Does the “illicit only” crowd mirror the Old Catholic heresy?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 21, 2024 | New Blog

+Third Sunday after Easter+

(St. Anselm, Abp.)

In way of a reminder, or for those who are new to the idea of praying at home, I am going to repeat and highlight a binding Church teaching here that has practically been the foundation stone for this site since it first appeared on the Internet. Long before Pope Pius XII wrote Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS), negating acts contrary to Canon Law or usurping papal jurisdiction that were attempted during an interregnum, the Council of Trent condemned the idea that those acting without out jurisdiction, who were “neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority “ (DZ 967) could ever be considered true ministers of the Church. This concept is best expressed as follows:

“A Christian society whose bishops go back to the apostles only through the power of order, and not also through the power of jurisdiction, cannot claim to be Apostolic, and consequently cannot be the Church of Christ,” Revs. Devivier and Sasia, Christian Apologetics, Vol. II), 1924. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Church also  states in part: “Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For ‘How can they preach,’ asks the Apostle, ‘unless they be sent?’ (Rom. 10:15).”

In 1950, Pope Pius XII issued a binding decree (AAS 42-601) on the true interpretation of Can. 147, stating that those never canonically appointed to such offices but who: “’…assume the same upon their own authority, are all to be regarded NOT AS MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH but as thieves and robbers, who have entered not by the door’” (DZ 960). Pius XII then issued three ipso facto excommunications for violating this law, all of them reserved in a special manner to the Holy See, which included anyone assisting such individuals in their efforts. Without the necessary jurisdiction and appointment to an office by competent ecclesiastical authority according to the sacred canons, THEY ARE NOT APOSTOLIC MINISTERS; THEY CANNOT FUNCTION VALIDLY (Can. 147). Their ability to function validlydepends on the possession of an office, regardless of their alleged reception of orders.

One might be considered validly ordained if it could once be proven that the ordaining or consecrating prelate used the proper matter and form and possessed the proper intention. But this can be determined only by the pope, as we have pointed out repeatedly. The presumption, however, also repeatedly stated, What is important to understand here is what is expressed in the following: “Commentary in Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: “The council [of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.] declared absolute ordinations, that is, sine titulo, invalid. Though it used the words (null, void), it is very probable that it had in mind “void of effect through permanent suspension,” (pg. 96;   See Mansi, VII, 901, 945.) This is the very principle evidenced in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) regarding acts not authorized by the Holy See personally or permitted under Canon Law.

As the Holy Office decreed Nov. 18, 1931: “A lapsed Catholic who receives orders from a schismatic bishop can be received back into the Church only on the understanding that such ordinations, even if valid, will be completely disregarded, (Dr. Leslie Rumble, Homiletic and Pastoral Review: “Are Liberal Catholic Orders Valid,” 1958). Lefebvre  and Thuc were schismatics and those they ordained and consecrated were lapsed Catholics, one-time members of the Novus Ordo and Traditionalist organizations who were never validly absolved, abjured by the Holy Office, did not do penance or publicly condemn the schismatic prelate consecrating or ordaining.  This is what Canon Law requires of them. And as  VAS states, during an interregnum, any violation of Canon Law or presumption of papal jurisdiction (abjuration of heresy) is considered null and void.

As related in his Principles of Sacramental Theology, (1955), Rev. Bernard Leeming wrote that Pope Innocent IV, as a private doctor, opined that ”…the Pope could set up diriment impediments in the case of all the sacraments and could take away a bishop’s power to confirm. He supports this by the text,’ Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven,’ and adds that “obedience must be given to the Pope” in all things not contrary to faith or specially forbidden. Rev. J. Tixeront, in his Holy Orders and Ordination, (1928), cites the same opinion by Innocent IV, but quotes Louis Saltet (a Catholic historian who contributed to the Catholic Encyclopedia) to the effect that, “This theory tells volumes about the development given to the idea of pontifical authority.”  We must remember that Pope St. Pius X, in his previous election, law also had declared null, void and invalid all these same acts. All that Pope Pius XII added to this is to declare that part of VAS binding during an interregnum by virtue of  his Supreme Authority. Without a true Roman Pontiff, NOTHING can be presumed to be valid, most especially the conferral of Orders.

