More on the so-called "Secret of La Salette"

Dialogue with an SSPX Adherent on the "Secret of La Salette"

Harriet Murphy wrote Jan 31, 2005:

  1. “On the Feast of St. John Bosco we can well remember his prophecy at the First Vatican Council that, if the pope declares infallibility to be de fide, many Catholics will foolishly deduce from that that a pope can do anything. We know that he was not schismatic when he said that. We know that all who had argued against the proclamation before the declaration in 1870 by the pope obeyed once it was declared de fide or left the Church. What Don Bosco intuited was a problem, an inability, born out of spiritual and intellectual laziness, of discerning when and under what conditions a pope must be obeyed; and an awareness that many would tend to confuse the pope's fallibility with his infallibility, or at least conflate them.

  2. Prophecy is part of our tradition. The Old Testament prophesied the advent of Christ. The New prophesies the end of the world. The Book of the Apocalypse, certainly abused by many who were against the Church, gives the best possible allegorical meditation on the clash between those who believe and those who do not believe. Many of the saints made prophecies which were eventually fulfilled.

  3. The basis for the criticism of the Novus Ordo as doctrinally questionable in part draws on an Old and New Testament prophecy of the "abomination of desolation".

  4. The basis for the claim that some of the popes since 1958 have dabbled in doctrinal heresies or prevarications is likewise in part due to a prophecy from St. Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians, which anticipates a wide spread falling away from the faith before the Second Coming of Our Lord, known as the apostasy, and specifically mentions someone who will "enthrone himself in God's sanctuary" claiming he is, as it were, God himself. That could be a pope who presumes to treat the Tradition as renegotiable according to humanist precepts...

  5. If there are, as the internet websites show, countless prophecies to the effect that Rome will become occupied by the enemy, Bl. Anna K. Emmerich and Our Lady of La Salette and Bl. Elena Aiello notwithstanding, it is ridiculous to broadcast mockery in respect of those who attempt to relate current Church matters with those prophecies.

  6. I share your scepticism about Brentano's abuse of Emmerich. That is why the Church discounted her "visions" because they could not be proven to be her own.

  7. Your dismissive attitude to the 1879 version of the secret of La Salette may have to be revised in the light of the archival work done in the Vatican as a result of access to documents made available for the first time. See Rene Laurentin and Michel Corteville.

  8. Your elaborate quotations of all the papal condemnations show up a persistent blind spot in your work. All the disciplinary measures in the Church are there for the sake of the faith. It may well be that, according to what was known at the time, the versions of the La Salette secret in circulation had to be condemned in the early 1900s. If new research brings to light new facts, then the secret will be approved. The same force used to condemn Rosmini will likely be used to approve him in the future for exactly the same reason. It is always possible that the Church, wanting to be prudent, also uses these disciplinary measures to protect the faithful from being lead astray by what are only speculations, or what are potentially, if not actually, dangerous ideas, ie. for pragmatic reasons, for pastoral reasons.

  9. We all agree that Pope St. Pius X was right to mock the modernists for alleging faithfulness to the Magisterium when in fact they were wolves. But questioning the Magisterium when it is overtly in contradiction to Tradition is precisely what Pope St. Pius X and Cardinal Merry del Val would have expected from any true Catholic. Again you fail to see the issue of substance. Everything is subordinate to defending truth from error. The Church teaches that the Magisterium is not always protected from error, ie. can err when not reiterating doctrines and dogmas already declared infallible. On that basis the case against the SSPX simply does not hold.

  10. A man who cannot make a sound distinction between a Martin Luther, who believed that all popes per se were the Antichrist, and traditional Catholics who, familiar with scriptural prophecy and the prophecies of the saints (not all of them are inerrant, we yet agree) about Rome as a possible source of the doctrines of Anti-Christ, is a true bigot.

  11. Read Cardinal Manning's works. He wrote a whole book on the question of Rome losing the faith. Of course he was not a crypto-Protestant. Of course he had not lost faith in Our Lord's prophecy that the gates of Hell will not prevail. Popes sit only temporarily on the papal throne. Ergo doctrinally questionable popes will give way to the kind of saintly popes of the caliber of Pope St. Pius V and Pope St. Pius X. God always sends us great martyrs and great defenders of the faith just when we need them most. Just as all of Christendom fell for the Arian heresy for three hundred years, including the pope of the day, so the vast majority of Catholics cannot distinguish between truth and error today. Although our record, in terms of the distinction of our popes is marvellous, we still have had both sinful popes, and doctrinally devious popes. Liberius and Honorius are the two who spring to mind, Pope John XXII in the medieval period would be another. Whilst in the minority they were still the visible heads of the Catholic Church. Nonetheless the Church has found them to have erred beyond redemption, otherwise they would not have been retrospectively excommunicated, or considered to be anti-popes.

