IS BENEDICT XVI JUST A LAYMAN? (The dangers of extreme Traditionalism)

1. Why is it so important to defend the doctrine "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"?

For a number of reasons. The most obvious is simply that it is the foundational docrine of the Church. If there IS salvation outside the Church, than she becomes a rather pointless organisation, ultimately.

That is Coulombe from the "Feneyism FAQ."

Feeney uber alles is the foundational principle of the heresy of Feeneyism. Feeney is the only man ever to apprehend the real understanding of EENS. Therefore, all Ecumenical Councils, Papal Encyclicals, Saints, Catchechisms etc are wrong if they oppose the excomunicated heretic Feeney.

Feeney's defenders rally around in defense of one another and castigate anyone who criticizes any member of their group. It is worth noting that many of the defenders of the condemned Feeneyism are defenders of the schism of sspx.

Now, it is hysterically funny (and wildly insane) that some trumpet Coloumbe's "bona fides" while at the same time opposing Pope John Paul II and his teaching on B.O.B. and B.O.D. when one considers he had a Doctorate in Philosophy and Doctorate in Theology; the same goes for all the Saints, Bishops in session at the Dogmatic Councils which taught Triple Baptisms, etc

Schism and Feeneyism breeds hatred,antisemitism, and delusions and delusions cannot be extinguished by facts.

There was nothing wrong with the Pope granting him that priviledge. No doubt it was suggested to him by some Curial official or Bishop or somebody familar with Coloumbe. And if Coloumbe has written well in defense of the Papacy I say Hooray. Way to be Charles.

The problem arises when the praise for Coloumbe's defense of the Papacy is translated in to his defense of the heresy of Feeneyism which directly and specifically contradicts Doctrine taught by the Pope who gave him that honor.

Apparently, some think Coloumbe was declared a Doctor of the Church; that he is impeccable and that his hateful writng about those in flyover country is not subject to criticism. I guess if one criticizes Coloumbe's nuttiness, one is, in reality, somehow criticizing Pope John Paul? Who knows. It is all so laughably nutty

I was sent some stuff by Coloumbe (I can't remember who sent it to me) and I thought it was INSANE. The occult tripe he was then delving into was, to this Christian, self-evidently crackpotism on Cocaine.

Dr. Droleskey, a noted writer and speaker on Catholic social teaching, boasts a doctorate in political science (a major I myself pursued, as it left me a great deal of time for drinking and other such-like collegiate pursuits),

> That is from Coloumbe's website. I know, I know "out of context..." :)

It sounds to me hermann is on the money re his comments.

Thirdly, I also firmly believe that the Church, guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was immediately and directly instituted by the real and historical Christ himself, while dwelling with us; and that it was built upon Peter, prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors till the end of time. Fourthly, I sincerely accept the doctrine of the faith handed on to us by the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers, always with the same meaning and interpretation; and therefore I flatly reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, to the effect that these would change their meaning from that previously held by the Church. I equally condemn every error whereby the divine deposit, handed over to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept by her, would be replaced by a philosophical invention or a creation of human consciousness, slowly formed by the effort of men and to be henceforward perfected by an indefinite progress.

* Now, nearly every "traditionalist" cites the Oath against Modernism, as Coloumbe does here never, apparenly, realizing it specifically condemns actions they are enaging in; such as opposing the universal Magisterium's constant teaching of Triple Baptism.

Earlier you posted a few lines about the ego defense mechanism "projection." What psychological term would you use to describe the habitual practice of schismatic trads to cite an oath that self-evidently condemns them? Might it be an unacknowledged desire to confess their perfidy vis a vis the authority established by Jesus?

I am interested in your ideas on the subject.

Tom Droelesky on Coulombe, the impeccable defender of Feeney uber alles. (These guys are flat out nuts yet we are supposed to hear them re the explication of Doctrine. Yikes)
Saint Augustine and his "interest" in Poltergeists

Mr. Coulombe cited Saint Augustine as an individual who had an interest in the dark forces that are the subject of his own book on haunted and spooky public places. Thanks to the efforts of an individual who has done some research on this matter, I can now ask Mr. Coulombe very publicly to provide his documentation of this claim, which I viewed at first with utter astonishment. Although I can by no means call myself an Augustinian scholar, I am not unfamilar with the corpus of Saint Augustine's writings. Mr. Coulombe's claims were met by me with incredulity. As it turns out, others shared that incredulity, which is what prompted one person to provide me with the following:

"I looked in Ghosts and Poltergeists by Father Thurston, and sure enough Father Thurston references De Civitate Dei, Book 22, Chapter 8 for St. Augustine's 'poltergeist' account. To the contrary, it is a famous chapter showing that in St. Augustine's day miracles abounded, proving Christ and the Church to be authentic. He cites healings, cures, and more--including some deliverance from demons. There is no trace of 'fascination' with 'haunted houses' or 'spooky places' there at all, let alone poltergeists of course. St. Augustine simply shows the power of Christ in calm language."

Mr. Coulombe needs to provide more than a gratuitous claim that great saints have shared his own unusual interests. He must provide chapter and verse documentation that Saint Augustine, for example, wrote about spooks and haunted places in the manner he suggests in his answers to my questions. The evidence thus far unearthed suggests that Mr. Coulombe has thrown around at least one name, that of Saint Augustine, as a means to provide his own interest in ghosts and haunted places with a mantle of Catholic respectability going back to the Fathers themselves. Whether this is so with the other saints he lists remains to be seen.

It has also come to my attention that a Mr. Craig Heimbichner, whose work is cited in footnote 1-A below, exposed several years ago what he asserts was Mr. Coulombe's false use of a work attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas which scholars have shown to be spurious. "It is a well-known fact," he wrote, "that occultists have falsely attributed some works to St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas." If this assertion by Mr. Heimbicher is indeed true, then Mr. Coulombe's use of the names of other saints also must be questioned and researched very carefully.

Saint Albert the Great and Saint Thomas: Friendly to Occultists?

More evidence on this exact matter emerged on March 15, 2004. A bit of time needs to be spent on this in order to demonstrate that the evidence seems to indicate on its face that Mr. Coulombe has used spurious sources to make some of the assertions he did about Saints Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas in his Summer 1990 article in Gnosis Magazine, "The Esoteric Orthodoxy of Catholicism."

In attempting to find a "harmony" between occultism and Catholicism, Mr. Coulombe tried to claim that St. Albertus Magnus (St. Albert the Great) was an “alchemist,” failing to note that this typical claim of occultists rests chiefly on a book, The Book of the Secrets of Albertus Magnus, falsely attributed to the great teacher of Saint Thomas Aquinas. While this book still sells in Satanic circles, I am informed, no serious scholar believes that the Saint had anything to do with it. [Source: "The sorcerers’] bedside books are The Secrets of Albertus Magnus, The Secrets of Albertus Minor and The Red Dragon…. It was another of the Devil’s unscrupulous wiles to use the reputation of a venerable saint as cover for his diabolic formulae.” Leon Cristiani, Satan in the Modern World, 180-81.] Further documentation on the falsity of these claims made by occultists about St. Albert the Great can be found in an article by Edward O'Brien, "The New Age and Albertus Magnus," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, July 2000, pp. 49-53.

Mr. Coulombe, however, not only apparently takes the word of occultists in this matter, but goes so far as to claim that St. Thomas Aquinas was an alchemist as well. He states that “the alchemical text De Aurora Consurgens” is “reliably attributed” to St. Thomas, but stops short of saying that St. Thomas actually wrote the work—and for good reason. Given the many forged works attributed to the Saint, and the context of his other writings, it is highly probable that someone else wrote this alchemical treatise.

[Source: See www.home.duq.edu/~bonin/thomasbibliography.html#spurious for the false attribution of the work cited by Mr. Coulombe to St. Thomas Aquinas].

In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas writes: 'The magic art is both unlawful and futile. It is unlawful, because the means it employs for acquiring knowledge have not in themselves the power to cause science, consisting as they do in gazing on certain shapes, and muttering certain strange words, and so forth. Wherefore this art does not make use of these things as causes, but as signs; not however as signs instituted by God, as are the sacramental signs. It follows, therefore, that they are empty signs, and consequently a kind of agreement or covenant made with the demons for the purpose of consultation and of compact by tokens. (Augustine, De Doct. Christ. ii 20) Wherefore the magic art is to be absolutely repudiated and avoided by a Christian, even as other arts of vain and noxious superstition…. (II-II, Q. 96 Art. 1).'

As one observer noted to me about this passage: "The mind of St. Thomas on the occult is clear in this passage, and Mr. Coulombe’s strange silence on such a matter, coupled with his attribution of a categorized forgery to the Angelic Doctor, is quite curious." Indeed. It is very curious. There is, of course, no middle ground between magic and the Faith. Christ the King College faculty member John Kamprath, who holds a Master's degree in theology and was for two years the Headmaster of the Kolbe Academy in Napa, California, has provided a reflection on the Church's consistent condemnation of magic, which is printed in footnote 5 below.

Writing for Gnosis and Fate

Mr. Coulombe’s justification of his former relationship with Fate Magazine is a little disturbing. Again, giving credence to something called Fate Magazine is, in my estimation, not worth the money earned by contributing articles to it. Such a magazine is an exercise in spiritual pornography. Could a Catholic contribute legitimately to Playboy or Penthouse in order to make a living and to evangelize the readers of such pornographic fare? I was in the middle of promoting a book about baseball, which contained overt apostolic references (which is why the New York Mets organization never associated itself with it), when I decided to walk out of Shea Stadium for good on July 16, 2002, to protest the demonic advertising of a certain pill manufactured by Pfizer, thus costing me a radio interview on a pre-game program that could have advanced book sales mightily. I just could not participate any longer in the subsidizing of that which demeaned the dignity of marital relations and undermined the innocence and purity of the young. It really does matter where and for whom we write. God will provide for our temporal needs. This is no mere aphorism. It is written by a family man who lacks regular income and any health insurance at all.

The Gnostic "Bishop," Stephan Hoeller

Mr. Coulombe explains his connections with the now defunct Gnosis Magazine and to the gnostic “bishop” of Los Angeles, Stephan Hoeller. He asked me if I had read his 1990 Gnosis Magazine article, “The Esoteric Orthodoxy of Catholicism.” I have read it in its entirety, although I did not have the time to access his other works in Gnosis Magazine, which he claims were written as a means of evangelizing its readers. The fact that he is aware of one person converting to the Faith is a cause for great rejoicing. But just as there surely are cases of souls converting to the Faith as a result of Papal Masses replete with all manner of profanation and scandal, many more souls may have been reaffirmed in their errors as a result of the whole ambiance of such spectacles. Similarly, giving credence to a magazine named after a fundamental Christian heresy of the First Century A.D. is replete with its own dangers, not the least of which is giving scandal to fellow Catholics. It is thus not unreasonable that a number of responsible, sober traditional Catholics found Mr. Coulombe’s association with Gnosis Magazine to be ill-considered despite his commendable desire to teach the Faith and to bring souls into the true Church. Additionally, no matter how Mr. Coulombe used the word “magical” to refer to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, all people must be taught that the Mass is the mysterium fidei. It is not at all unreasonable to register a strong protest at the use of the word “magic” to refer to the unbloody re-presentation of the Son’s offering of Himself to the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross. Gnositicism can in no way be reconciled to Catholicism. Mr. Coulombe is quite mistaken if he contends that anyone practicing gnosticism can be a "Catholiciser" or is as close to the Catholic Faith as might be an Anglo-Catholic. Gnosticism has nothing to do with Catholicism. Period.

Insofar as his relationship to Stephan Hoeller, the gnostic “bishop” of Los Angeles, Mr. Coulombe asked me if I had any non-Catholic friends. If so, he asked, how do I evangelize them. I need to spend more time on this than can be done without distracting the reader from the main focus of this article, which is to point out the dangers of the occult. A forthcoming article on this site will deal with the matter of dealing with non-Catholic friends and relatives.

