Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Fenton tells the inside story…

The Vatican II Diaries of Mgr. Joseph Fenton: “The End of the Catholic Religion as we have known it”

While countless blogs and web sites today will tragically celebrate the ten-year anniversary of Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum (learn why there is nothing to celebrate, here), we will commemorate a different anniversary instead: It’s been 48 years since the passing of one of America’s finest Catholic theologians: Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton. Some of his many works have recently been reprinted and are available again:

Mgr. Fenton was a priest of the diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, ordained in 1930. He taught at the Catholic University of America and served as editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review from 1943-63. In 1931, he received his doctorate degree in Sacred Theology from the Angelicum in Rome. His dissertation was written under the direction of the saintly Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (d. 1964) and was published in expanded form ten years later as The Concept of Sacred Theology (Bruce Publishing).

Under Pope Pius XII, Fenton was named monsignor and received various papal honors (source). He published numerous books and distinguished himself as a gifted, competent, and orthodox Catholic theologian entirely loyal to the Magisterium of the Church. Over the years, Fenton battled many Modernist errors and engaged in heated polemics with their proponents. In particular, he forcefully refuted the error of religious liberty promoted by Jesuit Fr. John Courtney Murray, which later became Novus Ordo doctrine. At the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Fenton was a theological expert (peritus) for Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the then-Secretary of the Holy Office, who was also a personal friend of Fenton’s.

A number of Mgr. Fenton’s personal diaries have been preserved in an archive of the Catholic University of America. The university has scanned them and released them to the public online for worldwide perusal. Further below we are pleased to share download links for the individual diaries with you in an effort to further a greater and more accurate understanding of the true history of the Second Vatican Council and the theological struggles that occurred between Catholics and Modernists before, during, and after the council.

These diaries, which also provide unique insight into the mind of the competent and zealous anti-Modernist Fenton and make known interesting details about other theologians, are sometimes quoted and cited in various scholarly publications, such as the multi-volume History of Vatican II by Giuseppe Alberigo or David Wemhoff’s John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition.

Of greatest interest to most, of course, will be what Fenton wrote about his struggles against the Modernists during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, when a lot of errors (especially those of the “New Theology”) were being fought that later resurfaced at Vatican II, and about the council itself and the theological discussions that took place behind the scenes. Fenton had a direct connection with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani at the Vatican, which gave him much more influence than other theologians had, and also more inside information.

For example, Fenton knew that the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII was preparing to condemn Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J., and also Jacques Maritain for various doctrinal errors — a condemnation which, however, came to an abrupt halt when Pius XII died on October 9, 1958 (see “The Censuring of John Courtney Murray”, Part II, by Robert Nugent in The Catholic World [Mar/Apr 2008]) and didn’t materialize after the Modernist Angelo Roncalli (“Pope” and now “Saint” John XXIII) usurped the papal throne later that same month. In fact, Roncalli made Murray a theological expert at the council, and his successor, Giovanni Battista Montini (“Pope” Paul VI), later elevated Murray’s error on religious liberty to official conciliar teaching.

Though Fenton assisted Ottaviani with drafting various preliminary documents (schemata) for the council to be debated on the floor, at the order of John XXIII all of them were discarded after the council began, and entirely new texts were drawn up in which the Modernist “New Theologians” had the greatest influence (names like Rahner, Ratzinger, von Balthasar, Congar, Chenu, Murray, and de Lubac come to mind). Good Mgr. Fenton was hospitalized several times during the council for heart problems, so he was not able to participate in the pre-conciliar and conciliar discussions and sessions at all times.

Then-Fr. Fenton (right) in 1948 with Fr. James E. Rea (left),
Fr. Gerard Yelle (center), and Fr. Francis J. Connell (seated)

The Fenton diaries are of great import also because they give a glimpse into how this anti-modernist theologian tried to cope afterwards with the doctrinal, pastoral, and liturgical disorder the council had produced. Although, from all we have been able to ascertain, there is no evidence that Fenton was ever a sedevacantist, he knew that the novel “recognize-and-resist” position, so popular among traditionalists today (especially the Society of St. Pius X), was not an option. The idea of each individual believer sifting church teaching and then “resisting” conciliar errors, while still recognizing the council and the hierarchy as legitimate, was certainly foreign to him.

