Progressives and Nazis and Commies- Oh my!

 

Just as Progressives were generally enthusiastic about socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Europe, they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. “In many respects,” writes journalist Jonah Goldberg, “the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like ... a worthwhile 'experiment'”:

• H. G. Wells, one of the most influential Progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
• The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
• The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
• Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
• McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
• After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
• Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
• NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
• FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
• New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
• Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “Progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

According to Goldberg, Progressives' affinity for fascism was quite understandable because, contrary to popular misconception: “[F]ascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left.”

To clarify this point, a working definition of fascism is in order. For the purpose of this discussion, fascism can be distilled down to this: It is a totalitarian movement that empowers an omnipotent government to control every nook and cranny of political, economic, social, and private life – generally in the name of “the public good.” Its leadership is commonly spearheaded by a powerful, charismatic, even deified figure who is viewed as uniquely capable – along with his hand-picked advisers – of leading his nation to new-found or restored greatness. Its economics are collectivist, socialist and redistributionist – supremely hostile to free-market capitalism and wealth inequalities. And it tends to promote and exploit the grievances of “the common man,” portraying society as the theater of a ceaseless conflict – a class war – between oppressor and oppressed, victimizer and victim. Consequently, identity politics are central to fascism.

The foregoing traits are also part and parcel of Progressivism. Thus it is accurate to say that Progressivism is, in effect, an American version of European fascism. Modern Progressives recoil in horror at the utterance of this plain reality, chiefly because, for decades, the word “fascism” has been tossed about carelessly by many people who have not understood its actual meaning. As George Orwell once observed, “The word 'fascism' now has no meaning except in so far as it signals 'something not desirable.'”

Nowadays the term "fascism" is typically used as a synonym for such unsavory phenomena as tyranny, authoritarianism, racism, militarism, anti-Semitism, and genocide. And indeed, all of these traits were characteristic of the fascism that developed in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. But German fascism was only one of numerous types, or varieties, of fascism. Fascist impulses manifest themselves differently in different cultures, though they draw, as Jonah Goldberg explains, “on the same intellectual wellsprings.” “Fascisms differ from each other because they grow out of different soil,” Goldberg elaborates, and “the differences between various fascisms can be profound.”

For example, whereas the Nazis were genocidal anti-Semites, the Italian fascists were protectors of the Jews until the Nazis took over Italy, and the fascist dictator Francisco Franco refused Hitler’s demand to deliver tens of thousands of Spanish Jews to the latter for extermination. Whereas the Nazis despised Christianity, the Italian Fascists made peace with the Catholic Church – notwithstanding Mussolini's passionate contempt for the Church. And whereas racism was central to Nazi ideology, Mussolini expressed his own “sovereign contempt” for the “one hundred percent racism” of Hitler's government.

According to Jonah Goldberg:

“Nazism was the product of German culture, grown out of a German context. The Holocaust could not have occurred in Italy, because Italians are not Germans. And in America, where hostility to big government is central to the national character, the case for statism must be made in terms of 'pragmatism' and decency. In other words, our fascism must be nice and for your own good.”

Along those lines, Goldberg elaborates, American fascism “was moderated by many special factors—geographical size, ethnic diversity, Jeffersonian individualism, a strong liberal tradition, and so on. As a result, American fascism is milder, more friendly, more 'maternal' than its foreign counterparts.... Nice fascism. The best term to describe it is 'liberal fascism'” – a phenomenon characterized by “nannying, not bullying.” In the early decades of the 20th century, it was simply called Progressivism.

“Progressivism was a sister movement of fascism,” writes Goldberg, “and today’s liberalism is the daughter of Progressivism.” The journalist J. T. Flynn – perhaps the best-known anti-FDR muckraker of the 1930s, foresaw that American fascism might one day manifest itself as “a very genteel and dainty and pleasant form of fascism which cannot be called fascism at all because it will be so virtuous and polite.”

It should be noted, at this point, that fascism is closely related not only to Progressivism, but also to communism. The chief difference between fascism and communism is that the former is rooted in nationalism and seeks to create a socialist utopia within the confines of a particular country's borders; thus the Nazis embraced “National Socialism.” Communism, by contrast, seeks to transcend national boundaries and promote a worldwide proletariat revolution, where the foot soldiers are bound together not by a common nationality but by their membership in the same economic class. This was expressed by Karl Marx's famous exhortation in the Communist Manifesto: “Workers of the world, unite!” Apart from this distinction, communism and fascism are kindred spirits of anti-capitalism. Jonah Goldberg characterizes them as “closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to dominate and control the same social space.” “[I]n terms of their theory and practice,” he says, “ the differences are minimal.”

That said, we can see that fascism, communism, and Progressivism are all closely related to one another. The Progressive U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was a devoted disciple of the German philosopher Georg Hegel, whose ideas – most notably his view of history as an evolutionary, unfolding process where conflicting forces constantly battle in order to bring about change and progress – also had a profound influence on Karl Marx. Mussolini, for his part, carried with him a medallion of Marx. Progressives commonly saw Mussolini’s project and Lenin’s as linked enterprises. The Progressive muckraking journalist Lincoln Steffens referred to the “Russian-Italian” method as if the two were flip sides of the same coin. Steffens and his fellow Progressives generally saw Mussolini, Lenin, and Stalin as three men pursuing a similar objective: the fundamental transformation of corrupt and outdated societies. As Jonah Goldberg observes, “The reason so many Progressives were intrigued by both Mussolini’s and Lenin’s 'experiments' is simple: they saw their reflection in the European looking glass.”

Because Progressivism embraces the ideal of nationalism and touts the so-called “Third Way” between capitalism and communism, its pedigree is closer to fascism than to communism. Progressivism and fascism share the totalitarian belief that with the proper amount of tinkering, social engineers will be able to realize the utopian dream of establishing a nation where perfect equality reigns. This mindset accounts for the support that the early Progressives gave to eugenics, whose ultimate aim was the creation of a pure race, a “New Man” – not unlike the Nazi “Aryan” ideal. Such a project, of course, could only be overseen and carried out by a wise and omniscient leadership, an intellectual elite endowed with judgment superior to that of the unwashed masses.

The totalitarian impulses that animated both fascism and Progressivism were once viewed by the Left as evidence of compassion and humanitarian concern for the welfare of the lowly. In its original sense, the word “totalitarian” did not have the negative connotations it has acquired over time. Mussolini himself coined the term to describe a society where everyone belonged, where no one was abandoned socially or economically. This ideal dovetailed neatly with the Progressive (and fascist) desire to eliminate class differences among the populace. In many of his speeches, Hitler clearly stated his intent to erase all lines of division between rich and poor. Robert Ley, who headed the Nazis’ German Labor Front, boasted: “We are the first country in Europe to overcome the class struggle.”

Consistent with the totalitarian roots of fascism and Progressivism alike, was the Progressives' dismissal of America's traditional system of constitutional checks and balances as an anachronistic impediment to social progress. Progressives reasoned that such restraints on power would only slow the process by which the governing elite could implement their programs to refashion society in accordance with their own Progressive vision.

The degree to which Progressive and fascist values complemented and echoed one another was on clear display in the work of the Progressive writer and New Republic founder Herbert Croly (1869-1930), one of the most important voices in American intellectual history and a leftist icon for more than a century. Specifically, Croly embraced economic socialism; promoted febrile nationalism; said that a “great” and heroic revolutionary leader was needed in order to restore American pride; rejected the concept of parliamentary democracy; believed that society could be guided to enlightenment by an intellectual elite – a cast of “social engineers” whose “beneficent activities” could bring about a “better future”; and rejected individualism, saying that “an individual has no meaning apart from the society in which his individuality has been formed.” All of these ideals were, by definition, both fascist and Progressive.

Another parallel between fascism and Progressivism was their shared faith in the process of experimental trial and error, modeled on the scientific method, as a means of developing better forms of societal organization. Franklin Delano Rosevelt (FDR), whose politics were heavily influenced by Progressive ideas, boasted that he was not wedded to any preconceived notions vis a vis social policy, but rather that he measured an idea’s worth by the results it achieved. “Take a method and try it,” he said in 1932. “If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” His primary guiding principle was “bold, persistent experimentation.” Thus was the modern American welfare state conceived. New Republic co-founder Herbert Croly put it this way: “If there are any abstract liberal principles, we do not know how to formulate them. Nor if they are formulated by others do we recognize their authority. Liberalism, as we understand it, is an activity.” The Italian Fascists put it still more succinctly: “Our policy is to govern.”

In late 1934, Rexford Guy Tugwell, an influential advisor to FDR, visited Italy and noted: “I find Italy doing many of the things which seem to me necessary.... Mussolini certainly has the same people opposed to him as FDR has.”

Early fascism and Progressivism also shared the trait of militarism. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, German intellectuals advanced the notion that war could serve as a means of unifying a population and thereby overcoming class distinctions. These intellectuals had an enormous influence on the American mind. Consequently, Progressives in the U.S. favored America's entry into World War I because they believed it would help to collectivize society and make it properly obedient to the mighty federal government. For example:

• The education reformer and socialist John Dewey spoke of the “social possibilities of war” and the “immense impetus to reorganization” that it afforded. He added, with an air of hopefulness, that the conflict might force Americans “to give up much of [their] economic freedom”; to abandon their “individualistic tradition” and “march in step”; and to recognize “the supremacy of public need over private possessions.”
• The Progressive financier George Perkins said the “great European war … is striking down individualism and building up collectivism.”
• Grosvenor Clarkson, Chairman of the Federal Interdepartmental Defense Board, said the war effort “is a story of the conversion of a hundred million combatively individualistic people into a vast cooperative effort in which the good of the unit was sacrificed to the good of the whole.”
• The social worker Felix Adler said the regimentation imposed on society by the war effort was helping America create the “perfect man…a fairer and more beautiful and more righteous type than any…that has yet existed.”
• And President Woodrow Wilson stated, “I am an advocate of peace, but there are some splendid things that come to a nation through the discipline of war.”