  12. All this being so (you have presumably received replies like this ad nauseam), why waste your time letting off steam? Why not do something constructive and with love?




I reply:

Greetings Ms Murphy,

I guess that you are THE Harriet Murphy whose writings have graced ”Christian Order”? That you are presently located in Germany? And, that you are an adherent to the Society of St Pius X – but are not a sedevacantist?

I can see that this is going to be quite tedious. We both have “strongly held views”!

From the beginning:

  1. (a). You claim that St John Bosco made a prophecy “at the First Vatican Council.”

    As I am unaware that he was at Vatican I, could you please supply evidence for that claim?

    (b). I do not “foolishly deduce that the pope can do anything.”

    (c), I do not confuse his infallibility, or at least conflate them.”

    I remind you that for over twenty-three years I WAS exposed to the propaganda of the SSPX and sundry other Integrists, including sedevacantists such as Hutton Gibson and Patrick Henry Omlor. When Hutton was National Secretary of The Latin Mass Society of Australia, I was the Vice-President. I also was on one of the committees which brought Archbishop Lefebvre to Australia and set up the SSPX in Australia.

  2. I am aware of the role of Prophecy in the Catholic Church and am equally aware that multiple prophecies of Saints past have not eventuated.

  3. The basis of criticism of the “Novus Ordo” has been based on both genuine and spurious reasons and motives.

  4. (a). Attempts to link the present Catholic Church position with the “apostasy” is ludicrous – but consistent with the Integrist agenda. I will here insert reasons from Desmond Birch, author of “Trial, Tribulation and Triumph”:
    A Summary from Desmond Birch

    “A long list of Canonized Saints, Blessed, and Venerable have stated that the period of turmoil we are living through wll be followed by an Age of Peace - and that that 'Peace' will precede the rise of the Antichrist.

    “Those Church approved Catholic Prophets are very very specific about the chain of events which will precede the rise of the Antichrist. They all say that the Age of Peace comes before the Antichrist.

    “The Church has always taught that until the entire world is evangelized - and a following worldwide apostasy takes place - the antichrist cannot come. Read St. Paul. He had to write to one of the early Churches telling them about these things - because they were going off the rails thinking that Antichrist had already arrived. Read St. Paul. The more it changes, the more it stays the same. We have been given signs as to what must precede the Antichrist. And they have not yet been fulfilled.

    “I also sense (as put it so well) a 'new grace afoot'.

    “In my experience, those who do not sense the 'new grace' are immersing themselves only in bad news - and will even on occasion violently resist and reject any good news. When that happens it usually emanates from a kind of spiritual 'death wish'.

    “Those who fully accept the Christian Virtue of 'Hope' (on an equal footing with those of 'Faith' and 'Charity' do not suffer from that particular problem.

    “St. Faustina tells us that Our Lord told us to concentrate on His Divine Mercy at this time in salvation history.

    “That is good direction and advice.

    “The Antichrist cannot already be here for the following reasons:

    “All the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who have written on the Antichrist state the following:

    “The Gospel will first have to have been preached to all nations/peoples in world. That hasn't happened yet.

    “If you will read the Holy Father's Encyclical Redemptoris Missio - he specifically states that the Evangelical work of the Church is "far from over" and "only just beginning".

    “John Paul II states in Ecclesia in Asia - that it is ironic that on the very continent in which Christ began his mission - that Continent has not yet been evangelized except in scattered parts of that Continent - and Asia holds 2.3 of the worlds people.

    “The Holy Father further states in Ecclesia in Asia that he 'sees' Asia finally being evangelized in the Third Millennium.

    “The Holy Father and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples have also both stated that 'East Africa' has virtually never been evangelized at all. The reason for that is that the Moslems got there before Christianity - and have martyred Christian Missionaries ever since - almost as fast as they arrive there.

