R & R Cum ex… attacks, Pius XII & Apoc. 12 and more on ‘end of the age’

R & R Cum ex… attacks, Pius XII & Apoc. 12 and more on ‘end of the age’

 +St. Catherine of Siena+

+ Prayer Intention for May, Month of the Blessed Virgin Mary+

Obtain for me forgiveness of my sins O Mary; pray for me, a poor sinner to thy Jesus, whose lacerated body thou didst hold in thy arms.” (Sorrowful Mother prayer booklet)

(Prayer associates request: Please pray for a special intention.)


The recent articles on Millenarianism here bring Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio (Cum ex…) to the forefront once again. As the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia notes under Antichrist: “The defenders of the Papal-Antichrist theory have made several signal blunders in their arguments; they cite St. Bernard as identifying the Beast of the Apocalypse with the Pope, though St. Bernard speaks in the passage of the Antipope; they appeal to the Abbot Joachim as believing that Antichrist will be elevated to the Apostolic See, while the Abbot really believes that Antichrist will overthrow the Pope and usurp his See… Since Antichrist simulates Christ, and the Pope is an image of Christ, Antichrist must have some similarity to the Pope, if the latter be the true Vicar of Christ.

Later, La Salette predicted Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist. Other prophecies predict the same. St. Paul told us that the pope would first be taken out of the way before the revolt could come, and the Man of Sin could be revealed. This makes sense only if Antichrist is a usurper or antipope. And Pope Paul IV described exactly how this could happen and put measures in place to prevent it.

But Antichrist was not an antipope but a false pope, for there was no one to oppose him; he was a usurper who reigned unopposed, and this had never happened before in the history of the Church. Cum ex… seems to have anticipated this possibility, for once the heresy of any bishop, cardinal or pope becomes CLEAR, the election itself is assumed to be illegitimate, invalid and cannot possess even quasi-legitimacy by “any SEEMING possession of government, by universal obedience accorded him [or] by the passage of any time in said circumstances” (para. 6).

If this bull is read carefully, it implies, rather than explicitly states, that the election was invalid. And no declaration that this heresy has occurred, by any specified body, is necessary; heretical statements, written or vocalized, are sufficient; delinquents were and are condemned by their own acts, as Can. 2200 states, until the supposed commission of the act is investigated and resolved or absolved. The doubt itself is enough, as the case of Liberius demonstrates and St. Robert Bellarmine teaches.

Certainly, everything began to become clear by the end of the false Vatican 2 council, and it became perfectly clear when the Sacraments were “revised” in 1968 and the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced in 1969. Otherwise why would almost half of what then constituted the Church left her ranks, including clergy and religious? There have been immoral and scandalous popes who remained in office in the past, although they were sanctioned by members of the clergy and faithful. But never was there a time when a pope was said to have been guilty of schism and/or heresy and remained a pope, as the case of Pope Liberius cited by St. Robert Bellarmine proves. For Bellarmine states that:

For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, they judge him to be a heretic, pure and simple [simpliciter], AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.” This occurred in the unsettled days of the Arian heresy, and while Liberius was deposed and exiled, he later returned as Pope to unseat his contender, the Arian claimant Felix. Liberius was more or less exonerated of any claims he committed actual heresy by the Vatican Council Fathers.

Not only were the heresies of J.B. Montini (Paul 6) and Angelo Roncalli (John 23) public, these heresies were acknowledged implicitly by the departure of the faithful which primarily occurred between 1969-1972. How else could these Catholics have justified leaving the Church? As stated before, this was the conclusion, not the beginning, of the Great Apostasy. There can be no doubt whatsoever that everything Pope Paul IV warned against actually occurred, just as he envisioned it.

A Modernist and Freemason, Roncalli, campaigned for the papacy prior to the death of Pope Pius XII and was invalidly elected. He never became pope because one who is a professed heretic/apostate (Freemasonry is a pagan religion) is incapable of election. Furthermore, there was never a two/thirds plus one majority to elect him because quite obviously many of the cardinals electing were also Modernist heretics, so their votes were invalid. This was later proven by their participation in the false Vatican 2 council. This invalidity without the necessary majority vote is clearly stated in Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS). Still, certain Traditionalists of the recognize and resist (R & R) persuasion pretend that a declaration is needed to prove heresy, despite Pope Paul IV’s teaching it is not needed, and that cardinals and bishops issuing from the usurpers are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, in contradiction of Can. 2200.

Recognizing and refuting the distortions of papal teaching

These so-called R & R theologians claim that in promulgating Cum ex…, Paul IV intended “to depose a validly elected Pope should he become a heretic and annul his juridical and sacramental actions.” But unless the English language has suddenly become unintelligible, this is definitely not what Paul IV taught. He taught that: “If at any time it becomes clear… [that] any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church… or likewise any Roman Pontiff BEFORE HIS PROMOTION OR ELEVATION AS A CARDINAL OR ROMAN PONTIFF, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy…” (para. 6). This precludes any assumption that the pope could fall into heresy in his official capacity. What he is saying is that the election is then invalid and he was never elected. He prefaces his remarks with what appears to be the teaching of Pope Innocent III, in para. 1 of Cum ex…: “The Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by no one in this world — (even he) may be corrected if he is apprehended straying from the Faith.”

As S.B. Smith notes in his Ecclesiastical Law, Vol. 1, “For although, according to the more probable opinion, the Pope may fall into heresy and err in matters of faith, as a private person, yet it is also universally admitted that no Pope ever did fall into heresy even as a private doctor.” First Pope Paul IV puts his readers on guard with the quote from Pope Innocent III in order not to surprise them, owing to the delicate nature of the subject. Then later he explains how such a thing could happen, clearly stating such a heresy would need to have occurred before a heretic or schismatic was elected, invalidating the election.

John XXII was corrected for what many believed was a deviation from the faith, but that particular dogma had not yet been defined. We must note here that correction and deposition are two very different things, as the definition of each reveals. A pope could be corrected as a private doctor, according to most theologians. But a pope teaching in his official capacity could never err, period. When he does, we know he is not a true pope. And it is very obvious that since these R & R critics believe Bergoglio (Francis) and his predecessors to have been true if bad popes, any admission that Cum ex… is still very much in force would demolish their precariously built sandcastle.

Competent ecclesiastical authority

They next fault Paul IV for his failure to establish an ecclesiastical body capable of declaring null the pontificate of the validly elected Pope whose election had been invalidated by heresy.” But if one is never elected in the first place, he is not a pope but a usurper; he is only the equivalent of a lay person. Deposing him is not an option since he never held the office as Pope Paul IV carefully explains. He need only be removed by the ecclesiastical or even the civil authorities (Cum ex…, paras. 6,7). Traditionalists in general fail to identify jurisdictional power with an office, validly bestowed by competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the Sacred Canons, (Can. 147). Pope Pius XII’s authentic interpretation of this canon, stressing the importance of competence for validity, is entered into the AAS. Clearly the cardinals attending the 1958 conclave were incompetent. Canon 160 applies to papal elections and this canon directs clerics to VAS as the governing papal election law.

College of cardinals disqualified

The R & R bunch also exhibits their ignorance of Canon Law: “If the Pope had already been a public heretic, the accusation of heresy must also have been extended to the College of Cardinals who elected him.” Here we turn to the law for ecclesiastical elections as Canon Law directs, (Canons 6 n. 4; 18), whenever there is a doubt regarding some element of the law. As Rev. Anscar Parsons explains in his Canon Law dissertation Canonical Elections, (CUA, 1939): “Historically the election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the elections of inferior prelates” so ecclesiastical election law is a logical place to go. Parsons goes on to explain that an election can be invalid for several reasons, and some of these were definitely in play in the election of Roncalli.

First, he cites fraud, fear, and deceit, which goes to Can. 104 This canon clearly invalidates any action performed under these conditions, as explained at length in previous articles. Did it exist in Roncalli’s election? It obviously did, seeing the controversial and disastrous outcome. Secondly, he cites outside interference, (Can. 2390 §2) and such interference has now become a matter of public record, from various quarters (see The Phantom Church in Rome). Thirdly, he addresses the election of an unworthy person, (Can. 2391 §1), writing:

“In normal cases it is presumed that [the electors] made their choice with full deliberation and knowledge because it is their duty to investigate the qualities of the person whom they elect. Is the election of an unworthy person void from the beginning? It seems that it is. The law says that [electors are] deprived of the right to proceed to a new election [under Can. 2391 §1]. In making this disposition, the legislator seems to suppose that the original choice of the unworthy person was null and void.”

Certainly Roncalli’s qualifications were far less than stellar. He was on the Modernist watchlist and was a suspected Freemason, and this from several sources. He also was not in good standing with Pope Pius XII, having botched the worker priest movement and for choosing to receive his cardinal’s hat from notorious French anti-Catholic Vincent Auriol, among several other questionable incidents. He also was a known advocate for liturgical renewal. Wasn’t all of this precisely WHY he was elected? And can anyone doubt that those electing him were of the very same mind?

Cum ex.. is NOT about deposing a validly elected  pope

And obviously the R & R proponent criticizing Cum ex…  doesn’t know Church history, either, or wish his readers to learn it. For he claims the following:  “An organ to depose a Pope does not exist in the ChurchShould such an organ exist, it would be doctrinally prevented from deposing a validly elected Pontiff.” This would apply to a true pope, yes; but we are not talking here about validly elected popes, nor was Pope Paul IV. Here they are assuming what they have not proven and cannot prove, which is a fallacy of logic: that Paul IV was suggesting that a validly elected popecould be deposed. But Cum ex… never mentions deposition of a pope validly elected. It states only that those recognizing a man elected pope is a heretic may “…depart with impunity at any time from obedience and, allegiance to said promoted and elevated persons… And.., if they attempt to continue their government and administration, allmay implore the aid of the secular arm against those so advanced and elevated.”

Pope Paul IV assumes that his cardinals and bishops know that a heretic is not able to be elected pope; he says this in quotes from para. 6 above. The only way such a thing could happen is if the pre-election heresy was discovered after the heretic appeared to take office as pope. Pope Innocent II’s campaign to unseat the antipope Anacletus II, led by St. Bernard; the deposition of antipopes by the Council of Constance, validly convened by the true pope Gregory XII; also the total anathematization issued to antipope Felix V by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence (Felix later resigned) — these are the primary instances of deposition by the rightful popes, and they occurred to unseat antipopes, not those validly elected. REMOVAL of an imposter was possible only because the office was never obtained, as Paul IV clearly elucidates. The only time in history that deposing popes ever came up for discussion was at the Council of Constance by the Gallicans, who were later condemned as heretics by the Vatican Council. And, Pope Paul IV was well aware of this, writing after the fact.

Pius IX not liberal in his religious beliefs

This R & R commentator’s final sally, yet another confusing statement, is about Pope Pius IX, claiming he was a liberal before election so was invalidly elected. After taking the name of Pius IX and converting, he practically declared Catholic Liberalism a heresy. If the Bull of Paul IV were to be applied to this case… his election should be annulled and all the juridical and sacramental acts of his pontificate should have been invalidated.” Nice try, but no cigar. Was any research on Pope Pius IX’s supposed liberalism ever conducted? Or were the rags and salacious novels of the day that slandered him simply taken as truth?

Had one book alone been read, that of Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J., No Popery, the liberalism slander might have been laid to rest. Liberalism was a tendency among those considered Catholic for many years before it ever became an outright heresy, so much so that Fr. Sarda-Salvany details the variations of this error in his work, Liberalism Is a Sin. Pope Pius IX came from a well-to-do and distinguished family. And if such tendencies ever really existed to begin with, they were soon extinguished when he ascended to the papacy, as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains.

Prior to his election as pope, Giovanni Cardinal Mastai-Ferretti’s “…great charity and amiability had made him beloved by the people, while his friendship with some of the revolutionists had gained for him the name of liberal…” But after experiencing the true colors of Italian revolutionaries calling themselves liberals, when riots and murders exploded in Rome causing him to flee from the city for a time, the Encyclopedia reports: “Pius IX returned to Rome, no longer a political liberalist.” And as Fr. Sarda-Salvany explains,

“To affect the confusion of ideas is an old scheme of the devil. Not to understand clearly and precisely is generally the source of intellectual error. In time of schism and heresy, to cloud and distort the proper sense of words is a fruitful artifice of Satan and it is as easy to lay snares for the intellectually proud as for the innocent… No political form of any kind whatsoever, whether democratic or popular, is of itself (ex se) liberalism. Forms are mere forms and nothing more. Forms of government do not constitute their essence; their forms are but their accidents… These various forms of themselves have nothing to do with liberalism — any one of them may be perfectly and integrally Catholic.”

So much for the arguments of the R & R crowd. Now for an interesting side note on Pope St. Pius V’s confirmation of Pope Paul IV’s  Cum ex… and its bearing on the hierarchy’s membership in the Church. While Traditionalists championed Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum as their “go-to” document to justify celebrating the Latin Mass, they conveniently ignored and suppressed the fact that another document, a similarly worded motu proprio entitled Inter Multiplices, confirmed Cum ex… and cast a dark shadow on their own Catholicity. A little background is necessary here to fully explain the import of the motu proprio.

Inter multiplices and those suspect of heresy

Pope Paul IV wrote his bull at the time of the Protestant Reformation because he suspected one of his cardinals, Giovanni Morone, of heresy. He accused Morone of reading forbidden books and associating with Lutheran ministers and those sympathetic to the heretics; also for promoting himself for election as pope. Many believed Morone was innocent, but Paul IV had him arrested and tried for heresy. Morone’s trial lasted two long years, and during that time, Pope Paul IV published Cum ex… When the pope died shortly afterward, Morone, still a prisoner, was released to attend the conclave. At first he was one of three frontrunners, but ran full force into Cardinal Ghislieri, the future Pope St. Pius V. Joseph Cardinal Hergenrother was an outspoken critic of Cum ex…, styling it in his 1876 work The Catholic Church and Christian State as only a “disciplinary,” non-infallible document.

Yet in another work, The History of the Popes, Hergenrother wrote that Morone’s campaign to become pope was quashed by the intervention of Cardinal Ghislieri, who pointedly remarked that Morone’s election would be invalid owing to the question mark hanging over his orthodoxy. In 1560, the pope succeeding Pope Paul IV, Pope Pius IV, authorized a revision of the process against Morone, and as a result the imprisonment of the cardinal and the whole procedure against him were declared to be entirely without justification.”

Morone’s trial and later exoneration must have disquieted Pope St. Pius V because one of the first things he did on assuming the papacy was to issue his Inter Multiplices, Dec. 21, 1566. In this document he ordered that: “Many indicted, accused parties who had been indicted even in the aforesaid Holy Office or tried by inquisitors for heretical perversity and investigated for heretical perversity… [have] obtained or extracted, just as though they were innocent of the charges against them (1) definite declarations of absolution from the aforesaid judicial processes and inquisitions, (2) declaratory pronouncements of their life and teaching through a previous canonical clearance of a charge based on the oaths of others with respect to their presumed good and Catholic faith, or (3) decrees from the same Holy Office, from other ordinaries of places or delegates and inquisitors, and even from Roman Pontiffs who were our predecessors

“The aforementioned Roman Pontiffs confirmed these judicial pronouncements and decrees with the added imposition of permanent silence, along with a prohibition lest said Holy Office or other inquisitors might be able to or should go forward in respect to additional details. …We completely and perpetually revoke them, each and every one whatsoever by means of this Our universal constitution that will be valid perpetually… Accordingly, the result was that the aforesaid investigated parties — under the cover and protection of the aforementioned declaratory pronouncements, Apostolic letters, and especially the force of a prohibitory proviso (made in secret against the inquisitors sitting in session) — never truly returned to the bosom of the Church, sometimes by even remaining openly steadfast in their old errors against the Catholic faith…”

Because of the secret nature of the Inquisition regarding high-ranking clerics, it is not known if Morone was ever re-tried, or what might have resulted from the renewed investigations undertaken by the Inquisition. Pope St. Pius V seems to have based this ruling on his own personal experience with Morone, who was shepherded through the Council of Trent proceedings by none other than Pope St. Pius V’s good friend St. Charles Borromeo. And the pope further declared, in concluding Inter Multiplices, that:

The same accused, denounced, and investigated individuals CAN AND SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED AND TRIED AGAIN, even if they were or are Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, [or] CARDINALS of the same Holy Roman Church, especially where it would appear, BY MEANS OF NEW, SUPERVENING EVIDENCE OF THE SAME OR ANOTHER SPECIES OF HERESY (including evidence relating to past time), and through other evidence, that the party had been absolved by illicit means before he had been denounced or investigated… And [these are]RESPECTIVELY TO BE GIVEN AND CONCEDED IN THE FUTURE BY OUR SUCCESSORS, THE ROMAN PONTIFFS, who emerge in the course of time, and by the Apostolic See (completely and wholly as well), just as if the aforementioned judgments, decrees, and Apostolic letters, including canonical clearances, had not been issued in favor of the aforesaid denounced, accused, and investigated persons…

And We renew, in accordance with this motu proprio, the constitution against heretics and schismatics previously issued by [Our] predecessor Paul [Cum ex…], namely the one dated at Rome at St. Peter’s, in the year of our Lord’s Incarnation, February 15, 1558 [sic], in the fourth year of his pontificate, AND WE ALSO CONFIRM IT AS INVIOLABLE AND WISH AND COMMAND THAT IT BE OBSERVED TO THE LETTER, ACCORDING TO ITS CONTENTS AND WORDING.” (The Codus Iuris Canonici, 1957, by Peter Cardinal Gasparri gives the date of Cum ex … as “15 Febr. 1559,” but other sources list it as here — Feb. 15, 1558).

