism were described by Pope Pius XI as departing even from divinely revealed religion. This is all in the external forum.

¶ It can further be argued that even if internal, “formal” heresy is lacking, in St. Robert Bellarmine’s argument, if one’s external actions leads to a reasonable conclusion that one is a heretic, then he loses both membership in the Church and his office. This is precisely what he says in regard to Liberius, and this is how he reconciles his opinion that no true Pope will ever fall into personal heresy, with the fact (as he holds) that Liberius was legitimately “deposed” by the Roman clergy for his actions which were seen as compromising with the Arian heretics. It is exactly parallel with the Church’s judgment, in early centuries, that those who sacrificed under threat of persecution were all (legally) apostates, regardless of whether internally they really renounced the Faith or did it out of fear. Clearly, in the external forum, no such distinction is possible. In fact, even those who “merely” bribed officials for the “libellus” certifying that they had sacrificed, without having done so, were treated as apostates.

¶ The familiar argument that a heretic can only be discerned if he denies a dogmatically defined teaching should not need refutation here. It is unworthy of any Catholic, and has been the watchword of the worst liberal heretics since Vatican II. Michael Davies, among others, has given credence to this wretched aberration by misquoting canon law (while openly admitting he is neither canonist nor theologian), as though canon 1323:3 (”Declarata seu definita dogmatice res nulla intelligitur, nisi id manifeste constiterit”) meant that all teachings are in doubt until they have been defined. The meaning of this section is simply that in case of doubt as to whether a doctrine has been defined, it is not to be assumed that it has been DEFINED, which still leaves available proofs from the Ordinary Magisterium, as is obvious from the context. Otherwise, canon 1323:1, based on Vatican I, would make no sense at all, when it refers to “sive ordinario et universali magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata credenda”. Of course, in Latin the word “seu” indicates a verbal equivalence, so that “declarata seu definita” both refer to ex cathedra definitions.

¶ In addition, Vatican II did openly deny defined dogma. Religious liberty was condemned in an ex cathedra definition by Pope Pius IX, as can be read in Quanta Cura, wherein a clear formula of definition is contained (We by Our Apostolic Authority, etc.). The teaching of Vatican II is almost verbatim the contrary of what was condemned.

¶ It seems pointless to refer to more simplistic arguments against “sedevacantism”. For example, that it is schismatic. Yet those who adhere to a FALSE Pope are the schismatics, not those who reject him.

¶ In conclusion, I might mention that “sedevacantism” is a term which is not very appropriate to the present situation. Arguing that one or more ostensible Popes were not validly Pope is not to argue that the See of Peter is or was vacant. Nor, of course, the opposite. Furthermore, we do not necessarily hold that any legitimate Pope has actually lost his office by heresy. Both St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus, as well as many other theologians, hold as a pious belief (not as divinely revealed, at least in the case of these two Doctors) that God will never permit a Pope actually to fall into personal heresy. I am quite inclined to believe this as well, for the reasons they give. In the present situation, it is very easy to argue that Montini and Wojtyla were manifest heretics before their elections, so that they were never elected to the papacy validly to begin with (the heresy of “cardinal” electors is also relevant, since a heretic can no more vote in an election than be elected). There is also evidence, though perhaps not sufficient at present to prove anything with certainty so far as general public knowledge is concerned, that conclaves beginning in 1958 were tampered with, so that it is an open question whether even the election of John XXIII was valid apart from any question of heresy (a serious one his case, particularly in view of his subsequent actions), or whether Cardinal Siri and/or another was actually elected.

¶ It might be objected that the law of conclaves allows even excommunicated Cardinals to vote, or to be elected. But, again, this applies to excommunications, as such and only, not to one who has left the Church by heresy.

¶ Along the same lines, the papacy must be accepted by the elected candidate, even if validly elected. Yet it can be argued that the new “popes” from John Paul I onwards did NOT accept the Roman Pontificate, but a new, conciliarist, “updated” papacy, a consitutional monarchy or figurehead office of some sort, or as De Nantes would put it, the headship of MASDU. Thus, they in no way accepted the papacy, nor have they actually exercised it. This was clearly manifested in their mere “installation” rather than in the traditional coronation, and undoubtedly other ways. As for Paul VI, it could easily be said that, if his heresy was not already manifest, he clearly manifested his rejection of the papacy by very publicly and formally removing (permanently) his tiara in the presence, I believe, of the whole council. Given the importance attached to ceremony and external signs and symbols both by reason itself and by the Church in her whole external life, one could hardly imagine a more certain way of resigning the papacy AS TRADITIONALLY UNDERSTOOD than this act. Certainly from that time, the papal authority as instituted by Christ and exercised by 260 pontiffs has no longer been exercised by these “popes.” It is precisely this de facto (at least) vacation of papal authority which has laid the Church open to the revolution of the Modernists. (Thus it is clearly the outcome of the Freemasonic plan exposed over 150 years ago, by the Popes themselves.)