    “The worldwide 'Apostacy' which St. Paul speaks of has not happened yet. Apostacy and heresy are not the same thing. Apostacy is a total renunciation of their Christian Faith by a baptized Christian. Far from this happening, in large parts of the world the Church is growing faster than ever before in history. Africa is a case in point, and so is Asia.

    “These are just a couple of things which we know from Scripture and Tradition must precede the arrival of the Antichrist. No - the Antichrist is not here - and he won't be coming till after the entire world has been evangelized - and then after that - the apostacy occurs.

    “According to literally dozens of Canonized Saints, Blessed and Venerable (who are prophets who enjoy Church-approval - the era we are living through now is going to come to an abrupt end (attempts at World Govt., etc.) and the Age of Peace will ensue. After that Age of Peace - they all state that then and only then does the Antichrist make his appearance.

    “Now - that is looking at things from the perspective of 'private prophecy' from many dozens of Saints, Blessed, and Venerable and other Church-approved prophets.

    “From the perspective of Public Revelation - we are told and the Church teaches that first the Gospel must be preached to all the nations/peoples. The Holy Father and Church History teach us this has not yet occurred - not even close.

    “After the World has been totally evangelized - which the Holy Father has repeatedly stated will occur sometime in the Third Millennium - then we have to go through the Apostacy - which St. Paul teaches us the faithful must precede the coming of the Antichrist.

    “As to your last question - I deal with the attraction of believing the Antichrist is coming at any time at length in 'Trial, Tribulation & Triumph' (TTT). If you have not read it - you will find a full discussion of this subject in there. Every single century has had false deluded 'alleged' prophets claiming they were told the Antichrist is either already here - or is about to come.

    “In every century, there have been people wildly enamored of listening to their false prophecy - for reasons I discuss in depth in TTT.

    “BTW, I discussed in TTT the fact that there were current prophets claiming the Antichrist would make his actual appearance by the year 2000 - or by the year 1998. I was the only author to write a major book on the subject who came right out and said that could not possibly be so. I put my reputation on the line by stating that.

    “How did I know??? Because the signs given in Scripture and Tradition and found in the writing of the Fathers of the Church from the Apostolic Tradition clearly delineate certain events which must precede that Antichrist. I knew all those thing could not happen in the five years between 1995 (when I was writing that part of TTT) and the year 2000. It was a no-brainer.”

    (b). Sure! Popes can and have dabbled with heresy – as private Doctors of the Church, but when you claim: “… someone who will 'enthrone himself in God's sanctuary' claiming he is, as it were, God himself. That could be a pope who presumes to treat the Tradition as renegotiable according to humanist precepts...” – THAT is pure speculation based on lack of Faith in the Holy Spirit's guiding and preventing EVERY pope from infallibly teaching heresy and foisting it upon the Catholic Church. It is YOU, Ms Murphy who does not know the difference between “Tradition” and “traditions.”

  5. You attempt the logical fallacy of appealing to a majority with “If there are, as the internet websites show, countless prophecies to the effect that Rome will… , it is ridiculous to broadcast mockery in respect of those who attempt to relate current Church matters with those prophecies.”

    What rubbish- if only for it's illogicality of appealing to a majority!

    “There are countless internet websites which show” the alleged (but false) “Prophecies of St Nilus” – Robert Moynihan's “Inside the Vatican”, Oct. 2004 included.

    NONE of the “traditionalist” Catholic websites give a verifiable source for their claim. NONE! The 4th century St Nilus allegedly speaks about the 1900's and the middle of the century, etc. But, there was NO calculation of years AD until about 150 years after that St Nilus' death, and Ven. Bede only started calculations in the 8th century. There is much more to the matter, including discussion about the Orthodox's St Nilus the Myrrhgusher in the 17th century – but too much for now.

    I have e-mailed Mr Moynihan and pointed out the error, and he has undertaken to investigate the matter. I hope he makes a retraction!

    Is it any surprise that the SSPX spin-doctors use it also? It was printed in one of the SSPX publications, the Bulletin of the Society of St. Pius X Mitteilungsblatt der Priesterbruderschaft St Pius X für den deuschen Sprachraum for March 1989.