From what can be gleaned from his diaries, Fenton attempted — as did most priests at the time, of course — to reconcile the teachings of Vatican II with the prior, Catholic magisterium. We must keep in mind, however, that documents and other information back then were not as readily available as they are to us now, and certainly Fenton did not have the benefit of 50 years’ hindsight as we do today with regard to the Novus Ordo Church’s magisterial explanations, clarifications, and developments after the council, which have clearly resolved any ambiguity contained in the conciliar documents themselves in favor of error, not orthodoxy (religious liberty being a case in point).

In any case, Fenton’s journals are an incredibly valuable resource for the historical study of Vatican II, the Modernist errors, and the usurpation of the papal throne in 1958. We share the links to these diaries (further below) in order to allow the objective historical record to speak for itself, not to spin the post-Vatican II Fenton in any particular direction.

Here is a selection of some of Fenton’s most explosive and revealing quotes found in his journals.

Highlights from the Fenton Diaries
Before, During, and After Vatican II:

If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end.” —Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton on Vatican II, Nov. 23, 1962

1960

  • “Our Maltese friend (who was born in Alexandria) told us that he saw Spelly [Cardinal Francis Spellman] coming out of the [1958] conclave looking white and shaken.” (Nov. 2, 1960)
  • “To me the condition here in Rome is an evidence of the existence of the Church as a miracle of the social order.  In general it is being run by men who have no concern whatsoever for the purity or the integrity of the Catholic doctrine. And yet, when the chips are down, the doctrine of Christ always comes through.” (Nov. 5, 1960)
  • “The council will not be allowed to fail. This trip has taught me one thing: I definitely am a believer. It has also shown me that some of the leaders in the Church appear not to believe.” (Nov. 5, 1960)

1962

  • “These are four propositions handed to me under the SHO by the then Laodicea in Phrygia 11/28/54. They were also delivered to [Fr.] Frank Connell… There has never been anything less effective in the Church than a secret condemnation of an error.” (Mar. 16, 1962)
  • “He [Cardinal Ottaviani] remarked that we were on the eve of the Council, and that no one knew who the Council’s theologians were to be.” (Sept. 28, 1962)
  • “It is a crime that we did not take the Anti-Modernist Oath. Poor O[ttaviani] must have failed to have our own profession passed by the central commission. It contained his condemnation of [Fr. John Courtney] Murray.” (Oct. 9, 1962)
  • “I had always thought that this council was dangerous. It was started for no sufficient reason. There was too much talk about what it was supposed to accomplish. Now I am afraid that real trouble is on the way.” (Oct. 13, 1962)
  • “I started to read the material on the Liturgy, and I was shocked at the bad theology. They actually have been stupid enough [to say] that the Church is ‘simul humanam et divininam, visibilem et invisibilem’ [at the same time human and divine, visible and invisible]. And they speak of the Church working ‘quousque unum ovile fiat et unus pastor’ [until there be one fold and one shepherd], as if that condition were not already achieved.” (Oct. 19, 1962)
  • “I do not think that any little work on our part is going to bring good to the Church. We should, I believe, face the facts. Since the death of [Pope] St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This present conciliar set-up makes this all the more apparent. [Fr.] Ed Hanahoe, the only intelligent and faithful member of [Cardinal] Bea’s secretariat has been left off the list of the periti. Such idiots as [Mgr. John S.] Quinn and the sneak [Fr. Frederick] McManus have been put on. [Fr. George] Tavard is there as an American, God help us. From surface appearance it would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church. The thoughts of many are being revealed. As one priest used to say, to excuse his own liberalism, which, in the bottom of his heart he knew was wrong, ‘for the last few decades the tendency in Rome has been to favor the liberals.’ That is the policy now. We can only do what we can to overt an ever more complete disloyalty to Christ.” (Oct. 19, 1962)
  • “As far as I can see the Church is going to be very badly hurt by this council. The opposition between the liberals and the loyal Catholics has been brought out into the open. Yesterday a Dutch (Holland) bishop gave a nasty talk in which he claimed to be speaking for all of his countrymen. He charged that the claims (really statements of fact) about theological imperfection in the schema were ‘exaggerated.’ The poor fellow seemed to imagine that a little lack of precision is all right in a conciliar document. I am disgusted with talk of this kind.” (Oct. 27, 1962)
  • “The sense or feeling of this gathering seems to be entirely liberal. I am anxious to get home. I am afraid that there is nothing at all that I can do here. Being in the council is, of course, the great experience of my life. But, at the same time, it has been a frightful disappointment. I never thought that the episcopate was so liberal. This is going to mark the end of the Catholic religion as we have known it. There will be vernacular Masses, and, worse still, there will be some wretched theology in the constitutions.” (Oct. 31, 1962)
  • “[Fr. Sebastiaan] Tromp has just pointed out that a pastoral council should not be non-doctrinal. Tromp is being very good. He is defending the schemata. He definitely is not giving a break to the opposition. We are hearing history. What is the theological note of what is contained in the theological or doctrinal constitution? Absolutely certain — at least.” (Nov. 13, 1962)
  • “At the Pope’s own order the rules were changed and the schema was thrown out. A new commission was set up including Cardinal Meyer, Alfrink, and Lienart.” (Nov. 23, 1962)
  • “They plan to leave off this television nonsense in a day or two, and then take up the Church Unity then. That will be a disaster. If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end.” (Nov. 23, 1962)
  • “…some other people believe what I have thought for several months, namely, that John XXIII is definitely a lefty. This nonsense to the effect that he is ‘deceived’ or ‘mal servite’ is disgraceful. He is the boss.” (Nov. 25, 1962)
  • “The articles in the Milan Corriere della Sera tell of the Pope’s connection with [the excommunicated Modernist priest Fr. Ernesto] Buonaiuti, and they make him look like a real Modernist, at heart. He probably is.” (Nov. 26, 1962)