Meanwhile, Benito Mussolini was making virtually the same pro-war arguments on his side of the Atlantic.

American Progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those Progressives who had praised Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from the Nazis. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This Progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin, who began to label all of the most blatantly evil traits shared by communism and fascism alike, as simply “fascist.”

The Problem with the New Rite of Exorcism

 

In his famous discourse of June 30, 1972, Anti-Pope Paul VI said that he sensed “that from somewhere or other, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” Nowhere has this been more evident than in the disastrous revision of the blessings of the Church in De Benedictionibus, the so-called “Book of Blessings,” approved by the Modernists in 1984.

 

In the original Latin this defective book does not permit the priest to bless objects, but only persons. The example of Christ our Lord in blessing things (Matt. 14:19; 26:26; Mk. 6:41; 8:7; 14:22; Lk. 9:16; 24:30) obviously carried no weight with the heretics who wrote that book. The official General Introduction to the Book of Blessings informs us: “At times the Church also blesses objects and places connected with human activity or liturgical life, or connected with piety and devotion – but always, however, with a view to the people who use those objects and are engaged in those places” (Praenotanda Generalia, 12). This explanation is dishonest, in that it gives only half a reason for blessing things, and because it conceals the fact that the book of blessings, with a few exceptions, systematically refuses to bless things. It is a book of non-blessings. For example, the “blessing” of holy water outside of Mass in the new rite contains no actual blessing of the water. The closest thing to it is a prayer to God asking for certain effects by the use of this water. The so-called “Prayer of Blessing” (in Latin and English) refrains from using the word “bless” even once, and there is no Sign of the Cross made over the water. This renders it completely ineffectual and is no better than water from the tap or a mud puddle. The traditional exorcism of water and salt, and all the other Roman Ritual’s traditional prayers against the devil and his influence were almost completely done away with. On three occasions only is a thing blessed in this new defective ritual. These three exceptions in Latin are for meals, church bells and cemeteries. In the American edition, the same things appear; also chalice and paten (found in Latin in the Pontifical); also two other places in which the alternative rite (not in the Latin) does bless an object. (The blessing of holy water within Mass does contain an actual blessing of the water.)

 

The treatment of blessings in the Modernist so-called Catechism (#1671-2) speaks of blessings of persons, places and things. But this is belied, as I have said, by the Latin text of De Benedictionibus, the “Book of Blessings,” so called. When the definitive Latin text of the Catechism was issued in 1997, with the paragraph saying that the Church blesses things, a priest wrote to then Cardinal Ratzinger pointing out that the lex orandi and the lex credendi were at odds, and asked a question: “Can we expect a revision of the Book of Blessings in the light of the definitive text of the Catechism?” Of course, this is a reversal of the traditional practice and view of things: one is meant to pass from the Church’s practice to a formulation of the Church’s faith. But, if it will do good, the reversal has become a necessity.

 

What lies behind this change to the rites of blessings? Clearly, a loss of sense of the power of the priesthood – a desire, even, to overthrow sacerdotal mediation, to reduce the priest from an instrument of Christ, clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ, to a mere president of the assembly, on the same level as that of any lay person. The retention of the title “Blessings” means nothing: as we know, All Souls’ Day is No Souls’ Day in the Modernist Church, even in the original Latin, where the word for soul (anima) has been suppressed in the prayers.

 

The same mentality has been at work in the revised Rite of Exorcism, promulgated in January 1999, De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam. This was intimated by the defective definition of exorcism in the 1992 Catechism at #1673, unchanged in the Latin text that came out five years later: “When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism.”

 

Let us read that definition again, with emphases added: “When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism.” Notice the use of the word asks, and the use of the passive voice. The text says that the Church asks for this person or object to be protected. Asks whom? For protection by whom? Obviously, God. So, according to this, an exorcism is: asking God to free someone from the devil. But, despite what this text implies, an exorcism is not a prayer to God; exorcism is a command issued to a demonic entity in the name of God. The very word exorcism tells you that – exorcizo, I adjure. To adjure, as the Oxford Dictionary defines it, is to charge or entreat someone solemnly, as if under oath, or under the penalty of a curse. No one can adjure God, but a priest can adjure a demon. The Ritual for Exorcism of 1614 (which until January 1999 was the only officially published text for Latin rite exorcists) does contain prefatory prayers to God to ask that a person be delivered – but then under the subheading of “Exorcism” itself, the exorcist orders the demon to depart. “Exorcizo te, immundissime spiritus…in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi” – “I exorcize you, unclean spirit…in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He uses other imperatives addressed to the demon, such as recede, da locum, exi, discede (withdraw, give way, exit, depart).

 

The new ritual scandalously gives the priest a choice of two forms of exorcism, which it calls “deprecatory” and “imperative.” “Deprecatory” means a prayer to God, in this case to ask Him to deliver the demoniac. “Imperative” means a command issued to the demon in the name of God to depart. The imperative formula is a real exorcism, but the deprecatory form is not an exorcism at all. A prayer is a request to God; an exorcism is a command to a demon. The so-called “deprecatory exorcism” is simply a petitionary prayer to God. It is not an exorcism. (If it is an exorcism, then the final petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “deliver us from evil,” would also be an exorcism!)

 

As with the so-called “exorcism” in the Modernist Rite of Baptism, simply placing the sub-heading Exorcism does not make what follows an exorcism. What is extremely worrying is that, according to the new rubrics, the deprecatory form must always be used, but the second form, the imperative, is an optional extra. What lies behind this change? The same denigration of the priesthood described above. It is a true Protestantization: the reduction of the ordained priest to the level of the common      layperson. It is the fruit of embarrassment about the visible priesthood. It is the mentality that is at work when a priest says at the end of Mass: “May Almighty God bless us….” When a priest does that, he is losing his identity, and is uncomfortable about the fact that he is different, and that he can confer blessings.

 

Here is an extract from one of the new deprecatory formulas:

O God, creator and defender of the human race, look upon this Your servant, whom You did make in Your own image and call to share in Your glory…. Hear, holy Father, the cry of the Church suppliant: let not Your child be possessed by the father of lies; let not Your servant, whom Christ has redeemed by His blood, to be held in the captivity of the devil; let not a temple of Your Spirit be inhabited by the unclean spirit. Hear, O merciful God, the prayers of the blessed Virgin Mary, whose Son, dying upon the Cross, crushed the head of the serpent of old and entrusted all men to His mother as sons: let the light of truth shine upon this Your servant, let the joy of peace enter into him, let the Spirit of holiness possess him, and by inhabiting him render him serene and pure. Hear, O Lord, the supplication of blessed Michael the Archangel and of all the Angels ministering unto You: God of hosts, drive back the force of the devil; God of truth and favor, remove his deceitful wiles; God of freedom and grace, break the bonds of iniquity. Hear, O God, lover of man’s salvation…free this servant from every alien power….

As we can see, this is merely a petitionary prayer. Here is an extract from one of the new imperative formulas:

I adjure you, Satan, enemy of man’s salvation, acknowledge the justice and goodness of God the Father, who by just judgment has damned your pride and envy: depart from this servant of God, whom the Lord has made in His own image, adorned with His gifts, and has mercifully adopted as His child. I adjure you, Satan, prince of this world, acknowledge the power and strength of Jesus Christ, who conquered you in the desert, overcame you in the garden, despoiled you on the Cross, and rising from the tomb, transferred your victims to the kingdom of light.… I adjure you, Satan, deceiver of the human race, acknowledge the Spirit of truth and grace, who repels your snares and confounds your lies: depart from this creature of God, whom He has signed by the heavenly seal; withdraw from this man whom God has made a holy temple by a spiritual unction. Leave, therefore, Satan, in the name of the Father @ and of the Son @ and of the Holy @ Spirit; leave through the faith and the prayer of the Church; leave through the sign of the holy Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.

As one can see, this optional formula is an exorcism proper. In the former rite, there were prayers to God asking for deliverance, but they were always followed by exorcisms proper.

 

Other things are of great concern in this new ritual. The Ritual of 1614 contains 21 directives for the exorcist, a magnificent distillation of the accumulated wisdom and experience of the Church. The new preface never gets to the point about the manner of proceeding. The former directives 4-6, 8-9, 13-17, 19-20 have no equivalent in the new ritual’s preface. This means that most (12) of the 21 are deleted. The following former directives have no parallel in the new introduction:

 

4. In order to better test these signs [of possession], the priest should question the demoniac after one or other exorcism as to what he feels in his mind or body, so that in this way he can also learn which words more greatly disturb the demons, so as then to bear down on them and repeat them all the more.

 

5. The priest should stay alert for tricks and deceptions that demons use to mislead the exorcist. For they will give false answers as much as possible, and show themselves only with difficulty, in order that the exorcist at length become worn out and give up the exorcism; or the ill person might appear not to be harassed by the devil.