That Inter multiplices confirmed Cum ex… is important because it also illustrates the reasoning behind the exclusion of Morone from the list of papabile and confirms the necessity of investigation prior to election as Rev. Parsons teaches. This the cardinals were bound to do per the oaths they took as required by Pius XII’s election constitution (VAS) to elect the most worthy candidate. “Canonists” such as (admitted former Freemason) John Salza uphold Roncalli’s legitimacy and insist on a papal decision to prove his pre-election heresy.

But while Salza cites various canons to “prove” his case, he fails to cite (VAS or) Can. 2200 which commands us to consider those guilty of heresy until proven innocent, just as Morone was judged as not yet proven innocent by Pope St. Pius V, then a cardinal. This in turn leads us to VAS, which refers everything to the future pope, and the interpretation of the constitution to the cardinals. But that did not give the cardinals the power to determine if Roncalli was a heretic, for as Salza admits in his treatise, only the pope could so judge him, as was done with Morone. This would therefore be a usurpation of papal authority during an interregnum, an act invalidated and voided by VAS itself.

Roncalli’s heresy was suspected and publicly broadcast prior to his election as his biographers demonstrate (see The Phantom Church in Rome, Ch. 10, B and D ). Salza judges his statements to be not notorious, but he is not the pope. Pius XII commands that all the papal laws and canons, especially VAS, be upheld during an interregnum and voids and invalidates anything done contrary to them. Regarding the lay interference in the 1958  election; the use of fraud and fear noted by this author and alleged by many others; also the election of an unworthy candidate — all are proscribed and censured latae sententiae under Can. 2330, nos. 6,7, and 8 and each one invalidates the election. All these same excommunications are found in Pope St. Pius X’s previous election constitution, Vacante sedis apostolica,  revised by Pope Pius XII.

Revs. Woywod-Smith comment under this canon that St. Pius X’s constitution “…rules that every excommunication imposed and decreed by this constitution is reserved exclusively to the Supreme Pontiff…There is some controversy whether absolution in an urgent case from these excommunications can be given in accordance with Canon 2254… but it seems to us that the concession of the said canon does not apply to the penalties of the constitution against offences committed in reference to the election of the Supreme Pontiff because Can. 2330 states that in regard to them the constitution exclusively governs.” Pope Pius XII may be gone, but VAS is still very much in force.

Pope Pius XII and Apocalypse, Ch. 12

And yet, as Mr. Morell-Ibarra and the Anchorite note below, Pope Pius XII still rules us from Heaven through his papal election constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. As explained in my just-mentioned book:

“[Pope Pius XII] did what any good householder would do on leaving his place of residence for an unspecified amount of time: he locked all the doors and barred the windows; he took the keys with him, forbidding anyone to enter his residence until his return, or the return of Our Lord Himself or His assigns; he bequeathed detailed instructions to his servants, the faithful, in order that they might carry on until that time; he made certain that no decisions could be made in his name; and he demonstrated by his actions that the Church would experience an interruption in her normal processes.” That “interruption” was the culmination of the Great Apostasy and the reign of Antichrist. For he allegedly told Montini when he exiled him as an archbishop to Milan, “One day my son, you will return.”

And perhaps we may find Pius XII even mentioned in Chapter 12 of the Apocalypse, where we read: “And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered… And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days” (vs. 1-2; 4-6).

In his The Apocalypse of St. John, (1920), Rev. E. S. Berry wrote on these verses: “This indicates that the first troubles of those days will be inaugurated within the Church by apostate bishops, priests, and peoples — the stars dragged down by the tail of the dragon… The dragon stands before the woman ready to devour the child that is brought forth. In other words, the powers of hell seek by all means to destroy the Pope elected in those days. The woman brings forth a son to rule the nations with a rod of iron. These are the identical words of prophecy uttered by the psalmist concerning our Savior Jesus Christ (Psalm 2, vs.9).

“They confirm our application of this vision to the Pope, the vicar of Christ on earth, to rule the nations in His stead and by His power… It is now the hour for the powers of darkness. The newborn son of the Church is taken to God and to his throne… The mystery of iniquity gradually developing through the centuries cannot be fully consummated while the power of the papacy endures. But now that ‘he that withholds’ is taken out of the way during the interregnum, that wicked one shall be revealed in his fury against the Church… The Church deprived of a chief pastor must seek sanctuary in solitude, there to be guided by God himself during those trying days.”

Fr. Berry came very close to predicting exactly what would happen to the Church. The apostate priests and bishops are the tools used by the dragon to devour the pope destined to rule with an iron rod. Taking advantage of his good nature, they conspired to misinform, misdirect and confuse him, and they succeeded. He is not martyred immediately after his election as Berry thinks; his is a long and painful martyrdom of the spirit, surrounded by murderous traitors who try to poison him and false friends who secretly undermine and upend every good thing he attempts.

The enemy triumphs: Pope Pius XII dies and the False Prophet and Sea Beast reign, but the Church is protected. The pope yet rules from Heaven with an iron rod — Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and all Pope Pius XII’s related encyclicals and other pronouncements — and the faithful are nourished spiritually with the Sacraments and the graces they need to do good and avoid evil. And so we have witnessed the end of the Church’s time on earth, and now await the coming of our Lord and Savior, in all majesty and glory.

Mr. Javier Morell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide, Pt. 8

(The following is an excerpt from Mr. Morell-Ibarra’s latest translation of his work. See the full translation of his work here. Going forward, each section of this timely and pungent work, as it is translated, will be added by this author weekly and a preview and link will be provided for readers.)


The end of the section on Traditionalist fables can be read at the link above. The next chapters will deal with explaining the current situation, which is no less than the Great Tribulation, then we will offer some spiritual reflections about the world and its many deceptions for the soul. This will be followed by an in-depth description of the unfathomable mystery of the operation of error and how it operates over the entire world, offering a most fundamental remedy to escape this universal chastisement as we await the Parousia of Our Lord in awe and expectation.

More on the end of the centuries, consummation of the ages
  1. Return to the recurring fable that Our Lord would be with us until the end of the centuries, which the “Traditionalist” false christs literally interpret as the end of the physical world or the last day, in a desperate, suicidal attempt to justify the impossible, namely, that the intruders could function without a Pope granting them mission and jurisdiction, which is heretic and blasphemous.

We are going to definitely dismantle this perverse fable, which has confused and deceived so many unwary souls, making them fall into the clutches of the false pastors of the “Traditionalist”-sedevacantist bogus clergy, adding a pertinent update, since one of the false prophets defending these sacrilegious usurpers has maliciously contributed a fragment of the Encyclical “Ad Catholici Sacerdotii” of Pope Pius XI -specifically section 14 of a translation into Spanish-, to try and justify the untenable opinion that there is and will be both a valid and licit Catholic hierarchy and a valid and licit Sacrifice of the Holy Catholic Mass until “the end of the world”, a time which, apparently, he identifies with the “end of the (PHYSICAL) world”.

“14. And since then, the Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood began to elevate to heaven their pure offering prophesied by Malachi, for which the name of God is great among the nations; and at all hours of the day and night IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE OFFERING HIMSELF WITHOUT CEASING UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD“. But reading theTEXT AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED, THAT IS, IN LATIN (Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), number 28, year 1936, page 11 of the document, (https://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_sp.htm), it is verified that it reads: “AD INTERITUM USQUE HUMANI AEVI PERPETUO PERAGETUR”, whose translation into English is: “IT WILL CONTINUE IN PERPETUITY UNTIL THE END OF THE HUMAN ERA”. And that “END OF THE HUMAN AGE” appears as “CONSUMMATION OF THE AGE” in Mt. 24, 3 and in Mt. 28, 20. This is explained in more detail below.

Fragment of said encyclical in its original version (in Latin) obtained from AAS 28 [1936], page 11 of the document: “Hoc ex tempore Apostoli eorumque in sacerdotio successores illam, quam Malachia Propheta vaticinatus est, «oblationem mundam» caelesti Numini offerre instituerunt, qua quidem divinum nomen magnum est in gentibus; quaeque iam, in quavis terrarum orbis parte ac qualibet diei noctisque hora, caelo admota, AD INTERITUM USQUE HUMANI AEVI PERPETUO PERAGETUR.”

Which, translated into English, it reads:

“And from then on, the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood began to offer to heavenly God the “pure offering” prophesied by the Prophet Malachi(*), for which the name of God is great among the nations; which, already offered in all parts of the earth, and at all hours of the day and night, IT WILL CONTINUE to be offered IN PERPETUITY UNTIL THE END OF THE HUMAN AGE [i.e., until the “CONSUMMATION OF THE AGE“, which does not mean the end of the PHYSICAL world , but rather the end of an “ERA OF HUMAN HISTORY” (cf. Mt. 24, 3). And knowing the events that have taken place since the death of the last true Pope (Pope Pius XII) up to the present, it is evident that this ”HUMAN ERA” to which Pope Pius XI referred was the  “AGE OF THE MESSIAH ON EARTH” (cf. Mt. 28, 20), which, evidently, ended with the emergence of the AGE OF THE ANTICHRISTS (an era or epoch of great apostasy thanks to the infamous Vatican 2 cabal), being initiated – the era of the antichrists – by modernist masonic agent Roncalli and continued by the iniquitous Montini and the other anti-Christian successors until currently Bergoglio, THE ERA OF “HOMO PECCATI”, 2 THESSALONIANS 2.

(*) Cf. Malachi 1, 11.

Consummationem saeculi/End of the Centuries/End of the world. Verbum Dei. Commentary on Holy Scripture. B. ORCHARD, E. F. SUTCLIFFE, R. C. FULLER, and R. RUSSELL. Published by HERDER (1957), Imprimatur of 1956, Momor (Gospels).

Next, we will read the impressive work done by our brother the Anchorite to refute such a twisted fable of the Anomos once and for all.

The “End of the Century” Does Not Mean the “End of the Physical World” — by the Anchorite.
  1. Summary

The true Catholic Church approved, at least since 1953, the interpretation of the “consummation of the century”, “consummation of the world” or “end of the world” in Saint Matthew 24,3 as: “consummation of an era of human history». According to this interpretation, “the consummation of the world” means the end of an “epoch of human history”, but it does not mean the “end of the physical world”. In addition, in Saint Matthew 28, 20, Our Lord Jesus Christ speaks of the “century”, whose interpretation is, also according to said exegesis, “the era of the Messiah on earth” [era of the Messiah on earth, which spanned from the institution of the Catholic Church by Christ Our Lord until the usurpation that occurred in October 1958 by antipope Roncalli, usurpation that marked the beginning of what can be called the “era of the antichrists” and that we are still living with antipope Bergoglio].

  1. Bibliographic evidence

2.1. Saint Matthew 24, 3 (Holy Bible, Monsignor Dr. Juan Straubinger)

«3 Afterwards, having gone to sit on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to Him in particular, and said to Him: “Tell us when this will happen, and what will be the sign of your advent and of the consummation of the age”.»

 2.2. Exegesis of Saint Matthew 24, 3 [1]

“The remark was unexpected, and the disciples walked, perhaps in silence, perhaps in heated discussion, until they reached the top, where they stopped to rest. The four privileged disciples of our Lord (Mc) proposed the double question: “When?” “What signs will there be?” […]. The “end of the world” (συντελεία του αιώνος) has a more decisive force to signify the end of the world than the term “parousia”. However, the word αιών means not the physical world or the universe, but “era”, “epoch” of human history; for Paul’s use of it, cf. ALLO, Vivre et Penser, Series 1.a, 1941, 179. Therefore, the “era” here may be that of the old economy. In 28, 20, where the perspective changes, [said “era”] is the new messianic era [which begins with the abrogation of the Old Law when Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the New Law through his Holy Catholic Church].»

2.3. Saint Matthew 28, 16-20 (Holy Bible, Monsignor Dr. Juan Straubinger)

«16 The eleven disciples therefore went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had commanded them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; some, however, doubted. 18 And coming up Jesus spoke to them, saying, “All power has been given to me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; 20 teaching them to keep everything I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you every day, until the consummation of the century.”

2.4. Exegesis of Saint Matthew 28, 20 [2]

«Faith and ritual are not enough. There are moral obligations. “In a few words our Lord initiates a regime hitherto unknown to ancient peoples: a doctrine not only religious but moral at the same time”, LAGRANGE, Mt 545. Its precepts and its spirit are known to the apostles, who, however, will need the light and strength of His presence [that of Our Lord Jesus Christ] in the difficult days that are to come. This light and this strength will assist them until the age of the Messiah on earth comes to an end [thus, it is shown that, in this passage, the words “until the end of the age” are interpreted as “until the age of the Messiah on earth comes to an end.” And didn’t “the era of the Messiah on earth” come to an end with the consummated usurpation by the antichrists (era of the antipopes or antichrists) after October 9, 1958, followed by a generalized apostasy, both of hierarchy and faithful, to join the Whore of Babylon prophesied in the Apocalypse, all of which continues to be fulfilled up to the present moment?]. Therefore, the promise has stood firm for [nearly] two thousand years [note that this exegesis was first published in 1953, in the 1st English edition of this work; and which was later translated into Spanish, with an Imprimatur of 1956]».

Holy Scripture on the importance of faith and patience in these times

Holy Scripture on the importance of faith and patience in these times

+St. Marcellinus, Bishop+

Having explained at length what we most likely are facing in what appears to be the last days of mankind, it is important to put all of this in perspective and remember that we are not to grieve over our fate or mourn for what we have lost. Rather we are to rejoice in the accomplishment of God’s holy will, and the role that we have been assigned to play in this most important epoch in history. Christ has risen, alleluia, and so must we too rise from the deep contemplation of His Passion to share in the joys of His Resurrection. He tells us: “Watch ye, therefore, praying at all times, that you may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that are to come, and to stand before the Son of man” (Matt. 24:36). “But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand” (Matt. 24:28).

What is more important than our redemption and preparation for it? And how can we prepare without being joyful, that if we bear all with patience and love, we may gain our final reward? The oppression so many experience today is not a sadness without reason — it is the consequences of so much evil going on about us wherever we turn. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, because so many would reject Him; he was rarely seen to smile; His expression and demeanor was always serious. Fr. Tonne reports, in his little work, Personality Plus that while we have no actual picture of Our Lord:

“We do have a word picture of the Master, said to have been penned on the spot where Jesus began His ministry, by one Publius Lentulus, governor of Judea. It was addressed to the Roman Senate in line with the governor’s duty of reporting to the Emperor any noteworthy event during his office.” This Roman official reported as follows: “There appeared in these days a man of great virtue, named Jesus Christ, who is yet among us; of the Gentiles accepted as a prophet of truth: but His disciples call him the son of God. He raiseth the dead and cureth all manner of disease. A man of stature somewhat tall and comely, with a very reverend countenance, such as the beholder must both love and fear.