1963

  • “I am afraid that they are going to foist a lot of nonsense on the poor Catholic people.” (Mar. 6, 1963)
  • “Liberal Catholicism as understood by these men was and is the system of thought by which the teaching of the Catholic Church were represented as compatible with the maxim that guided the French Revolution.” (May 11, 1963)
  • “The statement of the Council is not a theological text book. At the same time, however, a declaration by a council can cause confusion or finally can actually be harmful when even though there is no error about faith or morals in it, the statement passes over Truths which are, and which have long been generally been recognized as, assertions of Catholic doctrine.” (May 11, 1963)
  • “[Fr.] Ed Hanahoe gave me two books on Modernism. In one of them I found evidence that the teaching in the first chapter of the new schema on the Church [the one that became the Vatican II dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium] and the language are those of [the excommunicated Modernist Fr. George] Tyrrell. May God preserve His Church from that chapter. If it passes, it will be a great evil. I must pray and act.” (Sept. 24, 1963)

1964

  • “There is nothing erroneous in the material [in the schema on divine revelation] we have passed. But there is a great deal that is incomplete and misleading.” (June 4, 1964)
  • “M [Fr. John Courtney Murray] has just come in to see the triumph of his false doctrine [of religious liberty].” (Sept. 21, 1964)
  • “[Cardinal] Lienart is speaking. He is insisting that all Christians have the Jews as a common source. He ignores the fact that the religion of Israel and Juda before the public life [of Christ] was one thing, and past. Christian Judaism is quite another. The center of Jewish religion after Christ is and has been the denial of Christ.” (Sept. 28, 1964)
  • “The more I hear of the speeches and of the progressiveness, the more I am aware of the fact that this council is one of the most important events in all the history of the Church.” (Oct. 9, 1964)
  • [Fr.] Charles Davis has inherited [Fr. Hans] Kung’s position as king of the nuts.” (Nov. 16, 1964)
  • “Of course I realize that I did a stupid thing in asking for the parish and that Chris [Bp. Christopher Weldon] did a stupid and mean thing in giving me [St. Patrick’s church in] Chicopee Falls.” (Nov. 16, 1964)
  • “[Mgr.] Joseph Quinn just told me that the H.O. [Holy Office] is being abolished and that Card. Ottaviani will not be the head of the new, non-supreme, congregation which will take its place. The old man is being humiliated. He is a saint.” (Nov. 21, 1964)