 

6. Occasionally, after they appear, the demons hide and leave the body almost free of all disturbance, so that the ill person might think he is completely freed. But the exorcist should not stop until he sees the signs of liberation.

 

8. Some demons point out an act of witchcraft which has been done [to cause possession], by whom it was done, and the way to undo it; but the demoniac should be careful not to have recourse to sorcerers, fortune-tellers, or other such persons, on this account, but should go to the ministers of the Church rather than use any superstitious or otherwise illicit means.

 

9. Sometimes the devil grants the sick person relief and permits him to receive the Holy Eucharist so that he might seem to have departed. In short, there are countless devices and tricks of the devil to deceive man, which the exorcist should beware, lest he be deceived.

 

13. …Also relics of Saints, where available, safely and properly fastened and covered, may be reverently applied to the chest or head of the possessed. Care must be taken that the sacred objects are not improperly handled or harmed in any way by the demon. Because of danger of irreverence, the Holy Eucharist should not be placed upon the head of the possessed person or elsewhere on his body.

 

14. The exorcist should not engage in a great deal of talking or ask unnecessary or curious questions, especially concerning future or secret matters not pertaining to his task. But he should command the unclean spirit to be silent, except to answer his questions. Nor should he believe the demon if he pretends to be the soul of some Saint or deceased person or a good Angel.

 

15. However, there are necessary questions, for example, concerning the number and names of the possessing spirits, the time and reason they entered, and other things of this sort. The exorcist should restrain or spurn the rest of the devil’s nonsense, laughter and foolishness, and advise those present, who should be few, that they must not pay attention to these things nor question the possessed person, but rather humbly and earnestly pray to God for him.

 

16. The exorcist should read and carry out the exorcism with strength, authority, great faith, humility and fervor, and when he sees that the spirit is especially tormented, then he should persist and bear down all the more. And whenever he sees that the possessed person is being disturbed in some part of his body, or stung, or that a swelling appears somewhere, he should make the sign of the cross on that area and sprinkle it with holy water which should be on hand.

 

17. He is also to observe at which words the demons tremble more, and then he should repeat these words more often. When he reaches the threatening words, he should say them repeatedly, always increasing the punishment. If he sees that he is making progress, he should continue for two, three, or four hours, or even longer if he can, until he obtains the victory.

 

19. If he is exorcising a woman, he should always have persons of integrity with him to hold the possessed person while she is agitated by the demon. These people should be close relatives of the suffering woman if possible. Mindful of decency, the exorcist should be careful not to say or do anything which could be an occasion of an evil thought to himself or the others.

 

20. While he is exorcising, he should use the words of Sacred Scripture rather than his own or someone else’s. He should command the demon to tell him if he is held in that body because of some magic, or sorcerer’s signs or devices. If the possessed person has consumed things of this sort orally, he should vomit them up. If they are elsewhere outside his body, he should reveal where they are, and once found, they are to be burned. The possessed person should also be advised to make known all his temptations to the exorcist.

 

These crucial directives, followed by exorcists for 385 years, have no parallel in the new introduction. The preface explicitly says that lay people may not say any of the prayers of exorcism, and repeats the old directive that exorcism is not to be conducted in public. It adds the rule (a welcome addition) that exorcism is not to be open to any communications media; and the exorcist and any assistants are not to speak publicly before or after the exorcism about what took place.

 

This article is not meant to be an exhaustive analysis of the new rite of exorcism. Many of the prayers and rites are perfectly acceptable in themselves: the new rite contains a prefatory prayer, blessing of holy water, Litany of the Saints, a Psalm, a Gospel reading (the Prologue of St. John, or a text in which Christ rejects the devil or expels demons), imposition of hands over the demoniac, Profession of Faith or renewal of Baptismal promises with renunciation of Satan; the Our Father, the Sign of the Cross on the possessed person; and, after deliverance, the Magnificat followed by other prayers and a blessing.

 

Laughable, however, are the references, in the prefatory decree, to Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican II – as if the Council had called for a revised, updated exorcism to allow full conscious participation by the laity! The only conceivable allusion to exorcism in the Vatican II decree on the liturgy is where it says the sacramentals will be revised – but the clear proof that the bishops never had exorcism in mind is seen from the reason given for revision. The one and only relevant sentence here says: “The sacramentals are to be revised, account being taken of the primary principle of the intelligent, actual and easy participation of the faithful” (art. 79). Since exorcism, new and old, must be conducted away from the faithful, the principle of intelligent, actual and easy participation is irrelevant. Once again, the liturgical decree is cited as the basis for something never intended.

Dishonest is the use of the word instauratum (restored) in the subheading of the title page: the new exorcism ritual is in no way a restoration. It is a fabrication. The Latin should have read fabricatum or innovatum or maybe concoctum!

 

The preface provides for translation of the rite into myriad languages – but what on earth for? If an exorcist does not know enough Latin to perform the prayers in Latin, he should not be appointed to the office. The preface at no. 13 quotes canon 1172 saying that an exorcist should be, inter alia, “outstanding in knowledge” – but how could that be said of a priest who cannot say or follow very simple texts and prayers in Latin? As well, given charismatics’ predilection for exorcisms and “deliverance,” it is highly imprudent to make the Church’s official exorcism prayers available to all and sundry in every language, when only a tiny proportion of priests need to use them.

 

With the promulgation of the new exorcism ritual, the Athanasian Creed has now officially disappeared from any Catholic ritual. In the 1960s, its frequency was reduced in the Breviary and finally it was abolished from it. The rite of exorcism was the last surviving ceremony in the Church where the Athanasian Creed was recited. Now it is gone. This is a serious loss, and there was no good reason why it was replaced by a choice between the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed.

 

Another innovation, but a welcome one, in the new Ritual for Exorcism, is an exorcism to be used for a place or thing, something not specifically present in the former Ritual. (Herbert Thurston S.J.’s book Ghosts and Poltergeists has an appendix containing his English translation of an “Exorcism of a house troubled by an evil spirit,” which he found in the Appendix of an edition of the Roman Ritual printed in Madrid in 1631, published with the authorization of the Inquisition. Father Thurston evidently thought this was a worthwhile ceremony to have.) This new rite for a place or thing also requires permission from the bishop before being used. Again, however, in this ceremony, the imperative formula, the true exorcism, is to be added, only if the priest wishes.

 

Well-informed people may wonder how it is that such innovative and defective things can be promulgated by someone like Cardinal Medina Estevez. Let us keep in mind that these men in finery who occupy the Vatican and other Church positions are non-Catholic, Freemasons, Socialists, Globalists and in some cases Satanists. They are the enemies of the Church and of Christ.

The Errors of Progressive Theology

 

I warn my readers that this article will be a bit heavier than usual. The topic at hand is one that has recently presented itself numerous times and needs to be addressed. I try to avoid deep theological discussion here, since it leaves most with little idea as to the vocabulary of the discussion and the meanings behind words. I will attempt to explain each item as we proceed. So, to proceed in an orderly manner in the statement of the errors of modern Progressive Liberal Theology, we must first ask how many characteristics are to be considered as playing their parts in the Progressive agenda? To make sense of this somewhat abstruse subject, it must first of all be noted that the Liberal theologian is a sort of schizophrenic personality: he considers himself a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, an historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer, and a social revolutionary. These roles must be clearly distinguished one from another in order to accurately understand their system, and thoroughly grasp the principles and the outcome of their doctrinal errors.

 

We begin, then, with the philosopher. The first step is to ask what doctrine do the Progressives lay down as the basis of their religious philosophy? Progressive theologians place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism. According to this teaching, human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear : it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognizing His existence, even by means of visible things. From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject. For any substantive theologian, this leads to one obvious question: Given these premises, what becomes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revelation? The answer is actually stunningly simple. The Progressive theologians simply sweep them entirely aside; they include them in Intellectualism, which they denounce as a system which is ridiculous and long since defunct.

 

Of course, the Church has already responded to such heresy by clearly stating in the oath taken by traditionalist priests to this day, that if anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made,  he is a false teacher and to be condemned as a heretic. Furthermore, if anyone says that it is not possible or not expedient that humanity be taught, through the medium of divine revelation, about God and the worship to be paid Him, again he is a heretic and false teacher. And finally, if anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore humanity should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration, they are false teachers and heretics.

 

No matter how one looks at it, the Progressive theologian is not a Christian in any historic sense.

 

It may further be asked: In what way do the Progressives contrive to make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial; and, consequently, by what legitimate process of reasoning do they proceed from the fact of ignorance as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not, to explain this history, leaving God out altogether, as if He really had not intervened?

To be honest, I don't think even they can answer that logical query. Yet it is a fixed and established principle among them that both science and history must be atheistic; and within their boundaries there is room for nothing but material phenomena; God and all that is divine are utterly excluded.

 

In my next post I will demonstrate the consequences of such thinking, and we will explore the other facets of the Progressive theologians personality.

National Socialism Was A Leftist Movement

 

In my research for my book "The Black Sun Agenda" ( order here ) I was made aware of the historic fact that National Socialism (commonly called Nazism) was/is a Leftist and Progressive socio-political movement. Of course, I've been looked down upon, called names, and had my intellect attacked by those on the Left for exposing this fact. They offer all kinds of "proofs" to refute what is factual history, but never with any substance. There is no question that the NSDAP enjoyed a strong central portion of it's public support in the German leftist community of that era.

 

And, as I touch upon in my book, the roots of National Socialism are the very same shared roots of the modern Leftist Progressive movement throughout the world today.