... A man in the single state, such as Mr. Coulombe, has a different set of obligations than a married man with children. I am no judge of Mr. Coulombe’s friendship with Stephan Hoeller, who we pray does indeed convert to the true Faith before he dies. I am sure that Mr. Coulombe recognizes that those involved directly in the occult, however, pose a particular danger, which should not be minimized or ignored. The advice that is given by most priests in these instances is to avoid all contact with those who could lead us into sin and who might be in league directly with the demons, which is why having a solid spiritual director who is firmly grounded in the truths of the Faith is so important to guide us in such situations. If contact is to be cut off with someone who a spiritual director judges to be demonically dangerous, then it must be remembered that prayer is the quintessential tool of evangelization and conversion. We must be ready to detach ourselves from the closest of relationships if a solid spiritual director assesses the real possibility of demonic activity. Not even exorcists themselves look forward to coming into contact with the demonic.

Stephan Hoeller and the Ecclesia Gnostica Alba-USA

Mr. Coulombe asked me for evidence of my claim that his friend, Stephan Hoeller, had a "concordat" between his own gnostic "church" and a satanic "church." The evidence was provided to me on March 13, 2004, and is to be found on a website entitled "Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Stranded Bishops," edited by Peter-R. Koenig. The evidence--and an explanation of it--will be found in a footnote at the conclusion of this article. By means of summary, however, the evidence states that Mr. Hoeller entered into "concordat" with the Ecclesia Gnostica Alba-USA (EGA-USA), which has links to the Ordo Templi Orientis, which was founded by the notorious satanist Aleister Crowley. Alas, gnosticism of its very nature is satanic, in that it claims to possess the key to discovering "secret knowledge" (gnosis) granted only to the elect. This is the same lie that Satan tempted Eve with in the Garden of Eden, that she and her husband Adam would have the same knowledge as God Himself if they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Two Raymond Lullys?

Others who have an extensive knowledge of Ultrarealism and Neoplatonism have now reviewed Mr. Coulombe’s 1992 Tolkien Conference address, which included references to Hermeticism. Footnote 4, below, deals with Mr. Coulombe's statements concering the Golden Dawn and an A. E. White, referenced initially in the next section of this article. The information speaks for itself.

Also, the whole matter of Lullism has been explored rather extensively by several researchers. Mr. Coulombe bases a good deal of his approach on what he asserts is the philosophy and the interests of Blessed Raymond Lully. To be sure, Blessed Raymond Lully was certainly a martyr for the Faith and a champion of Catholic manhood and chivalry. There are aspects of his philosophy,though, that have troubled the Church for some time, generally on the grounds of what was deemed to be excessive rationalism. As is described briefly about him in a Catholic encyclopedia:

“[Blessed Raymond] Wrote over 300 works in Latin, Arabic and Catalan on theology, logic, philosophy; wrote fiction and poetry. Known as a alchemist, but had no training in occult arts, and invented his own Christian-based concepts to try to explain the alchemical mysteries. Reputed to have solved the "lead-into-gold" mystery; legend says he worked on it to finance missionary work. Had a small but devoted band of followers known as Lullists who continued their work after his death, though some of them drifted away from the Church in search of alchemical knowledge. His work in this area has been the source of controversy for centuries, and non-Christian occult groups have seen him as a ‘master’ or whatever term they use.”

Another source wrote that Blessed Raymond’s beatification, which took place in the Eighteenth Century, had been held up for centuries because of the activities of some of those who misappropriated his name to dabble in the occult. Obviously, as Mr. Coulombe points out quite rightly, the eminent missionary Blessed Junipero Serra taught Lullist philosophy in Spain before undertaking his work of evangelizing the people of Mexico and California. One has to make a distinction, therefore, between the aspects of Lullism that are authentically Catholic and those that have been misappropriated by occultists. Perhaps Mr. Coulombe’s article on Blessed Raymond Lully, which was published in Gnosis Magazine, might be instructive at some point to place into print anew so as to explore both the legitimate and occult uses of the term Lullism.

Even in this area, however, it appears as though the truth is hard to discern. Information was received on March 13, 2004, revealing that a book, The Lives and Times of the Popes, written by the Chevalier Artaud De Montor and published by The Catholic Publication Society of New York in ten volumes in 1911, discusses the existence of two Raymond Lullys, one a martyr for the Faith, the other a heretic. More research needs to be done to see if Mr. Coulombe's writings have taken into account the possibility that the Raymond Lully who is a hero to the occultists is not the one and the same beatified Crusader and martyr. Perhaps additional research since 1911 has clarified the matter. The entire reference from this book is included in a footnote following the documentation of Stephan Hoeller's ties to the Ecclesia Gnostica Alba-USA.

Whether or not Mr. Coulombe has dealt with the existence of two Raymond Lullys and the confusion generated thereby, others have done so. A. E. Waite, the Freemason and occultist (who has been used by none other than Mr. Coulombe to champion the cause of "Christian Hermeticism"), stated that there were definitely two Raymond Lullys, separated by a couple of centuries--the former the martyr and creator of a philosophy in an attempt to convert Muslims, and the second was an alchemist and exponent of the occult Jewish Kabbalah. According to Waite, the confusion between the two is the fraudulent work of Eliphas Levi, the notorious occultist, apostate, and general diabolist. Waite exposed Levi and showed that the two Lullys were separate men. Again, it will be quite useful to discover if Mr. Coulombe has been the victim of this confusion or has written anything to acknowledge the controversy. It appears that some of Mr. Coulombe's answers to my own questions have raised many complex questions about historical accuracy and interpretation. (Footnote 3 below contains the full text of the material from Waite, a Freemason and a gnostic who has been praised in a article written by Mr. Coulombe for his "Catholic" tendencies. Footnote 4, as noted above, provides evidence about Waite's background and Mr. Coulombe's praise of him.)

Michael Hoffman II and Charles Coulombe

Sadly, there is yet more evidence that has been amassed. This evidence, found in a response to Mr. Coulombe's answers circulated by Michael Hoffman II, comes from a primary source, Johannes Reuchlin's De Arte Cabalistica. Although the evidence will be presented below, Mr. Hoffman makes it clear from his primary source that, Pico della Mirandola and Johannes Reuchlin, who were cited favorably by Mr. Coulombe in one of his answers to me as individuals desiring to find a bridge between aspects of the occult and religious faith, were not merely "students" of the Kabbalah, as Mr. Coulombe claims, but occult propagandists for Judaism who were attempting to "baptize" the Satanic Kabbalah within Catholicism. This suggests that, as does the the incorrect attribution by Mr. Coulombe of "interest" in the occult to Saint Augustine and the careless, at best, mis-attribution of the authorship of occulist books to Sts. Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, that there are a lot of gratuitous assertions in Mr. Coulombe's answers that need to be understood as such.

As Mr. Coulombe used one of his answers to claim that Mr. Hoffman had begun criticizing him years ago because of his criticism of the American Founding--and had charged that Mr. Hoffman had continued this criticism continously over the years, simple justice requires that part of his own response to Mr. Coulombe be printed below. Mr. Coulombe has engaged in an effort to dismiss Mr. Hoffman's criticism of him as being rooted in a personal vendetta. This is similar to the tactics used by Bill and Hillary Clinton and their supporters: change the focus of the conversation from the factual foundation of criticism leveled against them to the motivations they projected into the minds and hearts of their critics. It is a cheap and tawdry trick designed to keep public debate at a base level of emotion and sentimentality.

[Mr. Hoffman, dissatisfied with the fact that I had published only part of his response to Mr. Coulombe, has insisted that his entire response be posted in this article. I do so with reluctance as I do not want to further inflame a situation that has aroused the anger of so many people who do not want to look objectively and dispassionately at the truth or falsity of the evidence presented herein. Prior to Mr. Hoffman's e-mail to me on March 17, 2004, I had had no direct contact with him, other than receiving his response to Mr. Coulombe's answers to my original set of questions. I edited his response in order to keep the focus on the truth or falsity of various claims made by Mr. Coulombe. As you will see momentarily, the unexpurgated text contains characterizations of Mr. Coulombe's work that are not sugar-coated, to say the least. I find Mr. Hoffman's characterizations harsh and counter-productive. I am not ready, for instance, to call Mr. Coulombe a "disciple of Renaissance satanists." As he does have the right to defend himself against Mr. Coulombe's claims about his own involvement in this matter--and as he does provide solid historical evidence concerning the work of Pico della Mirandola and Johannes Reuchlin, I am hereby publishing Mr. Hoffman's complete response.]

"Michael A. Hoffman II Replies to Charles Coulombe, March 15, 2004

"Hoffman's Preface: I published an expose in the 1990s of Charles Coulombe's writings and I have not chosen to revisit the subject in print until now, for reasons stated below. I pen the following rejoinder in the expectation that I will not have to do so again in the future. Outside of traditional Catholic and Wiccan circles, Mr. Coulombe is a non-entity. Surely there are competent Catholic researchers who can follow up on Coulombe's adulatory references to Hermeticism, magic, Pico and Reuchlin, trace them to their Satanic radix and unmask Coulombe and his preposterous pose as an orthodox follower of Jesus Christ.

"I begin with a response which Mr. Coulombe gave to a question asked at this webpage: http://www.christorchaos.com/CoulombeQuestions.html, in an article entitled, 'A Question and Answer Session Between Thomas A. Droleskey and Charles Coulombe, March 11, 2004.'

"I encourage all interested parties to read the material posted on that page in its entirety. I have excerpted for purposes of rejoinder, three paragraphs from that exchange, as follows:

Charles Coulombe: "Of course, Gnosis began to be attacked for Catholic proselytising. In 1993, one Michael Hoffman II, enraged by supposed 'unpatriotic sentiments' in an article I wrote for the Angelus, went on a campaign to 'reveal' my past as a writer of 'occult aricles for Satanic magazines' or whatever, which has continued until to-day. This has been most annoying. But since I know of at least one conversion due to my 'Gnosis' writings, I consider the annoyance worth it."

"Hoffman Replies: Charles Coulombe reminds me of Lillian Hellman, about whom Mary McCarthy famously stated, "Everything she says is a lie including 'and' and 'the."

"Mr. Coulombe pretends that I had an ulterior motive in exposing his outrageous appeal for "baptizing Hermeticism" which he made in the pages of "Gnosis" magazine. In point of fact, Rev. Fr. Christopher Hunter of the SSPX, (acting in a private and not an official capacity), asked this writer to critique an article Mr. Coulombe had written in The Angelus on American conservatism, which was riddled with errors.

"It was only after I wrote that critique, that other writings by Coulombe came to my attention. Mr. Coulombe has always insisted on some kind of omniscience in this regard, attempting to win sympathy among Catholics critical of the Founding Fathers by retailing the lie that I exposed his occult involvement mainly because of his stand on America and patrotism, the supposition being that his occultism alone would not have piqued my interest or outrage. This is the sort of boldfaced lie that an unscrupulous occultist would circulate. Mr. Coulombe has no evidence for his lie, he simply parrots it for cheap advantage.

"Coulombe says that my 'campaign' concerning his writings has continued to this day, which is another lie. I have not published anything with regard to him in several years. His writings, speeches and pose as a traditional Catholic are tedious and transparent and do not engage me at any level. March 15, 2004 is the first time I have written anything for publication concerning Mr. Coulombe in many years, and I do so now only because he has chosen to drag my name into the long overdue investigation of his subversion and infiltration.

"I will furnish but one brief example of what an outrageous deceiver this fellow is, and the extent to which his deceit depends on the credulity and ignorance of his audience.

"Dr. Tom Droleskey asked Coulombe, 'Why would it be unfair to conclude from the evidence provided in your writings that you are attempting to engage in a syncretist effort to find a bridge between the aforementioned philosophies and occult practices and the Catholic Faith?'