¶ A final objection is that if the “sedevacantist” position is true, the Roman Pontificate has failed, thus contradicting the indefectibility of the Church. This can be maintained from three points of view:

1) From the length of time involved since the last valid Pope. (Arguably, Pope Pius XII.) But the Great Western Schism lasted a comparable time, even longer depending on just what the final conclusion of it is considered to be. (42 years is a reasonable estimate.) During that time, there was no certainty in the external forum as to who the legitimate Pope was. Nevertheless, the Church did not founder. (To say that this does not matter, because ONE Pope must be legitimate, is useless. The unity of the Church cannot be maintained by an unknowable Pope. Hence “Papa dubius, papa nullus.”) It is true and de fide that the papacy cannot lie vacant permanently. The question is, how long is permanent? In human affairs, something more than a lifetime of a man, or perhaps around 50 years, may be permanent. I do not claim to put an exact measurement to it, but this seems reasonable to me. The Western Schism approached the half century mark. So long as the authority of the papacy is recognized, and need for the papacy to be filled is maintained, then within these time limits, I do not see how it can be claimed that we are denying the indefectibility of the Church.

¶ On the other hand, this same objection is turned against defenders of conciliar “pontiffs.” If these are legitimate Popes, if their “reform” is permanent and legally established (as in all the institutions and law arising from Vatican II), then indeed the Church has defected from its Apostolic foundations. If the Church could change, it would by that fact defect. This argument alone is sufficient to prove the invalidity of these Popes. Indefectibility means that the Church will always endure in the same form in which it was established.

2) From the Church’s teaching that the See of Peter can never be stained by heresy. Yet if it is seen that the Roman Church is no more represented by manifest heretics than it would be if Attila had invaded Rome and put on the tiara and proceeded to “define” doctrines, this argument has no weight. When the bishops and Cardinals accepted heresy at Vatican II, they simply no longer represented the Catholic Church, any more than the “Archbishop” of Canterbury or the “Patriarch” (Orthodox) of Constantinople.

¶ The very long history of antipopes in the Church should be sufficient to answer this argument. As one notable instance, Anacletus II was accepted by nearly all the cardinals and “ruled” at Rome until his death, a period of 8 years. His rule was gradually rejected by most of Europe, but in this context, it is the indefectibility of the Roman Church as such which must be considered, because only in its indefectibility does the indefectibility of the Catholic Church as such reside. If usurping “Popes” maintained and recognized by schismatic Cardinals and nearly the whole of the Roman clergy were, in itself, contrary to indefectibility, the Church would have defected long since.

3) The supposed impossibility of electing a new Pope, when all the Cardinals appointed by Pope Pius XII are dead. Theologians such as Cajetan have dealt with this (whose argument I would not entirely accept, though in principle it seems correct). By divine law, the Roman clergy has the power of electing the Pope. The reservation of this to the Cardinals (who are, of course, the senior Roman clergy) is by positive ecclesiastical law. If Cardinals are lacking, the election would devolve on the rest of the clergy. This does not seem to be a problem. Of course, if some or many of the clergy had defected from the Faith, they would have to purge themselves by publicly rejecting their errors and professing the Faith, before proceeding to an election. The only obstacle I see to this happening is the apparent continuing recognition of Wojtyla as Pope, so that the need to elect another is not recognized. As for heresy, even if there is only an orthodox remnant, this would suffice for an election if the others would not repent. It is also possible that Wojtyla or another could publicly repent, renounce his errors, and become Pope by acclamation by the Roman clergy following him in repentance (if necessary in the particular case).

¶ There is also the argument of “material” versus “formal” Popes, stemming from the late, esteemed Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers, O.P. As this argument maintains that the conciliar Popes are not really Popes (only a “formal” Pope is really a Pope), it may not need to be considered. But I consider this argument futile and self-contradictory, since it arises from the apparent need to provide for the continuity of the Roman Pontificate. Since the impossibility of even a very long interregnum is not evident, as discussed above, this argument is not necessary. And since it seeks to bridge the gap by a merely material succession, this argument does not achieve what it sets out to do. The concept of material succession is used precisely by theologians to prove that the material succession of bishops in, for example, the Orthodox or Anglican churches, is inadequate to maintain the apostolicity of those sects. Far less could it account for the legitimate Petrine succession at Rome. Only a formal succession is a Catholic succession. Much more could be said about this argument, but as its relevance is questionable to the present discussion, I will omit it.

¶ I hope these arguments will serve to make more clear the applicability of St. Robert Bellarmine’s thesis of a heretical Pope to the present.

Respectfully submitted,

James Larrabee

A.M.D.G.