 

Adding just another bit of confirmation to these facts is the following:

 

 

On July 7, 2012 Susanne Zeller-Hirzel, who is now 91 years of age, resurrected the "White Rose" (Weiße Rose) along with 8 activists. It is well known that the original White Rose was a resistance movement in Munich from 1942 to 1943 during the time of the Third Reich. On the campus of the University of Munich the members of the group called for the overthrow of Hitler, and after the battle for Stalingrad in 1943, called directly for resistance. Susanne Zeller-Hirzel was a member of White Rose and close friend of Sophie Scholl, who was beheaded by the Nazis on 22 February, 1943. Susanne Zeller escaped death and managed to deceive the judge who released her from prison after five months.

The speaker in the video is Marc Doll, Federal Vice Chairman and founding member of the party DIE FREIHEIT, a civil liberties movement  (Bürgerrechtspartei) in Germany. In the video Marc Doll addresses the thinking behind the establishment of the new White Rose resistance.

The new White Rose has two warnings for the world:

1.National-Socialism was a left-wing movement.

2. The same ideologies of the Nazis are back again, today they call themselves "Antifascists", "Liberals", and "Leftists".

 

 

Satanism Alive and Well

 

The murders of young people linked to Satanism, black metal music, and drugs in northern Milan was shocking to the general public.  On the night of January 23-24, 2004, Andrea Volpe (age 27), leader of the Beasts of Satan black metal band, and Elizabeth Ballarin (18), invited his ex-girlfriend Mariangella Pezzotta (27) to meet them at a place on the outskirts of Milan. She showed up and a violent argument ensued. Volpe shot Mariangella in the mouth with a gun. He called Nicola Sapone (25), another rock band performer, to the scene. The three of them transported the corpse to the nearby mountains, massacred the body with a spade, and then left her semi-buried in a thick grove. Sapone returned to his house. Volpe and Ballarin tried to get rid of Mariangella’s car, but since they were under the influence of drugs, they had an accident and were caught by the police. Later, Sapone also was arrested.

 

The police began to question whether there was a correlation between this crime and the disappearance in early 1998 of Fabio Tollis (16), another rock musician, and Chiara Marino (19), a rock singer. Both were linked to Volpe and drugs. On June 5, Volpe, seeking leniency in the murder of his ex-girlfriend, led police to the bodies of Fabio and Chiara buried in a five-foot-deep pit in a woods of north Milan.

It soon became evident the arrested band members, as well as Fabio and Chiara, were members of the sect the Beasts of Satan, the same name as the band and headed by none other than Andrea Volpe. The files of a number of other mysterious murders and suicides in northern Milan, particularly those that occurred when the moon was full or new, are being re-opened to see if they are related to the sect. Links have already been established in two of the cases: the murder of another of Volpe’s girlfriends, Maddalena Russo, which took place on Friday the 13th in September, 1985; and the supposed suicide of another band member, Giuseppe Bontade, in a car accident in 2000.

The arrested sect members started to talk, other members of the Beasts of Satan were called to testify, and, according to online posts in Italian newspapers and magazines (up to June 30), the following version of the Fabio/Chiara murders appears to be the most probable.

 

Some days before a full moon night in January 1998 Volpe ordered a member of the group to dig a large hole in the woods of Somma Lombardo, north of Milan. On the evening of January 17, a group of 8-10 people met to party at Midnight, a rock club on the outskirts of Milan where they used to perform. They left in several cars and re-gathered in the woods near the site where the hole had been dug.

Cult members realized that a human sacrifice would be offered to Satan. No one knew who would be slaughtered. Then Volpe pointed to 19-year-old Chiara, known as “the vestal of Satan,” and advanced with a knife to kill her. She also had a knife and tried to defend herself. Fabio, a tall, strong 16-year-old, came to her defense. Volpe and the others attacked Fabio who, stabbed and hit twice on the head with a heavy hammer, fell senseless into the five-foot-deep pit. Chiara, stabbed in the heart, followed him shortly after. Both were still breathing, Volpe jumped into the hole with a spade and finished them off. They were buried, blood was everywhere, the cult members burned their gloves and left. The next day, Volpe returned to the scene and spread several gallons of ammonia around the site to keep the dogs away.

Two years later, in 2000, members of the sect drugged Giuseppe Bontade and challenged him to drive at a high speed, causing the car accident that killed him. He knew about the killings and was threatening to go to the police.

According to testimonies, the various ritual murders were ordered by someone higher than Volpe, whose name cannot be revealed under threat of death. This occult person would be the one who supplied drugs to the group and acted as the link between the Beasts of Satan and a larger network of Satanism in Italy.

With the torrent of news on this case, as well as some similar cases that have taken place in the last few years, it is understandable that Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the leading exorcist in Italy, would be contacted by the media to give his opinion on Satanism and the way to stop it.

 

The Italian magazine Espresso asked Fr. Amorth some questions. Here are some of his most significant answers:

Question – What are the links between Satanists and the Devil?

Answer – There are two types: those who adore the Devil, celebrate Satanic masses, have their own priests and hierarchy; and those who don’t believe in Satan, but engage in actions that are either iniquitous or against nature. The latter is more dangerous.

Question – John Paul II made exorcisms over three persons possessed by the Devil. Did they work?

Answer – No, the third one did not. I have been taking care of her since 1998. It is really a sad case.

Question – Besides the Pope, what is the state of belief in the Devil in the Church?

Answer – Too low. The Devil is very pleased with that, since this gives him free reign to do his work. The Church went from one excess to another. Yesterday, it was the obsessive witches’ hunt that instead of exorcizing them, burned them; today, she has abandoned everything: devils and exorcists. The result is that there is not a single exorcist in entire Catholic areas of various countries: Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I admire the Italian Bishops. They don’t understand anything, but at least they have named exorcists. Last year we had a meeting: we were 170 exorcists.

Question – Could you explain how the Bishops don’t understand anything?

Answer – Because they, like all the priests, also studied in seminaries. And for some time the seminaries have no longer been teaching on angels and devils, nothing on exorcism, nothing on the sins against the First Commandment. “You shall not have false gods before Me” – which means the condemnation of Magic, Spiritism, Satanism.

Question – And what about the Roman Curia?

Answer – The same incompetence. It issued a new ritual that is a disaster for us exorcists. It forbids us to perform exorcisms in cases of spells, when it is known that 90 percent of the cases of possession come from them. It also forbids us to make an exorcism if we don’t have a prior certainty that there is a diabolic action, but we only can acquire this certainty by carrying out an exorcism. We are lucky that the old ritual continues to be valid. I use it, otherwise I would have to quit my job (Espresso, online edition, June 11-17, 2004; see also interview with Fr. Amorth on the new ritual – 30 Giorni, June 2000, reprinted in Christian Order).

This impressive Italian case is no less grave than the ritual killing of Sharon Tate by Charles Manson and his group. Here is the essential problem where the Vatican is concerned: Vatican II declared that there were no heretics or schismatics, but only “separated brethren.” Along this lines the Conciliar Church indulges a wide variety of occultists and avoids any serious discussion of spiritual dangers inherent in such cults, or of engaging in spiritual warfare with Satan, whom they are sure to view as simply a “separated angel.” We are seeing that Satan himself is taking advantage of this accommodating tolerance to spread his cult ever more broadly, with rituals that often involve the most macabre violence.

A WARNING ON THE OLD CATHOLICS: FALSE BISHOPS, FALSE CHURCHES

 

Let us say that you are a traditional Roman Catholic, and that you come across an advertisement in the paper for a group which claims that they offer the traditional Latin Mass. You notice at the bottom of the ad that the group calls itself "Old Catholic" or "Old Roman Catholic." You are naturally quite puzzled by these terms, but you think that anyone who claims to be "Old" or "Roman" or "Catholic" can't really be too much different from the traditional Catholic priests you know. But, you ask, are they really legitimate Roman Catholics, and can one go to their Masses?

The response a traditional Catholic priest is obliged to give to your question is "No, on both counts." But why, you ask, since they say they stand for all that we do?

Your priest will respond by saying that they are and always have been considered heretics and schismatics by the Catholic Church, and that they pose a grave danger to your soul if you have anything to do with them.

More and more in these times of confusion, a traditional Catholic priest finds himself confronted with such questions from the laity about Old Catholics. We feel that it is time that we publish an article which deals with these groups, and which will explain why you are obliged to avoid any dealings with them.

What are these "Old Catholic Churches?" They are schismatic and heretical sects which broke away from the Catholic Church, beginning with the Jansenist revolt in Holland in the 17th century, and continuing with another group that broke away from the Catholic Church in the 19th century over the dogma of papal infallibility. In this country, the term "Old Catholic" refers to the numerous tiny sects with self-appointed bishops and minuscule congregations, who call themselves "Old Catholics" or "Old Roman Catholics," even though they have, for the most part, been disavowed by their European forebears.

The purposes of our discussion here will be rather limited: First, we will give, a brief history of the origins of the Old Catholics. Second. we will examine a modern-day Old Catholic sect, the "Ultrajectine" Old Roman Catholic Church, now centered in Necedah, Wisconsin, which claims its origins in the historical Old Catholic movement. Third, we will make some general observations on these sects.

The reasons we have selected the Ultrajectines of Necedah are twofold: First, Necedah enjoys a considerable following due to the claims made that the Blessed Mother appeared there, claims which were rejected by the hierarchy even before the Second Vatican Council. Second, the assertions made by their Bishop, Edward M. Stehlik of the American National Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Ultrajectine typify the assertions of similar Old Catholic and Old Roman Catholic sects. A discussion of their claims and assertions should provide a clear warning to traditional Catholics who might be inclined to get involved with similar groups.