"Coulombe responded: 'Because it would imply that the Jesuits were trying to merge Confucianism or Hinduism and the Faith with the Chinese and Malabar Rites (which canard was condemned by Pius XII); that the use of pre-Christian religious customs in Catholic liturgy or para-liturgical customs is a sign of Catholic-Pagan syncretism, as some Protestants allege; or that the study of the Kabbalah by Bl. Raymond Lully, Pico della Mirandola, or Reuchlin was an attenpt to do the same with Judaism; or that your use of the Christmas Tree is really Thor worship. If you want to evangelise people, you must use words, ideas, and actions that they will understand. To the uninformed, this may well appear like syncretism --- and indeed, mistakes in this realm are sometimes made, as history tells us. But mistakes from an excess of zeal are far better than a cold-hearted smugness, which does not think the souls of the heathen worth either the risk of failure or, worse still, the mere effort.' (End quote)

"I must be one of the 'uninformed' because I happen to know that Pico della Mirandola and (Johannes) Reuchlin were not merely 'students' of the Kabbalah as Coulombe claims, but occult propagandists for Judaism who were attempting to "baptize" the Satanic Kabbalah within Catholicism.

"The fact that even at this late date Mr. Coulombe is still peddling an apologia for the putrid agents of Kabbalistic Judaism is further evidence of the extent of his corruption. I own a facsimile edition of the original printing of Reuchlin's De Arte Cabalistica which is replete with praise for the Kabbalah. In Book One, Reuchlin rhapsodizes that the knowledge contained in the Kabbalah 'is nobler than logic or reason itself. Reuchlin also repeatedly quotes the Talmud approvingly in support of the Kabbalah.

"Both Pico della Mirandola and Reuchlin put forth the blasphemous proposition that the Kabbalah is the repository of the oldest and most sacred truths of Christianity. Pico's famed "theses" included the declaration that the Kabbalah (and magic) constitute the best proof of the veracity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! These are Coulombe's exemplars of the Catholic missionary spirit.

"The purpose of this disgusting propaganda on the part of Reuchlin and Pico was to generate awe and veneration for the rabbis. They succeeded in this endeavor and the western secret societies, from Rosicrucianism to Freemasonry, arose from this induced respect for the Kabbalah and its 'learned' rabbinic proponents, who in turn were then able to transmit to the awed elite of Christendom, the secrets of the Egyptian and Babylonian sorcery and superstition that form the basis of both the Kabbalah and the Talmud.

"Mr. Coulombe can perpetrate his fraud on only one of two grounds: 1. He himself is abysmally ignorant of the provenance of the western secret societies and therefore is in no position to write or lecture on these topics to anyone; or 2. he has such a low opinion of the intelligence of his interlocutors that he brazenly defends the Kabbalistic fifth-columnists in the expectation that traditional Catholics are so completely ignorant of the history of the era that they will fail to discover the imposture."

"How much more really needs to be said? Coulombe has been pimping for Reuchlin and Pico in print since the early 1990s and he does so even now, in the course of answering questions from traditional Catholics concerning the extent of his heteordoxy.

"Mr. Coulombe is a loyal disciple of the Renaissance Satanists who launched the first large-scale intellectual subversion of the Catholic Church. That he continues to maintain a facade of traditional Catholicism while daring to uphold wicked Judaizers like Reuchlin and Pico as worthy examples of Catholic 'evangelists,' whose only error was 'an excess of zeal' is so brazen it smacks of chutzpagh.

"Coulombe seems to be having a Hell-Fire Club jest at the expense of the cowans. How does this fellow retain even a shred of credibility in traditional Catholic circles? Sincerely, Michael A. Hoffman II"

This is strong stuff. Focusing here only on the matter of Johannes Reuchlin, we must remember that the principle of non-contradiction teaches us, however, that two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be simulataneously true. Mr. Hoffman is either correct in his presentation of what is found in Johannes Reuchlin's De Arte Cabalistica or not. And if he is correct, then Mr. Coulombe is wrong. Mr. Hoffman's own personal beliefs, such as historical revisionism, a perspective with which I do not agree at all, and his personal associations are irrelevant to a dispassionate assessment of his factual accuracy in this matter. Despite the efforts of the Clinton defense team to disparage him--and despite his own indecisiveness, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr either had the facts about Bill Clinton's perjury in the deposition he gave in the Paula Jones lawsuit in January of 1998 or he did not. All of the disparagement leveled against him and other Clinton critics had no bearing on the truth or the falsity of the charge of perjury against Clinton.

It is thus important for traditional Catholics to look at evidence as objectively as possible. For example, even though I do not agree with Mr. Hoffman's historical revisionism, I have looked at the statements he has presented in his response to Mr. Coulombe only on the basis of whether those statements are accurate, as I have been assured by those who have studied these matters that they are. Similarly, even though I agree very much with Mr. Coulombe about the false foundations of the American Founding, I cannot let my agreement with him on this important matter stand in the way of assessing his words and statements solely on the basis of their truth or falsity. My good friend Dr. Thomas Woods, Jr., is a brilliant scholar with whom I occasionally have disagreements, especially in areas such as the founding and Americanism. This does not deter me in the least from appreciating his great contribution in other areas. Traditional Catholics must be careful not to ape the tactics of the Clintonites by striking out at imaginary motives and conspiracies against their friends and associates when others are simply attempting--upon the peril of the loss of their own immortal souls--to assess statements on the basis of their factual accuracy.

A Lifelong Interest in the Occult

Despite all of his protestations to the contrary in his answers to my questions, Mr. Charles Coulombe really has had a lifelong interest in the occult. Consider the following "Talk of the Town: Postcard from L.A." column written by John Whalen in The New Yorker on September 6, 1999:

?“A Hollywood psychic's inaccuracy fails to dent his popularity. A little over a week ago, the chances of the world's coming to an end were hovering somewhere in the neighborhood of eighty-seven percent--that is, according to Criswell, the late Hollywood prophet who claimed his predictive accuracy to be within that lofty percentile. ‘The world as we know it will cease to exist...on August 18, 1999, he forecast in his 1968 book "Criswell Predicts from Now to the Year 2000.’ He went on, ‘And if you and I meet each other on the street that fateful day...we will open our mouths to speak and no words will come out, for we have no future--you and I will suddenly run out of time!’

“Though Criswell departed the world as we know it in 1982, his friends and admirers hadn't yet been stricken mute by the evening of August 18th. On that Wednesday night, an assortment of them congregated at the congenially moldering Boardners, an old-time Hollywood watering hole and former Criswell haunt.

“They came to toast the Criswellian apocalypse, and to raise a Martini glass to one of Hollywood's first celebrity psychics. During the nineteen-fifties, the flamboyant Criswell hosted a live program on Los Angeles television and wrote a nationally syndicated column (both titled ‘Criswell Predicts’) in which he dispensed outrageous predictions while radiating low-wattage Tinseltown glimmer. His column and his appearances on The Tonight Show briefly made him something of a national character. It was Criswell who blazed a trail for all subsequent mass-media prophets, seers, and astrologers, from Jeane Dixon to Linda Goodman and Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends.platinum-blond pompadour who introduced several of Ed Wood's famously underproduced films, including ‘Plan 9 from Outer Space.’ Thanks to the enduring cult status of ‘Plan 9,’ and to Tim Burton's 1994 Ed Wood biopic, Criswell has been enjoying a kind of show-business comeback from beyond the grave. His record album of prophecies ("’he Legendary Criswell Predicts! Your Incredible Future’) has been reissued on CD. And Criswell memorabilia-including autographed photos and signed copies of his books-sustain energetic bidding on Internet auction sites.

“Of course, Criswell's claimed eighty-seven per cent accuracy level has taken a savage beating over the years. For example, the tragedy he forecast for England (‘Meteor Destroys London: 1988') failed to materialize. Likewise his political forecasts: "I predict the assassination of Fidel Castro by a woman, on August 9, 1970"; ‘I predict the District of Columbia within the next fifteen years will cease to exist as the capital of the United States. The seat of government will be moved to Wichita, Kansas, in the caverns beneath the city’; ‘There will be no welfare in the future, and I predict the death penalty for all freeloaders.’ He also predicted that the first Americans on the moon would be pregnant women, and that by 1981 Americans would be able to receive heart, kidney, and brain transplants via vending machines.

“Among those in attendance at the Boardners fete were several of Criswell's former tenants (in addition to being a brinksmanlike prognosticator, Cris was also a Hollywood landlord). Charles Coulombe, who was just a boy when his family moved into one of the showman's apartment buildings, remembered that ‘Mr. Criswell,’ as he still called him, claimed to have lost his psychic gift after he came to Hollywood. ‘He told my father that he had had the ability to tell the future when he was young, but that when he started taking money for it he lost it,’ Coulombe said. As the clock neared midnight, Coulombe, dressed in tails for the occasion, donned a white wig and commemorated the planet's final moments by channelling Criswell. Reading aloud the psychic's vision of doomsday, Coulombe intoned, ‘Future generations from some other planet will dig down through seven layers of rubble and find us some two thousand years hence. They will wonder what on earth was meant by the words “Henry Ford” or “Hollywood,” and what in heaven's name was a "Criswell"?’ Alas, when the last revellers left, at 2 A.M., Boardners was still standing, thus dealing the Criswell legacy yet another harsh statistical blow. But on a much more important level, Hollywood's greatest seer had vindicated himself: he had posthumously conjured an enthusiastic party in his honor. The significance of August 18th? It's Criswell's birthday.”

Although it may very well be the case that Mr. Coulombe desires to effect the conversion of his occultist friends, it is simply wrong to associate with them in functions such as the one described the above. The occult is not "fun." It is a fundamental and satanic violation of the First Commandment. There is an old aphorism that is quite apposite here: "Show me who your friends are and I'll show you who you are." Mr. Coulombe seems to have forgotten the possibility that keeping company such as this at events that honor a man who was violating the First Commandment by attempting to predict, albeit incompetently, the future lends credence to the beliefs of those who are in attendance. It is not Puritanical to avoid such events: it is Catholic.

Some of Mr. Coulombe's defenders have said that it is indeed Puritanical to insist that it is wrong not to read books about the witchcraft or the occult. Would the Cure of Ars, St. John-Marie Vianney, say it would not be a sin to read a book about witchcraft or the occult, no less associate regularly with occulists, witches, gnostics and other New Agers? Would Saint Padre Pio have said so? Would Saint Therese of Lisieux have said so. If you cannot answer "yes" to each of those questions, then how is it Puritanical to practice the Catholic Faith by showing not interest in anything to do with the occult and its evil practices? Our Lady told the seers at Fatima that a little friend of theirs who had died would suffer the fires of Purgatory until the end of time because she read bad books. Bad books, folks, in rural Portugal in the second decade of the Twentieth Century. Does any serious, practicing Catholic want to contend that books about witchcraft and the occult and its practices are not bad and thus should not be read?

Pope Pius XI warned about this precise point in his great encyclical letter on the Christian Education of Youth, Divini Illius Magistri, issued on December 31, 1929:

"More than ever nowadays an extended and careful vigilance is necessary, inasmuch as the dangers of moral and religious shipwreck are greater for inexperienced youth. Especially is this true of impious and immoral books, often diabolically circulated at low prices; of the cinema, which multiplies every kind of exhibition; and now also of the radio, which facilitates every kind of communications. These most powerful means of publicity, which can be of great utility for instruction and education when directed by sound principles, are only too often used as an incentive to evil passions and greed for gain. St. Augustine deplored the passion for the shows of the circus which possessed even some Christians of his time, and he dramatically narrates the infatuation for them, fortunately only temporary, of his disciple and friend Alipius. How often today must parents and educators bewail the corruption of youth brought about by the modern theater and the vile book!" (Paragraph 90)

What applies to youth applies to us all. Pope Pius XI also issued an encyclical letter in 1936, Vigilante Cura, warning about the indecency and suggestiveness in motion pictures at that early date. Our eyes are the eyes of Christ. They are the windows to our souls, which is why we must make sure that nothing that could tempt us away from the Faith is permitted to pass the portals of our eyes and ears. Puritanism. No, try Catholicism. Try the "little way" of the Little Flower herself. The occut is evil. There is no area of compatibility between it and the true Faith. Unlike pre-Christian religions, the occult is a specific and categorical rejection of the Faith and mocks it perversely and satanically, seeking to render under mere humans godlike powers.