1 Comment

Filed under Modern Controversy, The Sede Vacante

R.A. LAFFERTY’S PARABLES on the ABANDONMENT OF LITURGICAL LATIN and the CONCILIAR REVOLUTION from his Unpublished Manuscript “DEEP SCARS OF THUNDER”

Deep Scars of Thunder is the third book in R.A. Lafferty’s Tetralogy In A Green Tree. Only the first book and some chapters of the second have been published. The rest might not see print for decades. One reviewer of the first book in the series writes :

“My Heart Leaps Up” is a semi-autobiographical work by the great Catholic novelist R.A. Lafferty. Set between 1920 and 1928, it deals with a group of Catholic schoolchildren in Tulsa, Oklahoma—though, in true Lafferty fashion, these children also represent the eternality of the Church. Unlike most of Lafferty’s work (which fits uncomfortably within the science fiction and fantasy genres), this is a work of mainstream fiction. There are strong fantasy elements, but they fall more under the heading of “magic realism” or tall tale than under fantasy proper. As such, newcomers might find “My Heart Leaps Up” to be more accessible than more outlandish novels like “Fourth Mansions” or “Arrive at Easterwine.” (Though, truth be told, the book is only as “easy” as you make it; scratch the surface, and it is as complex, disturbing, and finely-tuned as anything in the man’s oeuvre.) In fact, I can imagine that with the proper distribution and promotion, this novel could have helped to establish Lafferty as a major American novelist. Frustratingly, “My Heart Leaps Up” is only the first installment of a much longer series. The other volumes—“Grasshoppers and Wild Honey,” “Deep Scars of Thunder,” and “Incidents of Travel in Flatland”—were written but have yet to be published. Hopefully we will see those books someday. But incomplete or not, “My Heart Leaps Up” is still an impressive work by one of America’s very greatest, though least known, writers. “My Heart Leaps Up” was originally published in the 1980’s as a series of five chapbooks, each containing two chapters apiece. The first two chapters of “Grasshoppers and Wild Honey” were also published in the early 1990’s. You should still be able to obtain these books at their original prices, so beware any used booksellers offering them for exorbitant amounts.

* * *

That great theologian, Perpetua Linneen O’Donovan, saw the new situation almost at once, and she cast it in a series of parables .

“There was once a large and happy family, each of whose members understood all the others perfectly,” one of her parables went. “There had never been such perfect understanding in the world since Pentecost Morning. In fact it was still Pentecost Morning going on in clarity and grace from one end of the world to the other. Chinese people and Tagalogs, Goanese and Nigerians, people from Belgium and Bolivia, from Austria and Australia, from Lithuania and Lebanon, from Greece and Germany, from France and Frisia, from Moravia and Mauritania, from Spain and Somiland, from Mexico and Madagascar, all understood each other perfectly, especially when they met for the wonderful morning supper that was the central act of the world.

“‘How can this be?’ the enemy asked. ‘The words are in a tongue called dead, and the running translation of them is hardly glanced at now and then. They are understanding each other outside of the bare language. Maybe there is a way to queer that understanding.’ The enemy thereupon launched a great campaign so that each should say the morning supper in his own tongue: and in the most effete and trivialized words possible. And the campaign was a success, and the people jabbered in their six hundred and sixty-six different tongues. They all understood the words they jabbered, inasmuch as words stripped down and then stripped down again can have much understanding left in them. But they didn’t understand the other six hundred and sixty-five jabbers, and they didn’t understand anything that went deeper than the jabberings. So they lost it all, by being overly concerned with the tongues that were not tongues-of-fire. They lost it completely. They wrote the end to Pentecost and to Pentecostal understanding.”

“It is a good parable, Perpetua,” Monica Sheen said. “’We understand it in all the intricate depth of it, and the words you use do not matter much.” Perpetua had been speaking about the new movement and attack on the Church, from outside and from on the fringes of the Church, to have the Mass said in the vernacular tongues. And she understood correctly the intent behind that movement.

“There is a further parable,” Perpetua said. “There was a man who enjoyed good health, exuberant health, wonderful health, spectacular health, he and all his household. But one day a Medical Hit Team came and nailed a quarantine sign on his door. The sign declared all that household sick unto death. ‘You must have the wrong address,’ the householder said. ‘This is our house and the address of it is Number One, Central Avenue. And there is nobody here suffering such sickness as to call for quarantine or other drastic measures.’ ‘We really don’t pay much attention,’ the leader of the Medical Hit Team said. ‘We figure that everybody is sick, and when we are on a ‘hit’ there is just no way we can miss. Ah, boys, lets just give him a couple of shots to cure that stubbornness in him. And let’s do the same to all his family. ‘I am not sick, I am not sick,’ the man still insisted. ‘OOOF! What poison did you shoot me with? Rather I should say that I was not sick. I am now.’ ‘Ah fine,’ said the hit chief. ‘Now let’s just lay him down and start taking things out of him. He’s got dogmaitis, and the false health that goes with it. Let’s start pitching those things out of him. The hit team worked that man over pretty thoroughly then. And in a very little while they had him down where he was on the balance between life and death. ‘How do you feel now?’ the hitsters asked the householder. ‘Not very good,’ the man said, ‘but if you’d just put back in me a few of those things you took out, maybe—’ ‘What we have taken out is taken out forever,’ the Captain of the Hit said.