The last time an article appeared on the Old Catholics, a number of their priests and bishops wrote in to accuse us of what they invariably termed a "lack of charity." In the last century. Cardinal Manning responded most eloquently to those in error who accuse the Church of a "lack of charity." He said that the teaching of the Church "is the way of salvation, and the Church is bound to its inflexible maintenance, not only by the obligation of truth, but also by the obligation of charity for the salvation of mankind... The inflexible and exclusive dogmatic teaching of the Church, intolerant of all compromise, of all contact with error, is the voice of charity."

With this in mind, we now turn to history. In our research, we have come across a number of facts which the Old Catholics rarely mention in the pamphlets they use to promote their cause. It makes interesting reading, and it proves the old adage that truth is often stranger than fiction.

 

 

The Jansenist Heresy: Old Catholicism is Born

Some Old Catholic groups refer to themselves as "Ultrajectine," a term which seems mystifying, but which, in fact, simply comes from the Latin name for the city of Utrecht in Holland. Utrecht was the birthplace of the Old Catholic schism which resulted from the Jansenist heresy. To understand the Old Catholics, one has to under-stand Jansenism.

The Jansenist heresy itself takes its name from Bishop Jansenius of Ypres. This prelate rejected the theological method of most medieval theologians, having a "fashionable dislike of schoolmen," as M.L. Cozens states.¹ Because of this, he wrote a treatise on St. Augustine (published in 1640) entitled Augustinus, in an effort to return to what he termed a more pure doctrine. "He openly professed therein to go behind the commonly received teaching (of the Church), and to find in St. Augustine the true doctrine on grace," ² One can see the spirit of heresy in this bishop's motives.

Bishop Jansenius became friends with the Abbot of St. Cyran. Cozens states that it was this friend who sparked the cancerous growth of the doctrine of Jansenius on grace which we find in Augustinus. ³ The spread of this doctrine continued in spite of Pope Urban VIII's condemnation of Augustinus in 1642. ⁴ Pope Innocent X, in his bull Cum Occasione, ⁵ (May 1653) went even further, and condemned five propositions contained in the book Augustinus, as heretical and false. (Our source is the Enchiridion of Denziger, the standard reference used to cite the teaching of the Catholic Church.) The condemned propositions follow:

1.) There are some of God's commandments that just men cannot observe with the powers they have in their present state, even if they wish and strive to observe them; nor do men have the grace which would make their observance possible. (HERESY) (DB 1092)

2.) In the state of fallen nature internal grace is never resisted. (HERESY) (DH 1093)

3.) To merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature it is not necessary for a man to have freedom from necessity but only freedom from constraint. (HERESY) (DB 1094)

4.) The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of internal preparatory grace for individual acts even for the beginning of faith; they were heretics for this reason that they wished this grace to be such that the human will could resist it or obey it. (HERESY) (DB 1095)

5.) It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception. (FALSE) (DB 1096)

A certain Frenchman, Dr. Antoine Arnauld, became an advocate of the teachings of Jansenius, and he composed a book on "Frequent Communion" which was saturated with these heretical doctrines. When he was later faced with the demand to subscribe to the Pope's condemnation, he evaded the issue by "agreeing with the condemnations" but denying they were "contained in the Augustinus. ⁶ He maintained that "...while the Pope can define a doctrine and condemn a heresy opposing it, he cannot infallibly declare such a heresy.. .(to be)...in any particular book." ⁷

Thus, in the Jansenists, we find precursors of the modernist heretics, who try to twist Catholic teaching to their own ends. Pope St. Pius X accurately describes their tactics when he says that: "With an affectation of great submission and respect, they proceeded to twist the words of the Pontiff to their own sense, while they described his action as directed against others than themselves." ⁸

In an effort to stem the tide of this pernicious heresy, Pope Alexander VII in his formulary Regiminis Apostolici of February 1665, commanded all the clergy in France to sign an oath against the five condemned propositions in the Augustinus (DB 1099). Catholic theologians point out that the Jansenist reaction was to flee France and take refuge in Utrecht, Holland.⁹

The Vicar-Apostolic of the Diocese of Utrecht, Peter Codde, was sympathetic to the Jansenists, and when this became known, he was deposed by Pope Clement XI for his Jansenist views. ¹⁰ The Holy See attempted to replace Codde, but the Jansenists had gained enough power in Holland to prevent this. ¹¹

The schism of the Jansenists in Utrecht which began in 1702, Awas complete by 1713, when the majority of the Dutch bishops refused to accept the Pope's bull Unigenitus condemning Jansenism. ¹²

In 1723 the Jansenists attempted to set up a Jansenist Diocese of Utrecht through Bishop Dominic Varlet, a Roman Catholic bishop who was relieved of his duties as titular bishop of Babylon by the Pope because of his Jansenist views. ¹³ Varlet consecrated Cornelius Steenoven a bishop to rule the schismatic diocese. ¹⁴ Steenoven soon died and Varlet consecrated two more bishops who also died. Finally Varlet consecrated Peter John Meindaerts in 1739, who, in turn consecrated two Jansenist bishops for the Dutch cities of Haarlem and Devemer.¹⁵ Thus the continuation of the schism was guaranteed along with the heresy which caused it.
 

Old Catholics, New Schisms: Denying Papal Infallibility

In the 1870s the effects of the schism of Utrecht resulted in yet another schism. It was at this time that the schismatics of Utrecht and a group of German-speaking heretics popularly came to be called the "Old Catholic" movement. We offer a resume of its actions and teachings relying on the Catholic Encyclopedia ¹⁶

In September of 1870, 1400 Germans and Swiss signed a document which repudiated the dogma of infallibility "as an innovation contrary to the traditional faith of the Church." This act resulted in the excommunication of their leader, Ignaz Dollinger, in April of 1871.

Undaunted they met again in September of 1871. Some of their new demands included democratization of the Church, repudiation of all dogmas not considered to be in harmony with the contemporary consciousness of the Church, ecumenism adherence to the secular government against the authority of Rome, and the insistence that the laity had the ultimate control over the property of the Church.

As you can readily see, their doctrinal and disciplinary positions are neither "Old" nor "Catholic." If anything they prove that the Old Catholic movement was a liberal and modernist movement. Indeed most contemporary modernists would have little difficulty accepting most of their tenets.

They decided in principle to form their own parishes at the same meeting, a move which was, however, repudiated by Dollinger who, nevertheless, remained firm in his heretical teachings until his death. In 1872, assisted by Jansenist and Anglican bishops, and, by Russian Orthodox and Protestant clergy, they took the practical steps to organize their parishes, and, in June of 1873 they elected a certain Professor Reinkens as their bishop. Reinkens was consecrated by the schismatic Jansenist Bishop of Rotterdam on August 11, 1873. Pius IX excommunicated Reinkens in November of the same year.

By 1875, they had abolished confession, clerical celibacy, and, the use of Latin. In the same year Reinkens consecrated Dr. Herzog bishop for the "Christian Catholic National Church" of Switzerland. Dr. Herzog will appear again in our narrative as the person who allegedly raised Joseph Rene Vilatte to the priesthood, thus beginning Vilatte's career as one of the key figures in the development of Old Catholic sects in the United States.

Such then is our brief history of the "Old Roman Catholics" of Utrecht and the "Old Catholics" of Germany and Switzerland. We now pass on to an account of the activities of Arnold Harris Mathew and Rene Vilatte the two persons responsible (if one may use the word in such a context) for the establishment of these sects in the United States.
 

Arnold Harris Mathew: Prelate in Wonderland

When you read an account of the career of Arnold Harris Mathew, you step into a wonderland where things become "curiouser and curiouser." What follows is a brief synopsis of his activities taken from a standard reference work on the Old Catholics. ¹⁷

In reading the life story of this eccentric Englishman one is simply amazed by his fickle and unstable nature. He lost his faith and changed religions many times. He even changed his name a number of times and continuously claimed more and more exotic titles, both noble and religious, calling himself Count, Earl, Primate, Metropolitan, etc. He changed the name of the sect he founded no less than seven times and is responsible either directly or indirectly for the foundation of at least thirty contemporary Old Catholic sects.

He was born in 1852 baptized a Catholic and later re-baptized an Anglican at the request or his mother. He was raised as an Anglican but became a Catholic again in 1875. He was rushed through a course of seminary studies and was ordained a priest in 1877. In 1879 he took vows as a Dominican only to return to the secular priesthood a year later. He then went from one assignment to another, and managed to change dioceses no less than three times. In 1889, he converted to Unitarianism, and publicly renounced the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. After a year, he left the Unitarians and joined the Anglicans again. He married in 1892, violating his priestly vows, and became an Anglican curate. He soon left the Anglicans once again in 1899. In spite of his attempted marriage, he attempted to rejoin the Catholic Church again in 1903. Rome refused to dispense him from his vow of celibacy, and he turned to writing to support his wife and children.