Pope Innocent IV wrote in 1254, but what these authors call his opinion or theory was, as Saltet said, the kernel sown which later blossomed into the fullness of the pope’s supreme jurisdiction. The ”development” of the idea of papal authority came full circle with the Vatican Council. Unfortunately those opposing the definition of infallibility not only left the Church but reorganized, to more effectively dismantle and oppose Her. Henry Cardinal Manning believed that this effort began with an actual conspiracy hatched by Gallicanist sympathizers and the Old Catholics. He describes this conspiracy in his work written after the close of the Council, (The Vatican Decrees and Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, p. 11, 115-116) as the “Old Catholic” conspiracy, which translates today, even in the writer William Strojie’s opinion, to Traditionalists, especially those of the SSPX variety. He also identifies it as “The Protestant church… [which] has become a political agent, a tool of the state…in the hands of Liberals, to fight Catholicism” (p. 115).

He then goes on to explain how this conspiracy was hatched even before the Council convened, writing: “Before the Vatican Council assembled, there was an opposition systematically organized to resist it [by the Old Catholics]…” Stanley Jaki, in his 1996 introduction for the release of an exact reproduction of Manning’s The True Story of the Vatican Council, relates that Cardinal Manning, although he could not include it in his work, believed that circumstances surrounding the Vatican Council amounted to “a plain conspiracy to make Pius IX the [Pope] Honorius of the 19th century.” Today these same tactics are being used by LibTrads and Protestants  to cast Pope Pius XII in the role of Honorius in the 20th century. What we see in the persistent opposition against VAS by those claiming these me to be only illicit , and by their refusal to accept other other papal teaching is only the continuing flow of that same Gallicanist/Old Catholic/Modernist current. Strojie, Peter Anson and  others have warned us of the Old Catholic invasion in our times, but no one is listening.

One of the first LibTrad pseudo-bishops, Francis Schuckhardt, was “consecrated” by an Old Catholic bishop, Daniel Q. Brown. Several of these so-called bishops have been consecrators of certain LibTrads, especially among independents. And one of the men Schuckhardt “ordained” became involved with a rigorist Jansenist sect and went on to become one of the first proponents of the “illicit only” theory now being promoted by himself and others. We have spoken of the Jansenists and their rigorist beliefs in our last several blogs and now we will discover where it is those beliefs originated, how they have filtered down to various sects today and how they have misinterpreted papal teaching to make it appear that the Church still considers those lacking both an office and jurisdiction to be the teaching body of Christ’s Church.

Jansenist/Old Catholic ideology and LibTrads

Many years ago I ran across a very good piece on Old Catholics, entitled The Jansenist Heresy: Old Catholicism is Born.  Its author, listed by way of initials, states: “I am indebted to one of the seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X at Ridgefield, Connecticut whose research made this article possible — A.C.” After offering a summary of anti-papal and other Old Catholic teaching, A.C. comments: “The Old Catholic movement was a liberal and modernist movement. Indeed most contemporary modernists would have little difficulty accepting most of their tenets.” Under the heading Old Catholic Sects: General Observations, he describes the behavior of Old Catholic clergy, sadly failing to see they correspond almost identically with that of the SSPX and LibTrads in general. These are listed as follows:

“1.The first thing one notices when one begins to study these sects is that there are indeed a large number of sects calling themselves Old Catholic. It seems that there are about as many as there are Old Catholic bishops… (T. Benns: Just as with the LibTrads.)

“2. This phenomenon is joined to the fact that the Old Catholics foment what seems to be a never-ending series of schisms among themselves. This is explained by the fact that they began in schism. It is understandable, therefore, that they should have so many schisms among themselves. (T. Benns: The never-ending schisms is the dead giveaway.)

“3. Old Catholic clergy are inclined to excommunicate each other at the slightest provocation. (At the drop of a miter?) This is borne out by Peter Anson’s book on their forebears, Bishops at Large, and by studying some of their more recent activities. (T. Benns: Their internecine squabbling on these things is almost as never-ending as their schisms and is what foments them.)

“4. A typical fiction which an Old Catholic will try to promote is a denial that his group is schismatic or heretical. Invariably, such a person will point to another group, supposedly distinct from his own, and say that it is schismatic or heretical. For instance, an Old Catholic may tell you “We are not Old Catholics, but Old Roman Catholics. There is a difference. The other group is schismatic and heretical. We are legitimate.” Such talk is nonsense. There are no real differences among all these groups, no matter what name they go by. They all originate, in some tenuous way or another, in the Jansenist heresy and schism. Common sense tells us that if something was hatched from a duck’s egg, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. (T. Benns: Projection is a psychological ploy intended to deflect blame. There are no real differences in these groups as the author says, and all tend to exhibit Jansenist tendencies to one degree or another.)

