+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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email