  6. No problems.

  7. &

  8. “See Rene Laurentin and Michel Corteville”

    I have! I also have seen reference to the 1999 opus by the Missionaries of La Salette priest, Fr. Michel Corteville: “La grande nouvelle des bergers de la Salette”. I have also noted the SSPX antagonism to both the Missionaries of La Salette (SSPX priest Fr. Dominique Bourmaud says of them “the Fathers of Salette who cannot suffer the authentic Secret” – of course, he is NOT referring to the authentic 1851 Secret which was sent to the Pope!), and to Fr. René Laurentin (“Father Laurentin is an avant-garde theologian very much in the ecumenical charismatism, that of Medjugorje, inter alia, etc.”) – still, the SSPX will give the “imprimatur” (so to speak) if it will advance the 1876 so-called “Secret of La Salette.” It is the tactic of Satan, who will allow 99% truth if only the gullible will swallow 1% of error!

  9. (a). I am NOT interested in “mockery.” I am interested in exposing the truth about the dishonour given to the Blessed Virgin Mary by putting in her mouth the phrase: “Rome will loose the Faith and become the seat of antichrist.” I believe that is a fabrication!

    I have just made some up-dates to my website at VISIONS fixing the link to the on-line Index Librorvm Prohibitorvm, plus some specific links to the Indexed La Salette works, including 1851 and 1876 "Secrets Compared being a comparison of the (undisputed) 1851 Secret sent to Pope Pius IX, and the 1876 fabrication – as updated at 2004 in the Abbé Combe re-reprint per Ronald Conte.

    (b). The case against the SSPX holds because the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, the Supreme Lawmaker, the Supreme Law Interpreter, the one with the Power of the Keys, and because it is Catholic Dogma (de fide) that no one may judge the pope.

  10. “A man who cannot make a sound distinction between a Martin Luther, who believed that all popes per se were the Antichrist, and traditional Catholics who, familiar with scriptural prophecy and the prophecies of the saints (not all of them are inerrant, we yet agree) about Rome as a possible source of the doctrines of Anti-Christ, is a true bigot.”

    I agree. However, I do make a distinction! I claim that it was Luther who first floated the Pope as the antichrist and/or Rome has become the seat of antichrist. But, it was Mélanie Calvat, the avid reader of apocalyptic writings, who was “miffed” (I use this word in lieu of a stronger one out of deference to public taste) at the lack of attention shown to her as a “visionary”, who was “miffed” at the bishops and priests who disbelieved her (e.g. Bishop Ginoulhiac who on Nov. 4, 1854 in a pastoral letter to his clergy, stated: “…we believe it to be our duty to refuse to admit her [Mélanie] to the yearly vows…” Mélanie refused to accept the required year's probation. As a consequence, on Feb. 23, The Bishop of Hexham took her under his wing, and ultimately, she went to a Carmelite convent in Darlington where she received the habit on this day. She refused to make her profession and sought to leave the convent. It was here, and later in France, that she first began to divulge snatches of the "Secret".)

    I humbly disagree with you that I am a bigot. I am not so sure about you, however!

  11. (a). I am not against speculation by persons such as Cardinal Manning or other qualified and learned theologians. After all, it is a theologian's “job” to have opinions. It is the same with canon Lawyers – one will prosecute, another will defend. Only one will win! Cardinal Manning was never a schismatic nor excommunicated – as was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He was a looser! And he is to be earnestly prayer for.

    (b). “Popes sit only temporarily on the papal throne.” But ALL popes, good and bad, possess the absolute fullness of the Power of the Keys when they are called upon to “pope.”

    (c) First as all of Christendom fell for the Arian heresy for three hundred years, including the pope of the day,” FALSE!!! For the sake of brevity:

    Doug Bersaw wrote regarding Pope Honorius:

    “He was denounced by the council as a heretic but the council document was ALTERED by Pope St. Leo II before it was promulgated. No Council document has any force until it is approved by the Pope, and NO COUNCIL CAN JUDGE A POPE (even posthumously) unless the then reigning pontiff sign the decree. Pope Honorius was not found to be a heretic himself, only NEGLIGENT in his duty. The particular wording of the final document approved by Pope Saint Leo II was this: 'he failed to enlighten the world with the apostolic doctrines'.

    Therefore was he condemned? Yes
    Was he judged by a council. Not exactly.
    Was he condemned by another Pope. after his death? Yes.
    Was he a heretic? No.
    Did he allow heresy to flourish by his negligence? Yes.
    Can any Pope ever be a formal heretic? I do not believe so. and I think that that is the judgement of the sounder minds among the Fathers and Doctors.
    Does it injure either the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope or the indefectibility of the Church if a Pope is a bad pope and allows or is responsible for the spread of heresy ? No it does not.”