Conclusion

In renouncing Satan and all of his empty works and pomps in our baptism we pledged ourselves to reject any and all activities that give credence to magic and sorcery and alleged “hidden” knowledge. Everything we need to know has been revealed to us by Our Lord and deposited in Holy Mother Church. There is no “hidden” knowledge given only to the elect to learn and to explicate. And by pledging ourselves to reject Satan and all of his empty works and pomps in our baptism we have promised to contemplate on Heavenly things, not on those things that can cause us to be possessed by the devil and his minions and thus lead ourselves and others astray from the path of salvation given us by the Church. It is, as mentioned earlier, a fundamental sin against the First Commandment to seek out allegedly “hidden knowledge.” Remember how King Saul had consulted a witch to converse with the dead prophet Samuel. Saul’s violation of the First Commandment by engaging in the occult did not go well for him. (See 1 Kings 28:1-25.)

Although Mr. Coulombe sees it as his own mission to evangelize those in the occult, the rest of us should stay away from everything to do with the forces of darkness and witchcraft and ghosts and superstition. And the evidence amassed does seem to suggest that Mr. Coulombe has gone out of his way to try to prove a nonexistent compatibility between the occult and the Faith, which is, frankly, irresponsible. It is difficult enough to get to Heaven and to try to imitate the virtues of the saints without inviting in the demons by means of unjustified curiosity. In other words, do not try for yourselves what Mr. Coulombe has been doing. An interest in the occult is no mere hobby. Wicca is not simply "silly," as Mr. Coulombe stated in his answer to question thirteen. Wicca and all aspects of the occult are open invitations to lose your soul for all eternity by violating the First Commandment and sinning against the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity.

To protect us from the dangers associated with even discussing this subject, a priest who reviewed several earlier drafts of this manuscript urged us to pray the following prayer both morning and evening. There is no better way than to close this reflection than by praying:

“August Queen of heaven, sovereign Mistress of the Angels, thou, who from the beginning hast received from the beginning the power and the mission to crush the head of Satan, we humbly implore thee, to send they holy legions so that under thy command and by thy power, they may drive the devils away, everywhere fight them, subduing their boldness, and thrust them down in the abyss.

"Who is like unto God?

“O good and tender Mother, thou willst always be our love and our hope.

"O divine Mother, send thy holy Angels to defend me and drive far away from me the cruel enemy.

“Holy Angels and Archangels, defend us, keep us. Amen."

Footnote 1: The Evidence from Eccleisa Gnostica America Stranded Bishops

"As the Vilatte-'apostolic succession 'line that Breeze claimed until 1990 had turned out to be bogus, in 1993, David Scriven was seeking consecration as a Bishop under Bishop Robert Cokinis and Bishop John Cole (both EGA).

"The EGA USA is in concordat with Bishop Stephan Hoeller of California, even though his lineage is through Duc de Palatine. Scriven's request was turned over to Hoeller, and nothing ever came of this. Before they would ever consecrate anyone, the issue of Intent would have to be clearly established to be in conjunction with their purpose. Dioceses are in the midwestern bible belt, and great care must be taken to ensure that the EGA is not mislabeled as a thelemic church.

"Scriven nevertheless seeked consecration into the EGA and in 1996 found so through Jorge Rodriguez.

"Rodriguez was consecrated an EGA bishop by Roger St.-Victor Herard. Rodriguez later left the EGA to found his own church, Eglise Catholica Apostolica Orthodoxa. He caused quite a lot of problems for the EGA and the fact that he left was welcomed. The consecration by Rodriguez is not considered valid by any EGA bishops. Rodriguez has been working outside the guise of the E.G.A., so the E.G.A feels that he doesn't have the right to be making Gnostic Bishops even though he shares the same succession that they share. To quote a passage from Bishop Hoeller 'We ordain clergy for our own jurisdiction and not for "independent" activities on their own. The Ecclesia has no interest in expansion for its own sake, rather it prefers to have a few parishes led by properly trained priests of true Gnostic commitment.'

"The EGA has very stringent regulations for consecration (e.g. above mentioned issue of Intent). Also, the bull of election is most important. For a valid consecration, there must be a bull of election signed by at least three of EGA Bishops. Rodriguez did not even initiate a bull of election for Scriven at all. -- No wonder that only Jack B. Hogg Jr. and Jorge Rodriguez are named as "Bishops in Amity" in the official list of the active 'Caliphate'-Gnostic Church members.

"Study a version of Stephan Hoeller's Mass that was modified by the EGA's late Primate, Roger St. Victor Herard (Tau Charles). Up to that point, The E.G.A had used a French mass only, and the English mass was basically the Roman mass with a few slight alterations."

Footnote 1-A: An Explanation of this Evidence as provided on March 13, 2004

"[Aleister] Crowley's occult Ordo Templi Orientis, along with other branches, is now associated with a Gnostic Catholic Church called the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica or EGC. In an article on voodoo published in Catholic Family News in December of 2003, a Mr. Craig Heimbichner mentioned a branch of the OTO which is intertwined with Haitian voodoo, called the OTOA (A for Antiqua). This is run in Chicago by Michael Bertiaux, who is mentioned on the website given above. "Bertiaux has an 'authentic' gnostic episcopal consecration. He is closely tied to the British OTO run by Crowley's direct disciple, Kenneth Grant. This is the group you will see mentioned as the 'Typhonian' OTO. Mr. Heimbichner notes that Grant says the OTOA is a merger of a Kabbalistic-Masonic Order with Crowley's notions. This moves us closer to the link with Stephan Hoeller.

"Grant helped establish another branch of the Gnostic Church called Ecclesia Gnostica Alba, EGA, led by a man in Yugoslavia. It has an American branch called EGA USA. Remember that this branch goes back to a disciple of satanist Crowley. It is therefore a satanic cult or organization.

"Scroll down the website to the part called 'The Great Gnostic Catholic Church Scandal.' It is there (paragraph 6, line 3) that you will find the statement, 'The EGA USA is in concordat with Bishop Stephan Hoeller of California.'

"Now notice that a man named Scriven was trying to get Hoeller to consecrate him as a gnostic bishop of the EGA . Further down in that paragraph, there is a reference to what Hoeller says about consecrating bishops. Further notice this is all in connection with the EGA group that goes back to Crowley's disciple Kenneth Grant. Finally, in the next paragraph, there is reference to Hoeller's gnostic 'Mass' being modified (and therefore, used) by the EGA's late Primate, as until then they had used a French 'Mass,' but they wanted the English version that was closer to the Roman one."

Can any believing Catholic honestly minimize the seriousness of all of this?

Footnote 2: From The Lives and Times of the Popes, by the Chevalier Artaud De Montor, published by The Catholic Publication Society of New York in ten volumes in 1911

"From time to time disturbances broke out in Syria in regard to the cultus of Saint Maro. Cyril, the Greek patriarch, determined upon the suppression of this devotion, and proceeded to destroy the engravings of Saint Maro published at Rome, forbidding him to be counted among the saints, on the ground that he had both lived and died a heretic.

The ignorant patriarch was unaware that Theodoret, in the lives of the Fathers, and Saint John Chrysostom, in his thirty-sixth epistle, both of them contemporaries of Saint Maro, recognized him as a saint; that his cultus had continued for centuries, even at Rome; and in the church of the Maronites, that the missals of the same people, approved by Clement VIII, and the testimonies of innumerable writers, given before that learned pontiff, openly spoke of Maro under the title of saint. The inconsiderate patriarch confounded him with a second Maro, or Marone, a heretical abbot who lived in the time of the Emperor Mauritius, in 602, whereas Saint Maro lived in the year 395, under the Emperor Arcadius. Due distinction must be made between the two, even as we distinguish between the two Raymond Lullys: the one a heretic and the other venerated as a martyr...." (Excerpted from a section on Pope Benedict XIV)

Footnote 3: Arthur Edward Waite (A. E. Waite) [1857-1942]: The Holy Kabbalah, 1929; Reprinted 1995 by Carol Publishing Group: New York, NY. Quote from pp. 438-440

"The name of Raymund Lully has been cited as that of a considerable authority on the Kabbalah, as upon several other departments of secret knowledge. It is time to affirm that few ascriptions seem to possess less foundation in fact. It must be said, first of all, that there is indubitable evidence for distinguishing between two persons at least who bore this name: otherwise it was assumed for a second time at a later date. The original Raymund Lully was that seneschal of Majorca whose legend is narrated in a monograph on the doctor illuminators which I wrote in recent years. He was born during the first half of the thirteenth century. The second Raymund Lully was an alchemist. His legend, enshrined in the deceitful memorial of a so-called Abbot of Westminster, was unknown, so far as I can trace, till the beginning of the seventeenth century, but the works by which he is distinguished from this prototype are certainly much earlier, possibly by two centuries. There is a third and modern legend, which bears all the marks of invention on the part of its narrator, Eliphas Levi, and this identifies the two personages by prolonging the life of the first through the instrumentality of the Great Elixir. It is described as a popular legend, but Raymund Lully and his namesake were never of enough importance to impress the imagination of the people. The first was known chiefly as a scholastic reformer and a Christian evangelist, martyred for an ill-judged attempt at the propagation of the faith among the Mussulmen of Africa. The second has been described as a 'Jewish neophyte,' the denomination on its surface suggesting a proselyte of the gate. This is therefore the personality which would connect naturally with

Kabbalism.... "The confusion of the two Raymunds is perhaps more excusable among occultists than for ordinary biographers." Footnote 4: More Information on the Golden Dawn and A. E. Waite: Questions from Mr. Coulombe's 1992 Tolkien Address (provided by a researcher to Christorchaos.com)

"On the third page of his Tolkien speech ("Hermetic Imagination: The Effect of the Golden Dawn on Fantasy Literature") Mr. Coulombe calls A. E. Waite a Catholic. Here is a bit on Waite:

" 'Arthur Edward Waite, or A. E. Waite, was one member who espoused the cause of occultism with a prolific outpouring from his pen. In fact, the popular 'Rider-Waite Tarot Deck' is derived from Waite’s work. Author of A New Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, Waite held more Masonic offices than almost anyone. These included Past Senior Grand Warden, Past Provincial Deputy Grand Director of Ceremonies, Past Grand Inner Guard, Past Great Captain of the Guards, and many more. Thanks to Waite’s Book of Black Magic and Pacts, a young Aleister Crowley became interested in the occult, contacted Waite and eventually became an enthusiastic young member of the Order of the Golden Dawn. Crowley gained from that organization the entire foundation of his occult training, which would stand him in good stead when he later openly called himself 'The Great Beast 666.'

" 'Of the Catholic Church, Waite (an apostate Catholic) writes that 'Rome is a spiritual Kaiserism' and admits that 'Rome and Masonry are placed in an inevitable competition….' Waite even acknowledges that they are 'enemies.' While Waite ridicules the notion that Freemasonry ever had anything to do with Satan, his Encylopaedia included a picture which typified, as Waite puts it, 'the Morning Star or Lucifer, emerging from the clouds….'

"This is the man whom Coulombe calls 'the Catholic A. E. Waite' and who, according to Coulombe, 'formed a separate, more explicitly Christian Mysticism-oriented Golden Dawn group….'

"A bit on the Golden Dawn itself for your readers:

"Coulombe follows these same trends of thought in his lecture given to the Tolkien Centennial Conference of 1992 (which he prominently posted on his most recent web site when it was accessible). The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn sprang from the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. As Golden Dawn member (and Secretary to Aleister Crowley) Dr. Israel Regardie writes of this important occult forerunner, 'This was an organization formulated in 1865 by eminent Freemasons….This Society…confined its membership to Freemasons in good standing….' * [The original manuscripts which formed the basis for the Order of the Golden Dawn contained the instructions, “Avoid Roman Catholics, but with pity.” Christina Stoddard, Light-bearers of Darkness, p, 84; * Israel Regardie, The Golden Dawn, p. 19.]