“His hair the color of a chestnut full ripe, plain to the ears, whence, downward, it is more oriental, curling and waving about his shoulders. In the midst of his forehead is a partition of his hair; forehead plain and very delicate; his face without spot or wrinkle, beautiful with a lovely red; his nose and mouth well-formed; his beard thick, color like his hair, not over-long; his look innocent, and mature; his eyes gray, quick and clear.  In reproving he is terrible; in admonishing, courteous and fair-spoken; pleasant in conversation, mixed with gravity. It cannot be remembered that any have seen him laugh, but many have seen him weep; in proportion of body most excellent; his hands and arms most delectable to behold; in speaking, very temperate, modest, and wise; a man of singular beauty, surpassing the children of men.”

And so we know now why we have all the beautiful paintings of Our Lord, rendered just as He is pictured here. Yet Jesus smiled when he held the children in His arms. He could not have been but comforted by the dear little lamb He cradles in all the portrayals we have of Him as the Good Shepherd. It is the innocent He rejoices in and cherishes. And we too must rejoice insofar as we can in all that is good and innocent, all that is given to us by the munificence of God. We must be so grateful today, and thank God frequently, for the gifts of nature that surround us — the spiritual joys we find in our daily reading, the laughter and genuineness of little children, the caresses and companionship of loved ones, the silence of a great forest, the stark beauty of the mountainous desert, the pastoral scenes of green hills and flowering fields, the wonders of a starry sky, the magnificence and power of a summer thunderstorm, the rustle of autumn leaves, the delights of an early morning snowfall glittering in the winter sun.

As St. Therese of Liseux, promoter of spiritual childhood, Rosebud of Heaven, wrote in her own innocence and sanctity:


Everything is a grace. Everything is the direct effect of our Father’s love;

difficulties, contradictions, humiliations, all the soul’s miseries;

her burdens, her needs – everything. Because through them she learns humility,

realizes her weakness. Everything is a grace because everything is God’s gift.

Whatever be the character of life or its unexpected events,

to the heart that loves, all is well.

So, then, even through our tears we must smile and thank God for living in these times, for being able to help Him shoulder His cross and for being allowed to witness the culmination of all He came to earth to accomplish. We must learn to love, not as the world loves, but as Christ loved us. And that love was personified by His Passion, which all of us are reliving today. The world shudders at pain and suffering, avoids it at all costs, medicates excessively to avoid it. Too many of those who are depressed by what we must endure today to fill up what is wanting to Christ’s Passion seek to nullify the effects of that suffering with anti-depressants or illegal drugs, to avoid facing the pain of the living Hell on earth man has created for Himself without God. For some such medication is necessary to prevent a worse outcome — clinical depression, possibly suicide — but for others it is simply a way of avoiding the reality of our situation, a reality Christ chose as His own to redeem sinful men that they might reign with Him in Heaven.

If we are to truly imitate Christ, foolishness, frivolity, unseemly gaiety, constant joking, frequent indulgence in earthly amusements cannot be the road we travel. This Thomas a’ Kempis emphasizes over and over again in his Imitiation.The enjoyment of simple pleasures, cheerfulness overall, contentment, resignation to God’s holy will, perseverance in prayer, delight in holy things — this is our happiness. As Henry Cardinal Manning wrote: “I should be sorry to write a line in a tone to discourage even one simple faithful soul, but I would do even this for a moment if in so doing I could purify our confidence of the low human unreasoning unilluminated and the boastful and defiant tone too commonly heard. This seems to me to be not of faith or of the spirit of God. We know by the light of faith that all things are working out the greater glory of Jesus and of His Church…

“There is in store for the Church of God’s resurrection and then ascension a royalty and a dominion, a recompense of glory for all it has endured. Like Jesus it needs must suffer on the way to its crown yet crowned it shall be with Him eternally. Let no one then be scandalized if the prophecy speaks of sufferings to come. We are fond of imagining triumphs and glories for the Church on earth — that the gospels be preached to all nations and the world to be converted and all enemies subdued and I know not what until some ears are impatient of hearing that there is in store for the Church a time of terrible trial. And so we do as the Jews of old who looked for a conqueror, a king and for prosperity; and when their Messiah came in humility and in passion they did not know Him. So I’m afraid many among us intoxicate their minds with the visions of success and victory and cannot endure the thought that there is a time of persecution yet to come for the Church of God.” And we are living it.

So here we should realize that there must be some restraint in both our sufferings and in our joys. Christ patiently, resolutely and lovingly embraced His Passion and death on the Cross, and so we must embrace ours. We have no intention here of encouraging anyone to go about with a dark and gloomy visage, anticipating woes they may never be asked to endure or discomfiting their friends and relatives with a worried and downcast countenance. We must be as upbeat as we are able, given our specific temperament.

But just as Christ did not beam down with happiness from the Cross, neither are we expected to radiate at all times a joy that is fleeting at best. Faith and patience Christ expected us to possess. Joy in anticipating an end to our earthly probation, whether through a natural death or the consummation, in anticipating the Beatific Vision, is a joy that must shine from within. Being perpetually jovial and oblivious to the evil around us rather than of a somber and prayerful demeanor in the face of the earth’s self-immolation is insanity. This is the attitude that prevailed in Noah’s time, when men carried on as usual despite warnings of the impending flood, as though all was right in the eyes of God. Love of God is our joy; its absence, our torment, and this must be reflected in our behavior.

None of us know how long this period of time will last, nor do we know what God will ask of us in order to keep our faith. In some countries it may be far worse than in others. It is far more likely that natural disasters, famine and plagues will cause mass casualties than invasion or war. Wars and rumors of wars are often used as political goads to push everything further to the left and justify policies and legislation that otherwise would never see the light of day. We must never lose faith and patience, for this is what will win us our souls in these times — the faith and patience of the saints, as we find in the Apocalypse. We read of this also in Ecclesiasticus 2:3-4; 15-16; 20-21:

“Wait on God with patience; join thyself to God and endure that thy life may be increased in the latter end. Take all that shall be brought upon thee and in thy sorrow endure, and in thy humiliation keep patience… Woe to them that are faint-hearted, that have lost patience and that have forsaken the right ways and have gone aside into crooked ways. They that fear the Lord will prepare their hearts and in His sight will sanctify their souls. They that fear the Lord keep His commandments and will have patience even until His visitation.”

And in Romans 15: 4-5: “For what things soever were written were written for our learning, that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures we might have hope. Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind, one towards one another according to Jesus Christ.” And again in 2 Cor. 6:4: “But in all things let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God in much patience and tribulations, in necessities, in distresses.” And finally in Luke 21:19: “In your patience you shall possess your souls.” It is only by this patient waiting on God, in never losing faith, in never reverting to our former crooked ways that we will persevere until the very end.


Mr. Javier Morell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide, Pt. 7

(Continuing to expose the fables of the Traditionalists)

  1. Satanic fable that there can be “bishops” and “clerics” without a Pope.

The answer is very simple: for there to be Catholic Bishops there must be a Pope, since without a Pope there cannot even be clergy (!), as tonsure is a legal act that marks the admission to the clerical state, without citing the current discipline that invalidates all current intruders in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 953, and the Acta Apostolicae Sedis 43 (1951) April 9 pp. 217-218, which renders all false pastors excommunicated.

The harsh reality is that there are many blind people who are only following simple laymen disguised with fake mitres and cassocks purchased online. If you happen to be one of them, we beg you, one more time, to have mercy on your own soul and recant the heresies of Gallicanism and Febronianism as soon as possible.

  1. Fable that the visible and hierarchical Church can never die, which in reality is a diabolical subterfuge used by “Traditionalist” imposters to justify their false ordinations and continue with their sacrilege.

These false prophets are the main adversaries and detractors of the Parousia of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as they refuse to accept that they were deceived by Lefebvre and Thuc when they resorted to them in search of the Orders. This just as they refuse to believe that the hierarchical and juridical Church ceased to exist after the death of Pope Pius XII, and above all, after the massive apostasy of all the Bishops on December 8, 1965, on the occasion of the closure of the heretical Vatican 2 fake council. So instead they have decided to carry on advancing towards the precipice in a suicidal manner, dragging with them a large number of naive souls, whom they teach the same error with obstinacy.

Thus, these hapless characters imitate those lukewarm followers of Our Lord in the famous passage from the Gospel of Saint John 12:32-36, who were under the pernicious influence of the Scribes and the Pharisees, hence they were scandalized when Our Lord told them that the Son of God must die and be raised from the earth to attract everything to Him, replying proudly that they knew from the Scriptures that the Messiah would not die. So they abandoned Him and returned to the false christs of the Scribes and Pharisees who told them what they wanted to hear instead.

Well, exactly the same thing happens to the unfortunate supporters of the “Traditionalist” false prophets today, that is, the Lefebvrist and Thucist fake clergy. This since they flatly refuse to accept there is NOT A SINGLE valid and licit Catholic priest left in the world who can offer the Holy Sacrifice of the altar, because this was meant to happen so that the Word of God could be fulfilled and the Son of God could come to judge everyone in His glorious Second Coming. They do this by showing with their sacrilegious, reckless acts that they disregard the infallible Magisterium of the Vicar of Christ because they love the ephemeral false glory of men more than the eternal glory of God.

  1. Fable spread by the lay intruder Mark A. Pivarunas that there may be consecrated persons without the permission of the Pope during an interregnum.

This hypocrite individual supports his fable by saying that there were 21 consecrated persons without the permission of the Pope during the interregnum between 1268-1271, which is absolutely false, as Konrad Eubel and Pius Bonifacius Gams tell us in their respective works “Hierarchia catholica medii aevisive Summorum pontificum sive” and “Series episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae.”

There we can verify that there was only one consecrated, adding the following two consecrations by the book Ecclesiastical History of Spain: Volume IV of the year 1873, by the Encyclopedia Gallia christiana, by the book Life of Félix Amat, Archbishop of Palmyra of the year 1838; as well as the book Viage Literario A Las Iglesias De España, Volume 19; and if a minimum of follow-up and study is done, it is verified that all of them had permission from the Pope. We could even quote “Licet ecclesiarum” by Pope Clement IV. Therefore, sustaining such impiety is manifestly heretical and perverse, since holding this fable is typical of the false prophets who try to get rid of the fundamental figure of the Pope, by daring to usurp his powers and prerogatives divinely conferred by Christ Our Lord.

  1. Extremely perverse fable of resorting to “epikeia” as a false solution and “miraculous” excuse to skip over and disregard what has been established by the Vicars of Christ in their Magisterium and in the Holy Canons. First of all, we will explain what epikeia is, so that our kind readers can understand the twisted logic of this fable of the Anomos so widely used by today’s false prophets.

According to the Salmanticense Moral Compendium, epikeia is a modification of the law, or the exception of a particular case; it has also been defined as justice tempered with the sweetness of mercy. Based on this definition, Traditionalist intruders have concocted a very harmful fable directly threatening the Primacy of Saint Peter, which those charlatans dare to question and deny when they blasphemously defend that anyone during a vacancy of the Holy See may be elected, confirmed and consecrated as Catholic Bishop. This regardless of what Pope Pius XII decreed and confirmed in V.A.S., and that in Sede Vacante, through the use of the “epikeia“, or rather with nom serviam, even priests may marry (!?), because it is an ecclesiastical law.

They may also ordain other priests (!?), according to the logics of the Anomos, since we have precedents, (such as Boniface IX in the Bull Sacrae Religionisof 1-II-1400 that granted the Abbot of Saint Osita, in England, the possibility of ordaining deacons and priests, major orders, later renewed by Martin V in the Bull Gerentes ad vos of 6-XI-1427): and Innocent VIII in the Bull Exposcit tuae devotionis of 9-IV-1489, granted the general of the Cistercians the ability to ordain subdeacons and deacons.

It is obvious that, for these proud televangelists of the Anomos, everything, even Dogmas (!!), is open to change, as modernists and schismatics have always said and done, and since there is no Pope because the See has been vacant since October 9, 1958, everyone may be able to skip papal constitutions and all discipline by means of epikeia. We find ourselves in the most absolute and wildest non serviam, where we can make a Copernican turn in the Divine Constitution of the Church, and turn Divine laws into ecclesiastical ones by sleight of hand, such as those that include the forms of organization of the Mystical Body of Christ, as are also the laws that regulate the constitution of the Church and those that define the powers of the Pope and the Bishops, and thus usurp the powers and jurisdiction of the Pope in life.

As if such satanic audacity could even be possible, in a sophistic boast that any intruder can change the laws that they decide to call ecclesiastical! As if such laws did not demand obligatory submission to all validly baptized individuals, as stated in the Council of Trent and the Code of Canon Law, which is where they come from, as well as other disciplinary documents that this schismatic mob want to skip! As if they could, and that anyone could vary them at their spurious whim. As a matter of fact, they are trying to make us believe that just because we may skip the law of fast during Lent if we are convalescing due to illness thanks to epikeia, we could also reach the conclusion that anyone can repeal the laws imposed by the Popes and even convert Divine laws into human ones, which constitutes horrendous blasphemy and impiety. Therefore, it is not surprising to see many of these false christs posing as wandering “clerics” who actually believe possessing such an impious power that would enable them to roam freely without being subject to their “Bishop”, and so many other irregularities, which are upheld by those who claim to defend “Tradition” with the most infamous treason.

Given these soul thieves believe that “epikeia” is the magic word that would whitewash their sacrilege and desecration, they should learn the following:

“Let us assume that an elected Bishop, presented by His Majesty, after receiving the presentation certificates, went to the Church, to be presented distantly, as all those in Peru are, and in great need for the governing Bishop, and that said Bishop who is distant, and with the need to consecrate it, and take possession of his Bishopric, and that His Holiness, in the interim, having made the consistories that are made for the confirmation of the Bishop, found, that he did not he had to confirm him, and so did not confirm him; I wonder what would it be then? would epikeia prevail? or the express will of the Pontiff?

Because if epikeia prevailed, we should say that there may be episcopal jurisdiction in the Church of God, which does not emanate from the Supreme Head, against his express will. But if the express will of His Holiness prevailed (as it is certain that it would prevail), it would be evident that the express will of His Holiness had to have been kept, by fiat, and his confirmation, and that the reason of epikeia could not be obtained by usury in said case.” (Francisco de Contreras, Information that those elected to bishops cannot be consecrated or take possession of their bishoprics without first receiving the apostolic letters from His Holiness the Pope, 1647, nº 3).

“Human invalidating laws sometimes stop binding; but epikeia cannot be applied to human invalidating laws.” (The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, by Riley, Lawrence J. (Lawrence Joseph), Bp., 1914, page 460, point 12. IMPRIMATUR: Richardus Jacobus Cushing. D.D., May 7, 1948.)

We now quote the 1917 Code of Catholic Canon Law:

Canon 11: Only those laws by which, in express or equivalent terms, an act is declared void or a person is declared incapacitated will be considered invalid or disqualifying.

POPE PIUS XII, 1945, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, paragraphs 1 to 3, chapter 1:

“The laws given by the Roman Pontiffs cannot be corrected or changed by the meeting of the cardinals of the Roman Church [the See] being vacant; nor can anything be removed or added, NOR CAN ANY DISPENSATION BE MADE REGARDING THE LAWS THEMSELVES OR SOME PART OF THEM. This is very evident in the Pontifical Constitutions [on]… the election of the Roman Pontiff. BUT IF ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THIS PRECEPT IS PRODUCED OR INTENDED BY CHANCE, WE DECLARE IT BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY VOID.”


Canon 2370: “A bishop who consecrates another bishop, and the assisting bishops, or the priests assisting bishops, the consecrator and the newly consecrated bishop, who have made the consecration without an apostolic mandate in violation of Canon 953, are all automatically suspended (and excommunicated) until the Apostolic See has relieved them of their sentence.”