1965

  • “Since coming here I have been obsessed with the idea of writing a book ‘To Be a Priest.’ Then, the night before last (during which I did not sleep at all) I had the inspiration to write what would really be ‘To be a Priest in the Church after Vat. II.’ I think I have something. It will give me the chance to comment on some of the schemata.” (Oct. 26, 1965)
  • “The part on ecumenism [in the text of the commission] is a joke. It reads like a 19th century text, or a second-rate article in a leftist magazine.” (Oct. 28, 1965)
  • “The day before yesterday I had dinner with O [Cardinal Ottaviani]. On the way back I found that the Pope had written to O about [schema no.] 13. I saw the letter. It was a great mistake to let that one, the one on religious liberty [which became Dignitatis Humanae], and the one on non-Christian religions [which became Nostra Aetate] get by the council.” (Nov. 26, 1965)

1966-69

  • “This afternoon John McCarthy called. He is a believer, and he has some confidence in Montini [Paul VI]. He told me that O[ttaviani] has written some articles entirely revising his old position. It must have been under pressure from Montini.” (Sept. 24, 1966)
  • “The Pope [Paul VI] was extremely kind to me. He said over and over again ‘This man is my friend.’ He told those around him to give me anything I wanted. He spoke of our friendship as going back 30 years. Actually it dates back to 1948.” (Nov. 22, 1968, referring to an occurrence on Oct. 16, 1968)
  • “I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it’s either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council. I must start with the basic notion of the Church, which is that of a people ‘transferred’ from the kingdom of darkness into the realm of light. The Council left out the background of the Church. It minimized or glossed over the fact that the Church faces opposition, not just from hostile individuals, but from the ‘world.’” (Nov. 23, 1968)
  • “Thoughts for writing: 1) The ‘for all men’ [as an English translation of pro multis in the canon of the Mass]; 2) Perjury & the Anti-Modernist Oath; 3) Only the historian can judge heresy – a statement by a pretender in the field of theology.” (Mar. 27, 1969)

These select quotes from the Fenton journals paint a petrifying picture of the false Vatican II council.

Just below you will find a listing of all of the Fenton diaries made available by the Catholic University of America, each of which can be downloaded.

Mgr. Fenton’s Diaries Online
(in chronological order — titles are Fenton’s own)

Please Note: Each link leads to a page from which you can download the diary as a PDF file; these files are large (anywhere from 20 to 150 MB each), so keep this in mind when you try to download or open them.

Mgr. Joseph Fenton died of a heart attack in his sleep on July 7, 1969, less than five months before Paul VI’s imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae (“New Mass”) as the liturgical norm in the Latin rite. The last diary entry is dated March 27, 1969. May he rest in peace.

Please share this information with anyone you know who loves the holy Catholic Church and is concerned about what has happened since the death of Pope Pius XII and the Second Vatican Council.

See Also: The Papacy and the Passion of the Church (Lecture)

Image sources: Fenton Diaries via Catholic University of America / Wikimedia Commons / Fenton Diaries
Licenses: Fair use / CC BY 3.0 / fair use

40 Responses to “The Vatican II Diaries of Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton”

  1. Geremia16

    According the bibliographical note in De Mattei’s The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story, “fundamentally important diaries like the one kept by Siri himself and those of Father Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar, and Henri de Lubac have appeared in print”. I didn’t realize Cdl. Siri’s had been published. Are you familiar with it? What’s it entitled? Who published it? Hopefully Msgr. Fenton’s will be typeset and published, too.

  2. Tom A.

    Somewhat off topic but I have read some comments on other blogs pushing Fr Hesse’s notion that Trent Session 7 Canon 13 uses a latin word quiscumque (sp) and translates it as whosoever. There’s a you tube video of Fr Hesse that I have seen on this subject. Recently on your site I thought I heard you say that Fr Hesse was wrong in his translation or the actual Latin wording of the Council’s text. I tried to find a Latin version of Trent online but could not. Can you elaborate? There is plenty of justification pointing to Paul VI’s heresies other than him changing the Mass.

  3. Siobhan

    Ah, yes— “Fr.” Hesse. The VII Sectarian “priest” who stated he was 100% certain that he was validly ordained because he could feel it. Yes, Hesse, the darling of Remnant-esque Latin Massist deceivers.