“5. Most of these groups distort history in an attempt to prove their claims. A quick reading of some of the literature they publish demonstrates this. They distort the Jansenist controversy and avoid giving an honest account of the outrageous activities of Mathew and Vilatte. (T. Benns: One is reminded of all the stories defending Thuc from accusations of dementia and returning to the Novus Ordo; or to the defense of LibTrad pseudo-clergy and “seminarians” accused of homosexual tendencies and sexual abuse, when these accusations were well-documented.)

“7. For the most part, these sects are presided over by clergymen who are ignorant in matters of religion. Some are trained for a short period of time by ignorant superiors, others “study on their own for a while, others grant themselves degrees from non-existent universities, while still others are simply ordained without any pretense of an education at all. (T. Benns: This ignorance is what has cost the faithful so much and has resulted in the denial of so many truths.)

“9. In most cases, it is impossible to prove that an ordination or consecration performed by an Old Catholic bishop in this country is unquestionably valid. In Europe, the question is less complicated, since the Jansenist sects enjoy a certain amount of stability. In this country, however, there exists a multitude of different Old Catholic sects. Consequently, no one has a centralized and comprehensive body of certified documentation which keeps track of the lines of the ordinations and consecrations performed in all these splinter groups. This casts some doubt upon the validity of the orders they claim to possess. Since the Catholic Church teaches that one cannot act if there is a positive doubt regarding the validity of a sacrament, one is obliged to treat their clergymen as though they were invalidly ordained.”  

(T. Benns: WHY must Catholics consider them invalid? Because Pope Pius XII teaches that during an interregnum, they cannot be considered valid. This for two reasons: 1) Because consecrations and ordinations without the mandate usurp papal authority and violate the canons and 2) Until declared valid and their cases resolved, there can be no presumption of such validity. I know the LibTrads quote Leeming to the effect that “The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means…” [even in cases where the minister is wicked or a heretic]. “This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash.” Principles of Sacramental Theology, 476, 482.) What they will not tell you is that reflex principles cited by moral theologians also declare that presumption must yield to truth. That truth is it must yield to an infallible papal ruling that regardless of the intention or the state of the minister, during an interregnum, all must be considered invalid, void of effect. For only a true pope canonically elected could settle the case. The Old Catholic commentator ends with Pope St. Pius X’s excommunication of the Old Catholic “bishop” Arnold Harris Mathew and those he attempted to consecrate below.

Pope St. Pius X’s condemns the pseudo-bishops

“We have learned that priests of your country, namely Herbert Ignatius Beale and Arthur William Howarth, of the clergy of Nottingham, seeking their own glory rather than that of Jesus Christ, and being carried away by the fire of ambition, having attempted on various occasions to be elevated to the episcopal dignity by non-Catholics, have recently proceeded with such temerity that, having obtained their wish, they have arrogantly announced unto Us that they have procured episcopal consecration. Nor does their announcement lack authentic testimony; for he who was the principal author of this sacrilegious crime, the pseudo-bishop Arnold Harris Mathew, has not feared openly to confirm this deed, having transmitted to Us letters swollen with pride. And, moreover, he has not hesitated to arrogate unto himself the title of “Anglo-Catholic Archbishop of London.”

“Turning Our thoughts and Our solicitude first of all to you, Beloved Sons, of whose constant and devoted good will we have ever received such illustrious testimony, We vigorously exhort you to guard zealously against their frauds and snares.

“Furthermore, lest We should appear to betray Our office, being faithful to the examples of Our Predecessors, We hereby proclaim the aforesaid consecration to have been illegitimate and sacrilegious, and to have been performed in a manner wholly contrary to the mandates of this Holy See and the sanction of the Sacred Canons.

“The above-named priests, therefore, namely Arnold Harris Mathew, Herbert Ignatius Beale, and Arthur William Howarth, and all others who lent aid, counsel or consent to this nefarious crime, by the authority of Almighty God, we hereby excommunicate, anathematize, and solemnly command and declare to be separated from the communion of the Church and to be held for schismatics, and to be avoided by all Catholics and especially by yourselves.

“Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, under the Ring of the Fisherman, the eleventh day of February 1911, in the eighth year of Our Pontificate.” (The foregoing was translated by Father William Jenkins (SSPX) from the official Latin edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, year III, vol. III, no. 2, February 15, 1911.)