Canon 2372: “A suspension ‘a divinis’ reserved for the Apostolic See thus strikes those who presume to receive the orders of an excommunicated, suspended or prohibited minister after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or of a notorious apostate, heretic or schismatic. Those who have been ordered in good faith by one of them are deprived of the exercise of the order thus received, until they are exempt from this prescription.”

Canon 188.4: “All offices will be vacant ipso facto by tacit resignation: If a cleric has publicly departed from the Catholic faith.” 

Canon 2316: “Anyone who, spontaneously and consciously, helps in any way to spread heresy, or communicates “in divinis” with heretics, is considered a suspect of heresy, contrary to what is prescribed in canon   1258.”

Rev. Riley, Lawrence J., The history, nature, and use of epikeia in moral theology. IMPRIMATUR: Richardus Jacobus Cushing. D.D., May 7, 1948.

“…it can be concluded that in regards to matters that touch the essence of the Sacraments, the use of epikeia is always excluded.”

Page 344

“As regards the essence of these Sacraments, what has been previously explained about all the Sacraments is applicable to them, that is, that epikeia is never licit.”

Page 347

“At most, epikeia may excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the ability to act. Epikeia cannot grant him the power that he now does not possess, nor can it restore the power that the law has withdrawn from him. For such granting or restoration of power requires a positive act.”

Page 387

  1. Everyone agrees that the sacraments of the new law, as sensible signs that produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace they produce and produce the grace they signify. Now, the effects that must be produced and, therefore, also signified by the Holy Ordination to the diaconate, to the priesthood and to the episcopate, namely, power and grace, in all the rites of the different times and places of the universal Church, are sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words that determine it.

SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS, The episcopate is a sacrament.

Pope PIUS XII, 1947

“Consideration of the above truths leads to the conclusion that the manifest and unequivocal intention of Jesus Christ, the Divine Founder of the Church, was to establish it forever as a hierarchical-monarchical society. Nowhere in the revelation is there evidence of the intention to allow exceptions or changes to this constitution in future history, through the use of epikeia or on any other basis Men are physically free, of course, to found other churches, differing in constitution and nature from the one established by Christ. But such churches are not of Christ, and their very existence is opposed to the will of the Son of God. For, by virtue of the positively expressed will of its divine founder, the Church in its essence is to remain unchanged until the end of times.” (The history, nature and use of epikeia in moral theology, by Riley, Lawrence J. (Lawrence Joseph), Bp, 1948, page 330)

And assuming a certainly impossible assumption that we could bypass an invalidating law, by means of epikeia, thus bypassing the Supreme Authority of a Pope, which cannot be done, the question is the following: Where are those Bishops consecrated before October 9, 1958 with jurisdiction, mission, apostolicity, Catholicity that only a true Pope can give them, which is of Divine Right, and who did not apostatize in 1965?… Of course, in the multiple sects founded by the Montinian archbishop of Bulla Regia, that is to say, in the multiple sects of the Thucist schism, no way, they are not there. Nor are those Bishops found in the schism generated by the Montinian Archbishop of Sinnada de Phrygia, i.e., in the SSPX or Lefebvrist sect.

All the intruders coming out of the most pestilent bowels of the great Babylon in the 1970s and the 1980s will tell us that, in order to save ourselves, we must disobey the Papacy, its Magisterium and Canon Law, which is terrible blasphemy, pretending to make us believe that, by means of a Copernican twist of the “Salus populi suprema lex est”, disobeying the Pope will save us. But that is only typical of ministers of the Antichrist, so we must obey the Pope at all times, because he will never take us out of the Ark of Salvation. We must flee from the false shepherds who claim to give bread, but can only give wormwood, that is, bitterness and spiritual death. We remind those schismatic rebels of the serious warning by Boniface VIII: “We declare, say, define and pronounce that submitting to the Roman Pontiff is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature.” (Bull Unam Sanctam)

It is more than evident that the “Traditionalist” intruders seek to drag as many unsuspecting people as possible into the multiple schisms they have set up based on hoaxes, sophistry, double language and manifest disobedience to Saint Peter and his Successors. Hence, the faithful should keep their eyes wide open and not be deceived by these lepers of schism and heresy, because as Saint Jerome teaches us: “Whoever does not sow with Peter, scatters his seed in the wind.”

“May God give you the necessary grace to defend the rights of the Sovereign Pontiff and of the Holy See; because without the Pope there is no Church, and there is no Catholic Society without the Holy See. – Pope Pius IX, Address to Religious Superiors, June, 1872.

More on the error of Millenarianism and what it means for us today, Pt. 2

More on the error of Millenarianism and what it means for us today, Pt. 2

+St. Justin, Martyr+

As seen in our last blog, Manuel Lacunza y Diaz , S.J. was the individual specifically mentioned in the condemnation issued by the Holy Office in 1944 against Millenarianism and entered itno the Acta Apostolica Sedis. It is important to completely understand the implications of this renewed condemnation from the Holy Office, the original being issued in 1824, because it has not been generally discussed nor explained. From what we can learn about Lacunza without access to a Catholic interpretation of his work, he falsely taught that:

The Apocalypse should be interpreted literally, not mystically or spiritually.

Antichrist will be more akin to a moral system, not just an individual man.

– During the worst of Antichrist’s persecution, Christ will gather the elect up into the clouds to escape – the basis for the Protestant rapture theory.

– Christ will come to destroy Antichrist and his system, ending that age.

The “end of the age” and “end of the world” refer to two different times.

One age will end and a new age of peace lasting 1,000 years or more will begin, with Christ visibly reigning on earth with His resurrected saints.

The hierarchy (at least the bishops) and some faithful Catholics will reign with Christ.

Following the 1,000 plus years of peace, “the dragon will once again be loosed… to deceive the whole world,” THENthe world will end.

But the world will not be destroyed by fire, even after the “reign of peace.”

Defining Millenarianism

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia tells us: “Millenarianism, as understood by Christian writers, may be set forth as follows: At the end of time Christ will return in all His splendour to gather together the just, to annihilate hostile powers, and to found a glorious kingdom on earth for the enjoyment of the highest spiritual and material blessings… The duration of this glorious reign of Christ and His saints on earth, is frequently given as one thousand years. Hence it is commonly known as the “millennium”, while the belief in the future realization of the kingdom is called “millenarianism” (or “chiliasm”, from the Greek chilia, scil. ete)… The roots of the belief in a glorious kingdom, partly natural, partly supernatural, are found in the hopes of the Jews for a temporal Messiah and in the Jewish apocalyptic.”

Leo J. Trese in The Faith Explained, (Fides Publishers, 1959), speaking of those who take Apoc. 20:6 literally, writes: “St. John, describing a prophetic vision (Apoc. 20:1-6), says that the devil will be bound and imprisoned for a thousand years, during which the dead will come to life and reign with Christ; at the end of the thousand years the devil will be released and finally vanquished forever, and then will come the second resurrection… Those who do take this passage literally and believe that Jesus will come to reign upon earth for a thousand years before the end of the world are called millenarists… This view, however, does not agree with Christ’s own prophecies and millenarianism is rejected by the Catholic Church as a heresy” (p. 182). Compare the above definitions to Lacunza’s idea of the 1,000 years and the conversion of the Jews during that time: “If the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse is to be literally understood, Jesus Christ himself with all his saints now risen, ought actually to reign in Jerusalem over the whole orb of the earth, and that for a thousand years…”  

No spiritual period of peace

Given these definitions of Millenarianism, it is difficult to see how Lacunza’s teaching is “moderated” in any way. For the Holy Office decision begins by describing Lacunza’s system as already moderated or mitigated, then states that “It is not possible to teach systematic Millenarianism, even if moderated…” So how was it moderated given the Catholic Encyclopedia definition, written three decades earlier? St. Augustine of Hippo answers this difficulty in his The City of God, where he describes the beliefs of the early (Jewish-influenced) Chiliasts:

“Those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity…. They who believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may reproduce by the name of Millenarians…” Yet St. Augustine also noted that a period of peace or “sabbath rest” is indeed a valid interpretation of Apocalypse, Ch. 20 as long as the Millenarinist interpretation is not intended.” He explains:

“…As if it were a fitting thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period [of a “thousand years”], a holy leisure after the labors of six thousand years since man was created… [and] there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years… And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints, in that Sabbath, shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God… (Bk.10, Ch. 7, The City of God).

After explaining that many Catholics anticipate a triumph of Christ’s Church on earth prior to the Second Coming, a “happy era of human sanctity” where Christ the King would predominate spiritually, not physically, Rev. Anscar Vonier, O.S.B. comments:  “Such an occurrence is not excluded, is not impossible, it is not at all certain that there will not be a prolonged period of triumphant Christianity before the end… If before that final end there is to be a period, more or less prolonged, of triumphant sanctity, such a result will be brought about not by the apparition of the person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church” (The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, MacMillan Co., 1959, p. 1140, from the Theological Commission of 1952, which is a Magisterial document).

All this would be just fine if all these powers of sanctification remained in place as they were instituted by Christ, with a pope and hierarchy to oversee them. But how is any of this supposed to come about if the structure of the Church no longer exists, and only a scant few Catholics remain faithful to Her teachings? If we believe this is possible it seems that we fall into another error condemned by the Church, also described in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Millenarianism:

“The fantastic views of the apocalyptic writers (Joachim of Floris, the Franciscan-Spirituals, the Apostolici), referred only to a particular form of spiritual renovation of the Church, but did not include a second advent of Christ. The “emperor myths,” which prophesied the establishment of a happy, universal kingdom by the great emperor of the future, contain indeed descriptions that remind one of the ancient Sybilline and millenarian writings…” According to Joachim of Fiore, an age of the Holy Ghost would succeed the Old Testament age of the Father and the New Testament age of the Son, another reference to the different “ages.” Instead of the Second Coming, Joachim taught that a new age of peace and brotherhood would begin, and a newly spiritualized version of man would emerge. In his writings, this “age of the laity,” so to speak, would make the hierarchy almost unnecessary. He also taught that Babylon in Apocalypse meant Rome and a pope would become the Antichrist. Rome condemned his writings (DZ 431-433), but not him by name.

Here we even see a pagan version of the Great Monarch, which shows the true origin of this  fable. And since Joachim of Fiore’s idea of a lay spiritual revival is also condemned, there can be scarcely any hope of even a brief period of a peace following the death of Antichrist, as mentioned in Part 1, since we have no pope and no hierarchy, nor any means to re-establish the papacy. Those expecting such a peace point to Fatima of course, but as stated earlier, that peace was NOT unconditional, as Fatima promoters claim. It was entirely dependent on the consecration of Russia (IF this was indeed what Our Lady requested) prior to World War II by Pope Pius XI, and a sufficient number of Catholics praying the Rosary and performing works of penance.

This obviously did not happen, and the third secret, which was never officially revealed to us, came to pass: the destruction of the Church. Mary’s Immaculate Heart will triumph at the end of the world at the death of Antichrist, when all heresies are destroyed. It is beyond me how anyone could think that after the earth has been soiled by so many sacrileges and blasphemies, horrid, heart-rending crimes against children, Satan worship, all manner of impurity, the blood of countless martyrs and so many other evils, anyone would want to remain here to enjoy some kind of “peace.” Please count me out. I want only to be taken away to Heaven — please God may it be possible — with Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, to enjoy that “peace of God… which surpasseth all understanding” (Phil. 4:4).That is the peace we should all be longing for and praying for.

Antichrist will be a specific individual

Had the Jesuits Ribera, St. Robert Bellarmine and other commentators been less focused on defending the papacy against the attacks of the Protestants ad infinitum, and more intent on presenting a clearer picture of what could realistically be expected in the end times based on the teachings of Pope Paul IV and Holy Scripture, we might have been better able to sort out what to expect today. But obviously God wished to keep it hidden until the very end. And the Jesuits had their mission directly from the popes, so could never have deviated from it. They could not have afforded to use Pope Paul IV’s teaching in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio to defend the papal Antichrist theory for this would only have confirmed the possibility of identifying the papacy with Antichrist, and this would have placed the Reformers’ focus on every papal election, looking for the appearance of the Beast. This is probably why the bull was downplayed and deep-sixed so to speak, until our own times. It is humbling to think it may have been written specifically for us, to help identify the true Antichrist when he arrived.

And that Antichrist proper would be a certain, identifiable individual, as Pope Paul IV indicated, and not just a system, as Lacunza falsely taught, cannot be dismissed as a matter of speculation, or an uncertainty. This is brought out by Michael Gruenthaner, S. J., in a 1942 article for the Homiletic and Pastoral Review. He writes:

“Modern theologians base their definition of Antichrist on the passages of St. John’s epistles and all the words of St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2: 1-12. On the authority of these texts they regard it as certain that Antichrist will be an individual human being endowed with the qualities outlined in these texts who will appear at the end of time and will be destroyed by Christ at his second coming. It is apparent that this explanation of the texts in question does not belong to the deposit of faith and is not necessarily connected with this deposit, for the theologians do not declare that it must be accepted as such; they merely pronounce it as certain… In view, however, of the unanimous consent of the fathers and the theologians it would be imprudent to deny that the doctrine of an individual Antichrist is contained either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures unless we have cogent arguments to the contrary.”

While Gruenthaner may believe that to deny this teaching is only “imprudent,” the Vatican Council teaches it is more than that. In DZ 1788 we read: “In order to restrain impetuous minds… We, renewing the decree [of the Council of Trent], declare that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. And for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”

This is an order to hold the teaching of the Fathers and theologians both as the TRUE sense of Sacred Scripture, and if someone were to claim that it was permitted to do otherwise they would be denying the authority of the Vatican Council. Therefore we must believe that Antichrist IS an individual man. And at least one theologian, Rev. Jean Allo, a well-respected French scripture scholar, has opined that Antichrist is also a “collective personality, the entire series of those working in behalf of Satan to the end of time” as Gruenthaner notes; “a malevolent power” exercised by a series of antichrists “culminating in” (or emanating from) a particular man. This avoids Lacunza’s error and defines our own situation.

St. Bernard and Pope Paul IV define Antichrist

To be clear, this system of Antichrist both culminates in Paul 6 and emanates from him. The Church has repeatedly referred to antipopes throughout Her history as antichrists. St. Bernard of Clairvaux openly called the antipope Anacletus II Antichrist. Championing Pope Innocent II, St. Bernard wrote: “Behold Innocent the Christ, the anointed of the Lord… They that are of God willingly adhere to him whilst opposed to him stand Antichrist and his followers. We have seen the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place to attain which the antipope burned with fire the sanctuary of God. He persecutes Innocent and with him all innocence[He is] that beast of the Apocalypse, to whom has been given a mouth speaking blasphemy and power to wage war against the saints (Apoc. 13:5-7) …He has seated himself in the Chair of Peter. The holy place he covets, not for its holiness, but for its height. He has, I say, got possession of the holy place [but] not through the merit of his life. The election whereof he boasts is but a cloak for his malice. To call it an election at all is an impudent lie.”

Is not this the absolute confirmation of what Pope Paul IV would teach 400 years later? Who is this antipope but the ‘Son of Perdition (2 Thess. 2:3), who has tried to seduce the Church throughout the ages? How can it NOT fit Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Baptiste Montini? Include Pope Paul IV’s definition of the abomination of desolation as a heretic, apsotate or schismatic, invalidly elected, followed by a series of successors including the Man of Sin, and we have the complete picture.  And it is in perfect agreement with what is described in the Book of Daniel and in the Apocalypse. Roncalli and Montini were collaborators, even before their “elections.” They had worked out the details of their system over an extended period of time in the star chambers of the Illuminati. As Pope Pius XII’s pro-secretary of state, Montini had established a worldwide network of clerical spies during World War II to keep a close eye on world events and bring about both the success of his father’s Christian Democrat party and his own election.