  4. George

    My guess is that, had he lived, Mgr. Fenton would have fallen into the conservative novus ordo camp, just like his hero Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Siri did. He was too well trained in theology to get involved in the resist-and-recognize position, and he didn’t hate heresy enough to just reject the false pontiffs and declare the Holy See vacant. This is why almost all of the non-modernist theologians eventually went along with the modernist revolution of Vatican II.

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      I think you’re being unfair to Mgr. Fenton. “He didn’t hate heresy enough”? That’s an accusation which I think is gratuitous, rash judgment. Not everyone defected into the Novus Ordo religion. See Fr. Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers, Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga, Fr. Francis Fenton, Fr. Robert McKenna, etc.

      • Siobhan

        You’re probably right that it’s a rash judgement. Maybe I’m engaging in a type of gossip considering the format. May I ask if I’m engaging in rash judgement also when I, as I always do, after having only one brief conversation with the Archbishop, defend Lefebvre by saying that he’d have moved rapidly to sedevacantism after the Consecrations had he lived a bit longer? Rash judgement in the other direction? I guess so?

      • George

        Oh c’mon, N.O.W.. Do you really think that if Fenton had a truly perfect hatred of heresy he could ever have written the following: “My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council.” Hmm, so the theology on the Church was improved by the Council. Yeah, that’s a good one. I would have liked to see him try to defend that thesis.

        Msgr. Fenton was a very capable anti-modernist theologian, but in many ways he was a typical churchman of his time, which is why I place him in the same mold as Ottaviani and Siri.

        • Novus Ordo Watch

          Well, George, you have to remember that Mgr. Fenton, like virtually everyone else at this time, believed Vatican II to have been an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. And given that, of course, he had no choice but to take the teaching of Vatican II at face value and use it to inform his understanding of theology. We have to keep in mind that we today can see everything very clearly because we have the benefit of decades of hindsight.

          • George

            Here’s the weakness in your argument, N.O.W.. You’re assuming that, since everyone believed Vatican II to have been a true council, no one should have known otherwise. And you also assume that, since we know otherwise only by benefit of hindsight, no one should have known it without the benefit of hindsight. I reject these assumptions as naturalistic, denying the power of divine grace.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            I am not saying, of course, that it would have been impossible to “figure it out” right then at there. I am just saying, let’s be mild in our judgments of those who, having proved their love for our Lord and His Church before Vatican II, stumbled during what may very well be the greatest deception the world has ever known.

          • Herman_U_Tick

            “Well, George, you have to remember that Mgr. Fenton, like virtually everyone else at this time, believed Vatican II to have
            been an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. … We have to keep in mind that we today can see everything very clearly
            because we have the benefit of decades of hindsight.”

            “I am not saying, of course, that it would have been impossible to “figure it out” … let’s be mild in our judgments of those who … stumbled during what may very well be the greatest deception the world has ever known.”

            I’m glad that you have given these two quotes, which relate to a problem I have.

            I have been a sedevacantist since 2006 but I am not unaware of some problems with the sedevacantist position.
            One problem is that John 23rd was unanimously accepted as the true Pope at the time of his (apparent) election. However, it is Church doctrine that when the entire Church accepts a Pope then the faithful can be certain that the man in question has been validly elected — he must be the Pope.
            (Of course, there is an interesting element of tautology in this reasoning; everyone must accept because everyone else accepts.)
            Father Cekada, whom I regard as totally reliable in theological matters, made a video dealing with just this topic.
            I was a teenager at the time of the election of John 23rd. I can witness that there was no significant opposition to his accession to the Papacy at the time. There was always a certain amount of clerical “background noise” going on in the Church; here a priest walks out for motives partly doctrinal, partly psychological, there a bishop crosses over from the orthodox to Rome. One cannot reasonably point to a few disgruntled clerics and claim an organised, conscious opposition in retrospect. At the time of Vatican I, quite a large (by 1964 standards) group left the Church. No-one suggests Vatican I is heretical for that reason.

            So my question is as follows. One day in the future a valid Pope will be enthroned, I have no doubt about this; and there will be special circumstances which will prevent anyone from questioning the legitimacy of that Pope. The Church will return to business as usual Pope-wise.
            But if one imagines a hundred years after that, when a new Pope is chosen, how will the faithful be certain ,with the precedent of John 23rd/Vatican II in mind, that he really is the Pope?