"In a telling passage [in Hermetic Imagination], Coulombe proceeds to express apparent admiration for the Golden Dawn’s 'high festival, the feast of Corpus Christi.' However, he does not tell his audience that this Golden Dawn 'feast' is a blasphemy aimed at the Body of Christ, for this extended occult ceremony honors not Jesus but the legendary 'founder' of Rosicrucian occultism, Christian Rosenkreutz. The actual title of this 'high festival' is The Consecration Ceremony of the Vault of the Adepti, and it directs that it is to be used 'on each day of Corpus Christi.' The Chief (an important leader of the Order who must be present) opens by advancing to the altar, lifting his wand on high, and saying 'HEKAS HEKAS ESTE BEBELOI! Associate Adeptus Minor, let the Chamber be purified by the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram.' He then returns to his place, while the Third Adept performs the ritual with the black end of the wand. So opens this ritual which Coulombe seems to find compatible with Catholicism. True, Christ is mentioned—Satanists, remember, mention him in every Black Mass—but as one scans the liturgy of this “high festival,” one finds invocations to Isis, Scorpio, Apophis, the Destroyer, and Osiris, to name a few. In addition, the celebrant must utter the following blasphemous nonsense: 'I am ANOUN the Concealed One, the Opener of the day….I am the Lord of Life, triumphant over Death. There is no part of me that is not of the Gods. I am the Preparer of the Pathway, the Rescuer unto the Light!'

"Coulombe conceals all of these 'details' from his readers, instead blaming the 'neo-Thomists' for looking at these matters unsympathetically. He adds that the 'Christian Hermeticism encompassed by the Golden Dawn' may be symbolized by a picture on a Tarot card, in which, as Coulombe tells us, a chalice held by a hand descending from a cloud typifies the union of the Catholic sacraments with the 'Holy Grail,' which Coulombe sees as an expression of the Hermetic tradition. He concludes, 'Two mysteries…yet they are in fact one. This is deepest Christian Hermeticism indeed. It is to the honour of the Golden Dawn that the Order both developed an authentic strand of such Hermeticism, and attracted members of the calibre necessary to convey such to a world not without need of it.'

"The last statement is a startling admission by Coulombe of his completely uninhibited endorsement of the occult as formulated in occult Masonic Orders like the Golden Dawn. One cannot simply dismiss him as an eccentric Tolkien fan who is overly enchanted with Gandalf the sorcerer, for Coulombe has studied and endorsed the real sorcery of advanced Freemasons—and is telling us that this Masonic mumbo-jumbo is what the world needs.

" 'As we saw earlier, Coulombe’s 'Catholic' Waite denounced Satanism in the Masonic Lodges, yet included a picture honoring Lucifer in his Encyclopaedia. In doing so, Waite merely reflected his Golden Dawn training. One of the secrets of the Golden Dawn is that for initiates, the name of the Order itself refers to Lucifer, the 'Morning Star”'which illumines the dawn—that is, creates a Golden Dawn. Initiates of the Golden Dawn regard Lucifer as the benevolent 'Light-Bearer' who enlightens those in darkness; hence, they do not consider him to have fallen and become “Satan,” the Adversary. In the Golden Dawn document The Three Chiefs, we read that:

" 'The first Temple founded in England in 1887-88 under the governance of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was named very appropriately Isis-Urania. Isis-Urania is Venus, and she is the occult planet which represents the Genius of this Order—Venus, the Evening and the Morning Star, presaging the rising of the Sun of ineffable Light…After the Revolt in the Order about 1900, the schismatic sect appropriated as the name of their Order, Stella Matutina, the Morning Star, thus continuing the significance of the enlightening function and purpose for which the Order was founded originally…. "It is well known that Venus is a planet peculiarly associated with occult and mystical aspiration. In the Secret Doctrine we find Blavatsky stating that ‘Venus, or Lucifer, the planet, is the light-bearer of our Earth, in both a physical and mystical sense. …Interestingly enough, in all ancient systems, the Serpent is also the Tempter, Lucifer—and once again, Lucifer is Venus, the Redeemer.' "

" After further schisms within the Golden Dawn, Waite headed the Isis-Urania Temple —clearly indicating his continuance of the Luciferian purpose of the Order through retaining the title of the Temple itself, which he surely knew contained just such an implication.

"While it is true that Waite liked to stress the 'compatibility' of his Luciferian occultism with a heretical “Gnostic” Christianity, such blasphemies should hardly deceive an instructed Catholic. Occultism frequently blends the name of Christ in its blasphemies. Without abandoning his Masonic Occultism, Waite rewrote several rituals and moved the emphasis away from sorcery to a more mystical and gnostic approach to the 'Light-Bearer.'

"It is unfortunate that his deceptions snared Evelyn Underhill, scholar of mysticism, and Charles Williams, Oxford 'inkling'—both of whom were members. But rather than finding that Williams’ membership casts a blot on him, Coulombe curiously tries to use Williams’ association to vindicate the Golden Dawn—as if the secret sins of a man could somehow purify the place in which he commits them."

It does appear that Mr. Coulombe has omitted some important facts in his works. The next update will focus on additional holes in Mr. Coulombe's answers to my original set of questions.

Footnote 5: A Reflection by Mr. John Kamprath, M.A., on the Church's Consistent Condemnation of Magic and the Occult

“Well, the issue of magic as a suitable introduction for the evangelization of pagans is patently wrong. Part of Christ's redemptive work was to free men from just this sort of evil bondage to the devil and his minions. The occult is considered by historians and Churchmen as a corruption of religion and a contributor to the decadence of civilization. Never has it been thought to lead to religion or the perfection of culture. In the words of J. P. Arendzen, ‘It is not true that “religion is the despair of magic”'; in reality, magic is but a disease of religion.’ (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition)

“The Old Testament was full of laws against magic: Exodus 22:18; Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Isaias 57:3; Micheas 5:11.

“Pliny gave a detailed description of magic in Book 30 of his Natural History and flatly rated it all as imposture.

"Early Catholics roundly rejected magic: Didache Book V:1 ‘But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and full of cursing, murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, charms, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, a double heart, fraud, pride, malice, stubbornness, covetousness, boastfulness.

“Letter of Barnabas 20:1: ‘But the Way of the Black One is crooked and full of cursing, for it is the way of death eternal with punishment, and in it are the things that destroy their soul: idolatry, forwardness, arrogance of power, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, adultery, murder, robbery, pride, transgression, fraud, malice, self-sufficiency, enchantments, magic, covetousness, the lack of fear of God.’

“By his answers, it seems that Coulombe is confusing a sense of the supernatural --present almost everywhere in all traditional pagan societies --with the return of certain of the basest practices, beliefs and superstitious metaphors in a hybrid of Christian, gnostic and pagan symbols that entice some sector's of today's apostate, post-Christian society. Building on a supernatural sense is one thing. Diving into their error is another. Unfortunately for Coulombe and others like him, you cannot persuade someone into the Church. For religious conversion is not based upon sharing common convictions, insights and interests and then merely refocusing the subject of conversion to the better, that is your, solution. No, conversion is a changing of first principals from the erroneous to the true. Sure, befriending people can only help, but you are better off having a joy of baseball in common to prepare the forum for evangelization, than a common interest in things that are founded upon errors of the first order, namely paganism, false religion and the occult. To build a commonality in error is to defeat the possibility of conversion and the change of first principles.

“I recall a story related to me by Marie's [Mr. Kamprath’s wife] father who is in contact with Catholic missionary priest in Bangladesh, Fr. Lehane, who tells how the neophyte locals cheered every time a village witch-doctor is driven out of town and his hut was burned to the ground to rid them once and for all of any lingering influence of satan.

“Neo-Platonism as a tool for intellectual inquiry into the truths of revelation is what most of the Fathers made use of. The Fathers all rejected their contemporary philosophical schools' conclusions. These conclusions cannot but err before the truths of Revelation. For Neo-Platonism as a philosophical system is, as any philosophy, not Catholic. That is, one cannot be a Catholic and place his final end and greatest good in a merely natural system of knowledge and perfection. Catholics place their end in God who has revealed Himself to us for his glory and our salvation. Therefore Catholics are not philosophers. Only the heretics and apostates attempted otherwise: to change/adapt the truth to fit their philosophy (item: Origen).”

THE END

Oops, I forgot to ping you. Get a load of this...

Oh, I read that alright once I was prompted by this thread to start looking around. But I knew Messer. Coulombe's views from back in the early 1990's, when he was very much more of a nobody, and then best buds with then schismatic SSPXer and ex-Satanist Pete Vere. The same stuff was right there then for anyone willing to look. Pete at least has attempted to straighten himself out doctrinally and morally, and has gotten married and started a family, so he is doing something useful with his life.

Apparently, some think Coloumbe was declared a Doctor of the Church; that he is impeccable and that his hateful writng about those in flyover country is not subject to criticism.

What is most interesting is his choice of place in living. Rather than live in a Catholic City like Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Antonio, or Chicago, where he might not only be around the various influences he praises in his hit-piece, but could also live in a Catholic neighborhood among his co-religionists, instead, he has chosen to live in Los Angeles, a formerly Catholic City that is now much more akin to Sodom. It doesn't help that the other places he praises - San Francisco and Manhattan, are similar abominations before God, where His wrath is only restrained by the presence of a small remnant of faithful. Nor does it help that his case for living in the city is an ability to be around the rich and mighty and around the moral abominations of the earth.

I myself live in a city - Philadelphia - but I do so that I and my family might be able to live among fellow Catholics. If I wanted to be around heathens like he does, I could live anywhere - they are out in the suburbs and countryside too.

I've met other people like him before as well. They seem to actually live in fear that if they venture off the coasts, they are going to be confronted by a couple of Hillbillies and assualted like in Deliverance.

Dear bornacatholic,

Very revealing post. Thank you.

It would appear that Hermann's assertions regarding Mr. Couloumbe seem to have significant basis in fact. Those who accuse Hermann of calumny are now required to either disprove all that is revealed here, or to retract their accusations of calumny in light of these facts.

At the very least, if they are unwilling to answer the charges, or retract their accusations, they should fall silent.

sitetest

I had no idea you had suddenly become such a fan of the late pope's appointments

Hey, you know I'm not, but the audience I'm arguing to believes that "if the pope does it it must be good." Except apparently in this instance. ;-)

Those who accuse Hermann of calumny are now required to either disprove all that is revealed here, or to retract their accusations of calumny in light of these facts.

How so? How does anything posted by Hermann justify him calumniating Coulombe as a heretic for holding the doctrine EENS?

That is so true. I know about the Traditionalist movement because one of my friends is in it and she has given me hundreds of Matatics tapes. I have also read a lot of Trad posts on FR. But just go to a Catholic function and mention the Trads and SSPX and no-one knows what or who you are talking about and they have a monastary just 50 miles away.

How does anything posted by Hermann justify him calumniating Coulombe as a heretic for holding the doctrine EENS?

EENS and Baptism of Desire are both dogmas of the Church. Perhaps you missed Hermann's #232:

(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 66, Art. 11)
Footnote. *) The 1928 Latin edition published by order of the Holy See includes the following note:
De fide est baptismum flaminis supplere vicem baptismi aquae, ita ut, cum is haberi non potest, votum ac sincerum desiderium recipendi illum, sufficiat ad saltuem, ut patet ex concil. Trid. (session 6, chapter. 4).
It is _de fide_ that baptism in the flame of the spirit supplies the place of baptism of water, so that, when the one cannot be obtained, the solemn vow or sincere desire for its reception suffices for salvation, as is clear from the Council of Trent (session 6, chapter 4). ...
Nota Bene: Pope Pius VII wrote on May 18, 1803 in confirming the investigations of the Holy Office: "no proposition worthy of censure has been found in the writings of Alphonsus de Liguori."

Coulumbe denies that, but it's de fide - so how is it a calumny to say he's a heretic?

Coulumbe denies that, but it's de fide - so how is it a calumny to say he's a heretic?

I've tried to be kind and avoid calling Messer. Coulombe a heretic, only saying that what he writes is heresy.

Dear murphE,

Mr. Couloumbe's own statements regarding EENS suggest that he doesn't accept de fide teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. I think it has been amply demonstrated here by Hermann, bornacatholic, gbcdoj, and others, that Baptism by Desire and Baptism by Blood are de fide teaching of the Holy Catholic Church.

For instance, catechumens who die prior to receiving the formal Sacrament of Baptism may nonetheless be saved, in that there are catechumens who are canonized saints, and the canonization of saints is an exercise of the infallible Magisterium of the Church.