He soon became involved with the notorious Modernist, George Tyrrell, an excommunicated priest. Tyrrell took advantage of Mathew's predicament, urging him on in the destruction of sacerdotalism. Mathew adopted an anti-papal position in 1907 as a result of Tyrrell's influence, saying, "...the papacy is the origin...of discord..., the fomenter of schisms, and the seat of ecclesiastical despotism and tyranny."¹⁸

Mathew then decided that it was time to found an Old Catholic sect in England. He found a small group of sympathizers who elected him as their bishop. The schismatic Jansenist bishops of Utrecht, under the impression that he had a large following in England, raised him to the episcopacy in Utrecht in 1908. He then returned to England and eventually raised a number of men to the episcopacy himself, including two former Catholic priests, Howarth and Beale, who had been excommunicated by the Bishop of Nottingham for embezzling. Mathew then sent documents to Pope St. Pius X attesting to the consecrations.

Pius X, a saint not exactly known for pulling punches, published the Bull Cravi Iamdiu Scandalo.¹⁹ He not only excommunicated Mathew, but called him a "pseudo-bishop" and declared him vitandus, a term in church law which meant that Catholics were subject to censure if they had anything to do with Mathew (See the Appendix). Pius X also extended his sentence of excommunication to include those who had been consecrated by Mathew.

By this time, however, Mathew had already even severed his communion with the schismatic bishops of Utrecht, who proceeded to denounce him roundly for his deceptions and for acting contrary to the Declaration Of Utrecht. Unfazed by the fact that he was both excommunicated by Rome and repudiated by even his schismatic consecrators, he, nevertheless, continued consecrating bishops, one of whom was an Austrian Prince Rudolph de Landas-Berghes, who planted the Mathew version of Old Catholicism in the U. S. during World War I (See below).

Mathew went on to ordain and consecrate a number of shady characters. Some were believers in Theosophy (a pseudo-Oriental religion), while others were less than sterling examples of Christian morality.

In January of 1916, he announced that he would be reconciled to the Holy See, but changed his mind two months later. He then sought union with the Anglicans once again. The Archbishop of Canterbury was, understandably, quite skeptical, and refused to give Mathew any position as an Anglican clergyman. Mathew retired to a village in the countryside and contented himself with assisting at services in an Anglican parish church as a layman.

By this time, he had been deserted by his wife and abandoned by virtually all the priests and bishops he had made. He died suddenly in December of 1919 without having been reconciled to the Catholic Church and was buried with Anglican rites as a layman. His episcopal seal and other documents disappeared after his death, so any document with his seal would not in itself be proof of ordination or consecration.

At this point, we should note briefly the connection between Mathew and Old Catholics in the United States. Mathew, you will recall, consecrated Prince Rudolph de Landas-Berghes a bishop in 1913. De Landas-Berghes performed a number of consecrations in the U.S., and, in 1916, he conditionally re-consecrated Bishop Carmel Henry Carfora, another schismatic, who had already been consecrated through Rene Vilatte. ²⁰ (For more on Vilatte, see below.) Carfora founded the North American Old Roman Catholic Church.

Carfora was a fairly exotic character in his own right, independent of his association with the Mathew succession. He claimed infallibility not only in faith and morals ex cathedra, but in everything.

Carfora performed an incredible number of episcopal consecrations in the United States. Among those he consecrated was Richard Marchenna, a name one seems to come across frequently in Old Catholic circles. Marchenna was consecrated by Carfora in 1941. ²¹

Another which occurs quite frequently is that of a certain Bishop Daniel Q. Brown. He seems to have been consecrated by Marchenna at some point, and consequently performed a number of consecrations himself, including that of Francis Schuckardt. ²²

Beyond this, it becomes impossible to trace the consecrations which have been performed by the different successors of Mathew. It is sufficient to note that none of the Old Catholic sects which may be traced to him ever achieved any significant following in this country or elsewhere.
 

Joseph René Vilatte: Schismatic in Wisconsin

The wild career of Arnold Harris Mathew is only rivaled by that of Joseph Rene Vilatte. He was born in France in 1854 and raised as a member of the schismatic Petit Eglise. He found his way into the Catholic Church and in and out of several seminaries, the last of which he left denying most of the doctrines of the Church. He became a Presbyterian lay preacher in northern Wisconsin, and managed to charm the Episcopalian bishop of Fon Du Lac, Dr. J.H. Hobart Brown, into recommending him to the Swiss Old Catholics for priestly ordination.

Vilatte was ordained to the priesthood in a schismatic ceremony in Switzerland by the old Catholic Bishop Herzog on June 6, 1885.²³ That year, Vilatte came to Wisconsin to establish an Old Catholic settlement under the jurisdiction of the Episcopalians, and managed to cause a considerable amount of trouble for both the Catholics and the Episcopalians. "Old Catholic I am - Old Catholic I will be," Vilatte proclaimed on his return.²⁴ He published a "Sketch of The Belief of The Old Catholic" in 1889.²⁵ In his book he explains: "Old Catholics are as far removed from Protestantism on the one hand as they are from Romanism on the other; in a word, that they are Catholics without any other qualification." He stressed: "...The Government of The Church ought to be democratic, unlike that of the Roman Church. " ²⁶

He soon became dissatisfied with the Episcopalians, and attempted to align himself with the Russian Orthodox. After yet another change of heart, he decided to try his luck with the schismatic Old Catholics of Utrecht once again. In 1890, he appealed to them and asked that he be consecrated a bishop. Quite wisely, they refused. He then sought out and obtained his consecration from the schismatic Mar Julius I, Metropolitan of The Independent Catholic Church of Ceylon, Goa, and India, on July 15, 1891.²⁷ In Mar Julius's own words: "We...thank God that He has mercifully shown us the way out of the slavery of Rome," referring to the hope of joining Vilatte and his followers in America to his heretical sect.²⁸ Out of allegiance to the Ceylonese schismatics, Vilatte, chose a new name for himself, Mar Timotheos.

On his return to Wisconsin, it became apparent that these goings-on were too much for the new Episcopal Bishop of Fond du Lac, Charles Chapman Grafton, who felt obliged to warn his faithful that Vilatte had nothing to do with the Protestant Episcopal Church. ²⁹

In 1894, Vilatte had only a few followers to support him in Wisconsin, so he sought reconciliation with the Holy See in desperation. ³⁰ This failed since the terms were for him to return as a layman. ³¹ He then consecrated a number of other bishops for some schismatic Polish congregations in the United States. ³²

He passed some time in England where he sought to obtain some sort of financial support for his work. Bishop Grafton learned of this and wrote a letter of warning to The Church Times.

Grafton pointed out that the associates of Vilatte in Wisconsin were rather shady characters, citing the fact that one of Vilatte's associates was in prison, another was in an insane asylum, and that yet another was wanted by the police. Of Vilatte he said, "I know of no clergyman or layman in my Diocese who has any other opinion of Vilatte but that his proper place is in the penitentiary."

Vilatte then left England and attempted a reconciliation with the Holy See for the second time, and almost simultaneously consecrated Paolo Miraglia-Gulotti, in secret, as Old Catholic Bishop for Italy.³³ He then went to France and caused a considerable amount of trouble in Paris for Cardinal Richard. On June 13, 1900, Rome issued a decree of major excommunication against Vilatte and Miraglia-Gulotti.

Vilatte left France for Canada, but soon returned in 1907 where he ordained Louis-Marie-Francois Giraud to the priesthood. Giraud had been a Trappist who had left his monastery and made a name for himself as a magician and an occultist.

Vilatte then returned to America after his failures in Europe and began to operate as a free-lance Archbishop in Chicago.³⁴ Some time after 1910, he consecrated Carmel Henry Carfora a bishop, among others. After failing as Old Catholic Archbishop of North America, he formed his own sect: "The American Catholic Church," in 1915.³⁵

Once again desperate for funds, he returned to France, in 1925. He sought the help of a certain Mgr. Bricaud, alias "Johnny Bricaud," a Gnostic writer on black and white magic.³⁶

In 1925, for a third and final time, he sought reconciliation with the Church.³⁷ He was sent to the Cistercian monastery of Pont Colbert in Versailles to do penance. He was not permitted to perform any liturgical functions, even though he did manage to consecrate one of the novices a bishop in secret. He died in 1929 and was buried as a layman. ³⁸

Between 1898 and 1929 Vilatte consecrated at least seven bishops in Europe and North America. There is no way of determining exactly how many priests he ordained. In Anson's book on the Old Catholics we learn that Cardinal Merry del Val had decided that Vilatte's ordinations and consecrations had been commercialized. The Cardinal personally believed, therefore, that they could not be regarded as valid.
 

Some Old Catholics Today: The Ultrajectines Of Necedah

If what we have presented on the history of the Old Catholic sects is not enough to convince traditional Roman Catholics to avoid them, a more current example should settle the question.

We have chosen, for the sake of our discussion, the American National Church, Roman Catholic Ultrajectine, now centered in Necedah, Wisconsin, a sect headed by a certain Archbishop Edward M. Stehlik.

We will begin by paging through an official publication of this sect called "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." ³⁹ It bears the "Imprimatur" of Archbishop Stehlik. We will limit ourselves to making a few comments on some of the statements contained therein.

In his introduction, we find Stehlik expressing the desire that the booklet will clarify questions about the position which he holds. Indeed it does, since we discover that the booklet is "In Loving Memory of: "Arnold Harris Mathew, Rudolph de Landas-Berghes and Joseph Rene Vilatte.

On page 1, Stehlik claims that the "American National Catholic Church, also known as the Old Roman Catholic Church, was established in Wisconsin by the French Archbishop Joseph Rene Vilatte (1887)."

Having established the origins of his sect with Vilatte, he goes on to say on page 2 that the Old Roman Catholic Church "...is actually the historical Roman Catholic Church, in principle, doctrine, sacraments and rules, according to all of the ecclesiastical laws." Pius X, who excommunicated one of Stehlik's predecessors in the episcopate, Mathew, would no doubt be greatly surprised.