            I should add perhaps, that I am confident that a solution will be given to us when it is needed; I just can’t figure out what it is.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            Hi there,
            Let me see if I can contribute some helpful remarks:

            >> One problem is that John 23rd was unanimously accepted as the true Pope at the time of his (apparent) election. However, it is Church doctrine that when the entire Church accepts a Pope then the faithful can be certain that the man in question has been validly elected — he must be the Pope. <<

            I don't know that it's Church *doctrine* that the unanimous acceptance of a man as Pope is an infallible sign that he is Pope, it may just be the common opinion of theologians. Certainly Cardinal Billot made a very powerful and convincing case for it (let's remember, though, that acceptance entails a bit more than people just agreeing he's the Pope; it entails actual adherence to him).

            However, I think that even if this thesis is correct (and it probably is), this is not the whole story. For it is likewise certain that if a man possesses the Supreme Pontificate, no power on earth can take it from him. If the theory is correct (and there is some circumstantial evidence for it) that someone else was elected Pope two days before John XXIII, and if this Pope-elect accepted his election and did not (validly) resign, then nothing and no one had the power to take the pontificate from him.

            In other words: No matter how many people accepted Angelo Roncalli, if the See of Peter was NOT IN FACT VACANT when he was elected on Oct. 28, 1958, then it was impossible for him to be or become the true Pope.

            And so we would have a scenario here that neither Cardinal Billot nor anyone else (to my knowledge) ever envisioned or commented on: What if virtually the entire Church recognizes someone as Pope who cannot be Pope because someone else already is? For this is more than just an irregularity in the voting or something similar. This is a metaphysical reality: If Cardinal A is reigning as Pope, even if just for a few minutes, then Cardinal B cannot take the Pontificate from him on the grounds that everyone accepts him as Pope.

            I think God is permitting us to come to the end of our wits here to teach us humility and to remind us that HE ALONE will fix this mess, lest any human should boast.

          • Herman_U_Tick

            Thank you for your response. I will have a think about this. Anyway I won’t be going anywhere else!

    • EtIntroibo

      My two cents is that he may have ended up like a Fr. James Wathen (minus the Feeneyism) or a Fr. Depauw: both priests were ordained well before Vatican II. Both never said the Novus Ordo Missae nor had anything to do with it, and yet neither was a promoter of Sedevacantism.

      Somehow — and I don’t want to be disrespectful to N.O.W —I don’t think he would have gotten involved at all with so-called Lefebvre or Thuc-line people (especially their bishop-making).

      With Msgr. Fenton’s erudition and great mind, the legal and jurisdictional aspects of these groups’ existence would have been entirely too problematical for him.

      • Siobhan

        I knew Fr DePauw & you’re right, he was not a sedevacantist by any stretch, despite at least one sedevacantist blogger claiming otherwise. Father also had “bouncers” outside his chapel here in my hometown NY to keep strangers out. When I, as a young mother attempted to enter to assist at Mass there, with my infant and older children, they kept us away & questioned us; this when it was obvious we were bedraggled from an arduous journey to get there. Interestingly, when my then teenage son told them that Fr. Malachi Martin told us to go there, which was true–they let us enter.

  5. Tom A.

    Johnnyvoxx, lack of charity would be ignoring the truth so as to not offend. The reason I asked about the late Fr Hesse is because at one time his videos were very influential to me in trying to figure out what was happening to the Church. It is a fact that he went on and on about a latin word at Trent to bolster an argument he made often about the NO. Well as NOW has pointed out, Fr Hesse was wrong. We will never know if he meant to decieve or not but his error should be pointed out. Perhaps it was because he was ordained with the new rite that his judgment was biased.

    • JohnnyVoxx

      Yeah, so crucify him for being wrong about one thing. Have you ever been wrong? Who hasn’t been wrong about Vatican II? As I see it, Hesse was also RIGHT about A LOT. It is only sites like this and the Dimond brothers’ site and “Traditio” who hold themselves out as being infallible. There is NO HUMILITY here. There is no recognition that someone who tried his best as Hesse did, could be forgiven for confusion on a certain point. The total lack of charity in “sedevcantism” and even in the “recognize and resist” camp will ensure that these truths never amount to anything. I am disgusted with this movement and the way people treat each other in it. Absolutely disgusted. It is the chief failing of the movement because ordinary people are put off by it.