    See also a larger work:
    THE SUPPOSED FALL OF HONORIUS AND HIS CONDEMNATION
    http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm

    ST. ANASTASIUS 1398-401
    The Orthodoxy of the Pope LIBERIUS

    [From the epistle "Dat mihi plurimum" to Venerius, Bishop of Milan, about the year 400] 93 That which is done for the love of Christ gives me very much joy; Italy, as victor with that zeal and aroused ardor for the godhead, retained that faith whole which was handed down from the Apostles and placed in the whole world by our ancestors. For at this time when Constantius of holy memory held the world as victor, the heretical African faction was not able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we believe our God provided that that holy and untarnished faith be not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men—that faith which had been discussed and defended at the meeting of the synod in Nicea by the holy men and bishops now placed in the resting-place of the saints. For this faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is Dionysius, thus a servant of God, prepared by divine instruction, or those following his example of holy recollection, LIBERIUS bishop of the Roman Church, Eusebius also of Vercelli, Hilary of the Gauls, to say nothing of many, on whose decision the choice could rest to be fastened to the cross rather than blaspheme God Christ, which the Arian heresy compelled, or call the Son of God, God Christ, a creature of the Lord.
    i Cf. Deer. DAMASI[n. 84].
    " Revue d'hist. et lilt. relig. (Paris) 4 (1899) 5-8 (). van den Gheyn). Pitra, Analecta novissima Spicilegii Solesmensis (1885) 1 463 1. (cf. 20 ff.); )t 281 c. Add. (cf. Cst p. XIII).
    3 There follows the condemnation of the errors of Origen.

    NOTE: St Anastasius described Liberius as a “holy bishop.”!

    (d). “Nonetheless the Church has found them to have erred beyond redemption..,”

    Madam! Nobody is beyond redemption! It is defined Catholic Dogma that the whole of mankind has been redeemed!

    (e). “…otherwise they would not have been retrospectively excommunicated, or considered to be anti-popes.”

    For your information and edification:

    1. Neither Liberius nor Honorius were EVER anti-popes!

    2. As to the “excommunications” of Popes Liberius and Honorius, I suggest that you read a good Catholic source – say, for example, “The Question Box", by Rev. Bertrand L.Conway, The Paulist Press, 1929. Even you ought not have an objection to a 1929 publication?

    As to Liberius, in addition to the above entry at Item #14, the “Question Box” states:
    “…St Athanasius himself declared that Liberius' signature was forced from him under threat of death (History of the Arians, xli.) … It is certainly remarkable that many of the Fathers and Popes of the fourth century speak of Liberius in the highest terms, praising both his holiness and his orthodoxy, viz., St. Ambrose (De Virginibus, iii., 1), St Basil (Epis., 263, 3), Pope Siricius (Epis., i., 1), Pope Anastasius (Letter to Venerius of Milan), etc.”

    As to Honorius:

    “…He used language which shows clearly that he failed to recognize the latent heresy of his subtle correspondent, but which can be understood in a perfectly orthodox sense…

    “Even non-Catholic historians have admitted that Honorius was not a heretic…

    “ 'Nor need we reject as not genuine (as Baronius falsely did) the acts of the Sixth General Council which condemned Honorius; it was for the imprudent economy of silence that he was condemned.' (The Later Roman Empire, ii., 252).

    “When Leo II (682-683) confirmed the decrees of the Sixth General Council, he also anathematized Honorius, not for teaching the Monothelite heresy, but for his negligence in 'permitting the immaculate faith to be stained'; or , as he writes again to the Bishops of Spain, 'for not having extinguished the flame of heretical teaching, as became the Apostolic authority, and for fostering it by his negligence' (Grisar, Kirchenlexicon, vi., 255).” Etc.

Again, Madam, I am aghast to see that I MUST have made a mistake about you. It is impossible for a “Doctor” in any discipline to have made so many errors of fact in matters of logic, Catholic History and Ecclesiology as you have in this e_mail of yours. You simply cannot be the Harriet Murphy of whom I have been thinking. It is impossible.

In any event, I hope that you will soon come to your senses about being in a state of schism and excommunication (if you are adhering to the SSPX schism).