The three years-and-a-half came and went

The three years and a half (1,260 days) all assume to be the brief duration of Antichrist’s reign is described by many commentators as only the heighth or pinnacle of his reign of terror. This might be counted from Paul 6’s address to the United Nations Oct. 4, 1965 to the official promulgation of the Novus Ordo on April 3, 1969 — exactly three years and a half. He appeared at the United Nations only two weeks after the passage of the schema on religious liberty by the council fathers –1,997 to 224 — the schema endorsing the teachings of John Courtney Murray S.J., so fiercely opposed by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. His address to the UN was a victory speech, a celebration of the destruction of the Church initially set in motion by the U.S. government itself as declassified CIA documents prove. There he proclaimed: “Behold the day we have awaited for centuries.” He thereby surrendered the Church’s supremacy in teaching and belief before the world and Her undeniable requirement for membership in Her ranks in order to secure eternal salvation.

And then of course there was the horrendous revision of all the sacramental rites in 1968, a year many have pointed to as a chaotic watershed year for both the nation and the anti-Church. The Sacraments instituted by Christ, which Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII taught could never be touched in their essentials, were reduced to the mere symbols prescribed by the Modernists. And this necessarily coincided with the liturgical changes, already in full swing, since the heighth of Antichrist’s reign could not have been complete without the abolition of the Continual Sacrifice.

Cessation of the Continual Sacrifice

Of course the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae was only the abrogation of what the public believed to be the true “Latin” Mass but was really the corrupted John 23 missal. The true abrogation of the Mass of Pope St. Pius V occurred with the promulgation of John 23rd’s missal. But the corruption of the Consecration of the Wine (translating “for many” from the Latin into English as “for all men”) appeared with the issuance of dialogue Mass booklets for the laity in January 1959. Here we see gradualism at its finest, a gradualism Xavier Rynne, in his Vatican Council IIascribes to Montini as follows: “Pope Paul was firmly committed to gradualism as a policy of action and to middle-of-the road solutions as a goal” (p. 447). And gradualism has long been a Communist tool, but then Saul Alinksy and Montini were great friends, so…

This cessation of the Continual Sacrifice is yet another biblical prophecy that is confirmed by the unanimous opinion of the Fathers. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning tells us, in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy:“The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” And yet so very few among the commentators note this necessary identifying mark of the Sea Beast, the Man of Sin, even though it was the completion of the Great Revolt. All know and readily admit it was the final straw following the false Vatican 2 council that led to nearly half of all those then identifying as Catholic to leave the anti-Church. By departing, they fulfilled Christ’s prophecy in Matt. 26:31:  that the sheep would scatter once God Himself struck the shepherd, implicitly acknowledging the fact that the Man of Sin was then reigning.


So there are three truths which we cannot doubt: the two which rest on the unanimous opinion of the Fathers regarding the Man of Sin and the Continual Sacrifice; and the third being the  definition of the abomination of desolation by first St. Bernard and then finally and infallibly, Pope Paul IV in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. For Paul IV explained the mystery of 2 Thess. 2 regarding “he who withholdeth” as the papacy and the Church,  and how they could be taken out of the way, something Henry Cardinal Manning explains in his work, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ. Although Manning does not refer to Paul IV’s Bull, because even then he could not do so without raising Protestant speculation, it is clear that he believed Antichrist could reign only in the absence of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff and the Apostolic College. And so he did.

Could the three and a half years also apply to the time Satan is loosed, when the papacy is renounced and Satan himself unleashed as the world’s religious leader proceeds to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple? Some commentators believe there will be two three and a half year periods, but they are very few. The mention of this in Chapter 20 of Apocalypse indicates Satan himself will descend on the “camp of the saints” and inspire what Rev. Haydock describes as “the last persecution of Antichrist” by Gog and Magog, which some believe is Russia and its leader in league with China and other nations. If we live in the time after antichrist described by St. Thomas Aquinas, which I believe that we do, the three and a half years are past. Satan and his hordes will come quickly and the battle of Armageddon will be waged as described in Chap. 16 of Apocalypse. This I have detailed at some length here and here.

The Church has never endorsed the literal interpretation of Apocalypse. And yet all the horrors of Antichrist perpetrated on the faithful are presented as physical events, not spiritual ones. Christ warned us: “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10: 28). The intellect is the seat of the soul, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “The intellectual soul is sometimes called intellect, as from its chief power; and thus we read (De Anima i, 4), that the “intellect is a substance.” And in this sense also Augustine says that the mind is spirit and essence (De Trin. ix, 2; xiv, 16)… Wherefore it follows not that the intellect is the substance of the soul, but that it is its virtue and power.

Antichrist has conducted a relentless war of fraud and deceit, lying illusions, and false miracles on the intellect that has robbed nearly all who were once Catholic of their faith. His war is not primarily a physical one, although certainly it has had its physical aspects. And certainly Satan’s onslaught as the last antichrist may end in unimaginable carnage. These are things we cannot know; everything written here and all that was written by the commentators is speculation. While it may be much easier to see into the future as we witness prophecy being fulfilled, only the event itself will reveal the truth.

“Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops” (Matt. 10: 26-27). We hear you, dear Lord.

Mr. Javier Morell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide, Pt. 6

(Sorry for misspelling your name in past blogs!)

  1. Fable that the Magisterium should not be interpreted literally.

The false prophets accuse those who rely on the Magisterium of being rigorous zealots for wanting to expose them, since they allege that it is barbaric and unfair to want to interpret everything to the letter, but that is a blatant lie, as well as blasphemy. Because belief and adherence to the Magisterium is a matter of Catholic faith, which tells us that “the See of Peter always remains free from all error.” Basically, the great problem of these sophists who are expert in misrepresenting everything is they have convinced themselves that the infallible Magisterium of the Vicars of Christ was a matter of purely human faith, like private revelations, when in reality it is a question of Catholic faith. Therefore, whoever does not respectfully believe and yield obedience to the Magisterium divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost for the edification and government of the souls that make up the Mystical Body, whoever does not believe this, commits a sin against the Holy Ghost, make no mistake about it. There is no excuse whatsoever for those professional charlatans posing as Catholic clergy.

  1. Fable that we ought to recognize antipope Bergoglio, alias “Francis”, along with the other usurpers of the Papacy starting from masonic agent Angelo Roncalli, since the laity would have no authority to determine whether or not they are heretics, so we would be somehow forced to submit to these enemies of God, resisting them when they make mistakes, because absolute obedience is not due to the “popes” (?), alleging sophistically that “we must obey God before men.” [Acts 5, 29]

The answer to this absurd fallacy is very simple, since it is not we, simple laymen, who determine that the See is Vacant, but it is heresy itself that determines it, since a public and notorious heretic [from Roncalli to Bergoglio] cannot be Pope, since the Magisterium of the Catholic Church establishes very clearly that a person who departs from the Catholic Faith and commits heresy cannot be Pope, without the need for a subsequent express declaration to that effect, as decreed by Pope Paul IV in his Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio promulgated in perpetuity. This admonition of the first Vicar of Christ and the rest of the Apostles in Acts 5:29 has been maliciously distorted to try and turn it into carte blanche to disobey the Supreme Pontiff, but the “luminary” who came up with such an impious interpretation completely forgot about Luke 10:16. There we read that whoever hears blessed Saint Peter and his Apostles, hears Our Lord, and whoever despises them, despises Christ and His heavenly Father that sent Him. For the Pope is sweet Christ on earth, so he that hears the Pope, hears Christ and His Eternal Father. Quoting his Holiness Pope Pius XII: By mysterious designs of the Providence, WE HAVE BEEN CALLED TO BE here below the Vicar and representative of Jesus Christ, THE LIVING IMAGE OF GOD INCARNATE” (September 30, 1939.)

Basically, it is about the same perverse fallacy held by hypocritical heretic Marcel Lefebvre and his unfortunate spiritual offspring of the SSPX sect, thus showing their null catholicity by recognizing and resisting on multiple occasions those whom they considered as “popes”, that is, antichrists Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and now Bergoglio, “ignoring” that the Pope is the Successor of Saint Peter, and that the Episcopal Body, which is the Catholic Bishops in communion with the Pope. The Bishops validly and licitly consecrated, with a mission received from the Pope, are the successors of the Apostles. Hence, if anyone dares to disobey the Pope, he is disobeying God. It is of Catholic and Divine faith that the Holy Church is exempt from all error, and furthermore Christ and his vicar constitute a single Head [cf Unam sanctam, Mystici Corporis Christi]. Therefore, to maintain that the passage from Acts 5:29 would enable anyone to disobey the Pope is blatant blasphemy typical of charlatans like hypocritical heretic Lefebvre.

The malice of this sophistry is enormous, since to dare claim that the Pope, the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the most holy head in the entire world, who is also the Head of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, the most holy and immaculate Body that ever existed; to even venture that such a Head can fail or err is intolerable impiety and gross blasphemy. In another age, the Holy Office would never have allowed such a degree of audacity and irreverence, which constitutes a very grave sin against the Holy Ghost as it maliciously suggests that the Paraclete would be wrong when speaking through the mouth of the Pontiffs.

  1. Fable of appealing for adherence to a “future Pope” who, according to the “Traditionalist” impostors, would confirm and legalize (!?) the multiple irregularities and transgressions committed by those wretches, who insolently pretend to be nothing less than “successors of the Apostles.” (!?)

Based on this false logic, many of these hirelings and soul thieves have impiously dared to erect “religious foundations” and to profess “solemn vows”, carrying out according to them the “apostolic mission” for which they have been called (!?), trusting in a future “Pope” who will give his approval to such desecrations, which is utter madness. The answer to such arrogance is simple, and it is provided by Pope Pius II: “Who will not find it ridiculous, when the appeals are made for what does not exist and for the time of whose future existence no one knows?” 

Pope Pius II, Execrabilis, 1460.

From which it automatically follows that without Jurisdiction provided by the Pope there is no Apostolicity, and without the Pope there is no Jurisdiction [cf Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentem, Apostolorum Principis Sepulcrum), all those pretentious charlatans being only intruders, that is, non-Catholics.Legitimate mission is that which comes from the one who has the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven or of the Church, who is the Pope. Thus, the intruding bishops or those who separate from obedience to the Roman Pontiff, ARE NOT SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES, BUT THIEVES, as Jesus Christ calls them, and we must flee from them as sheep flee from wolves.” (Saint Anthony Mary Claret, 1849, The Fourth Mark of the Church: Apostolic)

“To become a successor of the Apostles, it is necessary to be received into the body of the Apostles, into that body that Christ gave power to govern His Church. Thus, even at the time of the Apostles, their successors were appointed… Jurisdiction is possessed only by those in communion with and under the obedience of the supreme head of the Church… The Roman Catholic Church is apostolic because the body of their teachers and rulers legitimately succeed the Apostles. The apostolicity of the teaching body of the Church is for us a guarantee for the apostolicity of the doctrine and the sacraments of the Church, and of all its permanent institutions. Being the successors of the Apostles, the bishops cannot carry out their office independently of the Pope, their supreme head, because the apostles recognized Saint Peter as their supreme head… 

“The dependence of the bishops on the Pope is even greater than that of the Apostles on Peter; because the Apostles, having received the extraordinary mission of preaching the Gospel… also received an extraordinary power from Our Lord they did not transmit to their successors… Individual bishops do not inherit this extraordinary power… The bishop… invested with the episcopal dignity by the clergy or even by a chapter, contrary to the laws of the Church… is an intruder. All those who support a priest, bishop or diocesan administrator who has not legitimately received his mission from the Pope, and all who relate to him in spiritual matters, are, like the one they support, treated by the Church as schismatics, because by such action they separate themselves from the unity of the Church.” (Rev. Wilhelm Wilmers, Handbook of the Christian Religion, 1891).

“Apostolicity of mission means the Church is a moral body, that it possesses the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and that it is transmitted through them and their legitimate successors in an uninterrupted chain of the current representatives of Christ on earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes apostolic succession. This apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consists of the royal succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the apostolic age to the present; the formal adds the element of authority in the transmission of power; It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ on his Apostles. No one can give a power he does not possess. Therefore, in tracing the location of the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no gap can be allowed, no new mission can emerge; rather, the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through legal and uninterrupted succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those rightfully appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry.

“Any interruption in this succession destroys apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series that is not Apostolic. “How will they preach if they are not sent?” (Rom. 10, 15). An authoritative teaching mission is absolutely necessary, a mission entrusted by a man is not authoritative. Hence any concept of apostolicity that excludes the authoritative union of the apostolic mission robs the ministry of its divine character. Apostolicity, or apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus on the Apostles must pass from them to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world/consummation of the age. This notion of apostolicity is derived from the words of Christ himself, the practice of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians of the Church.

“Apostolicity is not found in any other Church. This is a necessary consequence of the unity of the Church. If there is only one true Church, and if the Catholic Church, as just pointed out, is Apostolic, it follows that no other Church is Apostolic. All the sects that reject the episcopate, by the very fact make the apostolic succession impossible, since they destroy the channel through which the apostolic mission is transmitted. Historically, the beginnings of all of these churches date back to a period of time after the time of Christ and the Apostles. As for the Greek Church, it is enough to point out that it lost the apostolic succession by withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the legitimate successors of Saint Peter in the See of Rome. The same is true of Anglican claims to continuity (MacLaughlin, “Divine Plan of the Church”, 213; and, Newman, “Diff. Of Angl.”, Lecture 12), for the very fact of separation destroys their jurisdiction. They have based their claims on the validity of Anglican orders. However, these have been declared invalid. But even if they were valid, the Anglican Church would not be apostolic, for jurisdiction is essential to the apostolicity of mission. A study of the organization of the Anglican Church shows that it is completely different from the Church established by Jesus Christ.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907).

  1. Fable that the Montinian, Novus Ordo or conciliar sect is our only enemy, cunningly seeking to exempt their “traditionalist” franchises from any responsibility. It is a reiteration of the “Non Una Cum” fable, used as a perverse mantra by the false prophets of the Thucist schism and the ex-Lefebvrist false wandering clergy.

Resolution of this fable:

If you and your followers state day in day out that the Conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, but a non-Catholic sect that has broken with Catholicism, then absolutely all the Catholic Bishops, whether validly and licitly consecrated by His Holiness Saint Pius X, His Holiness Benedict XV, His Holiness Pius XI or His Holiness Pius XII who defected to the Conciliar sect, ipso facto ceased to be Catholic Bishops [cf Canon 188.4, Cum ex Apostolatus officio] by their public abandonment of the Catholic Faith, ipso facto losing their ecclesiastical offices and their jurisdiction, not the character of the order, which is indelible, that is, indelible as long as the order has been received, of course.

On the other hand, if you state actively and passively that His Holiness Pius XII is the last true Pope, who bound in heaven that the power of Jurisdiction only reaches the Bishop through the Pope [cf Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentem, Apostolorum Principis Sepulcrum], who made it clear that the current discipline for the consecration of Catholic Bishops is reserved exclusively to the Pope, and that no Bishop can proceed to it without a certain apostolic mandate (Canon 953), and whoever consecrates without permission from the Pope ends up being excommunicated (Acta Apostolica Sedis 43 (1951) pp 217-218) and suspended ipso facto (Canon 2370), and who also taught that in periods of interregnum (Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis [Acta Apostolica Sedis 38 ( 1946), n. 3, pp. 65-99]).

Under His Supreme Authority, which is that of Our Lord Jesus Christ, all power and jurisdiction of the Pope in life cannot be used or exercised, otherwise it will be null and void , that is invalid, as His Holiness Pope Leo XIII declared in his infallible Bull Apostolicae Curae of September 13, 1896, and the current discipline on episcopal consecrations is reserved exclusively to the Pope while he is alive (Canon 953). And in interregnums it is prohibited not under illegality, but under nullity, that is invalidity. His Holiness Pope Innocent IV said in his Apparatus Super Quinque Libros Decretali, that the Pope can, by means of a Constitution, prohibit a Bishop from christening, ordaining, and even validly baptizing , so if it affirms that the sacraments conferred by such persons are invalid, then they are effectively invalid (sic).

“Et quidem satis bene videntur dicere in eo, quod dicunt, quod possunt facere constitutiones summi Pontifices super praemissis, et eis factis, si constituatur quod non valeant sacramenta a talibus collata, non valebunt”.