Thus, bornacatholic's post isn't needed to support the view that Mr. Couloumbe's views thereon are not acceptable for a Catholic to hold.

However, that wasn't the only (or in my own mind, the worst) charge levelled against Mr. Couloumbe.

Hermann also said this:

"God save me from ever having the credentials of being a friend and defender of occultists and occultist schismatics, a writer for occult publications like Gnosis and Fate, and a creator of Catholicized magical superstition."

Someone who is a little mixed up regarding EENS and Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood has a problem. However, if that person himself is baptized, that problem is, to some degree, more academic, and more muted than it otherwise might be.

However, folks who dabble in the occult, especially trying to reconcile occultism with Catholicism, especially those who are supposedly well-versed in Catholicism, and ought to know better, have a more serious and immediate problem. Thus, Hermann's assertions regarding this issue are for more troublesome (at least from my perspective) than are the issues related to EENS.

And these assertions are substantiated to a significant degree by bornacatholic's post.

As to Hermann's charges regarding Mr. Couloumbe's lifestyle, Mr. Couloumbe himself seems to confess to at least at one time to have imbibed imprudently, and his writings seem to indicate that he is still, even to the current day, a gourmand.

I am not entirely out of sympathy when I read this:

"would I find the Thai restaurants, Korean barbecues or Shabu-Shabu houses I crave? The theater, and opera? The huge libraries and architecture that feed my soul?"

I, too, love a variety of cuisines, and prefer them executed at the highest levels. I have dined at my share of five-star restaurants, drunk my share of bottles of wine costing more than they should, I have loved my share of theater, libraries, and grand architecture.

Nonetheless, I'm deeply troubled by, "...that I crave," and "...that feed my soul."

In my appreciation of all these things (and my appreciation of them is great - and Mr. Couloumbe has a point, many of these things are more likely found in blue places, like my own Washington, DC, rather than in red places), nonetheless, I try to guard against permitting them to be the nourishment for my soul. I permit them to nourish my intellect, my rational sense, my knowledge. However, although I may often fail in my attempt, I try avoid nourishing my soul altogether. I try to bring my empty soul, in a state of hunger, to Another Who may feed me and fill me with the daily bread for which I ask, that He gives me.

If I find myself craving these other things, that's a bad sign.

In all the good works of man, I rejoice, because properly viewed, they all give glory to God.

But I wasn't made for any of these things, and none of them can satisfy me, none can nourish me, none properly "feed my soul," nor truly fill the emptiness. None of these things is the thing for which my soul longs.

I would suggest that Mr. Couloumbe either is a glutton and a sensualist who glorifies in his vice (as opposed to, say, me, who is a glutton, but recognizes and repents of his vice), or is an unserious man who takes no care for the image he projects of himself when writing for the public, even though he seems to trade on the notion that he is a "Catholic" writer.

sitetest

I myself live in a city - Philadelphia - but I do so that I and my family might be able to live among fellow Catholics. If I wanted to be around heathens like he does, I could live anywhere - they are out in the suburbs and countryside too.

That explains it! I know the Philadelphia area as well. And I know for a fact now that you don't have a clue. Our own Cardinal Archbishop recently buried my cousin, a very nice man who was a priest but rather swaddled in the goofiness of today's modernist mileu, and nobody could tell during the "mass" at the basilica whether the consecration had actually been done or not due to the hootenany of the ridiculous ceremony. So, don't tell me that Philadelphia is a bastion of orthodoxy. St. Clement's Anglican as blasphemous as it is, is probably closer to Catholic than anything else in Philadelphia or the surrounding area.

Are you prepared to condemn G.K. Chesterton and St. Thomas Aquinas as gluttons and sensualists as well? Don't forget St. Francis of Assisi and his love for quail I believe it was. (to eat, not to keep as pets)

Baptism of Desire is not "de Fide". I don't have to reinvent the wheel in order to blow bornacatholic's arguments away. It's already been done by the SBC.

A Poll of the Fathers

Saint Ambrose died in A.D.397, the very end of the fourth century. Before and after his time, there lived hundreds of holy men and saints who are called "Fathers of the Church." Tixeront, in his classic Handbook of Patrology, lists over five hundred whose names and writings have come down to us.

Michael Malone, author of the splendid reference book, The Apostolic Digest, has spent many years researching the works of these Fathers that have been translated into English, especially their writings pertaining, or relating, to the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. In what he calls a "Poll of the Fathers," he tabulates the different opinions on baptism by water, blood and desire as recorded by eleven of these holy men. Listed chronologically by year of death, the eleven are:

Tertullian. . . . . . . . . circa 220

St. Cyprian. . . . . . . . . . . .258

St. Basil the Great. . . . . . .379

St. Cyril of Jerusalem. .. . .386

St. Gregory Nazianzen. . .389

St. Ambrose. . . . . . . . . . .397

St. John Chrysostom . . . . . 407

St. Augustine . . .. . . . . . . . 430

St. Prosper of Aquitaine. .. . 463

St. Fulgentius . . . . . . . . . . . 533

St. Bede . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 735

As we discuss the opinions expressed by these Fathers, the reader should keep in mind that they were referring only to catechumens, persons undergoing instruction preparatory to the reception of Baptism and admission into the Church. That anyone else could qualify for salvation without first receiving the sacrament of Baptism, was never considered as even a possibility.

All eleven of these Fathers, of course, said that Baptism of water was the first requirement for Salvation.

All eleven maintained that a martyr went directly to heaven regardless, apparently, of whether or not he had been baptized with water.

Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine also held that "desire" replaced the need for Baptism of water.

All of these Fathers seemed to contradict themselves in other places, or were explicitly contradicted by other writers who claimed they meant otherwise. St. Augustine, for instance, constantly expressed fear for the fate of catechumens who died before Baptism. He felt certain that they were lost.

As discussed above, St. Ambrose’ support, if any, for baptism of desire is based solely on his eulogy of Valentinian and is specifically contested by Father Migne.

In support of the "Baptism of water only" category must go the remainder of the thirty-six listed by Mr. Malone in The Apostolic Digest, as well as the mass of the Fathers catalogued by Tixeront. This consensus is tantamount to Divine Revelation. Although some made "general" statements as to the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism, very many were absolute in pressing for its essential need for salvation, some even to the specific denial of any other means. Here, for instance, is St. Gregory Nazianzen, the great Eastern Doctor of the Church:

Of those who fail to be baptized, some are utterly animal or bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. . . . Others know and honor the gift of Baptism; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable passion. Still others are not able to receive Baptism, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents their receiving the gift, even if they desire it . . .

I think the first group will have to suffer punishment, not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism. The second group will also be punished, but less, because it was not through wickedness so much as through foolishness that they brought about their own failure. The third group will neither be glorified nor punished by the Just Judge; for, although they are un-Sealed, they are not wicked. They are not so much wrong-doers as ones who have suffered a loss . . .

If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? . . . If you prefer, we will put it this way: if, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to Glory. You would then be satisfied to desire Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual Glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it!

Now consider this, dear reader: If baptism by desire were truly an Apostolic doctrine, would this great fourth century Doctor of the Church have contested it so vehemently? No way!

In his book, The Ultimate Church and the Promise of Salvation, Abbott Jerome Theisen, O.S.B., a priest who is by no means a traditionalist, states that neither Saint John Chrysostom nor any of the Cappadocian Fathers thought that salvation was possible for catechumens who died before being baptized.

In the third volume of his series entitled Faith of Our Fathers, Father William A. Jurgens writes:

"If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again . . . etc.’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there, and it is likely enough to be so constant as to constitute revelation."

Father Jurgens evidently supports the "baptism of desire" theory, as his words "the obvious exceptions" imply, but possibly against his better judgment. For we know that Our Savior, indeed, did not see fit to mention "the obvious exceptions." Yet, if exceptions to the universal necessity of the sacrament of Baptism were allowable, Christ would certainly have made them explicitly clear, just as He did concerning the sacrament of Matrimony: . . . whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

What are we to learn from these facts presented thus far? It should be clear to us that, during the early centuries of the youth of the Church, there was no unanimity among the Fathers in their opinions on so-called "baptism by desire." Some were for it; more appear to have been against it; and most taught and practiced simply in conformity with Our Lord’s prescription — Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost. The idea that desire could replace water for the Sacrament was not believed everywhere, always, and by everyone. To claim, therefore, that "baptism of desire" was a constant tradition of the Fathers is a serious misrepresentation of Church history and Tradition, and to censure those who object to this misrepresentation is an equally serious injustice.

Again from the SBC. An examination of the "Baptisms of Blood" of Catechumens and such.

With these thoughts in mind, let us now examine the evidence presented as "proof" of the theory of "baptism of blood."

Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first centuries of the Church’s history. Of these eleven million, and the thousands of other martyrdoms which have since been recorded, we know of just a mere handful of instances — fewer than twenty — in which the martyrs were reputed to have died without Baptism. In not one of these cases is it possible to conclude positively that these persons were never baptized.

We will study briefly the few martyrdoms, of which we have knowledge, where the circumstances of the martyr’s death are cited as "proof" of "baptism of blood." Our source books are primarily The Roman Martyrology (which, for brevity, we will also call Martyrology) and Father Alban Butler’s Lives of the Saints. Any other sources will be identified. The martyrs are listed in chronological order as their feasts appear in the liturgical calendar.

January 23, A.D. 304 — Saint Emerentiana

Martyrology: "At Rome, the holy virgin and martyr, St. Emerentiana. Being yet a catechumen, she was stoned to death by the heathens while praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, her foster sister."

Butler: "She suffered about the year 304 . . . She is said in her acts to have been stoned to death, whilst only a catechumen, praying at the tomb of St. Agnes."

First, we must take notice of Butler’s prefatory remarks concerning the martyrdom of Emerentiana’s foster sister, St. Agnes, commemorated on January 21: "The following relation is taken from Prudentius . . . and other fathers. Her [Agnes’] acts are as ancient as the seventh century; but not sufficiently authentic; nor are those given us in Chaldaic by Stephen Assemani of a better stamp. They contradict St. Ambrose and Prudentius in supposing that she finished her martyrdom by fire."

According to Saint Ambrose, Prudentius and Father Butler, Saint Agnes was beheaded. Others had said she was burned to death. Our point is that not all of the information given in the martyrdom narratives is necessarily accurate, consistent, or complete. Therefore, we have every right to question any particular narrative. Our sole purpose is to protect the words of Christ and the doctrines of the Church, our infallible guides to truth.

Let us consider the circumstances of the death of Saint Emerentiana: She was martyred in about A.D. 304 during the last great Roman persecution begun by the emperor Diocletian in March, 303. She went — "with her mother," one menology states — to the grave of her foster sister, Saint Agnes, to pray. Agnes had been martyred about one year previously and was buried a small distance outside the walls of Rome. That the grave was located in a relatively public area, and that the identity of the person buried there was well known, are indicated by the fact that, when Emerentiana was seen praying, a crowd gathered, not all of whom were necessarily pagans.

Father Laux reports that, by the year A.D. 250: "The Christians formed at this time about one third of the population of the Empire." It is reasonable, then, to estimate that by the year A.D. 304, perhaps one half of the empire was Christian. And Father Laux tells us what those early Christians were like:

We, in the present day, . . . can form only a faint conception of the intimacy of that union which subsisted between the primitive Christians, and was cemented by a community of danger as well as of faith and hope. The love which they bore to each other excited the astonishment, though it could not subdue the hostility, of their heathen persecutors. But they naturally regarded with feelings of peculiar affection and respect those members of the Church who were called to suffer in its cause, to be "witnesses" (martyr is the Greek word for witness) of the divine power operating in her.

". . . The Christian, says Tertullian, when imprisoned on account of his Religion, was supported by the reflection that his brethren anxiously watched over his fate, and that no exertion would be wanting on their part to mitigate its severity. . . ."

Therefore, on that January 23rd, in the Year of Our Lord 304, when the pagan mob gathered around Emerentiana as she prayed at the grave of her foster-sister, Saint Agnes, there had to be a number of Christians in the vicinity, possibly including her mother, who heard the curses and threats of the heathens and witnessed the martyrdom, but could not seek martyrdom themselves.