      • Siobhan

        Johnny, “Fr. ” Hesse was a Modernist, a fact even those like myself, who liked him, must face. IMHO his gruff manner & cuttingly blunt approach was/is necessary often. But he did not make one error, Hesse put forth many. Hesse even stated that the main reason he took the position he did was to, paraphrasing, cover himself at his own Particular Judgement. He advised all with whom he spoke to do the same.

        That said, I embrace the remarks put forth toward me. You’re probably more right than wrong. But do recognize this is merely a combox. We are commenters. Nothing more & probably less. Most of us are attempting to just make a point quickly.

        I sincerely hope you engage with more sedevacantists, more often & in person. Especially the clergy. Speak with them yourself. They are approachable, charitable. They engage with those who take the Recognize & Resist position all the time, including the SSPX clergy & laity. They constantly move within the VII Sectarian world of the Modernist religion as well. They are well liked & consulted by R & R’s repeatedly, the likes of Siscoe & Salza notwithstanding.

        Two more things, Johnny. First, I’d say that there is incredible vitriol within the R & R. We all have experience it often & just reading Mundabor exhibits such. Come on. Not to mention the point that they curse & malign the man they hold is the supreme pontiff. Second, Sedevacantism is not a movement. Hope you enjoy this link, and Peace be to you.

      • Novus Ordo Watch

        Johnny, “Fr.” Hesse is the one who always presented himself as the gifted one who has it all figured out, preaching to the people the “real truth” in opposition to the supposed lawful and valid Catholic hierarchy. This is why we can be so “merciless” against him – we’re merely using the kind of standard on him that he applied to others. Hesse was a perfect example of how non-Catholic the recognize-and-resist position is: A single man, claiming to have it all figured out, preaching against what he himself insists is the Catholic Church. He wants his own teaching to be adhered to, although it is contrary to the very teachings of that supposedly legitimate hierarchy. Whether he meant to or not, Hesse did tremendous damage to the Catholic notions of Magisterium, Church, and Papacy.

      • Tom A.

        JohnnyV, I think what you are truly disgusted with is Truth. I am not discounting Fr Hesse based on one error. But all errors need to pointed out and corrected in charity. Charity does not mean avoiding offense, it mean defining truth since Truth is Christ and the highest charity is transmitting Truth to someone who is laboring under a falsehood. If truth offends, then that is your problem, not the person who is transmitting truth. The manner or style of transmission is subjective. If it offends you, I suggest you man up and grow a pair. Concentrate on the essence of the truth. A wise man knows how to look beyond the “insults” and focuses on the essence of the information being transmitted.

  6. George

    Don’t you just love these tender-hearted novus ordites? The greatest sin for them is smugness. Tell us, Johnny, which of the Ten Commandments does smugness violate?
    Ok, ok, perhaps smugness is a minor moral imperfection, but can you really blame us? Here we have a so-called pope vomiting a constant stream of blasphemy and heresy on a daily basis, and you jokers cannot seem to get it through your thick skulls that it’s metaphysically impossible for a true pope to do such things. Instead of whining about the presumed lack of charity of sedevacantists, why aren’t you rather more indignant over the shockingly obvious lack of Catholic faith of your entire hierarchy? What’s worse, smugness or apostasy? Perhaps we would stop falling into the former if you would show yourselves less tolerant of the latter.

    • JohnnyVoxx

      Why don’t you go dip yourself in vat of hot oil to warm up for what awaits you smug pig. I am not defending Bergoglio who is most likely a freemason from the pit of hell. But Hesse spit more truth than a lot of crap I read on this site and on the Dimond Brothers site. However, I don’t make fun of these little cowards that run this site and never tell us their names (like on Traditio). WHAT COWARDS YOU ARE! Tell us your names, you sniveling little wimps.

  7. Sonia

    Where there is no Truth there is no charity. I think you may be feeling disgust at the lack of pandering to falsehood.