Therefore, could you explain to us how would it possible that there can be a valid “Bishop”, who would have received jurisdiction directly from the Pope, that is, which is an essential requirement for him to be licit and Catholic, in your “chapel”-sect created in 1981 by the hands of the “Archbishop” of Bulla Regia [Thuc], an “Archbishopric” that Montini-Paul 6 gave him in 1968, and that by sleight of hand Canon 188.4 and Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex apostolatus officiowould not be applied to him, nor the discipline of episcopal consecrations (canon 953 (Acta Apostolica Sedis 43 (1951) pp. 217-218) and that of interregnums (Acta Apostolica Sedis 38 (1946), n. 3, pp. 65-99), not to mention more illegalities than have already been quoted hundreds of times. And we also leave out what His Holiness Pope Leo XIII said in his infallible bull Apostolicae Curae: “Since obtaining nullliter orders means the same thing as a null and void act, that is, invalid, as the same word and common speech require”; would you please explain all of that?… “Nulliter enim obtinuisse ordines idem est atque irrito actu nulloque effectu, videlicet invalide, ut ipsa monet eius vocis notatio et consuetudo sermonis; praesertim quum idem pari modo affirmetur de ordinibus quod de beneficiis ecclesiasticis…”And the same goes for Lefebvre, of course.

Can you tell us, if you would be so kind, how is it possible that in your sect-garage-private “chapel” there is a valid Bishop, with jurisdiction, and who is Catholic, i.e., licit?…

Because, as far as we know, priests cannot consecrate bishops, and it is prohibited sub poena nullitatis to usurp the powers and jurisdiction of the Pope in interregnums since 1945, the current discipline of episcopal consecrations being exclusively reserved to the Pope. Therefore, the leader of your sect could never have been consecrated Bishop sub poena nullitatis, much less as a Catholic, so we will have to conclude that he is nothing more than a priest who lost his office in 1965, and who believed in 1981 that an ultramodernist Montinian Archbishop [Thuc], who had previously “consecrated” five “Bishops” to the Vetero-Catholic schism, and five countrymen of Palmar de Troya (Spain), an Archbishop who lost his office in 1965. This just like the Roncallian Titular Archbishop of Sinnada of Phrygia [Lefebvre], who “made” him a Catholic Bishop 23 years after the death of His Holiness Pope Pius XII, and 16 years after the Great Biblical Apostasy. And you dare say that 65 years after the death of Pope Pius XII, and 42 years after the infamy of your garage, you affirm that laymen disguised with mitres can “consecrate” Catholic Bishops and “ordain” Catholic Priests? You carry on with the chimerical tale that these men would be valid, licit, and would have jurisdiction to absolve sins, and they would represent the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church, but nothing could be further from the truth.

From which it can be easily gathered that not only did these men not receive the power of jurisdiction, for we have not had a Pope since October 9, 1958 [cf “Mystici Corporis Christi”, “Ad Sinarum gentem”, “Ad Apostolorum principis”], but nor did they receive the power of order sub poena nullitatis in an interregnum, that is invalidity. (Vacantis apostolicae Sedis, Apostolicae Curae, canon 953, AAS 43 (1951) pp 217-218).

Therefore, at the very least, their episcopal ordinations would be dubious (to some, to others it is obvious that they are invalid), and in conferring the sacraments it is never permissible to adopt a probable course of action as regards validity, abandoning the safest course; the opposite was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI in the Decree of the Holy Office of March 2, 1679.

As a result, they are not only illicit, in other words, intruders, which they know, and for this reason they always emphasize that they are valid in order to deceive the simple, since they lack all jurisdiction to govern the flock of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but they are also invalid because the leader of their sect or garage was never consecrated Bishop in 1981 sub poena nullitatis during the interregnum in which they say we are, so we must necessarily conclude that they have been simulating episcopal consecrations and ordinations, as well as simulating the adminitration of sacraments, for more than 40 years.

More on the End of the Age and the Second Coming of Christ, Pt. 1

More on the End of the Age and the Second Coming of Christ, Pt. 1

A belated Blessed Easter to All!

Resurrezione; affresco nel Coro delle Monache; Brescia, complesso di Santa Giulia


The condemnation of Millenarianism, mentioned in our last blog, will be discussed here at greater length in order to shine a much-needed light on why we find Matt. 28:20 in Holy Scripture translated in two or three different ways into English. As Mr. Javier Morrell-Ibarra noted in last week’s blog, all versions of the Bible he consulted did not read “consummation of the world,” as did all the 10 or more 19th and 20th century Bibles consulted here, but  “consummation of the ages/centuries.” There may be a good explanation for this, which is what we intend to explore here. This will be part on of a two-part series.

Below readers will see the actual condemnation of Millenarianism issued by the Holy Office in 1944, in both Latin and English. There is an explanatory paragraph and history of the error provided here, however, which is omitted in Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1957 edition, (and this edition has been proven deficient regarding other teachings as well). It attributes this condemnation to one Manuel de Lacunza-Diaz S.J., whose work, we learn, had already been condemned by the Holy Office in 1824. What is most notable in this explanation of the condemnation is that “It is not possible to teach systematic Millenarianism, even if moderated” as Catholic revelation. And yet such a form of moderated Millenarianism has been taught, at least as a possible outcome, even after this second condemnation was issued. It is usually shored up with Catholic prophecies and Marian apparitions, some not approved, to make it appear more believable.

Extracts from Lacunza’s work and other sources will be examined below to explain how widespread his teachings have become among Catholics and Protestants alike.

Manuel Lacunza y Diaz on the Millennium and Antichrist

The following excerpts are taken from Wikipedia. Lacunza’s quotes will appear in blue. “The first of Lacunza’s “new discoveries” was that: I am not of the opinion that the world – that is, the material bodies or celestial globes that God has created (among which is the one on which we live) – has to have an end, or return to chaos or nothingness from which it came forth. He protested against the common teaching that at the end of the world, the earth would be consumed by fire… Secondly, Lacunza concluded that the Biblical expressions “end of the age” and “end of the world” refer to two different times. He understood the “end of the age” or “day of the Lordas merely the end of a phase of human history that would be closed by the coming of Christ and the beginning of His kingdom on Earth. At this time the living would be judged and the Jews converted, after which a new society would be established for a thousand-year reign of justice and peace.”

Lacunza wrote: “El Terino (a very learned author) … His words are these: ‘But it shall be fully accomplished towards the end of the world, in the general conversion of all the Jews unto Christ,’ the same which I say, with this only difference: that I place after the end of the age, the same event which he… pretends to place ‘towards the end of the world.’ … Along with this great event announced in almost all the scriptures, you shall likewise find at the end of this present earth, or which is the same, the end of the day of men, which the Lord so frequently called the consummation of this age; and immediately after this day, you shall find that of the Lord, the age to come, the kingdom of God, the new earth and the new heavens, wherein dwelleth righteousness, peace, love, and uniformity in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same laws and customs, a uniformity of language among all the peoples, tribes, and families of the whole earth”.

If the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse is to be literally understood, Jesus Christ himself with all his saints now risen, ought actually to reign in Jerusalem over the whole orb of the earth, and that for a thousand yearsThe dragon will once again be loosed, and will return to deceive the whole worldThe resurrection of all the individuals of Adam’s race, the last judgment, the ultimate sentence, and the execution of this ultimate sentence, cannot take place immediately upon and in the very natural day of the coming in glory and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ….” But Lacunza is wrong.

“Lacunza’s interpretation of Biblical prophecy led him to believe that during the period before the “day of the Lord” there would be an apostasy within the Catholic Church which would make it part of a general system which he labelled Antichrist, in the sense that there would be a general “falling away” in doctrine among the churches, resulting in moral apostasy. In this sense the Antichrist would be composed of a moral antichristian body, composed of many individuals … animated by the same spirit”, which would consist of “seven false religions [that] should unite to make war against the body of Christ, and against Christ himself ” – which was in accordance with his personal interpretation of Revelation 13:1. In The Coming of the Messiah in Majesty and Glory, Lacunza compared his views on the Antichrist – that Antichrist was a general moral apostasy within the churches – with what he declared to be the “universally recognized” view of his day:

“This Antichrist is universally recognized as a king, or most potent monarch … It is commonly said, that he will take his origin from the Jews, and from the tribe of Dan … shall feign himself Messiah, and begin to perform so many and such stupendous works, that the fame thereof being soon spread abroad, the Jews shall fly from all parts of the world, and from all the tribes, to join themselves to him, and offer him their services … After Antichrist shall have conquered Jerusalem, he shall, with great ease, conquer the rest of the earth … The ambition of this miserable and vilest Jew, shall not rest satisfied, by becoming the universal king of the whole earth … but he shall immediately enter into the impious and sacrilegious thought of making himself God, and the only God of the whole earth … Whereupon shall arise the most terrible, the most cruel, perilous persecution against the church of Jesus Christ; and it shall last for three years and a half … Upon his death the Church, and the whole world, shall begin to breathe again, everything reverting to a perfect calm, and a universal joy. The Bishops, who had concealed themselves in mountains, shall return and resume their sees, accompanied by their clergy and some other Christian families, who had followed them in their voluntary exile. At this time shall come to pass, the conversion of the Jews, according to the universal spirit of the converters” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Lacunza).

Comments on the above

That the world will not be destroyed by fire then renewed contradicts Holy Scripture and is one of the specific errors condemned by the Holy Office. This is Millenarianism pure and simple, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this topic, and is likewise condemned. The earth will be consumed by fire, consume meaning to “take up, redeem,” to “1. Do away with completely; DESTROY” (Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary). The destruction of the world by fire IS Catholic revelation. God will then renew the earth and when souls are united with their bodies, many commentators believe they will live on earth as an extension of Paradise, and this will be the New Jerusalem. We read in Matt. 24:14-15: “And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come [consummatio]. When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.” Surely this is clear enough for everyone, coming from Our Lord Himself. When he pronounced from the Cross “It is consummated…” his life was done; finished, just as the Church was and the world shall be. Pope Paul IV told us who that abomination would be, and everyone has discredited his bull.

Lacunza taught there was a 1,000 year or more period of peace and a restoration of the Church between the death of Antichrist and the actual coming of Satan to surround “…the camp of the saints” (Apoc. 20:8). The Apocalypse is a very difficult book to understand and rightly interpret, and I am no Scripture scholar. But if we place the chaining of Satan at the beginning of the fifth century — when the persecution of the early Christians was at an end — until the time of the beginning of the great apostasy, when he was loosed — first the Gallicanist heresy, in the late 1300s-early 1400s, then the Protestant Reformation, (because Gallicanism is what fed Luther’s revolt and King Henry VIII’s establishment of the Anglican church) — we have roughly 1,000 years. Some Scripture commentators have advanced this opinion. Even though the Orthodox schism happened in 1054,  the schismatics seem to have retained jurisdiction and delivered valid Sacraments for their own people (by implicit permission of the popes), although Catholics were strictly forbidden to participate in these ceremonies and Sacraments without incurring the censure for communicatio in sacris and schism/heresy.

St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of a period where Antichrist will die, and life will go on as before, just as we have seen: “Although men be terrified by the signs appearing about the judgement day, yet before those signs begin to appear the wicked will think themselves to be in peace and security after the death of Antichrist and before the coming of Christ, seeing that the world is not at once destroyed as they thought hitherto.” (Supplement to the Summa Theologica, 73:1). This could account for the fact that the death of Antichrist (Paul 6) did not immediately result in the consummation, or his being hurled into the lake of fire. And it may be that this interlude vaguely referred to in Scripture confused Lacunza and prompted him to think it signified a lengthy period of peace. I have speculated that what we are seeing is the survival of Antichrist’s system of papal usurpation, its perpetuation and the reign of Afinal satanic antichrist, not THE antichrist, although it will be  short-lived. This, I think, could be the final assault launched by Satan on the remnant referred to in Apoc. 20:8. Am I correct? Who knows; only time will tell.

No 1,000 years of earthly peace

Lacunza believed the “end of the age” and “end of the world” refer to two different times. He understood the “end of the age” or “day of the Lordas merely the end of a phase of human history.” But the end of the “ages/centuries” seems to refer to the end of the Church’s time on earth which we have already witnessed; for then Christ says He will be with us “even to the consummation.” This is what B. E. Strauss notes in his piece quoted in my last blog. “The consummation of the ages denotes the last of all ages of the world, the age of the Church. This last age consummates the ages that came before, and it is itself consummated by the consummatio saeculi, by the consummation of the (last) age” or actual consummation by fire/end of the world. Strauss points out that the most common interpretation is not consummation of the ages or centuries, but consummation of the world. In order to avoid even mitigated Millenarianism, it is important to not associate any reversion to the “end of the age/centuries” translation with the meaning intended by Lacunza (and the many others today who follow him): the belief in a 1,000-year period of peace.

I believe it is very likely that the phrase “the consummation of the world” was translated into English versions of the Bible in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Great Britain precisely because it is there that this Millenarianist belief fulminated among the Protestants and certain Catholic circles, especially in the U.S. and Great Britain. Until the actual event, it appears the Church felt it was too dangerous to make any distinction between end of the “age of the Church” and the age of Antichrist, because this would only have aided Her enemies and caused Her premature dissolution. It also would have created panic and confusion among the faithful. There are many signs that even theologians such as Henry Cardinal Manning, who predicted the taking away of the papacy (St. Paul’s “he who withholdeth”) doubted there would be a restoration of the Church. For while Manning has much to say about the time of Antichrist and what leads up to it, he also mentions the Church’s final triumph but fails to explain when/how it will occur.

The Church’s final triumph, according to most of the commentators writing even before the Holy Office decree, is Christ’s Second Coming and the destruction of Antichrist’s system. In the end we win, but not without paying a terrible price. The Holy Office decree tells us that the idea of even a mitigated Millenarianism, which some would describe as a spiritual restoration minus Christ’s physical reign on earth and the resurrection of some of the dead – cannot be safely taught. And yet this idea of a glorious, peaceful period of restoration is the very hinge on which the Traditionalist door swings — Lacunza’s mitigated Millenarianism, condemned by the Holy Office. The Great Monarch and Holy Pope prophecies, Our Lady’s message at Quito, Ecuador, the La Salette message, the Fatima peace, the Catholic Restoration – rah, rah, sis-boom-bah, rally around the Traddie flagpole. Yes, we quote La Salette, although selectively. And yes, we also quote Fatima, but as all know who are reading this, we backed off that message considerably last year when it was revealed that Pope Pius XII had serious doubts about it.

It is now known that Our Lady told Sr. Lucia the pope would consecrate Russia to her but it would be TOO LATE. Traditionalist and Novus Ordo Fatima promoters say the Fatima promise of peace was “unconditional” but that was based on the conversion of Russia, which never happened and now can never happen, since we have no Pope and therefore no Church.

Private prophecy cannot trump divine revelation. There can be no restoration of the Church, no “peace” other than the absence of another actual world war and no monarch charging in on a white horse to save us. We have no validly ordained and consecrated bishops and the line of succession cannot be restored. The lost ten tribes have already converted, so the majority of the Jews have already entered the Catholic fold centuries ago at the beginning of the Great Apostasy (see the article documenting this here). It is time for those calling themselves Catholic to grow up, accept God’s will signified in the decisions of the Roman Pontiffs and prepare for the coming of Our Lord.

Protestants base their teachings on Lacunza

Lacunza’s teachings are what the Protestants later used to concoct their false teachings on Dispensationalism, an outgrowth of Masonic British Israelism, because his was the first theological treatise to propose the idea of the rapture. This has already been discussed in our previous article, The Final Chapter…  Dispensationalists believe that:

  • Believers will be raptured several years before the Second Coming.
  • That before the Second Coming, the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt.
  • The Jerusalem temple, not the Church, is where Antichrist will show himself as God.
  • Following the Second Coming and an earthly peace, this same temple will exist in Jerusalem, or possibly a new or reconsecrated one.
  • During an earthly millennium, animal sacrifices offered at this temple will commemorate Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.