Emerentiana was stoned to death by the mob. Sometime thereafter, her holy remains were obviously gathered up by Christians and brought to the Church for safekeeping, for they rest, today, in the Church of Saint Agnes in Rome.

Neither the Martyrology nor Butler say anything about Emerentiana having been baptized. They identify her as a catechumen, which liberals consistently assume is proof that she was not baptized. The Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance, states: ". . . while praying at St. Agnes’s grave she was stoned to death by the pagan mob, thus receiving the baptism of blood." The final phrase is the editor’s opinion. He clearly implies that the Saint was never baptized.

We cannot provide factual proof that Emerentiana was baptized, but we know with absolute conviction, by the truths of our Faith, that she must have received the sacrament of Baptism before her death. How? Consider these very reasonable possibilities:

First, Diocletian’s persecution had been underway for over one year. It was the worst ever. Its purpose was to completely obliterate the religion of Christ. It is very possible that Emerentiana was baptized, along with the other catechumens in her instruction class, as soon as the persecution broke out.

Next, to pray in public at the grave of a known Christian was to place oneself in extreme danger. Apprehension meant certain death. Realizing this, and knowing the importance of Baptism, Emerentiana would have sought it before going to the grave, if she had not already received it.

Finally, if neither of the above occurred, it is possible that a Christian onlooker, perhaps even her own mother, baptized her after the stoning but before her soul left her body, or that the Christians who retrieved her body did so later, for all Christians knew that a person is not dead until the soul departs from the body, and God alone determines that moment.

We know Saint Emerentiana is in heaven because the Church has told us so. And by our Faith, we know she was baptized by someone, for the same Church has told us that no one can enter heaven without first having been "born again of water and the Holy Ghost."

March 10, A.D. 320 — The Forty Martyrs of Sebaste

Martyrology (under date of March 9): At Sebaste in Armenia, under the governor Agricolaus, in the time of Emperor Licinius, the birthday of forty holy soldiers of Cappadocia. After being chained down in foul dungeons, after having their faces bruised with stones, and being condemned to spend the night naked, in the open during the coldest part of winter, on a frozen lake where their bodies were benumbed and covered with ice, they completed their martydom by having their limbs crushed. . . Their feast is kept tomorrow.

Dom Gueranger, OSB, in his work The Liturgical Year: When there [on the frozen lake], they united in this prayer: "Forty have we entered on the battle; let us, O Lord, receive forty crowns, and suffer not our number to be broken. The number is an honoured one, for Thou didst fast for forty days . . ." Thus did they pray. . . . All the guards, except one, were asleep. He overheard their prayer, and saw them encircled with light and angels coming down from Heaven, like messengers sent by a King, who distributed crowns to thirty-nine of the soldiers. Whereupon, he thus said to himself: "There are forty men; where is the fortieth crown?"

While he was thus pondering, one of the number lost his courage; he could bear the cold no longer, and threw himself into a warm bath, which had been placed near at hand. His saintly companions were exceedingly grieved at this. But God would not suffer their prayer to be void. The sentinel, astonished at what he had witnessed, went immediately and awoke the guards; then, taking off his garments, he cried out, with a loud voice, that he was a Christian, and associated himself with the martyrs.

Butler: . . . The guard, being struck with the celestial vision and the apostate’s desertion, was converted upon it; and by a particular motion of the Holy Ghost, threw off his clothes, and placed himself in his stead amongst the thirty-nine martyrs.

The Martyrology makes no mention of the guard who replaced the lone defector. Butler says the guard was converted by the vision, implying that he was a pagan prior to it. Dom Gueranger says the guard was astonished by the vision, awakened the other guards, then "cried out, with a loud voice, that he was a Christian" and joined the thirty-nine on the frozen lake.

To make of this glorious incident an example of "baptism of blood," is, to our mind, not realistic. Consider the following circumstances:

The year was A.D. 320, seven years after the Edict of Milan. Sebaste was in Armenia, several hundred miles to the East of Nicomedia, the capitol of the eastern half of the Roman Empire ruled by Licinius. Despite the Edict, Licinius, a pagan hostile to Christianity, did not carry out its provisions, and even reverted to overt persecution for a few months. This incident at Sebaste probably occurred during that persecution. Nevertheless, the terms of the Edict would have been known all over the Empire and conversions to the Faith would have been occurring at a constantly increasing rate.

In the Roman Martyrology under date of September 9, we read: "At Sebaste in Armenia, Saint Severian, a soldier of Emperor Licinius. For frequently visiting the Forty Martyrs in prison, he was suspended in the air with a stone tied to his feet by order of the governor Lysias, and being scourged and torn with whips, yielded up his soul in the midst of torments."

From the date and circumstances of his death, it is certain that Severian was not the 40th Martyr. However, we notice from this account that other soldiers were able to visit the Forty in prison. Would not this holy band of Christian soldiers, facing certain death for their faith, have been zealous enough to baptize any willing comrades who put their own lives in danger by visiting them?

And it should not be assumed that Severian was their only visitor. Father Butler reports that, according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa and Procopius, the soldiers at Sebaste belonged to the Twelfth Legion, that unit of the Roman Army which, in A.D. 174, under Emperor Marcus Aurelius, was made up entirely of Christians and became famous as the "Thundering Legion" because of the miraculous rain and military victory obtained by their prayers. From this heritage could have come a Christian "esprit de corps" which embraced the entire Legion.

We think it very likely that the unnamed sentinel, the 40th martyr, was another soldier of the Legion who visited the Martyrs and was baptized. He could not, and did not, seek martyrdom until graced by God with the vision of the thirty-nine crowns. Then, he acted decisively: He "went immediately and awoke the guards; then, taking off his garments, he cried out, with a loud voice, that he was a Christian, and associated himself with the martyrs."

Is it not likely, then, that this noble soldier would have known that he could not declare himself a Christian unless he had been baptized?

April 12, about A.D. 303 — Saint Victor of Braga

Martyrology: At Braga in Portugal, the martyr Saint Victor. Although only a catechumen, he refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy. After suffering many tortures, he was beheaded, and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood.

Butler: Saint Victor . . . was a catechumen, who, refusing to sacrifice to idols, was condemned to lose his head, and [was] baptized in his own blood.

We do not know the exact year of Saint Victor’s martyrdom. It occurred sometime during the persecution of Diocletian between A.D. 303 and 311 All we know about Saint Victor’s death is contained in the above two brief accounts. We learn only that he was a catechumen who refused to adore an idol. But the fact that he was a catechumen does not prove that he was not baptized. In his book, Baptism and the Liturgy, Jean Cardinal Danielou states that many early Christians continued in their instruction as "catechumens" for years after their baptism. Also, as we have pointed out, the usual custom of the Church in those days was to baptize those who needed it, as soon as persecutions began.

We discussed the phrase "baptized in his own blood" above. To illustrate the various ways in which the word "baptized" was used in the past, we quote from a work entitled On the Salvation of the Rich Man by Saint Clement of Alexandria (died circa A.D. 215). Saint Clement relates the efforts of Saint John the Apostle to bring a prodigal son back to the Church. Clement describes the final meeting of the two. Saint John addresses the prodigal:

"Why, my son, dost thou flee from me . . . ? Fear not, thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. . . Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me."

And he [the prodigal], when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, trembled, and wept bitterly. And, on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears. John, pledging and assuring him that he would find forgiveness from the Savior, led him back to the Church.

The word "baptism" meant a washing, a cleansing, and was used often in comparison to the sacrament, but not as a substitute for it. In the above instance, Saint Clement refers to the prodigal’s tears of repentance as a second washing, the first having been sacramental Baptism.

April 14, Year Unknown — Saint Ardalion

Martyrology: Also Saint Ardalion, an actor. One day in the theater, while scoffing at the holy rites of the Christian religion, he was suddenly converted and bore testimony to it, not only by his words, but also with his blood.

We cannot determine the exact year or place of Ardalion’s martyrdom. Also, we are not informed as to the specific holy rites he was ridiculing, or the time that elapsed between his conversion and martyrdom.

It would be reasonable to assume that the rite of Baptism was included in his performance, since he must have known that it was first in the order of reception. If, then, he scoffed at Baptism, but agreed to receive it just to prove that it would do nothing for him, we know he would have received the Sacrament ex opere operato, despite his sinful intention.

. . . he who under pretense approaches Baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity. . . . But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter [grace] nor the sign of the Sacrament, because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. (Pope Innocent III, Denzinger 411)

But, the moment he "was suddenly converted" — and this happened "while" he was scoffing the holy rites — what had been mere playacting became a true, undefiled Baptism, and Ardalion received the seal of the sacrament and sanctifying grace. At that instant he became a baptized Catholic, and shortly thereafter, died as one.

May 24, A.D. 303 to 311 — Saints Donatian and Rogatian

Martyrology: At Nantes in Brittany, in the time of Emperor Diocletian, the blessed martyrs Donatian and Rogatian, brothers, who, because of their constancy in the Faith, were sent to prison, stretched on the rack, and lacerated. Finally, they were pierced through with a soldier’s lance, and then beheaded.

Butler: There lived at Nantes an illustrious young nobleman, called Donatian, who, having received the sacrament of regeneration, led a most edifying life, and laid himself out with much zeal to converting others to faith in Christ. His elder brother, Rogatian, was not able to resist the moving example of his piety, . . . and desired to be baptized. But the bishop having withdrawn and concealed himself for fear of the persecution, he was not able to receive that sacrament, but was shortly after baptized in his blood.

Father Butler’s lengthy description of these martyrdoms goes on to relate how the brothers were apprehended and imprisoned, but remained constant in their faith, praying that Rogatian might somehow be baptized. Now, back to Butler:

Donatian also prayed for him that his faith might procure him the effect of baptism, and the effusion of his blood that of the sacrament of chrism, that is, of confirmation. They passed the night together in fervent prayer.

The Roman Martyrology gives us no hint that Rogatian was not baptized. Father Butler, on the other hand, seems to editorialize far too much in order to make a case for "baptism of desire" and "confirmation by blood."

Surely, Donatian knew that Rogatian did not have to wait for the bishop to baptize him. During whatever days or weeks elapsed between Rogatian’s decision to receive the sacrament and their apprehension and imprisonment, Donatian, knowing that the bishop would not be available for the solemn ritual, could easily have baptized his brother himself.

If that did not happen, what would have been Donatian’s first concern when "they passed the night together in fervent prayer" in prison? Just how does Father Butler know with certainty that Donatian did not baptize Rogatian that night?

June 22, A.D. 303, Saint Alban, Protomartyr of England

Martyrology: At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, Saint Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored. After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment. With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood. Saint Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of Saint Alban and his companion.

Saint Bede, in his History of the English Church and People: Led out to execution, the saint came to a river which flowed swiftly between the wall of the town and the arena where he was to die. There he saw a great crowd of men and women . . . who were doubtless moved by God’s will to attend the death of His blessed confessor and martyr. The crowd . . . so blocked the bridge that he could hardly have crossed that evening. Saint Alban, who ardently desired a speedy martyrdom, approached the river, and as he raised his eyes to heaven in prayer, the river ran dry in its bed, and left him a way to cross. When . . . the appointed executioner himself saw this, he was so moved in spirit that he hurried to meet Alban at the place of execution, and throwing down his drawn sword, fell at his feet, begging that he might be thought worthy to die with the martyr if he could not die in his place.

While this man changed from a persecutor to a companion in the true Faith, and other executioners hesitated to pick up his sword from the ground, the most reverend confessor of God ascended a hill about five hundred paces from the arena, accompanied by the crowd. . . . As he reached the summit, holy Alban asked God to give him water, and at once a perennial spring bubbled up at his feet — a sign to all present that it was at the martyr’s prayer that the river also had dried in its course. . . . Here, then, the gallant martyr met his death, and received the crown of life which God has promised to those who love Him. . . .