Meaning of the prefix ”pseudo”

Thuc and Lefebvre were not Catholics at the time they ATTEMPTED (note this wording appears in Pope Pius XII’s VAS) to ordain and consecrate men of the various LibTrad sects. Pseudo is defined online as meaning sham; false; spurious; pretended; counterfeit. (Merriam-Webster). It corresponds to Can. 104 which states that “error annuls an action” whenever a certain condition is required for its proper fulfillment. The canonists Bouscaren-Ellis write: “Error of law or a fact, if it is substantial, renders an act null and void. The same is true if the error, though not substantial by nature, is made so by a condition.”  It was always a condition, from the time of the Council of Trent, that bishops could receive an office or approval for an office only from the pope. It is a condition, based on ancient practice and dating to the time of the Gallicanist heresy, that during an interregnum nothing can be decided involving the rights usually exercised by the pope or against canon law or papal law.  We see the word spurious, or false, used by Pope Pius VI in Charitas below:

“Furthermore, We declare specifically that the elections of the said Expilly… [et al], are unlawful, sacrilegious, and utterly void. We rescind, efface, and abrogate them, as well as the recent creation of the so-called dioceses of Moulins, Chateauroux, and others. We similarly declare and decree that their consecrations were sinful, and are illicit, unlawful, sacrilegious, and at variance with the regulations of the sacred canons; since they were rashly and wrongfully elected, they lack all ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction for the guidance of souls and have been suspended from all exercise of the episcopal office.

“We prohibit severely both those who have been or are to be elected as bishops from rashly accepting episcopal consecration from any metropolitan or bishop as well as the SPURIOUS bishops and their sacrilegious consecrators and all other archbishops and bishops from daring to consecrate on any pretext those who have been or are to be wrongfully elected. Furthermore, We command those who have been or are to be elected, to behave in no way as archbishops, bishops, parish priests, or vicars nor to call themselves by the name of any cathedral or parochial church, nor to assume any jurisdiction, authority, or faculty for the care of souls under the penalty of suspension and invalidity.”

Pseudo-bishop is also found in refence to an Old Catholic bishop in Pope Pius IX ‘s Etsi Multa: “[The Old Catholics] have chosen and set up a PSEUDO-BISHOP, a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith, Joseph Hubert Reinkens. So that nothing be lacking in their impudence, for his consecration they have had refuge to those very Jansenists of Utrecht, whom they themselves, before they separated from the Church, considered as heretics and schismatics, as do all other Catholics. However, this Joseph Hubert dares to say that he is a bishop, and, what passes belief, he is recognized… [by]  all his subjects as a lawful bishop… The holy martyr Cyprian, writing about schism, denied to the pseudo-bishop Novatian even the title of Christian, on the grounds that he was cut off and separated from the Church of Christ… We declare the election of the said Joseph Hubert Reinkens, performed against the sanctions of the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void.”

And as we noted in a previous blog, Pope Pius XII taught: “Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious” (Ad Apostolorum Principis).I believe that it was St. Robert Bellarmine who taught that a man who was not even a Catholic could not validly be elected pope. Likewise one cannot consider men consecrated by schismatics, specifically to head schismatic sects, to be valid, either.

And for proof of this we can return to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which clearly states that: “Further, if ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, even one conducting himself as an Archbishop, Patriarch, or primate; or 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, then his promotion or elevation shall be NULL, INVALID AND VOID.” Those claiming that these men are “only illicit” who dare to quote this bull need to draw out is FULL implications.

As the Old Catholic commentator notes above, “One is obliged to treat their clergymen as though they were invalidly ordained.” The Church Herself declares that their promotions could never be valid, even when a reigning pontiff existed! The commentator indicates that the validity of the Old Catholics cannot be presumed, just as no one can presume LibTrads were validly ordained by Lefebvre and Thuc. This cannot be the case with US, however, because of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS);  the pope clearly declares their ATTEMPTED acts of no effect, reflecting the private teaching of Pope Innocent IV and later Clement II. Pope Pius XII cites Clement II in VAS as stating that no one may exercise the power belonging solely to the pope during an interregnum. The Council of Chalcedon was held in 451, so the principle “void of effect “was already at work in the early days of the Church. No one can claim it was a novelty that was introduced by Pope Pius XII.

Conclusion

Since the establishment of Traditionalism, these men calling themselves bishops and priests have resorted to Canon Law to try and prove their legitimacy. This is truly absurd when one considers that, as Pope Pius VI taught in Charitas, no trumped up “necessity” could justify their activities. Since canon law (Can. 147) pointedly declares they are not valid unless they are appointed by legitimate authority according to the sacred canons, these laws do not even apply to them in the clerical realm. They apply to them only as (lay) heretics and schismatics simulating the Sacraments. That is the true meaning of “pseudo” and “spurious” here. The term “illicit only” presumes their Orders and sacraments to be valid when this is clearly contrary to the Council of Trent and papal teaching. But most importantly it is a denial of the only law now governing us, VAS, and the Church’s right to determine who are members of the hierarchy. TRUE bishops no longer exist because the Church proclaims that not only were these men considered false bishops when a true pontiff reigned, there can be no valid conveying of Orders at all during an interregnum!