“But it is to ourselves that the Hit Teams are coming, to take drastic liberties with our health, when our health itself is at its most exuberant and its most nearly perfect.”

“It is a good parable, Perpetua,” James Tyrone said. “Councils have always been called when the Church was very sick. The life of the Church has several times been saved by them, but always at great expense. Something vital is always given up to save the life, but in most cases it is the question whether the Council or the sickness was the worse. But now, when the Church is in such exuberant health, why should the dangerous expedient of a Council be visited upon her? There is a great misunderstanding somewhere. Or a great subversion. Who are these giggling creatures whetting axes and hatchets so noisily in the wings?”

They were all talking about the Council which the New Pope had said that he intended to call. They were all alarmed, because he had used all the code words and trick phrases of all the trick enemies of the Church in making the announcement.

“But the Church Herself cannot fail, nor can the Pope, nor can the Holy Ghost,” Beatrice Belle pointed out.

“But all three come very near to failure, again and again,” Perpetua insisted. “They put themselves to the test, and they put us to the test. Then let us respond in good faith to an attack that is in the form of riddles, all of them on the face of them in bad faith. This will come out all right finally, as it must. But we are obliged to take such steps as we can, to see that it does come out all right. We are among the effectors.”

Thereupon some of them formed the ‘Let-It-Alone-Dammit-Society’. They would try to prevent the dismantlers from dismantling the Church and the World.

1 Comment

Filed under Church Latin, Laffertyana, Modern Controversy

MY RECOLLECTIONS OF BOSTON COMMON by Bill Smith


Father Feeney in ColorFather Leonard Feeney, Boston Common (1957) By: Gerry Siegel (Honolulu) Equipment: Realist 3D Realist 1041, Kodak Kodachrome 25

My Recollections of Boston Common 

by Bill Smith

The Catholic Observer of Cambridge,

December 1951

Published by St. Benedict Center

23 Arrow Street, Cambridge 38, Mass

MEETINGS ON BOSTON COMMON

GAIN IN POPULARITY

Every Sunday afternoon at 3:45, rain or shine, summer or winter, Father Leonard Feeney and his students from St. Benedict Center hold an open air meeting on Boston Common. Several thousand listeners are usually in attendance, and, as might be expected, they represent every shade and variety of religion and non-religion, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Freethinkers, Atheists, and Communists are there in attendance.

Father Feeney and the other speakers in these talks never temper their message for any group. They preach fearlessly the unequivocal Catholic truth to all. A large number of silent Catholics listen most gratefully. Father Feeney and his boys insist on the ancient teaching that membership in the Catholic Church, love of the Blessed Virgin, and personal submission to Our Holy father the Pope are necessities for salvation. This message, needless to say, has jarred the smugness and bad consciences of many of the Boston Common listeners.

At these open-air meetings, the faithlessness of the average American is made all too apparent, and the bitter dislike of the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God, becomes as clear as crystal. Father Feeney has always contended that underlying hostility will never show its true colors until we present again the Catholic Faith as a divine doctrine allowing of no evasion. Men’s sincerities in business, politics, bridge, or golf may be impeccable, but it is only when they are confronted with the personal challenge of Jesus and Mary that the impious nature of their religious beliefs becomes evident.

Father Feeney further maintains that the lack of faith in the United States is due to two factors which are mutually accountable for the blasphemy of unbelief. The cowardice of Catholics in professing the Faith, and the bad will of non-Catholics in refusing it. As regards the Catholic’s part in this apostasy, Father Feeney blames both the clergy and the laity. American priests neither know their faith, nor care to study it, he says. The laity, on the other hand, neither know it, nor care to be taught it. It has been this pitiful situation which has brought Father Feeney and his followers out on the Common to the simple people of Boston. By doing this the Saint Benedict Center members hope to fulfill Our Lord’s injunction to go into the highways and byways, and teach all nations.

[Note: Bill Smith, aka Br. Bernard, was one of the three MICM brothers who spoke publicly with Father Feeney almost every Sunday on Boston Common for seven years. Several thousand listeners were usually in attendance. He recounts how the Center trained him to speak about the Jews each Sunday, and some of the riots in which the brothers were involved with them.]

¶ Our Sunday afternoon visits to the Common began as a defense of the honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was 1950 and Pope Pius XII had just defined the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, body and soul. We placed a large sign in front of our house declaring the defined doctrine. This house belonged to Professor Maluf who was to become Br. Francis. We called the house Sacred Heart Hall. It was on Putnam Avenue, a heavily traveled street running from Harvard Square to the Charles River Drive.