I am heartened in the knowledge that people DO revert back to the fullness of the Catholic Faith; only yesterday I was asked to comment on the on-going of the SSPX schism and was able to end with:

Q. 3. What specifically so disturbed you about the Society that caused you to write to Rome in 1998?

A. I think that most people who are victims of cults – and the SSPX is a cult! – are keen to try to help their fellow victims to return to a normal orthodoxy. Having been associated with the SSPX for over twenty-three years and being given the Grace to finally acknowledge the fact that there is no “good” reason to be in schism from the Catholic Church – as a penitential exercise, I decided to endeavour to repair the damage for which I have been responsible, and to provide useful information to whomever may also wish to escape from the SSPX.

Over the past seven years I have received an enormous amount of correspondence from pro-SSPX/Independent/sedevacantist individuals who have not spared an immense amount of vitriol. However, there have also been many who have indicated that the contents of the website have helped them.

Just before Christmas last I received correspondence from two former sedevacantists who advised me of their renunciation of sedevacantism and reconciliation with Rome. One was a former Editor of the St Francis Newsletter (now defunct) which provided much information on the twenty two claimants to the Chair of Peter since Vatican II.

The second person (and her husband) were, for thirty years, adherents to one of those claimants, Francis Schuckardt, founder of the C.M.R.I. at Mount St Michael's in Spokane. Schuckhardt would claim to be Pope Hadrian VII.

Within the last two weeks, I received correspondence from a former supporter for fifteen years of “The Little Pebble” a.k.a. William Kamm. He, his wife and family of nine children are now also reconciled.

God bless,

F. John Loughnan



Harriet Murphy's response Feb. 1, 2005

Dear Fr. Loughnan

What mass do you offer up every day?

Have you ever thought of abandoning your internet apostolate and devoting the rest of your life to prayer to make reparation for your having supported the sedevacantist position?

  1. Speculation about the series of events before the advent of Antichrist should not prevent us from loosing sight of the distinction between forerunners of Anti-Christ and Anti-Christ himself. The era of peace was reiterated at Fatima by Our Blessed Lady. It is in the pope's gift which takes us to the question of whether or not Russia has been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Marian age will ensue after the consecration has taken place, and once a holy pope of the future uses the papal power to anathematise all the errors of our day which we say have been the effect of the Second Vatican Council. The peace will last for a while, then the people will lapse again into error, schism, immorality, heresy, as ever. The rhythm of all of this has never changed.

  2. Falling for the "Second Spring" claim is foolish in the light of the evidence of falling mass attendance, scriptural, doctrinal and theological illiteracy, immorality and so on. The proof is that those in authority are doing little to nothing to stamp out sin. The negligence of our pastors provokes God's wrath. The topic of sex education in Catholic schools is a case in point. It is silly to allege that all who highlight these aspects are unaware of what is or may be good elsewhere, though charismatic Catholicism and ecumenism are hardly helping conversions. As you know, conversions to the Catholic faith are no longer necessary. This is the official position since the Council, and the proof is in the Rome-Moscow accord and the Balamand agreement, and in countless statements and actions.

  3. The facts about the evangelisation of Africa and Asia have not been provided. Who was St. Augustine of Hippo, and what did he succeed in doing in North Africa? The figures have never been stable because the situation is fluid in all souls until their last dying breath.. What Holy Scripture means, I take it, is that in the era of peace predicted at Fatima there will be massive numbers of conversions simultaneously throughout the universe, which will be entirely unusual, as this has not been the case in our history.

  4. Of course the Holy Spirit guides the Church. She was guided through the questionable pontificates of Honorius and Liberius as She is being guided now. We will have a Council in the future which will denounce the errors of our day, and deal with the extent of the culpability of individual pontiffs, in exactly the same way as before.

  5. I referred to Pope John XXII as an anti-pope.

  6. Can a pope ever be a formal or a material heretic? We can speculate, because St. R. Bellarmine did. If God has permitted such a pope or series of popes, a pope of the future will deal with the eventuality using the papal keys because only a pope can judge a pope in the sense of delivering the formal verdict. You and I have to discern the spirits in ourselves and others meanwhile.