Interregnums were intended to last at the most for only less than a month according to VAS. The longest interregnum in the Church’s history lasted less than three years. So VAS, and prior to its issuance Pope St. Pius X’s election law, was intended as a stopgap measure only, to make certain nothing was done to usurp papal jurisdiction or violate canon law during the vacancy of the Holy See. LibTrads often point to the “colored title” theory, pretending that their “orders” alone are sufficient to claim that they possess rights and privileges in the Church. They quote Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz’s  work on Can. 209 (supplied jurisdiction) and the canonists Wernz-Vidal as follows: “There is no jurisdiction without a title. And where, by mandate of the Church or her rightful representatives, jurisdiction is required for the validity of a certain act, there, if the minister acts without the proper jurisdiction, he acts fruitlessly because invalidly.” They thus ASSUME there is a validly ordained and/or consecrated minister who COULD possess the title, a sophism called “presuming that which is yet to be proven.” This when the Council of Trent and Pope Pius XII commenting on Trent’s anathema both teach infallibly that they are “not to be regarded AS MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH” (see above).

This is so very confusing for readers because at the same time they admit that “None of the faithful believe the illicit bishops have a papal mandate to do what they are doing.” But it has nothing to do with what the faithful believe, only with what the Church teaches — for as just stated in our last blog: THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE BOUND TO BELIEVE. How about the FACT that they cannot possibly possess the mandate because there was no pope to issue one?! And that the Church says during an interregnum, no valid ordinations and consecrations can even take place if they usurp papal rights and violate canon law, which they most certainly do?

I consider myself an Ultramontane as did St. Anthony Mary Claret, Henry Cardinal Manning, Fr. Frederick Faber, Wilfred Ward, Louis Veuillot, William Peter Allies, Donoso Cortes and Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. The Vatican Council should have resolved all the questions regarding the pope’s supremacy of jurisdiction, but sadly, as can be easily seen from the above, it did not. Ranged on the opposite side, following John Henry Cardinal Newman, Bp. Ullathorne, Dom Cuthburt Butler and a host of others who believed the definition of infallibility would only harm reunion efforts with schismatics.  Newman, especially, was quite cozy with the Anglicans and Old Catholics. He and his followers gave lip service to the definition but continued to travel the road to Modernism and ecumenism. That is where ignoring the integral teachings of the popes leads.

We see all the indicators here of Old Catholic influence:

— The attempt to “foment a schism” among those who pray at home;

— The “excommunication” of those who point out to others that “illicit only” is not Catholic;

— The tendency to Jansenistic rigorism, Liberal charity, quietism, Americanism, anti-Semitism;

— Their denial of the Vatican Council teaching on the pope’s supreme jurisdiction;

— Considering as “valid” men educated in heresy by heretics and schismatics;

— Their distortion of self-evident truths and dogmatic facts to shore up their claims, and

— Since the Catholic Church teaches that one cannot act if there is a positive doubt regarding the validity of a sacrament, [LibTrad ordinations and consecrations], one is obliged to treat their clergymen as though they were invalidly ordained.

And in our case, the absolute necessity of acknowledging the infallible truth that they could not have been ordained and consecrated during an interregnum. Instead they treat these men as valid and insist that others do the same. We cannot and will not let these errors stand. Readers deserve to know when they are being misled and to be able to fully access the truth, and we are obligated to provide it. This according to today’s epistle:  “For such is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2).

Clarification on the points about Antichrist that are certain

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 15, 2024 | New Blog

+St. Paul the First Hermit+

(URGENT REQUEST: In light of the continuing attempts to infiltrate and divide those praying at home by various entities both known to us as well as others yet to be identified, we beg our readers to please join us in the Unity Octave novena beginning on January 18, Feast of St. Peter’s Chair in Rome. To recite these prayers, please scroll to the bottom of the blog HERE.)

The unanimous teachings of the Fathers on Antichrist

There has been much (unnecessary) confusion arising from the assertion on this site that Paul 6 was Antichrist. Some are suggesting that this belief is not in conformity with the unanimous opinion of the early Fathers and does not take into consideration Catholic prophecy regarding the reign of Antichrist. First, we will address the topic of the unanimous opinion of the Fathers.

The Council of Trent as well as the Vatican Council teach that whatever the early Fathers agree on unanimously regarding faith and morals must be accepted as coming from the Church Herself. Yet Pope Leo XIII wrote in Providentissimus Deus, (Nov. 1893): “Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for ‘in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,’ according to the opinion of St. Thomas.”