This is a Jewish restoration versus the idea of a “Catholic restoration,” both of which are absurd. The Jewish restoration idea was even advanced by at least one Catholic Scripture scholar in the 1950s! So much for the condemnation of Millenarianism by the Holy Office. If a verifiable canonically elected pope and at least a few of the hierarchy had survived the Great Apostasy, such a restoration might have been possible, but no more. In order to prevent those not familiar with the many extravagant interpretations by the commentators on the Apocalypse form becoming completely lost in the apocalyptic maze, we say this about Mr. Morrell-Ibarra’s series continued below.

Summary of consummatio saeculi

His observation that “the end of the world is a period of time encompassing different events” means this: It is intended as an overview of the world’s end, from the very beginning of the Great Apostasy (at the time of the Protestant Reformation and the issuance of Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio  predicting the abomination of desolation) all the way up to Christ’s actual Second Coming, and the progression of events in between. This period begins with the apostasy of Catholic rulers and their people foretold by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2 (“for lest there come a revolt first”), and finally ends in the apostasy of the cardinals and bishops (the stars falling from Heaven, Apoc. 6:13, according to Rev. Berry), with the subsequent scattering of the faithful. This in turn causes the papal see to be left vacant owing to an invalid election of a heretic by heretics and fulfills the prophesy of “he who withholdeth” (the Church, but primarily the Pope) being taken out of the way.

Then begins the reign of the False Prophet, as predicted in Apocalypse Chapter 13, who prepares the way for the installment of the Sea Beast, or Antichrist proper, who changes all times and laws, desolates the Church and causes the Continual Sacrifice to officially cease. This then becomes the creation of the system of Antichrist, a succession of false popes, which predominates until the papacy is handed over to the New World Order religious leader. This man will be Satan incarnate who will REPLACE God in the minds of worldlings, Satan encompassing the camp of the saints at the very end. All of this is predicted by various commentators and can be carefully chosen as puzzle pieces to combine what we see with what Holy Scripture and the Church teaches. This then assists us in completing the final tapestry of the Second Coming, which will be discussed in our next blog.

Mr. Morrell Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide, Pt. 5

  1. Fable of the supposed validity of the spurious orders of the sedevacantist “traditionalist” imposters and hirelings.

All these false christs hide behind the supposed validity of their fraudulent titles and dignities, although inwardly they know they are illicit, which is why these charlatans avoid, like vampires avoid light and holy water, naming the word “illicit”, because according to them, what really matters is if they are “valid”, since that would make everything they touch “holy”, and thus they deceive many unwary souls with little or no knowledge of the Magisterium and the 1917 CIC, who grant them a credit and a competence none of those disobedient hypocrites possess. The improvised pseudo-theology of the Thucist and Lefebvrist sectarians has wreaked havoc, as they have created a kind of “new” magisterium to justify themselves and their sacrilege, despising and minimizing the one true Magisterium that every creature is obliged to obey if they want to save their souls, hence chaos and confusion are rampant.

In reality, none of them has really understood the difference between validity and liceity, which is why they manage to deceive the simple so easily, so an urgent explanation of both key concepts is required.

To be licit, permission from the Pope is required, also a canonical mission so as to be consecrated Catholic Bishop (Can. 953), and so that he can ordain Catholic priests; this canonical mission is fundamental, since it is what would make the minister Catholic, have Apostolic Succession, be part of the Hierarchy of the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church, have an ecclesiastical position or office (Can. 147) and, consequently, have the power to rule the flock of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a power that only the Pope can transmit to the Catholic Bishops, a power that the Pope receives immediately from Christ Our Lord [cf Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentem, Apostolorum Principis Sepulcrum]. Therefore, liceity is an ESSENTIAL requirement to function as a cleric, since lacking this, one is NOT a Catholic but a schismatic.

On the other hand, to be valid, permission from the Pope is not required, therefore one is not a Catholic, one does not have an ecclesiastical office, one does not have jurisdictional power, hence one is an intruder since he has not entered through the gate of the sheepfold, so he does not have the power to rule the flock of Christ; to be valid, it is only required that the ordaining minister be a validly consecrated bishop (matter, form, intention), that is, without the permission of the Pope, but evidently all these consecrations and ordinations will be illicit, desecration, gravely sinful, all of them being excommunicated both the ordaining bishop and his ordinands, since they are outside the Mystical Body of the Church, lack mission and power to rule, and are intruders who would only perform invalid acts, which, if carried out, would be gravely sacrilegious. This is the case of the Greek and Russian Orthodox schismatics, who were valid clergy, but completely illicit, non-Catholic.

Pope Pius XII, 1951


“The bishop of any rite and dignity, who confers episcopal consecration on someone without having received the appointment of the Apostolic See or without it having been expressly confirmed, and also the one who receives said consecration, even if both do so coerced by grave fear (canon 2229 § 3, 3°), they incur ipso facto excommunication reserved in a very special way to the Apostolic See.” (AAS 43 1951, 9th April, pp. 217-218)

“All those who support a priest, bishop or diocesan administrator who has not legitimately received his mission from the Pope, and all those who maintain relations with him in spiritual matters, are, like the one they support, treated by the Church as schismatics, because with such an action they separate themselves from the unity of the Church.”

Manual of the Christian Religion, 1891, p. 371 by Wilmers Wilhelm, 1817-1901.


Valid = ordained without the permission of the Pope, non-Catholic, without power of government, all his acts are sacrilegious, sinful, null and void.

Licit = ordained with the permission of the Pope, Catholic, with power of government, his acts are sacred.

His Holiness Pope Pius VI tells us in this regard:

“… ministers without a mission and pastors without jurisdiction, and consequently intrusive parish priests, would only do null acts, and all the functions they exercised would be equally desecration.”

It is abundantly clear that the supposed validity these intruders claim is of no use to them at all, because it does not make them Catholic since they never received permission or Jurisdiction from the Pope. Therefore, it is absurd and even suicidal for them to cling to this very dubious validity to justify their sacrilege and desecration in the eyes of their misled followers. Furthermore, they are not even valid (!), as they are nothing more than simple laymen in disguise, since the Magisterium denounces and proves them guilty, as we will have the opportunity to demonstrate throughout this essay.

  1. Fable of the supposed “ignorance” about the Magisterium and Canon Law on the part of those who sought the Holy Orders when it was forbidden to do so.

This is probably the most “humane”, subtle fable those hypocritical impostors can appeal to in order to gain the sympathy and trust of the extremely disoriented faithful. Its false logic would be formulated as follows:

“You dare state that we are invalid and illicit for seeking the Holy Orders from people [Lefebvre & Thuc] who, according to you, were not worthy and could not confer any Orders on us, having lost Jurisdiction after apostatizing along with the rest of Catholic Bishops on December 8, 1965… BUT WE DIDN’T KNOW IT BACK THEN (!?) We were completely IGNORANT of Canon Law and the Magisterium (!?), and WE JUST WANTED TO BE ORDAINED PRIESTS (AND BISHOPS) FOR THE HONOR AND GLORY OF GOD, AND FOR THE GOOD FOR SOULS, AND TO SAVE THE CHURCH (!?) We didn’t know anything, we just wanted to help prevent the disappearance of the Priesthood and the true Catholic Mass (!?) Therefore, HOW DARE YOU JUDGE US, AND JUDGE OUR HOLY INTENTIONS?… HOW DARE YOU IMPUTE THESE SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS OF BEING SCHIMATIC AND HERETICAL INTRUDERS TO US?”

To which we will respond with complete serenity and firmness in the following manner:

“If the offender making this claim is a cleric, his petition for mitigation must be dismissed, either as false or as indicating ignorance that is affected, or at least gross or supine. His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, ecclesiastical history, not to mention canon law, ensure that the attitude of the Church towards heresy was imparted to him… Thereafter, his professional associations and his contacts with Church affairs offer another guarantee that he must have known about heresy. Therefore, his present ignorance is unreal; or if it is real, it can only be explained as either deliberately fostered – affected ignorance – or else as the result of a total failure to do even a modicum of work regarding fundamental ecclesiastical theory and practice – gross and supine ignorance.”

Eric Francis Mackenzie, The Delict Of Heresy, 1932, p. 48

In this simple way, we will silence and hopefully put to shame those conceited schismatics. As a matter of fact, what annoys them all is when someone dares speak to them based on the unquestionable authority of the Magisterium, making them see they are hopelessly wrong. They cannot stand this and react like Pharisees, tearing their hair out, yet another evident sign that they are not in the truth but in error, since they only seek the acclaim of the simple and spiritually ignorant to feed their ego. This should come as no surprise, because looking back in the history of the Church, we will discover that the Supreme Pontiffs of Our Lord Jesus Christ have always spoken with divine authority because their word was sacred and infallible, yet many bad Christians and false brothers refused to believe in this dogma of faith, and for this reason they rebelled against the Papacy and its Magisterium, being the origin of fatal schisms and heresies. Here is the origin of evil: pride, the reluctance to accept that God had chosen certain specific men to entrust them with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose, and to teach, guard and govern the Flock of Christ Our Lord. And how could it be otherwise, behind this spirit of pride and rebellion we always find the father of lies, who was the first rebel who dared utter his impious “Non Serviam” in front of the Holy Trinity, which earned him the most lightning expulsion from Heaven and being hurled into the depths of Hell.

  1. Fable of “Non Una Cum” the antipopes of the conciliar sect, in this case, Bergoglio, aka “Francis”, according to which the grave sacrilege and desecrations of the sedevacantist intruders arising from Msgr. Thuc’s line would be “legitimized”, as well as of those performed by Lefebvrist pseudo “clerics” who later became sedevacantists.

According to this absurd logic, the only thing that counts would be to remain “Non Una Cum” Bergoglio, alias “Francis”, no matter if the Minister be heretical and schismatic, illicit, invalid, null and sacrilegious; all that would be secondary, the important thing is to be “Non Una Cum”, that is, to not be in communion with, even if those who tell us so have been excommunicated for disobedience to the Magisterium and for their adherence to schism and heresy, no problem, let us all repeat the wicked mantra of “Non Una Cum”, as if that were the magic wand that could turn their sacrilegious simulations into something acceptable to God Almighty, which is ridiculous and false.

Consummation of the AGE, not the world, and its implications

Consummation of the AGE, not the world, and its implications

Please Join Us in the Tre Ore

Traditionally,  from Noon to 3 p.m., on Good Friday, Catholics have observed the Tre Ore, which consists in three hours of meditation on each of the seven words of Christ as He hung on the Cross. Each “word” is a source of contemplation, as the Scripture is read in which Jesus utters the phrase. Each meditation was generally followed by a sermon, hymns by the choir, intercessions and prayer. Booklets to observe this devotion are still available from p
re-1959 and one of them is offered here as a free download. (The actual devotions in this book begin on p. 45).

+Holy Thursday +

In presenting the pages of Mr. Javier Morell-Ibarra’s book as an introduction to the full read of his work, it was not my intention to create controversy or re-examine issues already settled, only to demonstrate that others have a full appreciation of what has happened to the Church and why we need to pray at home. However, several readers have already raised questions regarding the issues addressed by Mr. Morrell-Ibarra, some of which I answered in my last blog and others which have been discussed in the comments from readers. Additional comments received this past week will be addressed below.

Judging others

One reader has objected to Mr. Morell-Ibarra’s condemnation of those following the leaders of various Traditionalist and “independent“ sects as harsh, unCatholic and uncharitable, and this topic needs to be better understood. When I first created this website, I  was more inclined to condemn only the leaders of these sects as formal heretics, which they most certainly are, being public and notorious, not to mention acting fraudulently under Can. 104. I later began to include those among the laity who were (or should have been) better educated in the faith, based on the words of Henry Cardinal Manning below:

“Whensoever the light comes within the reach of our sight, or the voice within the reach of our ear, we are bound to follow it, to inquire and to learn… The Church of God… lays all men under responsibility; and woe to that man who says, ‘I will not read; I will not hear; I will not listen; I will not learn;’ and woe to those teachers who shall say, ‘Don’t listen, don’t read, don’t hear; and therefore, don’t learn.’” This rightly condemns both Traditionalist leaders and their followers, whenever they have access to the truth yet do not avail themselves of it. This amounts to the sin of resisting the known truth, which St. Thomas Aquinas treats below in his Summa Theologica.

“Augustine [Fulgentius] (De Fide ad Petrum iii) says that “those who despair of pardon for their sins, or who without merits presume on God’s mercy, sin against the Holy Ghost,” and (Enchiridion lxxxiii) that “he who dies in a state of obstinacy is guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost,” and (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) that “impenitence is a sin against the Holy Ghost,” and (De Serm. Dom. in Monte xxii), that “to resist fraternal goodness with the brands of envy is to sin against the Holy Ghost.” And in his book De unico Baptismo (De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 35) he says that “a man who spurns the truth, is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the Church is taught,” and therefore, seemingly, sins against the Holy Ghost….” He further comments:

I answer that: According to the various interpretations of the sin against the Holy Ghost, there are various ways in which it may be said that it cannot be forgiven. For if by the sin against the Holy Ghost we understand final impenitence, it is said to be unpardonable, since in no way is it pardoned: because the mortal sin wherein a man perseveres until death will not be forgiven in the life to come, since it was not remitted by repentance in this life… According to the other two interpretations, it is said to be unpardonable, not as though it is nowise forgiven, but because, considered in itself, it deserves not to be pardonedReply to Objection 1, Art. 3: We should despair of no man in this life, considering God’s omnipotence and mercy. But if we consider the circumstances of sin, some are called (Ephesians 2:2) “children of despair” [‘Filios diffidentiae,’ which the Douay version renders ‘children of unbelief.’”

Several times in the Apocalypse we are told that these children of whom St. Thomas speaks will not repent, despite many chastisements and punishments from God. Mr. Morell-Ibarra speaks of the Katejon, or operation of error, and in St. Paul’s 2 Thess. 2: 10-11 we read: “God will send them the operation of error to believe lying; That all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity.” The Douay-Rheims commentary states: “God will suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders and false miracles in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.” This punishment is something that cannot be loosed except by prayer that God work a miracle of grace for these people, and this is totally up to God, not us. We can berate them all we like and beg them to “Come out of her my people,” but their exit is not dependent on us, but on God alone. In last week’s blog it was pointed out that the Church, under Can. 2200 holds these people accountable and considers them outside the Church (until they publicly retract their errors and devote three years to penitential works). And based on this canon and what has been said above, so must we also believe.

Mr. Morrell-Ibarra is correct in describing the condition of those who seem unable to break away from Traditionalism as existing in an obsessive/compulsive state, for it is a stubborn and perverse form of scrupulosity that enmeshes these people in Traditionalist errors, and even secular psychologists link scrupulosity to obsessive/compulsive disorders (https://iocdf.org/faith-ocd/what-is-ocd-scrupulosity/ — this link is provided only for corroboration purposes; no endorsement is implied). It also can be linked to hypnotism, which is reinforced by the repetitive attendance at the “Latin mass” and the belief that Traditionalist “sacraments” convey “magical” graces. Of course the true Latin Mass and prayers of the Church could never be said to effect such things, but we are talking here of services provided by those who are NOT Catholics, far less priests or bishops, and whose performances constitute an horrific sacrilege before God.

What we believe that Mr. Morrell-Ibarra is trying to convey in his work is the horror of these sins and the immediate need to desist from them, based on the terrible price to be paid if one dies in impenitence. As Rev. Felix Sarda Salvany states, we can love our neighbor even when injuring him if we are defending the rights of God and His Church. No to do so is to embrace the liberal idea of charity. But flogging a dead horse is not productive, either. Many have criticized this author for the repeated harsh treatment of Traditionalists, but as time continues to run out for them, it is difficult not to become more vociferous in condemning their errors. At this point, however, prayer and sacrifice, which we also have repeatedly requested, is probably our best and only option.