We are then treated to a dishonest account of the history of Jansenism. We are given the impression that the condemnation of Jansenism as heresy by the popes was nothing more than a political ploy.

Somewhat more honestly, on page 3, we are told how Bishop Varlet "consented to consecrate a bishop for the Dutch, and thus began the Old Roman Catholic Church," an assertion which apparently contradicts Stehlik's earlier claim that his sect is "actually the historical Roman Catholic Church."

Almost understandably, the booklet gives no account of she escapades of Arnold Harris Mathew and Joseph Rene Vilatte, although they apparently claim to trace the origin of their sect to these two colorful gentlemen.

On pages 11 and 12, we find that they claim that the collective body of the episcopacy in union with the pope is the center of Catholic unity. Further, they claim that the pope always owes obedience to the collective body of the Catholic episcopacy. The fact that this statement is heretical is obvious.

Further, we learn that this sect does not recognize the authority of any Council after that of Nicea, a claim which they share with other schismatic and heretical bodies.

When we turn to page 16, we are amazed to discover the claim that "The Old Roman Catholic Church was never excommunicated by Rome." The fact of the matter is that, whenever the Old Catholics of Utrecht consecrated a new bishop in Holland, they would send a notice to the pope, who would send them a fresh decree of excommunication. Further, there is the matter of the excommunication of Mathew by Pope St. Pius X.

On pages 17 and 18, we find further denials of the dogma of infallibility. "...The Pope, as 'first among equals' acts publicly as the 'voice of his equals' for the Roman Catholic Church." Again, the fact that this is heresy is self-evident.

On page 19, we find that celibacy is optional for the members or the clergy in the American National Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Ultrajectine.

On page 18, we find that the true history of Old Catholicism is conveniently ignored once again. We are led to believe that the Jansenists of Utrecht consecrated bishops and sent them to the United States to evangelize. The facts we have cited above regarding Mathew and Vilatte put this contention to rest, however. Utrecht refused to consecrate Vilatte to the episcopacy, and cut off all ties with Mathew after he performed consecrations without their permission. In this country, the sect to which Stehlik belongs was founded by the successors of these two "Bishops at Large."

On pages 22 and 23, we learn that this sect permits divorce and remarriage.

One could go on for quite a while quoting page after page of the bizarre claims and assertion made by Archbishop Stehlik in his pamphlet. The point is, it's simply not worth the time. It should be evident to any Catholic that the American National Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Ultrajectine is heretical in its teaching in faith and morals. As well, it should be evident that the true origins of this sect are with Vilatte and Mathews, both of whom were, throughout most of their lives, insistent on the fact that they were outside the Roman Catholic Church.
 

The Ultrajectines: Certain Reservations

As we mentioned in the beginning of the article, Stehlik's sect has recently given its approval to the activities of a Mrs. Mary Ann Van Hoof in Necedah, Wisconsin. Mrs. Van Hoof claims to have had visions from the Blessed Mother, beginning in 1950. The Catholic Bishop of LaCrosse, well before the Second Vatican Council, investigated her claims and refused to give any credence to them.

In recent years, however, Archbishop Stehlik appeared on the scene. He decided that his sect could approve Mrs. Van Hoof's alleged visions.

On Good Friday, April 13, 1979, Stehlik was present during one of the alleged apparitions. The message which Our Lady was supposed to have given appeared in a paper published by the shrine. We cite part of it: "Some of you present are wondering about the Bishop present. This Bishop has his heart with God, his heart with the Holy Mother. He can become your Bishop. It is entirely up to you. But there has to be a thorough understanding with him and your flock... That would be an answer to all your prayers. The Old Catholics are honorable and respectable Catholics, you need not fear them..." ⁴⁰

If Mrs. Van Hoof is to be believed, Our Lady says that Catholics have nothing to fear from heretics who deny papal infallibility, permit divorce and distort history. If Mrs. Van Hoof is to be believed, apparently Our Lady must have had strong words of reproach for Pope St. Pius X, who did not share such a high opinion of the Old Catholics.

Such statements from Mrs. Van Hoof make it rather clear that the person responsible for the visions at Necedah is not Our Lady, but Mrs. Van Hoof. How could the Mother of God approve heresy, sacrilege and schism?

Additionally, one is inclined to have certain reservations about both the Ultrajectines and the apparitions which supposedly bestowed a heavenly blessing upon their work after reading some of the allegations which came to light last year (1979) when a television station examined some of the claims of Archbishop Stehlik. The series was broadcast on WISN-TV in Milwaukee, and we quote an account printed in one of the newspapers there: "Leaders of the religious sect associated with the shrine at Necedah that is headed by Mary Ann Van Hoof have been accused in a series now being broadcast by WISN-TV (Channel 12) of misrepresenting themselves.

The series...challenges the religious credentials of Archbishop Edward Michael Stehlik, Father David Javore, and Brother Glen Goergen of the American National Catholic Church...

According to the programs... Stehlik of Milwaukee lied in his claim to have been in a monastery from 1962 to 1968. He was married in 1966, the series states...

The series states that Stehlik claimed to have been at the Carmelite Monastery at Holy Hill for four years, but the monastery said that there was no record of the stay. He also claimed to have a degree in chemistry from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, but the school said that his last recorded status there listed him as a sophomore.

On film, Stehlik asked to end the interview during a discussion about his attempts to become an Episcopal priest and his claim to be affiliated with an Episcopal church in Watertown.

The series also states that Stehlik was excommunicated from the Old Catholic Church... after he reportedly went to a service dressed in what was described as witchlike garb and babbled unintelligibly. The excommunication also cited two marriages and devil worship, the programs says.

Goergen, whose radio program, 'The Hour of Truth,' was broadcast over WBCS until two weeks ago, was married and divorced twice, according to the Channel 12 series. His program has been broadcast over seven radio stations nationally.

The series stated that he spent time in jail for non-support of his family, lost a paternity suit, was once charged with disorderly conduct, was arrested for delivering a controlled substance and lost a civil judgment involving the beating of a 16-year old boy.

On camera, he admitted that he had ...(taken obscene photographs)... while he was using drugs.

Javore is the pastor of St. Joseph the Worker Hall, the worship center adjacent to the Necedah shrine . . .

He apparently claims to have been ordained by the Church of Gospel Ministry. Reporter McLauchlan noted that he, too, was ordained by the church after sending in $15. He was also informed that for another $25 he could become a bishop..."⁴¹

Please bear in mind that what we have cited thus far should serve as a warning to traditional Catholics who might be led astray by the claims of the many similar Old Catholic sects one comes across in this country. Put simply, our point is that one never knows what to expect when one is dealing with Old Catholics.

Realize as well that the many inconsistencies one may discover in present-day Old Catholic doctrines and practices most probably may be traced to the inconsistent doctrines and practices of their predecessors, Mathew and Vilatte.

 

 

Old Catholic Sects: General Observations

We will now make a few observations of a more general nature, drawn from our research for this article, and from our own contacts with the representatives of various Old Catholic sects over the past few years.

1. The first thing one notices when one begins to study these sects is that there are indeed a large number of sects calling themselves Old Catholic. It seems that there are about as many as there are Old Catholic bishops. Professor Parkinson might observe that "The number of Old Catholic Churches is directly proportional to the number of Old Catholic bishops available."

2. This phenomenon is joined to the fact that the Old Catholics foment what seems to be a never ending series of schisms among themselves. This is explained by the fact that they began in schism. It is understandable, therefore, that they should have so many schisms among themselves.

3. Old Catholic clergy are inclined to excommunicate each other at the slightest provocation. (At the drop of a miter?) This is borne out by Peter Anson's book on their forebears, and by studying some of their more recent activities.

4. A typical fiction which an Old Catholic will try to promote is a denial that his group is schismatic or heretical. Invariably, such a person will point to another group, supposedly distinct from his own, and say that it is schismatic or heretical. For instance, an Old Catholic may tell you AWe are not Old Catholics, but Old Roman Catholics. There is a difference. The other group is schismatic and heretical. We are legitimate." Such talk is nonsense. There are no real differences among all these groups, no matter what name they go by. They all originate, in some tenuous way or another, in the Jansenist heresy and schism. Common sense tells us that if something was hatched from a duck's egg, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

5. Most of these groups distort history in an attempt to prove their claims. A quick reading of some of the literature they publish demonstrates this. They distort the Jansenist controversy and avoid giving an honest account of the outrageous activities of Mathew and Vilatte.

6. Virtually all members of the Old Catholic groups are apostates, that is, they were formerly members of the Catholic Church, who joined the Old Catholics later in life. Almost no one in this country is born an Old Catholic, and one would be hard put indeed to find an Old Catholic clergyman who had not formerly been a Catholic.

7. For the most part, these sects are presided over by clergymen who are ignorant in matters of religion. Some are trained for a short period of time by ignorant superiors, others "study on their own for a while, others grant themselves degrees from non-existent universities, while still others are simply ordained without any pretense of an education at all.