  8. Not That Guy

    “…some other people believe what I have thought for several months, namely, that John XXIII is definitely a lefty. This nonsense to the effect that he is ‘deceived’ or ‘mal servite’ is disgraceful. He is the boss.” (Nov. 25, 1962)

    Can true Popes be “lefties”? Or, rather, can a Catholic actually think that a person who is a “lefty” is actually also Pope?

    Also, there is definitely a parallel between how John XXIII was defended and how some have defended Francis. Very interesting.

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      That would depend on how you define “lefty”, of course. It’s obviously not a theological term. My guess is that Mgr. Fenton meant “accommodationist”, meaning a Pope who seeks to accommodate the modern world, which is possible and permissible for a Pope to do as long as it remains within the bounds of orthodoxy. Whether it is prudent or not is another matter (well, the past has shown that it is NOT prudent). Since the French Revolution, we pendulated between accommodationist Popes and anti-accommodationist Popes. Bishop Donald Sanborn has an interesting lecture on this, entitled “The Pendulating Papacy”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb9JyV0EI40&ab_channel=TrueRestoration

  9. Rand Miller

    To JohnnyVoxx
    It is your comments that are full of hatred. You may try to intimidate us with your insults and condemnations. Your efforts are in vain. May our Lord deliver you from your evil heart.

  10. JohnnyVoxx

    I am responding to a bunch of comments below which respond to my accusation against “Novus Ordo Watch” that they remain in cowardly anonymity and that in general, the “traditionalist movement” including sedevacantists, but not limited to them, FAIL for their lack of charity to other traditionalists, who are routinely slandered for their supposed errors in this nearly unprecedented horror which we all face. Each traditionalist group purports to speak as though it were the Magisterium and says ridiculously condescending things to and about other traditionalists, like telling me below “what I really resent is the truth.” It is a good thing we were not face to face and that everyone here hides behind their keyboards. You have no idea what I’ve done in pursuit of the truth. The cutesy, smug tone of this site, the disparagement of others who have contributed to this field, speaking with the voice of authority where there is none, is not the least bit persuasive or encouraging to novus ordites or newcomers to tradition. Your unwillingness to give any credit to others, or to adopt a more respectful tone in disagreement, is purile and ineffective. I would imagine that is one reason why you’re always begging for pocket change to continue this anonymous ministry. There is a better way to go about this. And, in total, this site has NOT made the case that there truly are “lifeboats available” in the form of “independent” “churches” and “priests”. That is an argument and you are entitled to propose it. I, for one, wish you would stop treating every traditionalist who sees the heresies just as you do, as some sort of total ignoramus who just can’t follow what is “so obvious” even toddler could see it. It is not simple, it is not clear, and there is no cause for a flippant tone. The heresies and corrupt doctrines and disciplines must be opposed, I quite agree. I am asking you, not for my sake, but for the sake of the traditionalist movement (and it is a movement) to take a Godly and respectful tone especially with other traditionalists, even those you deride as “false”, but even and also with the bitterest satanic enemies of the Church. Jesus would approve the truth, and clear righteous indignation, but He will not give his grace to a snark factory.

    • anna mack

      Why are NOites always so very aggressive? If we (sedevacantists) are all damned, should you not be praying for us in true Christian charity (and those are genuine questions – no contribution to the Snark Factory here).

    • David Ellis

      We live in a most effeminate age. I am guilty of this sin probably. I think a meditation on chapter 20 of Liberalism is a Sin is my answer to Jonny Voxx’s nonsense. The chapter discusses polemical charity and liberalism.

    • Siobhan

      “Cutesy.” OK. We sedevacantists have been accused of being lots of things. But being cutesy. Uh, that? No. Johnny, you use lots of extreme descriptives here. Not only vis a vie insulting your fellow commenters (which I put aside for the moment) but also in describing the situation.

      Look, it’s merely the Heresy of Modernism at work-which brought forth VII Sectarianism emerging from Vatican II. Francis is just another walking around, rather boring, everyday Modernist heading up the Modernist Sect. Consider that it’s not as you describe it. For the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, etc. Therefore-consider- is it horrible?

      Then think about: are we, your fellow commenters, such smug, disrespectful,disparaging, flippant people who possess a purile & ineffective manner? Or do you just simply detest our varied personalities ?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.