In other words, only the Holy See may determine when the unanimous opinion of the Fathers has rightly been stated or understood, and the only exception to this general rule is when a highly esteemed Church official has declared that something contained in Holy Scripture is indeed the unanimous opinion of the Fathers. The one issue that so many of these so-called Catholic writers on Antichrist consistently fail to address is the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice as the very act that will allow the correct identification of the Man of Sin. So many refer to the institution of the Novus Ordo as the “abomination of desolation” but neglect to identify the one instituting it as Antichrist! Henry Cardinal Manning succinctly states in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See that: “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.” This statement we can trust, but not the statement of those attempting to prove the unanimous opinions of the Fathers support their claims without even demonstrating that such an opinion is truly a) unanimous, as demonstrated by approved authors and b) to be believed as a matter of faith.

And Pope Pius XII writes in his encyclical on Holy Scripture, Divini Afflante Spiritu: “There are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the holy Fathers is unanimous.” We cannot take the word of lay people writing today that such texts are unanimous, for such writers often confuse the common opinion of the Fathers with their unanimous opinion. This is why we may only take the word of approved authors that a certain teaching is truly unanimous. But when a pope has himself taught infallibly on the subject of Antichrist the very fact he has thus taught demands our firm assent and obedience. Such is the case with Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which defines who and what is to be considered the abomination of desolation and how the abomination could enter into the Holy Place through an invalid papal election. (For those who object that Antichrist and the abomination are not the same thing, please see the article HERE.)  We also have the testimony of Pope Leo XIII in his long St. Michael’s prayer that: “In the Holy Place itself… they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep will be scattered.”  Popes Pius XI and Pius XII also warned that Antichrist was already within the gates. The Holy Place also is designated as the Church in St. Jerome’s commentary in the Breviary for the 24^th and last Sunday after Pentecost.

The second objection, that Paul 6 as Antichrist does not reflect the predictions contained in private revelations is not a valid accusation. Those evaluating these revelations are nearly always of the LibTrad persuasion, including the Lefebvrist and Monarchist Yves Dupont, whose The Antichrist is provided on one site to “refute” the idea that Paul 6 was the Antichrist. While Dupont’s writings on other topics are not objectionable per se, his estimation of the prophecies cannot be said to amount to anything a Catholic is required or even advised to believe regarding the advent of Antichrist. The theologian Gerson, in his Treatise on the examination of doctrines, relates that Pope Gregory XI, when on the point of death, holding the sacred body of Christ in his hands, protested before all, and warned them to beware both of men and women, “who under the guise of religion, speak visions of their own head” for that he, seduced by such, had neglected the reasonable counsel of his friends, and had dragged himself and the Church to the hazard of imminent schism, if her merciful spouse Jesus had not provided against it.” Pope Benedict XIV said these revelations: “…ought not to, and cannot receive from us any assent of Catholic, but only of human faith, ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PRUDENCE, according to which the aforesaid revelations ARE PROBABLE, and piously to be believed.” Today we cannot even be certain these prophecies are faithfully reproduced. 

Catholics must not consider such revelations equivalent to a papal pronouncement, or the unanimous consent of the Fathers and/or approved theologians. (See the article HERE.) As one theologian has remarked: “Many of these revelations are beyond the needs and the intelligence even of persons already far advanced in the spiritual life and are often clothed in language quite unintelligible. And herein precisely lies a new source of anxiety, BECAUSE A NEW DANGER, NAMELY, THE DANGER OF UNDERSTANDING THE REVELATION IN A WRONG SENSE, WHICH MAY EASILY LEAD TO POSITIVE ERROR AND SIN AGAINST THE “RULE OF FAITH.” And this is what has happened with many of these revelations regarding Antichrist. Also, some of these revelations contain errors later condemned by the Holy See, such as the teaching regarding the Great Monarch and an earthly millennium as taught by Joachim of Fiore, also others (see HERE).

Grades of certainty regarding Antichrist

Given the confusion created by these LibTrad writers, a reader has requested “a more detailed description and analysis” of the points offered on this site and attributed to the work of an approved theologian, Fr. A.  Lemman’s The Antichrist. These points and their commentary can be found in Rev. Denis Fahey’s The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, pgs. 175-190. We intended, in offering reference to this work, that readers study Fahey’s work itself for a better understanding of the topic.  But to avoid any confusion for those not able to access this work, quotes will be taken from it below to better explain the basis for Fr. Lemman’s evaluation of these points.