  7. What does the Church actually mean when She teaches that a pope has the power to teach? When he defines in the extraordinary Magisterium and when he repeats defined truths, dogmas and doctrines in the ordinary Magisterium, which can be fallible. On that basis criticism is not evidence of schism or heresy. He is not permitted to introduce novelty. The 2nd Vatican Council did not define ex Cathedra, as you know. There is a lot of vulgarized socialism and existentialism in some of the documents, and copious peans of praise to man which are susceptible to humanist interpretations.

  8. I regret incorrect formulations. Of course we have been redeemed. But an excommunication always implies that a soul has been consigned to hell and is not saved unless he repents before he dies. The modernist Fr. Tyrrell did not repent before his death, ergo we assume that his excommunication entailed deprivation of the beatific vision.

Please do not respond to this message. I am delighted you have rejected sedevacantism, but I think your approach is not helped by what comes across as a wilful narrowness. Read the documents of the Second Vatican Council again. Reread Pacem in Terris. Reread Lefebvre's criticisms of Religious Liberty and his book Against the Heresies. And remember Our Lady of Fatima.

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Harriet Murphy



As Ms Murphy has requested that I not respond to her message, I will comment as follows:

She wrote:

“Dear Fr. Loughnan

“What mass do you offer up every day?

“Have you ever thought of abandoning your internet apostolate and devoting the rest of your life to prayer to make reparation for your having supported the sedevacantist position?”

First of all, Ms Murphy sees an “F.” before John Loughnan and jumps to the conclusion that I am a priest! I am NOT and NEVER have represented myself as a priest; My wife and I are soon to celebrate our 45th wedding anniversary. On the front page of my website at Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page in plain sight is the notice:

“Welcome to my home page! Born Catholics in 1934 and 1935, our desire is to be faithful Catholics, and to complete our lives in union with the See of Peter. As will be seen - my wife, Norma, and I supported the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre from 1974 to 1997…”

Furthermore, I have never “supported the sedevacantist position.” Just because I have known sedevacantists, corresponded with sedevacantists and encouraged sedevacantists to reconcile with Rome does not mean that, therefore, I am a sedevacantist! It is a bit like me concluding that in view of the facts that Ms Murphy possesses a German e-mail account, uses a German ISP that, therefore, she is a German.

Her opening comments – which demonstrate a lack of comprehension, discernment and which are speculative illogicalities – are only exceeded by the state of denial exhibited falsely claiming that Popes Liberius, Honorius and John XXII were “considered to be anti-popes.”

Initially, she wrote:

“… we still have had both sinful popes, and doctrinally devious popes. Liberius and Honorius are the two who spring to mind, Pope John XXII in the medieval period would be another. Whilst in the minority they were still the visible heads of the Catholic Church. Nonetheless the Church has found them to have erred beyond redemption, otherwise they would not have been retrospectively excommunicated, or considered to be anti-pope.”

Simply stated: She claims that Popes Liberius, Honorius and John XXII were ALL found by the Church to have erred beyond redemption – the rational for which is proven because THEY all have been considered to be anti-pope.

In her last response, Ms Murphy still continues with the attack on the first two popes, saying:

“…the Church … was guided through the questionable pontificates of Honorius and Liberius as She is being guided now.”

She then attempts to qualify her position with:

“I referred to Pope John XXII as an anti-pope.”

Well, No! Ms Murphy, you did not! You lumped all three in the same condition! All three were claimed to have erred beyond redemption and considered to be anti-pope. Quite simply – you erred – dare I say it, “beyond redemption”? Of course, that would be wrong, for anyone still living and in a sound state of mind IS capable of recognizing and rejecting errors held. It is a shame that Ms Murphy will not grant the possibility to Popes Liberius, Honorius, John XXII – and, of course to Fr. Tyrrell who, she judges, “did not repent before his death, ergo we assume that his excommunication entailed deprivation of the beatific vision.” How amazing it is that, given the huge numbers of errors demonstrated thus far, Ms Murphy grants to herself the illumination of knowledge as to the state of mind and soul of Fr. Tyrrell which enables her to know that he is in hell. The mind boggles!