A further note on hypnotism here is in order. In their book Snapping (1979), written on the methods used by cults to seduce the vulnerable, Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman explain that:

“The previously held notion that an individual must be put to sleep in order to be hypnotized has been categorically disproved… Practitioners of hypnosis… admit that through lies and carefully contrived suggestions a hypnotist could prompt his subject to commit any action, even a crime, in the firm belief that he was performing the act to accomplish some greater good. In these latest findings about hypnosis and the power of suggestion there are important clues through the destructive effects of many cult and group techniques but — like brainwashing, ego destruction and coercive persuasion — the term hypnosis tells nothing about the dramatic alterations of awareness and personality and the lasting disruptions of thought and feeling we learn about from participants in cults and mass therapies. The techniques employed by cult and group leaders bear no resemblance to the classical induction of hypnosis, nor are the effects confined to simple trance states or feats of memory and imagination. Their attack is comprehensive and profound, not simply altering belief and behavior as in brainwashing but producing lasting changes in the fundamental workings of the mind. And their tools are those of everyday communication, ordinary skills and natural abilities that have been honed to the sharpness of precision instruments” (p. 103).

“By far the most widespread and frightening threat to personality posed by America’s cults and mass therapies is the impairment of an individual’s most fundamental capacity of mind: quite simply his ability to think, not just to think for himself, but to think at all — to make sense out of the information he receives from experience and to use that information in a way that will best serve his survival and personal growth. Almost every major cult and group teaches some form of not thinking; mind control, or as it is often called self-hypnosis as part of its regular program of activity. This process may take the form of prayer, chanting, speaking in tongues or simple meditation. Initially this quiescent state may provide physical and emotional benefits, feelings of inner peace and relaxation, or a calming of nervous tension. After a while, continued practice of the technique may even bring on various forms of euphoria and emotional high, a feeling of bliss or lightness of mind or body.

“In this state an individual may have sensations of being in intangible realms or alternate realities. He may see divine visions receive spiritual communications, or experience breakthrough moments of revelation or enlightenment with the extended cessation of thought. However the cumulative effects of inactivity may wear upon the brain until the point is reached when it readjusts itself to its new condition, suddenly and sharply. When that happens, as we have discovered, its information processing capacities may enter a state of disruption or complete suspensionproducing individual states of mind that incorporate all the other forms of information disease: disorientation, detachment, withdrawal delusion and the trancelike, altered state visible in the cults” (p. 172).

Sadly, the rituals used by these Traditionalist pseudo-clergy to simulate Holy Mass and the Sacraments is what often serves as the means of this hypnosis. Some are so obsessed with these sacrilegious acts that they would be unable to function without them, literally, believing they would lose their souls. These are the “lies and carefully contrived suggestions… to commit any action, even a crime, in the firm belief that [one] was performing the act to accomplish some greater good” mentioned in the quotes above.

As the authors explain, hypnosis is fused with many other techniques, resulting in a profoundly complicated process that only highly trained professionals could hope to reverse. We are not those professionals, which is why we must resort to prayer for these poor tormented souls, especially praying the exorcism prayers for them. Having warned them twice, once privately ourselves and then with one or two others, as Our Lord teaches, we are no longer required by the Church to reproach them, but only to pray for them. We are, however, when the need arises, required to warn others to avoid them.

Inspirations of the Holy Ghost

As Catholics, we must always follow what we believe to be inspirations of the Holy Ghost; not to do so, especially living in this age of perfidious error, is sinful. However, those of us who try to present what the Church teaches to others must be especially careful not to refer to such inspirations as a sort of motive of our own credibility, for while we may be certain we are meant to drive home some necessary point or truth and exert ourselves to a great degree to do so, we are always liable to error and are only as good as the authenticity of the sources we quote and our level of understanding regarding these sources. Only the Supreme Pontiffs have been granted an infallible charism by the Holy Ghost to perceive and present these truths free of error, and our inspirations cannot possibly compare in any way to this unique grant by Christ.

Henry Cardinal Manning describes this grant as “…a charisma of indefectible faith and truth…. a gratia gratis data, or a grace, the benefit of which is for others.” It is a gift strictly attached to the papal office, and it is not one that is of inspiration, but one where “Peter’s faith was kept from failing, either in the act of believing or in the object of his belief… not the discovery of new truths, but the guardianship of old.” (The True Story of the Vatican Council). It is an unfailing assistance, and this we could never pretend to possess. So we must be careful lest we appear to be ascribing to ourselves those gifts which only the popes can possess. We can quote them and insist that others are bound to obey what they say, but it is by their power, and never any merit or inspiration of our own, that we do so.

Till the consummation of the age

As readers have noted, the consummation of the world/age in Matt. 28:20 has become a controversial issue. While all the older Douay-Rheims Bible versions do state “consummation of the world,” the Latin Vulgate (edited under the auspices of the Pontifical University Salmanticenses, 1959) actually states: “usque ad consummatio saeculi,” translated as “consummation of the age.” An Internet article by one B.S. Strauss, identifying as a Catholic layman, observes that “…The Vatican Council solemnly teaches that the Lord promised shepherds and teachers until the consummation of the age – usque ad consummatio saeculi — which, according to Catholic commentary, begins with the revelation of Antichrist, who is announced to reign before the return of the Lord. Hence, apostolic succession seems to have come to an end already, and we deal with shepherds of vengeance.”

This he then proceeds to prove by numerous quotes from Scripture, the Fathers and the Vatican Council. He notes that while the Vatican Council does not define the consummation of the age, neither does it state that there will be teachers and pastors until that time. In fact, he notes well, false prophets, false christs and hirelings, not to mention antichrists and Antichrist proper, are all that is predicted for this time.  Those wishing to read his entire work can request it by emailing answers@betrayedcatholics.com.

HOW Christ will remain always with His Mystical Body unto the consummation and how the truth will be taught to the very end has been explained here and here. It will not be preached to the faithful by these pseudo-bishops and pretend priests, or a canonically elected pope, who has not reigned since the death of Pope Pius XII and is now incapable of being elected. Rather it will be spread by those drug from the byways and ditches to attend the marriage feast. They happen to be us, who have, by the grace of God, recognized the truth and refused to follow these false christs (false popes) and their attendant false shepherds, or Traditionalist hirelings.

Mr. Morell-Ibarra comments on the above as follows:

“I have seen that one of your readers wonders why the Catholic Bible I am using translates the term “consummationem saeculi” as “…even to the consummation of the centuries.” She objects that in the Douay-Rheims Bible, it reads, “…even to the consummation of the world.” Well, let us shed some light on the translation of this verse, which undeniably proves it is the most common interpretation of this biblical passage. The thing is all the books we have in our possession from the 18th and 19th centuries, and we have quite a few of them,all of them translate it as the consummation of the century/centuries in all the kingdoms of Spain.” (He here includes as proofs images showing translations of the verse in question dating from 1671, and others dating from 1793, 1798 and 1786. There are even translations dating from 1611, 1592 (!) and 1589 !!).

“As it can be seen, all of them state very clearly “hasta la consumación del siglo“, that is, “until the end of the century”, NOT “until the end of the world”, which was a much later translation. In addition to that… the Vulgate Bible of Scio (19th century) is clearly translated as “until the consummation of the centuries/century.” Now, you will have to agree with me that this translation of the term “consummationem saeculi” is much more common, because it has been translated like this since the 16th century, as Cefas and I have had the chance to check, which makes this translation more trustworthy. That is a fact that admits no objection.

“Furthermore, there is also this comment which could be helpful: “The “consummation of the world” (ovvreleía toú aióvos) has a more decisive force to signify the end of the world than the term “parousia”. However, the word “aiww” means not the physical world or the universe, but “era”, “epoch” of human history, for the use St. Paul makes of it, (cf. ALLO, Vivre et Penser, Series 1.*, 1941, 179.) Therefore, the “era” here may be that of the old economy. In Matt. 28: 20, where the perspective changes, it is the new messianic era.”  (B. ORCHARD, E. F. SUTCLIFFE, R. C. FULLER Y R. RUSSELL, VERBUM DEI. COMENTARIO A LA SAGRADA ESCRlTURA Verbum Dei. Comentario a la Sagrada Escritura. B. ORCHARD, E. F. SUTCLIFFE, C. FULLER Y R. RUSSELL. Editorial HERDER,1957; Imprimatur de 1956, Momor Evangelios). Finally, the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus from the Vatican Council in 1870 also translates it as “hasta la consumación de los siglos“, or “until the end of the centuries.” (End of Mr. Morell-Ibarra’s comments)

So it appears that this later translation “consummation of the world” must be discarded for the interpretation “consummation of the age(s) or century” with one caution: it cannot, as some have attempted to do, be used to indicate that another age will then commence — that of a certain period of peace for a restored Church on earth, headquartered in Jerusalem, following the conversion of the Jews. This notion was condemned by the Holy Office in 1944: “In recent times, on several occasions, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord, before the Final Judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely” (DZ 2296).

As we have explained in recent articles, some have hinted at a possible “papal restoration” facilitated by a “Great Monarch” will be inaugurated in Jerusalem prior to the Second Coming, to last for an unspecified amount of time. Versions of this were suggested by Yves Dupont, Holzhauser and in several private prophecies. But the New Jerusalem will be brought down to a renewed earth only from Heaven, following the Final Judgment; and that is what they confuse this with. Then and only then will there finally be peace on earth.

Mr. Morrell-Ibarra continues his work below, covering some of the topics we have just addressed. Please note that we offered proofs in our last blog that the date he sets for the Great Apostasy cannot apply to Catholic clergy ordained and consecrated prior to 1965, owing to their obligation to know the law, especially invalidating laws such as Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. Canon 2200 PRESUMES even material heretics are outside the Church until proven innocent. And only a future canonically elected pope could determine such innocence.

Mr. Morrell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide, Pt. 4

  1. Fable of the Episcopalian heretic Berkeley and his fallacy that “esse est percipi”, that is, “to be is to be perceived”, or the absolute empiricism/idealistic empiricism/subjective idealism trap, into which ALL THE FALSE PASTORS AND FALSE CHRISTS OF THE TRADITIONAL PSEUDO CLERGY fall, misapplying the common error only when they have realized the deception, and decreeing that the Great Apostasy begins only when it suits them.

The development of this highly widespread, warped fable goes as follows: Some fake “traditionalist” clergy and their misled followers say that on December 8, 1965, the Great Apostasy did not take place and the Catholic world did not apostatize by accepting the new false religion that synthesized its teaching at the end of the Vatican 2 bogus council and was accepted by the formerly Catholic hierarchy. Instead, they say, it took shape when some were able to perceive it at the end of the 1970s, beginning of the 1980s; others say that this happened with the imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae by Montini-Paul 6; others claim that it occurred in the mid 80s with the Assisi pandemonium organized by Wojtyla-JP2; others hold that it was accomplished when Ratzinger-Benedict16 stepped down as top usurper; others say that the Apostasy was effected with Bergoglio and his pandering to Pachamama, and so on.

Thus there existed some sort of limbo where heresy and apostasy would not exist, simply because they are not perceived by many (!?), so common error would keep them in a virtual state of “non-existence”, where the Code of Canon Law and the Magisterium would remain “stranded”, and it is only when they are perceived that the apostasy would “magically” appear out of the blue. So those who perceive it are capable of choosing the moment that interests them to save their so-called power of order and jurisdiction, for instance, or their membership in the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church. And from hence the common error is cleared and all those who are not in the same position, once this starting line has been drawn, are automatically defined as being in apostasy, heresy and schism, a line that can be moved by sympathy or some other vested interest.

Therefore, the apostasy would not exist until it becomes evident and is perceived by X actors, who would then confirm the end of common error from the moment the apostasy becomes a reality for them and starts to be, which is obviously ridiculous.

This is nothing more than a bunch of chimerical ideas intended to save the members of the particular sects, since they are the ones who arbitrarily determine when the operation of error should begin, which is precisely when, by some remote grace, they discover the deception. But led by their intolerable moral arrogance, they decide instead that it began when it suits them, because if they had the courage to admit that the apostasy began formally and publicly on December 8, 1965, and that there has been no Pope since October 9, 1958, then they would be forced to accept the cold, hard truth, which is they are not what they say they are, that is, Catholic clerics, but they are all in a state of infamy of law for heresy, schism and apostasy and are not willing to accept that they fell into the Operation of error, as the entire Catholic world did, accepting a false religion and adhering to their ranks, consciously or unconsciously.

  1. Fable of “SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX ESTO”, that is, “let the salvation of souls be the supreme law”, or “necessity knows no law”, which is the battle cry of all schismatics to try and implement their schisms, even if it means disobeying the Papacy and its Infallible Magisterium, which together with the 1917 Code of Canon Law (CIC) completely incapacitate and invalidate these dangerous charlatans, depriving them of any desire to usurp the jurisdiction that only the Pope possesses fully and universally, but whom those prideful individuals are hell-bent on ignoring and belittling over and over again.
  2. Model fable of “OCD traditionalism” (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).

The “Traditionalist” fake clergy and sects truthfully say: Vatican 2 was a bogus council! The Novus Ordo Missae is a false rite! More than a billion people are deceived! More than four hundred thousand clerics belonging to the conciliar sect are invalid! Bergoglio is not the Pope!

The fake clergy of the conciliar sect reply to them: You, prophets of misfortunes and calamities! Servants of Satan! You lead us to despair and distress! What happened to the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ? You say the gates of hell have prevailed! You say that Jesus lied! Anathema! We also tell them (to the “Traditionalist” fake clergy and sects): Your private chapel or sect is invalid and illicit, gravely sinful and sacrilegious, unlawfully established against Pope Pius XII’s infallible Magisterium and the 1917 CIC.

The “Traditionalist” fake clergy and sects reply to us: You, prophets of misfortunes and calamities! Servants of Satan! You lead us to despair and distress! What happened to the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ? You say the gates of hell have prevailed! You say that Jesus lied! Anathema! Thus, our readers will be able to verify the blindness and hypocrisy with which these dangerous delinquents who violate the Magisterium and the CIC reason and act.

  1. Recurring fable of the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 28: 20.

The “Traditionalist” intruders and imposters clamor wherever they go:

“We know from Matthew 28:20 that there will be Bishops until the end of the world!”

“We know from Matthew 28:20 that there will always be a Holy Catholic Sacrifice!”

“Therefore, our “chapels” (sects, garages, cellars, etc.) are valid and lawful!”

We answer them:

And what do we do with Saint Peter then?… Wasn’t Saint Peter included in the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ?… And the prophet Daniel, what did he say about the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice?… “And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end” (Dan. 9:27).

And what does the Magisterium say about your schismatic “chapels”?…

Deep down, all those modern pharisees reason like those who were scandalized by Our Lord Jesus Christ when He announced to them the kind of death with which He should die, as we read in John 12: 32-34: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. (Now this he said, signifying what death he should die.) The multitude answered him: We have heard out of the law, that Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest thou: The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?” “et ego si exaltatus fuero a terra omnia traham ad me ipsum hoc autem dicebat significans qua morte esset moriturus respondit ei turba nos audivimus ex lege quia Christus manet in æternum et quomodo tu dicis oportet exaltari Filium hominis quis est iste Filius hominis”.

With the obstinacy those blind individuals exhibit, they are clearly showing us that they do not believe that Saint Peter and his Successors have been placed by Our Lord as the foundation and cornerstone of the mystical edifice of the Church, since they blasphemously imagine that the Church can continue to expand without the fidelity and obedience due to the Rock of the Papacy and its Magisterium. This proves their null catholicity, since whoever denies the dogma of papal infallibility is NOT Catholic, but schismatic and heretical. Furthermore, in their supine ignorance, they refuse to accept that the Holy Sacrifice of the altar must cease at the time of the Antichrist, also called the time of Satan unchained, thus contradicting the divinely inspired Holy Scripture, which constitutes a sin against the Holy Ghost.

Finally, they dig their own grave by ignoring the discipline imposed by Pope Pius XII’s Magisterium and the Code of Canon Law when they dared to seek the Holy Episcopal Orders at a time when it was strictly prohibited to do so, belittling and ignoring the serious warnings of the legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Pius XII, who made it very clear in his Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that during the vacancy of the Holy See NOBODY can usurp the Jurisdiction and prerogatives that only the Pope possesses by divine right; therefore NO ONE can move or confer any Orders until a new Pontiff has been legitimately chosen and confirmed by the Holy Ghost. It will now be understood by all the enormous sin against the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity these arrogant sophists commit every time they dare to question and disobey the Vicar of Christ and his infallible Magisterium.