1. Things that are certain about Antichrist;
2. Things that are probable;
3. Things that are undecided;
4. Things that have not a solid foundation

1. Things that are CERTAIN (that is, those things which must be believed either from Holy Scripture or the unanimous opinion of the Fatherss. These include:

1. He will be a trial for the good (Apoc. XIII, 7), and a chastisement for the impious and the apostates (II Thess., II, 9-11). TSB: This is all that is provided, Holy Scripture being sufficient.
2. He will be a man, a human person. (Lemann: “Antichrist is not a myth or a fiction, as Renan, in his silly fashion, tried to show.1 Neither must he be confused with a sect, a collection of impious men, an atheistic environment, or a period of persecution, as certain pious persons have imagined. Antichrist will be a human person, appearing in an epoch of atheism and of wicked sectaries.”)
3. He will not be Satan in human form but only a man (Suarez, De Antichristo, Sect. 1, n. 4 and 5). (TSB: it could be said, however, that he might be possessed by the devil.)
4. He will have great powers of seduction, owing to certain personal qualities. (“Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish,” II Thess., II, 9, 10).

TSB: Paul 6 undoubtedly charmed the Protestants, the Orthodox and the Jews, who he invited to the false Vatican 2 Council. He won the applause of world figures and the admiration of the “faithful” with his address to the UN. The theological world gloried in his Modernistic teachings, and nearly all accepted and taught them. He gave every appearance of being a true pope and reconciling all world religions, including  Communism and Freemasonry, to Catholicism, when this was a doctrinal impossibility.)

5. His career beginnings will be lowly (“The horn is called small, because it will grow little by little, and because it will arrive at domination, not by hereditary right, but by fraud” Cornelius a Lapide, in Ep. ad Thess., II, II.)

TSB: Montini was sickly and studied for the priesthood at home. He initially rose through the ranks as any other cleric. He did not receive the formal position of Secretary of Vatican State but acted only as a “pro-secretary.” Owing to the deceptions he perpetrated during Pope Pius XII’s reign, he was refused the cardinalate.)

6. He will increase in power and make conquests. (TSB: Over time, Paul 6, as a Vatican official, secretly became involved with the British intelligence agency the OSS during WWII, and after the war ended, the CIA, preparing to align himself later with world governments. As a cardinal under the false prophet Roncalli, he continued this campaign openly until his invalid election as “pope.” See Lemann on no. 7 below.)
7. His rule will be worldwide. (Lemman: “With the help which will be furnished him by the anti-Christian societies, this enemy of Our Lord Jesus Christ will be able to form a gigantic empire in a short time.” Pope Leo XIII warned: “What is aimed at and what is intended is the overthrow of Christian institutions and the reconstruction of States on the basis of Pagan Naturalism” (Letter to the Sacred College of Cardinals, 1901).

TSB: Paul 6 helped prepare the way for the democratization of all Christian states by the U. S. Because he pretended to be the head of what the world perceived as the Catholic Church, his reign was universal.

8.He will wage a terrible war against God and the Church. Fr. Fahey: “Father Lemann indicates some of the measures which, to judge by the experience of past persecutions, Antichrist will enforce more thoroughly and more cruelly than ever before. Two of them are: Proscription of Christian teaching and obligatory teaching of error. We can see them already in force in the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Father Lemann adds that ‘The schools without God or rather against God are a preparation for the second measure.’ In that he is perfectly correct, for the Declaration of the Rights of Man of the French Revolution, in the name of which these schools function in France, signified repudiation of membership of Christ, and was thus a declaration of war on the Divine Plan for Order.”

TSB: Christian teaching was removed from public schools in the U.S. during Paul 6’s reign. Following Vatican 2, the catechisms were all revised and error taught to previously Catholic school children worldwide. Error was officially taught by command of a pretended pope from the Holy Place with the adoption of “for all men,” first in the missalettes distributed to the faithful beginning in 1959, and later formally by the abrogation of the Latin Mass in 1969.)

9. He will claim to be God and will demand exclusive adoration. (Fr. Fahey: In 1903 Pope St. Pius X wrote: “So extreme is the general perversion that there is reason to fear that we are experiencing the foretaste and the beginnings of the evils which are to come at the end of time, and that the Son of Perdition, of whom the Apostle speaks, has already arrived upon the earth.” (Note: Leo Panakal later pointed out that when St. Pius X wrote these ominous lines in 1903, Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Paul VI, was six years old.) “So great are the fury and hatred with which religion is everywhere assailed, that it seems to be a determined effort to destroy every vestige of the relation between God and man. On the other hand — and this is, according to [St. Paul], the special characteristic of Antichrist— with frightful presumption man is attempting to usurp the place of his Creator and is lifting himself above all that is called God. Thus, powerless to extinguish completely in himself the notion of God, he is attempting to shake off the yoke of His Majesty and is dedicating the visible world to himself as a temple, in which he has the pretension to receive the adoration of his fellow men, ‘So that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God.” (II Thess., II, 4 ; Encyclical Letter, E Supremi Apostolatus Cathedra, Oct. 4, 1903).