Not only that, none of the above (including Pope John XXII) were ever considered by the Church to have been an anti-pope. Two books, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes and Vicars of Christ - The Dark Side of the Papacy, the authors of which are no friends of the Catholic Church, have this to say of Pope John XXII:

In 4 sermons delivered in winter 1331-2 he:

However, Pope John XXII is described in “THE POPES From St Peter to Paul VI,” London: Catholic Truth Society, 1966, thusly:

“Jacques Duèse of Cahors. Elected at Lyons, after a vacancy of two years and three months, at the age of 72 he lived at Avignon, of which he had been bishop. He was a remarkable administrator. He vigorously opposed Louis of Bavaria, a candidate for the Empire, in whose pay and service was William of Ockham, a famous English schoolman, and the Fraticelli (Franciscan Extremists called 'the Spirituals') ; they set up an anti-pope (Pierre de Corbière). John strongly maintained the rights of the Holy See against Louis and all his supporters; and condemned Marsilius of Padua, who had written a revolutionary work, the Defensor Pacis, subordinating the Pope to a General Council and the Council to the Emperor.”

The CTS booklet goes on to point out that the anti-pope of that period was:

"'Nicholas V', 1328” – the above-named Pierre de Corbière

Furthermore, have you noticed how she has taken a swipe at the post Vatican II popes, and especially at Pope John Paul II? I repeat what she wrote:

“Of course the Holy Spirit guides the Church. She was guided through the questionable pontificates of Honorius and Liberius as She is being guided now.”

This means (in Integrist speak):

“Just as the Holy Spirit guided the Church through the pontificates of the anti-popes Honorius and Liberius (and John XXII), so too the Church is guided during the pontificate of John Paul II (and the other post Vatican II anti-popes). In fact, it was Archbishop Lefebvre and is the present SSPX bishops and other Independents who the Holy Spirit guides.”

Not only has Ms Murphy got it wrong again – she has enabled us to see the similarity between the Fraticelli (Franciscan Extremists called 'the Spirituals') and the present-day extremists (who are both schismatic and excommunicated) - the adherents to the schism of the Society of St Pius X.

She brings up the same old argument of the sedevacantists, who want to entrap any unsuspecting Catholic who wanders into the argument, and perform the old sales-trick of getting the prospect to say, “Yes” to the early questions – so that it becomes so much easier to say “Yes” to the important question at the close of the sales pitch.

“Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE for a pope to be an heretic – for St Robert Bellarmine says it is possible?” - the “prospect” nods, saying “'Yes' it is POSSIBLE.”

“O.K. Well, Saint X, Y and X, and Fr. P, Q & R say that “xxxxx” is heresy, and they are right because they are saints and holy men, right?” “Yes, I guess so,” nods the “prospect”

Well, Pope John Paul II says the opposite to St. Robert and all the other saints and holy men – so that can only mean that Pope John Paul II is an heretic, right?” “Yes, Yes, Yes!" gasps the convert.

And, so it is established. The post Vatican II popes are heretics; Vatican Council II taught heresies. The only hope is under the umbrella of Archbishop Lefenvre – no! Saint Marcel, the St Athanasius of our time. Hallelujah!

I. Shawn McElhinney wrote on the same subject:

“The problem here is that the 'trad' is now elevating theological opinions to the level of dogma.. Also again, the burden of proof is on the accuser who must then demonstrate that they have a competence to make these determinations. Now if a prelate was going against the clear teaching of the Universal Catechism or the decrees of a General Council (or the Magisterium of the Popes ordinary or extraordinary) then yes he could be rebuked. However, the problem with 'trads' is that they are almost always without exception so badly schooled in theology and the ability to utilize proper nuance in theological questions (not to mention being bereft of proper understanding of the development paradigm of Lerins, Aquinas, and Newman) that they are in no position to be able to make proper determinations yet they delude themselves into thinking that they are. Their first step in ANY situation should ALWAYS be to give the Magisterium the benefit of the doubt and seek to find a way to harmonize what appears to be contradiction in previous and current policies. Only when all else has failed should they attempt to dissent and even then they must be open to being corrected and considering that they are mistaken. 'Trads' do not do this, instead their first reaction is to dissent and shriek about anything that appears irregular to them. Appearances can be deceiving yet to the 'trad' the Magisterium is as crystal clear in its past documents and formulations as Scripture is to the Protestant and NEITHER generally will listen to people who tell them that something is different from what is so 'obvious' to them.”
“Refutation of Appendix 1"

Sadly, Pete Vere, JCL comments: “One of the truly sad things about the SSPX schism is that while its current adherents believe they are Catholic, barring a miraculous return to communion with Rome, their grandchildren will know that they are not. “

F. John Loughnan
Feb. 2, 2005



What's New? at Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page
F. John Loughnan's Files on the SSPX
Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page