¶ Father was outraged that Rev. Ockenga, the minister at the Park Street Church, had taken out a full page ad in the Boston Globe attacking Our Lady’s Assumption. Father had conceived the idea of going to Boston Common to defend Our Lady. I remember being worried about how we would be received. Father saw it as an opportunity to rally Catholic support for our crusade. He always thought the Catholics were for us in their hearts. I never shared his optimism and always expected to be set upon at any moment for teaching “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” I had just become a Slave of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in July. This was August 1950. I came into the Church in March 1947.

¶ We gathered on the Common around Father as he attacked Rev. Ockenga and extolled Our Lady. We were dressed as college students or as a family might dress on a Sunday afternoon. We had no habits or uniform dress. I recall saying prayers and singing a hymn to Mary.

¶ After that things moved rapidly. We began selling “The Loyolas and the Cabots,” the story of the Boston Heresy Case, door to door. In late autumn the men began wearing brown suits; all our other clothes were sold at the consignment stores. We began to organize the Common so that it became a religious procession. Our brown suits were comical. They were purchased at the South End second hand stores. My suit was a modified zoot suit of WWII vintage, pegged pants, pointed lapels and big shoulders. This did not help bookselling as we began selling our second book, entitled “Gate of Heaven.” Later on we wore black suits which were a great help to book selling and we all sighed a sigh of relief.

¶ Meanwhile, the Common became a well-organized ritual. By 1953 we had a used International pick-up truck which we used for going to Faneuil Hall market for produce. It replaced my 1929 “Model A” Ford with rumble seat (the Blue Bucket). We now could transport a large speaker’s box which Br. Joseph Maria made. The box had a large slot for the crucifix and another slot that held the picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

¶ It was my job to deliver the box and the little steps plus the crucifix and the picture to the Common in the truck. Brothers rode in the back of the truck and when I pulled up to the curb on Charles Street they unloaded everything. I usually parked the truck on Boylston Street and hurried to join my brothers and sisters who by this time had gathered on Arlington Street. We processed through the Public Gardens and over the Swan Bridge to the Common.

¶ The first Sunday was sparsely attended but soon we had regular listeners. We always had our faithful supporters present like Marian Hardy and others who came to the Center even after the interdict. But we also had our regular hecklers who rarely missed a Sunday. Many of these were given names by Father. There was Ike the Kike, Sam from Saugus, Wacky Oscar, Horseface, and others I can’t remember.

¶ Father soon had other members of the Center try their hands at public speaking. Father settled on three speakers who would also regularly speak at the meetings. Speaking on the Common was a difficult task. A speaker had to be loud and not get ruffled. Heckling was constant so it was necessary to make the audience want to listen to what you were saying. From the number of brothers and sisters who had taken turns speaking Father chose Br. Hugh (Hugh McIssac), Br. Dominic Maria (Temple Morgan) and Br. Bernard (Bill Smith). Father took me aside and told me what a wonderful speaker I was and that I was to speak every Sunday. By that time I had spoken more than once, and although each time I dreaded it, once I ascended the little steps I felt quite calm and almost like I was in charge of the crowd, kind of like directing an orchestra. I certainty did not relish the idea of speaking every Sunday on Boston Common. It was my assignment. By that time the meetings were becoming quite lively. Word of the gatherings on the Common reached people of every belief and unbelief and many came to see for themselves this new phenomenon. The Brotherhood of Christians and Jews was just getting started and liberal Catholics joined with the Jews and Protestants in attacking Father and the other speakers.

¶ Brother Hugh started the meeting with prayers and usually gave a talk that was concerned with Boston and the local scene. He demonstrated clearly how the Jews and Masons were trying to take the city of Boston and the State House out of the hands of the Irish and Italians. He was humorous and spoke with great authority, having been brought up, as he said, “in the suburb superb, Roslindale.” His talks were sometimes devotional. During these years I thought of Br. Hugh as a hero of WWII awarded the Purple Heart, a football star and absolutely fearless, and he was my friend. This all changed shortly before the 1958 move to Still River. At that time Father appointed Br. Gabriel to be the prior of all the men. I thought that Br. Hugh would be appointed prior of the men’s community since he was a natural leader and had been prior of the couples’ community. I like to remember Brother Hugh back in those early days when the married couples were all together with their children in Blessed Sacrament Community. After the change in priors, Br. Hugh was no longer the gregarious outgoing person he had been. He came alive only on bookselling trips on which he was always prior. Several years later, in Still River, Father and Sr. Catherine expressed concern over Br. Hugh’s influence on the children as physical education teacher. He was subsequently replaced with me.

