+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 Church… Should 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.)
NOTICE FROM MR. MORELL-IBARRA:
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
- 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 , 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.
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].
- 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 
“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 
«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]».
Good Sunday evening, dearest Teresa,
Your linguistic precision, hence your clarity of thought, continues to shine forth and seemingly more so, with each successive essay that you pen. God bless and keep you. Amen. Alleluia. Simply a Catholic thought then, regarding the mystical beatitude of the Book of the Apocalypse, and as it relates chapter 12, verses 1,2: “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.”
This description perfectly elucidates, and in pristine reflection, the eminent understanding of the Catholic, “both/and”, reality of being, as it describes both the holy Catholic Church and Our Lady of Guadalupe. Amen. It is after all Our Lady who crushes the head of the Serpent and whose Immaculate Heart triumphs now as, “…in the end…”. As I now gaze upon a life-sized, artistic mural of, “Our Lady of Guadalupe”, it is indeed her, who is clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, upon her head a crown of 12 stars is seen, and she is with Child. Amen. Alleluia. With the Holy Sacrifice and the Spotless Lamb now gone from the face of the earth, it is Our Lady in whom we place the totality of our trust, as the Queen of Heaven and earth, to carry us in her Immaculate Heart, while at once then to deliver us unto her Sacred Heart, our Christ, and our King of the cosmos He created. Amen. Alleluia.
It is mysterious then, as one of the attributes of Our Lady of Guadalupe, is as the Protectress of the Papacy, and of course then, as Pope Leo XIII infallibly taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, that the holy Magisterium is indeed perpetual, therefore unchanging and unending unto the Second Coming. Amen. One more thought and as it relates the angel upon which Our Lady of Guadalupe stands. To my knowledge he has not been personally identified, while at once it is my pious belief that he is Saint Michael the Archangel, as defender of the eternal Virgin while at her beckon, and of the Vicar of Christ, as also Prince of the angelic realm. Amen. Alleluia. Finally then, no less than Saint Louis Marie Grignon De Montfort teaches emphatically in his consecration to the Blessed Virgin, that without pious devotion to Our Lady, without affording to her alone the worship of hyperdulia, which is her due, a soul cannot hope to attain the Beatific Vision. Amen. He further taught that her glory would shine forth now, as in the very End of Time, as she was subdued within the totality of her integral humility, during her time on earth, as the Mother of the Christ, the Son of God, our Redeemer. Amen. Alleluia. The peace of Christ to you and yours, not of this world……..
In the list of fables traditionalists use to cheat people contained in Mr. Morell text, I list two:
– “In history free-mason bishops have ordained bishops (and been accepted by the Holy See)”, using the lie of Talleyrand as free-mason.
– “In history popes have been heretics”, citing Liberius, Honorius, 4th, 7th centuries)
Recently a (false) Italian priest has published a book while explaining the heresies found in Amoris Laetitia he defends popes can be heretic saying:
“IT MAY SEEM IMPOSSIBLE THE POPE CAN ERR, BUT THE HISTORY IS CLEAR IN STATING THAT THIS ERROR HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES” (in capital letters in the original you can read here: https://www.tradimentodellasanadottrina.it/en/capitolo1/#6_Errori_di_alcuni_Papi_nella_storia )
I’ve thoroughly studied the first fable, even reading Talleyrand’s autobiographies and found he had never been a free-mason because there were not lodges at that time but just political parties / associations / lobbying groups in that incipient democracy, called “clubs”.
Against the second fable, using only logic I would say:
1- It’s suspicious that these “errors” are only from distant times (Liberius, Honorius, 4th, 7th centuries) prone of incorrect transmission until today.
Additional supporting arguments:
– No error is found in popes of recent times (until 1958), from which we have a thorough knowledge of all their teachings. Should they exist, current anti-popes and followers would remember them us continuously.
– In ancient (and modern times) teachings of the popes were abundant and only some isolated facts are pinpointed as heresy (only in ancient times).
– I would say heretics usually do not limit to only one heresy, but heresies exit abundantly from their mouth (as recent anti-popes, Lutero, etc.)
2- Given the abundant teachings all (real) popes did, how do they kept free of error? there is any natural secret trick or is it supernatural? it’s ridiculous to say it’s natural, and it’s blaspheme to say the support of the H.G. can fail sometimes.
The Vatican Council settled the question of Honorius as follows:
“Therefore just as today we judge the letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition and deny them to be ex cathedra because they do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the whole Church so the Christians of the 7th century judge the same letters by the custom of their own day and saw that they did not claim what papal letters were want to claim — that is to speak with the mouth of Peter in the name of Roman tradition. The grounds of both judgments are in reality the same: that the Pope was not defining with authority and binding the Church” (Dom John Chapman, taken from The Vatican Council, Vol. II, Cuthbert Butler, 1930).
And likewise the case of Liberius:
“It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter” (Dom John Chapman Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911).
James Hennessy S.J. says in his The Vatican Council and the American Experience, (1963), that it was a small minority at the Vatican Council who opposed infallibility, and insisted that’s Honorius was formally heretical. They also questioned the Catholicity of a few other popes. But they were put in their places by the majority of bishops attending the Council.
The pre-election heresy of Angelo Roncalli has been documented by several individuals working independently. Clearly he was ineligible for election under Pope Pius XII’s election constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. That is the upshot.
It is not correct to say that there were no Masonic lodges, which there were indeed, but there was a deadly sect, the Jansenists since the 17th century, which were the true instigators of the revolution, and the true Jacobins, in cahoots with the philosophers and the Freemasons.
French Freemasonry starts in 1724 by Milord Derwentwater, Maskelyne and d’Heguetty. In 1742 there were 22 lodges in Paris, in 1743 the national mega-lodge “English Grand-Lodge of France” was already formed, and in 1776 the French Grand-Orient was instituted, and in 1805 Joseph Bonaparte was elected Grand Master. The first condemnation of Freemasonry is in In eminenti apostolatus specula of Pope Clement XII on April 28, 1738.
Talleyrand was an apostate, a sworn revolutionary, who consecrated the first Jansenists for the Revolution, conspired with José Bonaparte, etc, etc, Talleyrand was involved in all the conspiracies.
Yes, you are correct here from all that I myself can discover. Freemasonry, of course, officially began in England in 1717. But it had been fermenting long before this with the founding of the Rosicrucians in the early 1600s an even before. As Pope Leo XIII taught, all these sects are interconnected and operate on pagan/Gnostic principles — the possession of secret knowledge.