The soldier who had been moved by divine intuition to refuse to slay God’s confessor was beheaded at the same time as Alban. And although he had not received the purification of Baptism, there was no doubt that he was cleansed by the shedding of his own blood, and rendered fit to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Butler (We pick up his narration at the point where the first executioner was converted and threw down his sword.): The sudden conversion of the headsman occasioned a delay in the execution. In the meantime the holy confessor, with the crowd, went up the hill, . . . There Alban falling on his knees, at his prayer a fountain sprung up, with the water whereof he refreshed his thirst. . . . Together with Saint Alban, the soldier, who had refused to imbrue his hands in his blood, and had declared himself a Christian, was also beheaded, being baptized in his own blood.

Our interest here is focused on the converted executioner and what happened to him.

The Martyrology tells us only that he "merited to be baptized in his own blood."

Saint Bede tells us about the miraculous parting of the river, and then the miraculous perennial spring on the summit of the hill. He says that God caused the spring to bubble forth only to prove that it was Alban’s prayer that divided the river. He concludes by assuring us that, although the converted soldier was not baptized, he was cleansed by the shedding of his own blood and thus made fit to enter heaven.

Father Butler informs us that, while the execution was being delayed because of the conversion of the executioner, Alban went up to the summit of the hill and prayed for water in order to quench his thirst. Then the Saint and the soldier were beheaded, the soldier being baptized in his own blood.

We intend no irreverence toward any of our three sources, but good heavens!, how obvious does God have to be to show His Love and Mercy and Particular Providence for each and every one of us — in this instance, the converted executioner?

First, our Good God parted the river at Saint Alban’s request for the sole purpose of confirming the latent faith in the executioner, and awakening faith in the great crowd that had gathered, all of whom witnessed Alban’s prayer.

Next, the executioner hurried to catch up with Alban at the place of execution, threw down his drawn sword, fell on his knees at Alban’s feet and begged to be allowed to die with him, or in his place.

Then, while the other possible executioners were confused and hesitated to pick up the sword, Alban, followed by the crowd and, obviously, the converted soldier, mounted the hill and prayed for water, which he received immediately.

Now why would a man — indeed, a very holy man — who had but a few short minutes left this side of eternity, call upon Almighty God to bring forth a miraculous spring of water? Just to quench his thirst? Just to prove that the first miracle was no accident? Hardly! Yet these are exactly the reasons given by Father Butler and even Saint Bede.

By faith we know Saint Alban was well aware that his new comrade needed to be baptized. He asked God for water; God gave him water; and while the executioners dallied in picking up the sword at the foot of the hill, he scooped up a handful of that precious element and, pouring it over the head of his kneeling friend, said, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Within a few seconds, the soldier was a baptized Catholic, and a few minutes later, he and Saint Alban stood in the presence of Almighty God.

We do not fault Saint Bede or Father Butler. Both were worthy men whose writings in explanation of and defense of the Faith were voluminous. But they were also fallible men, subject to making mistakes in judgment, as we all are. They were not intentionally deceitful. Neither was an eye-witness to the martyrdoms. They reported facts as presented to them and drew conclusions as honestly as they could. And they did not live at a time when the very existence of the Church was being threatened by flourishing opinions based on sentimental theology.

This story of the martyrdom of Saint Alban and his unexpected companion is not a proof of the validity of the theory known as "baptism of blood." Rather, it is a very dramatic portrayal of the miraculous things God will accomplish, through His Particular Providence, in order to get the waters of Baptism to each and every one of us who truly loves Him.

June 28, A.D. 202 to 211 — Saint Plutarch and Seven Companions

Martyrology: At Alexandria, in the persecution of Severus, the holy martyrs Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides a catechumen, Heron a neophyte, another Serenus, Rhais a catechumen, Potamioena, and Marcella her mother. Among them the virgin Potamioena is particularly distinguished. She first endured many very painful trials for the preservation of her virginity, and then cruel and unheard of torments for the faith, after which she and her mother were consumed with fire.

Butler: Saint Plutarch . . . [was] converted to the faith by hearing certain lectures read by Origen. Plutarch prepared himself for martyrdom by a holy life, and being a person of distinction was soon apprehended. Origen visited and encouraged him in prison, and accompanied him to the place of execution. . . . Serenus, another scholar of Origen, was burnt alive for the faith: Heraclides, a third, yet a catechumen, and Hero, who had been lately baptized [therefore called a neophyte] were beheaded: another Serenus, after undergoing many torments, had his head also cut off. Herais, a damsel, being but a catechumen, was burnt, and, according to the expression of Origen, baptized by fire.

. . . When she [Potamioena] had spoken thus, the executioners put her feet into the boiling pitch and dipped her in by degrees to the very top of her head, and thus she finished her martyrdom. Her mother, Marcella, was burnt at the same time.

All eight of these martyrs were students of Origen. Six of them had unquestionably been baptized. The other two, Heraclides and Herais (or Rhais) are identified as catechumens.

Butler mentions that Origen visited Plutarch in prison in order to encourage him. Would he not have also visited the others for the same purpose? And if Heraclides and Herais needed Baptism, would he not have administered it to them? Or, if Origen could not visit them, would they not have baptized each other if needed, and as the Church instructed them, while awaiting their martyrdom?

The possibilities are too many to allow unquestioned acceptance of the conclusion that the two catechumens died unbaptized. Origen’s expression "baptized by fire" may easily be understood as a reference to "yet another baptism," as we discussed earlier.

August 25 or 26, A.D. 286 or 303 — Saint Genesius of Rome

Martyrology: Also at Rome, Saint Genesius, martyr, who had embraced the profession of actor while he was a pagan. One day he was deriding the Christian mysteries in the theater in the presence of Emperor Diocletian; but by the inspiration of God he was suddenly converted to the faith and baptized. By command of the Emperor he was forthwith most cruelly beaten with rods, then racked, and a long time lacerated with iron hooks, and burned with torches. As he remained firm in the faith of Christ . . . he was beheaded, and thus merited the palm of martyrdom.

Butler: [In relating the story of the martyrdom of this saint as it is given above, but with greater detail and at greater length, Father Butler provides further information. He tells us that, after his performance, Saint Genesius, with great conviction and courage, addressed Diocletian and the audience, to inform them that he was now a Christian. He quotes the Saint saying to the Emperor:] ". . . whilst I was washed with the water, and examined, I had no sooner answered sincerely that I believed, than I saw a company of bright angels over my head, who recited out of a book all the sins I had committed from my childhood; and having afterward plunged the book into the water which had been poured upon me in your presence, they showed me the book whiter than snow."

But then Father Butler adds this interesting footnote:

The baptism which he received on the stage was no more than a representation of that sacrament, for want of a serious intention of performing the Christian rite; but St. Genesius was baptized in desire, with true contrition, and also in his own blood.

The Martyrology states flatly that Saint Genesius ". . . was suddenly converted to the faith and baptized." If it had been intended by those words to mean baptism of desire, it would have been so stated. Obviously, the Martyrology means water Baptism.

Despite the Saint’s description of the book having been cleansed by the plunging into the water "which had been poured upon me in your presence," Father Butler insists that it was cleansed by his desire, and also by his blood!

We refer the reader to our comments concerning the martyrdom of Saint Ardalion given above, and the quotation from Pope Innocent III found in Denzinger #411: ". . . he who under pretense approaches Baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity . . . "

Like Saint Ardalion, Saint Genesius received the Sacrament ex opere operato when the water was poured and the words of the sacrament spoken; and he benefitted from the grace of the sacrament with his act of faith when, as the Martyrology states, "he was suddenly converted," or when, as Father Butler reports him saying to Diocletian, "I. . . answered sincerely that I believed . . ."

August 26, A.D. 297 — Saint Gelasinus

Butler: A Comedian at Heliopolis in Phoenicia. He having been baptized, in jest, in a warm bath on the stage, coming out of it, loudly professed himself a Christian, and was stoned to death by the mob, in 297, as the chronicle of Alexander relates.

We present this commentary by Father Butler here merely to point out what appear to be inconsistencies in his judgment. Saint Gelasinus was martyred under circumstances almost identical to those of Saint Genesius (immediately above) yet he says Genesius had baptism of desire and blood, while Gelasinus was truly baptized in the warm bath.

Our point is that the conclusions of the chroniclers of martyrdoms are not above critical examination.

August 26, A.D. 286, or 303 to 311 — Saint Genesius of Arles

Martyrology (under date of August 25): At Arles in France, another blessed Genesius, who, filling the office of notary, and refusing to record the impious edicts by which Christians were commanded to be punished, threw away his books publicly, and declared himself a Christian. He was seized and beheaded, and thus attained to the glory of martyrdom through baptism in his own blood.

Butler: He was a public notary in the city of Arles, and a catechumen at a time when Maximian Herculeus arrived there. An imperial edict against the Christians, which was then in force, was put into his hands to transcribe; but he, rather than concur to such a criminal injustice, threw away his pencil, and secretly left the town in order to hide himself; but he was overtaken, and beheaded on the banks of the Rhone, about the beginning of the fourth century.

Let us extract the important essentials from these two testimonies. The Martyrology informs us that Genesius "declared himself a Christian." That means he was already a baptized member of the Church.

Father Butler tells us he was also a catechumen. Therefore, we know he was a baptized Catholic still undergoing instruction in a catechumenate.

Both sources report that he was apprehended and beheaded, the Martyrology properly concluding that he "attained to the glory of martyrdom through baptism in his own blood."

Here is a perfect example of what "baptism of blood" really means. It applies only to the martyrdom of a baptized Catholic. It is that "yet another baptism" which, in those times, so many faithful sought in order to atone for their sins as Christians.

September 15, circa 362 A.D. — Saint Porphyry

Martyrology: Also, Saint Porphyry, a comedian, who was baptized in jest in the presence of Julian the Apostate, but was suddenly converted by the power of God and declared himself a Christian. By order of the emperor he was thereupon struck with an axe, and thus crowned with martyrdom.

See our comments above concerning the "on stage" conversions of Saints Ardalion, Genesius, and Gelasinus. They apply here as well.

September 20, circa A.D. 303 — Saints Fausta and Evilasius

Martyrology: At Cyzicum, on the sea of Marmora, the birthday of the holy martyrs Evilasius and the virgin Fausta, in the time of Emperor Maximian. Fausta’s head was shaved to shame her, and she was hung up and tortured by Evilasius, then a pagan priest. But when he wished to have her body cut in two, the executioners could not inflict any injury upon her. Amazed at this prodigy, Evilasius believed in Christ and was cruelly tortured by order of the emperor; at the same time Fausta had her head bored through and her whole body pierced with nails. She was then laid on a heated gridiron, and being called by a celestial voice, went in company with Evilasius to enjoy the blessedness of heaven.

Fausta was evidently a baptized Catholic. Our attention, therefore, focuses on Evilasius, the pagan priest. All we are told is that he "believed in Christ and was cruelly tortured by order of the emperor." Just how he died, we are not told, but apparently he died at the same time with Fausta.The case of Saint Apronian (February 2nd) is similar:

The Roman Martyrology says this: At Rome, on the Salarian Way, the passion of Saint Apronian, a notary. While he was yet a heathen, and was leading Saint Sisinius out of prison to present him before the governor Laodicius, he heard a voice from heaven saying, "Come ye, the blessed of My Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world." At once he believed, was baptized, and after confessing Our Lord, received sentence of death.

Both Evilasius and Apronian were pagans who, in different ways, were actively engaged in persecuting Christians. Both were converted in an instant: Evilasius, by the prodigy of Fausta; Apronian, by a voice from heaven. (It is possible that Evilasius also heard the voice that Fausta heard, but the Martyrology does not make that clear.)

For both martyrs, the time element between believing and being martyred appears to have been brief. But Apronian, we are told, was baptized, perhaps by Saint Sisinius. There is no mention of Evilasius having been baptized.

We admittedly lack, and are thus ignorant of, any baptismal records for these souls we have been discussing. But lack of proof for a positive conclusion does not, logically, constitute proof for a negative conclusion.

Consequently, it is by our complete faith in Christ, and the words He has spoken, and the promises He has made, that we know that Evilasius received the sacrament of Baptism. For Our God is not capricious; His actions are consistent. What He did for Apronian in getting the waters of Baptism to him, He most certainly did for Evilasius, — and for Emerentiana, and for all the other sainted martyrs we have listed in this brief study.