¶ Br. Dominic Maria was appointed the second speaker up on the box to address the crowd. Br. Dominic Maria always spoke with his rosary in his hand. As I recall, his themes were almost always devotional, especially concerned with Our Lady and the doctrine of “no salvation.” People knew who he was and they came to see and hear him speak. He was Father’s great “catch” as a fisherman of men. He was a Morgan, a blue blood, who renounced Harvard and all its worldly prestige. In the early days before all the trouble Father would take Temple Morgan with him as a special convert to see different friends in the Boston Brahmin world. He had refused his degree at Harvard and had challenged all his old friends with the Catholic faith and continued to do so on the Common. He had been a B-29 pilot in WWII. He was an outstanding athlete, rowing as the stroke oarsman on the varsity crew, in boxing he held the middleweight championship, and he was so strong he could do a handstand from a sitting position on the seat of the same chair he was sitting in.

¶ I never thought of the three of us as a cross-section of America because two were certainly unusual men. I think Father put me on the box as a typical American Protestant kid who came into the church. I was just Bill Smith from Lansdowne, PA. But the interesting thing, as I look back, was Father’s genius in having Br. Hugh, lifelong Catholic from Boston, Br. Dominic Maria, convert from High Church and high finance Protestant blue-blood, and Br. Bernard from Middle America.

¶ Sr. Catherine actually had a lot to do with my subject matter on the Common. She began by giving me articles and books to read which were not available to other members of the community. Certain periodicals such as “Common Sense”, put out by Conde Mc Ginley, and “The Cross and the Flag,” by Gerald L.K. Smith, were mine to read regularly. These all dealt with the Jewish place in the Zionist and Communist conspiracies. The community as a whole was familiar with “Philip the Second,” by William Thomas Walsh, “The French Revolution,” by Nesta Webster, “The Rulers of Russia,” by Father Fahey, and Father Cahill on Freemasonry, as part of our history class. I have to pause here and say that I am deeply indebted to Sr. Catherine for the great view of history as the battle between the forces of Our Lady and those of Satan. “Waters Flowing Eastward,” by Madam Deshishmerev was another favorite of Sr. Catherine’s. Madam actually came to see us at the Center. So did Conde McGinley, the publisher of the anti-Zionist paper, ”Common Sense.”

¶ Every Sunday I gave forth on the Jews and what they were up to, and also the traditional Catholic position on the Jewish problem, from Scripture and from history. I also used many of the Jews’ own statements. The Talmudic teachings about Jesus and Mary I often recounted because of my first hand conversations with my Jewish friend Maxwell Lazarus. We were both students at Brookline High School, a 90% Jewish Public High School in Massachusetts from which I graduated. I liked to give lists of the Jewish Communists ruling the countries behind the Iron Curtain in the 1950s. I also kept the crowd up to date with the names of Jewish traitors and spies in our own country. I had memorized the dates on which every country in Europe had expelled the Jews to protect the Church and to return civil order.

¶ Another favorite subject was the final destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in the year 363 under Julian the Apostate. I told how fire came up out of the earth to make rebuilding impossible. I had many quotes from Jewish authors concerning the continuing struggle between Rome and Jerusalem. The Jews proclaimed, “Rome must be destroyed before Jerusalem can be the center of a world religion and courts of justice.”

¶ I drew from history to demonstrate the unceasing efforts of the Jews to destroy the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.

¶ I said everything I could find to back up one central theme, from St. Paul’s Epistle, I Thessalonians 2:15-16, “The Jews who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are enemies to all men prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved.”

¶ I also spoke of my life as a Protestant and the episode of the plaster birthday cake, which was presented to the Sunday school student whose birthday it was. He or she blew the candles out and the cake went into the closet for the next birthday. The perfect symbol of counterfeit Christianity.

¶ I always dreaded Sunday on the Common but once I got on the box I enjoyed it. I was glad when we moved to Still River and the talks on Boston Common ended.

¶ Sunday afternoon visits to the CommonFather spoke last and faced the most hateful and most blasphemous hecklers. He never lacked courage but sometimes he lost his composure. At times it was so wild he would stop and we would say the Memorare to drown out the jeers. The hecklers would upset Father and he would try to argue with them, loosing his train of thought as he got angry. Father’s priesthood was a special target.

¶ In spite of our message which went so much against the grain, for liberal Catholics, Protestants and Jews, some people would come up at the end and wish us well or say, “God bless you!” One man would give me newspaper clippings at the end of every Sunday’s talks. They would be about something the Jews were doing. One Sunday Father spotted Festuchas in the crowd. He had pretended to be our friend and had actually come to the Center to spy. When the talks were over Father got down from the box and went after him, literally trying to kick him in the shins, while Joe McIssac was running after Father trying to protect him from harm.

¶ Brandeis University had reached an agreement with Archbishop Cushing to have a Catholic chapel at the University where the Blessed Sacrament would be reserved. The wildest scenes happened after we had gone through down town with the placards, with crucifixes on top of them, proclaiming “Catholics of Boston stop the Jews from desecrating the Blessed Sacrament at Brandeis University.” We were also passing out a special edition of the “The Point” attacking the Jews for what they were doing in the Holy Land.