8. As well, old Catholics promote the false notion that valid ordination renders their work legitimate. We know, however, that the heresy and schism which they have promoted in the past and which they continue to promote in the present can never be rendered legitimate by "valid ordination." St. Thomas is very specific on this point: "I answer that, as was said above, heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it." ⁴²

9. In most cases, it is impossible to prove that an ordination or consecration performed by an Old Catholic bishop in this country is unquestionably valid. In Europe, the question is less complicated, since the Jansenist sects enjoy a certain amount of stability. In this country, however, there exists a multitude of different Old Catholic sects. Consequently, no one has a centralized and comprehensive body of certified documentation which keeps track of the lines of the ordinations and consecrations performed in all these splinter groups. This casts some doubt upon the validity of the orders they claim to possess. Since the Catholic Church teaches that one cannot act if there is a positive doubt regarding the validity of a sacrament, one is obliged to treat their clergymen as though they were invalidly ordained.

Finally, what are the consequences if you assist at the services performed by members of these sects or receive the sacraments from them?

1. You commit sin. St. Thomas is very clear on this point: "Heretics, schismatics and excommunicates have been forbidden by the Church's sentence to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore, whoever hears their Mass, or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin." ⁴³

2. You violate Church Law. "The faithful are not allowed to assist actively in any way, or to take active part in the religious services of non-Catholics." ⁴⁴

3. You deny the Faith. Active participation in non-Catholic worship "is simply a denial of the Catholic faith, and a recognition of an unorthodox form of worship." ⁴⁵

4. You worship God falsely, since you "mingle errors and deception with the worship of the true God." ⁴⁶

5. You are suspected of heresy. "Whoever acts contrary to the prescriptions of canon 1258 and takes part in non-Catholic services (even if the service is one that heretics have in common with us... is suspected of heresy. (c. 2316)" ⁴⁷ (old code of canon law)

It is clear, then, from what we have said in this article that no Roman Catholic should have anything to do with "Old Catholicism," no matter what name it goes by. History proves this, a study of modern-day Old Catholic sects proves this, and Catholic theology proves this.

Our Lord exhorts us in the Holy Gospel to judge a tree by its fruit. Our study has shown that the fruit borne by the old Catholic movement, from Jansenius to Dollinger to Vilatte to Mathew to the present day, has been heresy in doctrine, chaos in discipline, ignorance in preaching, doubt and schism in the conferral of the sacraments and ultimately the loss of many souls who have been led outside of the fold of Christ.

Let us pray that faithful Catholics are not deceived by these sects, and let us pray those in error may by the grace of God be led back to the unity and truth which the one true Church alone can give.

I am indebted to one of the seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X at Ridgefield, Connecticut whose research made this article possible. A.C.

FOOTNOTES

1. M.L. Cozens, Handbook of Heresies, (London: Sheed and Ward, 1928; reprinted by Canterbury Books, 1979), p 76

2. Ibid.., p 77.

3. Ibid.., loc. cit.

4. John F. Clarkson, S. J., el al., The Church Teaches, (New York: B. Herder, 1955; reprinted Rockford, Il.: TAN, 1973), p 249. In his Bull In Eminenti Ecclesiae Milantis of 1642 prox., Pope Urban VIII condemned Augustinus.

5. Ibid.., p 249 ff.

6. Cozens, op. cit., p 78.

7. Ibid.., loc. cit.

8. pamphlet, "Encyclical Letter of Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane," July 3, 1907, (Boston, Mass.: St. Paul Editions), p 57

9. The Rev Sidney A Raemers, Church History,, (London: B. Herder Book Co., 1941), p. 425

10. Ibid.., loc. cit.

11. Ibid.., loc. cit.

12. Peter Anson, Bishops At Large, (London: Faber and Faber, 1964), p 29 (This book is considered the definitive work on the history of Old Catholic sects)

13. Raemers, op. cit., p 426.

14. Ibid.,. loc. cit.

15. Anson, op. cit., p 172.

16. Paul Maria Baumgarten, "Old Catholics," The Catholic Encyclopedia, (New York, Robert Appleton Co,: 1912), vol. XI

17. Anson, op. cit., (Anson devotes a chapter of this remarkable book to Mathew, and another chapter to the sects which derive from him)

18. Ibid.., p l65.

19. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, year III, vol. III, no. 2, Feb. 15, 1911, (Translated by Father William Jenkins, SSPX)

20. Anson, op. cit., p 418. By way of explanation, please note that such conditional re consecrations are a common characteristic among these sects. This is largely due to the doubts many of their clergy secretly harbor about the validity of their apostolic succession.

21. Ibid.., p. 435 ff.

22. Bob Cubbage, pamphlet "Tridentine Latin Rite Church," (Spokane: Inland Register, 1980), p 34. The consecration look place in October, 1971. Schuckardt formed his own sect and later repudiated Brown. Schuckardt appears to claim that his episcopal orders may be traced back to Arnold Harris Mathew. Mathew was, as we mentioned above, excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X.

23. Anson, op. cit., p. 95.

24. Ibid.., p. 97.

25. Ibid.., p. 98-99

26. Ibid.., p. 99.

27. Ibid.., p. 107.

28. Ibid.., p. 106.

29. Ibid.., p. 109.

30. Ibid.., p.111.

31. Ibid.., p. 112.

32. Ibid.., p. 113.

33. Ibid.., p. 120.

34. Ibid.., p. 123.

35. Ibid.., p. 124.

36. Ibid.., p. 126.

37. Ibid.., p. 126.

38. Ibid.., p. 128

39. pamphlet, "I Am the Way the Truth and the Life=@ (Milwaukee: American National Church, Roman Catholic Ultrajectine; May, 1979). The pamphlet adds the initials "S. T. L." after Stehlik's name. The initials generally signify that someone holds a Licentiate in Sacred Theology, a type of graduate degree granted by Pontifical Universities. Stehlik, however, does not provide any evidence to substantiate his claim.

40. leaflet "God Willed It," {Necedah, Wis.: Queen of the Holy Rosary, Mediatrix of Peace Shrine; pub. after May, 1979), p. 1

41. article "Shrine leadership under fire," Milwaukee Journal, (December 1, 1979; page 5). It was with some hesitation that we included the foregoing quote from the Journal. In the interest of propriety we have, in one case, omitted the descriptive language used by the paper.

41 Saint Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae, Part III, Q 82, a. 9.

48. Ibid, op. cit.

44 Code of Canon Law, canon 1258.

45. Dominic M. Pruemmer, O. P., Handbook of Moral Theology (New York: P. J. Kenedy and Sons, 1957), p. 90 46. H. Jone, Moral Theology, (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press 1962), p 97

47. Falher Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, (London: Burnes, Oates and Washbourne, 1928) p 70.

---

APPENDIX

The Excommunication of Arnold Harris Mathew

Unto his beloved Catholic Sons dwelling in England

Pius X, Supreme Pontiff

Beloved Sons, Greeting and Apostolic Benediction.

In the pale of a grave and enduring scandal, it is with the most profound grief of soul that We have learned that priests of your country, namely Herbert Ignatius Beale and Arthur William Howarth, of the clergy of Nottingham, seeking their own glory rather than that of Jesus Christ, and being carried away by the fire of ambition, having attempted on various occasions to be elevated to the episcopal dignity by non-Catholics, have recently proceeded with such temerity that, having obtained their wish, they have arrogantly announced unto Us that they have procured episcopal consecration. Nor does their announcement lack authentic testimony; for he who was the principal author of this sacrilegious crime, the pseudo-bishop Arnold Harris Mathew, has not feared openly to confirm this deed, having transmitted to Us letters swollen with pride. And, moreover, he has not hesitated to arrogate unto himself the title of "Anglo-Catholic Archbishop of London."

Turning Our thoughts and Our solicitude first of all to you, Beloved Sons, of whose constant and devoted good will we have ever received such illustrious testimony, We vigorously exhort you to guard zealously against their frauds and snares.

Furthermore, lest We should appear to betray Our office, being faithful to the examples of Our Predecessors, We hereby proclaim the aforesaid consecration to have been illegitimate and sacrilegious, and to have been performed in a manner wholly contrary to the mandates of this Holy See and the sanction of the Sacred Canons.

The above-named priests, therefore, namely Arnold Harris Mathew, Herbert Ignatius Beale, and Arthur William Howarth, and all others who lent aid, counsel or consent to this nefarious crime, by the authority of Almighty God, we hereby excommunicate, anathematize, and solemnly command and declare to be separated from the communion of the Church and to be held for schismatics, and to be avoided by all Catholics and especially by yourselves.

Having administered this indeed bitter but most necessary medicine, We exhort you also, Beloved Sons, to join your fervent prayers to Ours, beseeching God that He deign mercifully to lead back to the sheepfold of Christ and the port of salvation these unhappily errant men.

That with the aid of God you may the more readily obtain this desire, We impart unto you with all Our heart the Apostolic Benediction.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, under the Ring of the Fisherman, the eleventh day of February, 1911, in the eighth year of Our Pontificate.

PIUS X, SUPREME PONTIFF

---

Commentary

The foregoing was translated by Father William Jenkins (SSPX) from the official Latin edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, year III, vol. III, no. 2, February 15, 1911.

In Father Stanislaus Woywod's A practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, (London: B. Herder, 1939), we read on page 439 that there are several requirements for a person to considered excommunicated as a "vitandus" ("one who is to be avoided").

The requirements are that (1) one must be excommunicated by name by the Apostolic See, (2) the excommunication must be publicly proclaimed, and (3) the decree or sentence must expressly state that the person named must be avoided. It is clear that the requirements are met in the foregoing decree.

This decree should be a sufficient indication of how the Church regards those who get involved with Old Catholic sects.

 

 

Originally published in The Roman Catholic magazine, 1980, Fr. Anthony Cekada