¶ The first time out with the placards we went along our pre-planned route and onto Tremont Street. Some Brothers carried the placards and others were assigned to guard the placard carriers. We were forbidden to fight. I remember how helpless I felt because both my hands were around my placard pole and the Jews were trying to get it away from me. One Jew was attacking one of the guard brothers. A truck driver stopped his truck right in the middle of the street, got out of his truck and socked the Jew right in the face. This was down near Boston Garden. The Jews had come from everywhere to beat us up. It seemed like an eternity. The Police stopped us in front of The Parker House and took us all away in a Paddy wagon.

¶ Father sent us out for a second time. This time we were again forced out of our planned route and onto Stuart Street into the heart of the Jewish garment district. Bottles were thrown at us out of the upper floor windows. The guard brothers just kept bumping our attackers away with their forearms. Brother Dominic Maria was carrying a placard right alongside of me. I remember this so well. He was saying over and over to me, “Don’t worry, Brother Bernard.” I said to myself, is he kidding? Brother Jude was protecting us, God bless him. He kept bumping the Jews back, over and over, first on one side then on the other side. I think we reached Tremont Street before they really got us. I lost my placard in a crowd and I remember Brother Joseph Maria hitting some attacker over the head with the placard pole. Instinctively we were trying to stay on our feet but we were in a circle of Jews. Br. Gabriel was also there this time. Someone jumped on my back and I crouched and he went over my head. I decided to get out of the circle. After fighting my way out I felt cowardly and looked back to see others still there being pummeled so I went back and told them to come. I was pleased with myself and we all got away. A Jewish newspaper seller hit Brother Mark Colopy on the back of the head with a lead weight. He was bleeding. I remember being so thankful each time I got into the police wagon and was safe.

¶ At the time, I thought these things that we were doing were courageous but absolutely foolish. I did them because of my vow of obedience as a Slave of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We were putting on a show for Heaven but there was no thoughts of strategy behind Boston Common or that whole placard protest.

¶ We aroused the young Zionists with the placards. The Police had to start bringing the horses to keep order on Boston Common. The crowds were huge and a lot of Jews came. We passed out “The Point” at the end of the talks, mostly to Jews! Father was being escorted away and we, a few brothers, would stay to pass out anti-Semitic literature to Jews we had just told in no uncertain terms that they were cursed. And they still came to get “The Point!” I remember to this day, one young Jew coming up to me and threatening to do some terrible thing, and I, being surrounded by Jews, said, “Get out of here you little kike.” I must have been on an adrenalin high. He actually slunk off!

¶ What happened after that was a nightmare. They followed us to where our truck was parked. We couldn’t get in the truck, the police were nowhere in sight, and the bricks were flying but our Guardian Angels were protecting us. As soon as I got the truck door opened a brick bounced off the corner of the truck roof. I started the truck as Brother Gerard (Joe Roach) got in the back and the Jews were trying to get in the back, too. Joe was kicking them off as we drove away to pick up the other brothers who were waiting with the box.

¶ I don’t want to leave any unsung heroes out of my recollections. There was a little Italian lawyer named Jimmy Morelli who looked just like the legendary Mayor of New York, Fiorello Laguardia. Jimmy was called “the little flower” just like the mayor. Jimmy and his Mrs. were our friends. Jimmy’s clientele were an unsavory bunch; a lot of them were gangsters and one was the king of the Gypsies whom I met once in Jimmy’s office. Our friends were often like Jimmy, the salt of the earth. Real Publicans but they prayed and they loved Our Lady.

¶ When we were arrested for carrying placards against the Jews we ended up in court for disturbing the peace. Jimmy appeared for us right off the street or maybe in court for someone else, but he appeared before the judge, and his famous statement, never to be forgotten was, “Judge, your Honor, in times past these things were engraved on tablets of stone.” We got off. Another time on the Common there was a terrible heckler who shouted and carried on so no one could be heard. Jimmy turned to him and he shut right up. I found out later what Jimmy had done. Jimmy had a license to carry a small pistol. When he turned around to the man he was holding the gun in the palm of his hand so the man could see it.

¶ In spite of all of our efforts to arouse public indignation to the plan to have a Catholic chapel at Brandeis University where Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament would be reserved under the auspices of His enemies, the Jews, we failed.

¶ Brother Paschal (Bill Shea) was our resident legal expert. His brother had been a Federal Assistant Attorney General in Washington, DC and his family was prominent in Manchester, NH. Br. Paschal attended Harvard Law School and knew a lot of important people. He coached us on case law (mostly Jehovah Witness cases) and how to stay out of jail when book selling. He was always a good friend. He played with his cards so close to his vest that he would infuriate Father sometimes. Brother rarely gave a direct quotable answer to anything legal. I sometimes did not understand what he was talking about. He talked around the subject.

¶ But to get back to Boston. We really counted on our friends in the police department. During the week Br. Paschal, (Bill Shea) would take me as his companion to visit different policemen. There was one policeman, Sergeant Marshall, we would visit regularly. When he was on the Common, he would take very good care of us. The other officers there knew that and we were spared a lot of trouble. I saw him go up to a man in a car who was causing trouble by refusing to move on. He reached in and cuffed him and the man moved!

¶ Police Commissioner Fallon ran the show and he began to call Father, at least so we thought. This man on the phone would introduce himself as Commissioner Fallon and the Brother who answered the phone would hurry to get Father. The Commissioner would ask Father if he were satisfied with the protection he was getting and if he would like the horses the next Sunday? Father was never to call him; it would be too risky. One night Father sent us to the Commissioner’s home and he came to the door pretty drunk but sober enough to be astounded by the presence of three of Fr. Feeney’s brothers at 9 or 10 o’clock at night. His was not the voice on the phone and later there was much soul searching about what was said to the pseudo-Fallon that might hurt us. These calls had been a fishing expedition. We were never aware of any harm that resulted from the contact. We talked to him a few more times and after that we referred to him as the psuedo-Fallon.

¶ Going to the Common was never a routine thing. Sometimes cars would follow us home. We had thirty-nine small children to protect. We were a threat to a lot of sinister people. The Anti-Defamation League of Bnai’Brith was very interested in us. We had been featured in their publication. Br. Bernard had been named as the number one anti-Semite in the particular area they covered. Once three of us went to the offices of the lawyer for the A.D.L. and vociferously complained about their attacks. Years later we found out they were spying on us through Louis Romano. Mr. Romano was very smooth. He seemed very genuine when he called on us and offered to help financially with a $10,000.00 contribution. Each time he came or when we went to see him Father would say; “Did he bring the big bundle?” After awhile Br. Dominic Maria got on to him because he mentioned his war time intelligence experience in the Army and brother figured he was very likely still gathering information. Romano never gave Father the $10,000.

¶ Br. Hugh was great on those protest expeditions. He led us on our appeal to Archbishop Cicognani, the Apostolic delegate, the Notre Dame demonstration with “The Point”, the Cardinal Stritch appeal which ended in a Chicago court room scene where it seemed the judge was going to let us off when Br. Hugh started yelling at the top of his lungs. We all ended up in the Bridewell Prison refusing to pay the fine for disturbing the peace.

¶ This all started with a book selling trip to South Bend and a side excursion to Notre Dame to distribute “The Point”. Previous to this, in New England, we had started leaving “The Point” at different religious houses. One incident I remember in particular. We left “The Point” at each place setting in the refectory. When we did this at Notre Dame they picked us up and carried us bodily to our cars. They physically shoved us into our cars like trash in a bag. The next day the papers carried a story about “followers of the ex-priest Father Feeney.” Father told us to stay out there and get the story corrected. He was a priest forever according to the order of Melchesidech. We went to the paper but to no avail. It was decided that we see Cardinal Stritch as sons of our maligned father and since Cardinal Stritch was also our father he would listen to us. I remember driving around the huge grounds surrounded by a high wrought iron fence with points on it. We decided daytime was best and we would go up to the front door. We were in clerical garb. Who would suspect? Once the door was opened we ran in and up the stairs, a very grand and wide marble stairs. The six of us were chased up the stairs to the Cardinal’s office where Chancery employees started wrestling with us and throwing us on the floor. We identified ourselves and the nature of our business but the police soon arrived and we were arrested.

¶ I remember thinking how much violence I was doing to my own idea of how to go about getting results from people. The rest of the day was truly the “twilight zone.” We were delivered to the Bridewell Prison where we surrendered our clothes and possessions. We showered in a huge room with all the felons, mostly black, and we got canvas underwear and prison uniforms. It was hard to relate this to being persecuted for the Faith. We spent the first night in the prison hospital under observation because of our scuffle with the Chancery officials. It was still interesting and not frightening. The prison underground got newspapers telling about our escapade and we were minor celebrities.

¶ Morning came and we were shaved by the prison barber and interviewed about our skills so we could work in the prison. I was a farmer so I was assigned to the farm but when the other brothers said they had farm experience, the guard got nasty and they split us up. I ended up in a cellblock, the like of which I had only seen in movies. There were tiers of cells going up several flights with steel stairways. In the middle of the canyon made by the tiers of cells there was the eating area where there were long wooden tables and benches with tin plates on the tables. Suddenly I felt alone and helpless. Completely abandoned. I was given a job, which was something I couldn’t even comprehend. I was in shock. I was shown to my cell and my cellmate, a most depraved looking black youth, wanted to know what horrible thing I had done, naming off a few choice things that came into his mind. I started praying and thinking how I could escape spending the night with this thug. Suddenly I was called, just as lunch and my new job were starting. A lady had paid our fine and we were to be released.

¶ When we finally arrived home we were celebrities. A special edition of “The Point” was issued just on our adventure. Father had a mock-up made of the jail using broom handles for the bars so we could have our pictures taken “behind bars.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Feeneyana, Modern Controversy