TSB: Francis teaches: “A spark of the Divine is in each of us; therefore, Man is God.”  Both Paul 6 and John Paul 2 taught the same. Paul 6 taught: “Are you looking for God? You will find Him in man.” (John Clancy, Dialogues: Refelections on God and Man, 1965). Paul 6 placed himself above all that is called God by pretending to speak in His name as pope. As Pope Pius XI taught: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means I am God on the earth” (April 22, 1930).

10. By means of diabolical prodigies, Antichrist will seek to prove that he is God. (Lemman: “The question is often asked,” writes St. Augustine, “whether these expressions ‘signs and lying wonders’ are to be understood in the sense that the prodigies wrought by Antichrist will be only apparent, not real; or as signifying that the really extraordinary feats performed by him will draw on to error and falsehood those who accept them as proofs of a divine mission ?’* The great Doctor replies: ‘This will be known later’ (City of God). This hesitation has given rise to two currents of opinion (Suarez, de Antichristo). Some think that the prodigies wrought by Antichrist will be real prodigies and that they will lead to the acceptance of falsehood, that is, to belief in the divinity of Antichrist. Others hold that all the miracles of Antichrist will be false and unreal and that they will be accepted as true thanks to the action of the demon on the senses of his followers. ‘”He will come, when he comes, with all Satan’s influence to aid him: there will be no lack of power, of counterfeit signs and wonders” (The New Testament, by Mgr. R. A. Knox; also agreeing with these works as entirely false prodigies is 1 Cornelius a Lapide., II Thess., II, 9; Bern, a Piconio, II Ep. ad Thess., c. 11, 9.; also St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis de Sales).
11. Antichrist will cause the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to cease.

TSB: This is not contained in Fr. Fahey’s coverage of Fr. Lemman’s points. Fr. Lemman admits in the introduction to his points that “Space will permit of only a brief outline of what is contained under A, B, and C.” Henry Cardinal Manning clearly states in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See that: “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.” I dare say that Card. Manning is a greater authority on this topic than Fr. Lemman. And not only is this a unanimous opinion of the Fathers; three notable Doctor of the Church — St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Francis de Sales — also teach this as well. St. Bellarmine is adamant on this matter, stating no one can claim Antichrist has come as long as the Mass of Pope St. Pius V is in place (De Contoversiis: on Antichrist, Ryan Grant translation, p. 67). For, having written his work in 1590, St. Bellarmine was undoubtedly referring to the Mass of Pope Pius V, since Pope St. Pius V promulgated his constitution Quo Primumin 1570.

12. The domination and persecution of Antichrist will be merely temporary. The Man of Sin will be destroyed (Dan., VII, 26; Apoc, XIX, 20; II Thess., II, 8).

TSB: Paul 6 died like any other man, although his system remains. Although he was a Traditionalist, Francis Panakal did support his work with solid proofs regarding Paul 6’s identification as the Man of Sin. In his 1983 work, The Man of Sin, Panakal noted that Montini died on the feast of the Transfiguration, Aug. 6, 1978, relating it to 2 Thess. 2: 9-10: “And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”

During the Transfiguration, Christ’s countenance and entire Body became dazzlingly bright, signifying his identity as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The spirit of his mouth Panakal associates with Christ actually addressing Paul 6 as he did St. Paul, asking, “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecuteth me?” He opines that Paul 6 did not know he was the Antichrist until the moment of his death, and that after he learned his true identity he was destroyed by this revelation. Panakal points to one unconfirmed report in a Catholic publication which related that Paul 6 cried out and his face became contorted shortly before he breathed his last, and the putrefaction of his body began immediately after his death.

Things that are PROBABLE

First Probability: The Jews will acclaim Antichrist as the Messias and will help to set up his kingdom.

Lemman: “I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive ” (St. John, V, 43).” It is upon” this reproach addressed by Our Lord Jesus Christ to the Jews, his contemporaries and adversaries, that this belief is based, and it can be said that it is the common opinion of the Fathers of the Church, for example, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Ephraim, St. John Chrysostom, etc., etc.. . . . When we see the enormous financial power of the Jews increasing daily, when we consider their intrigues, their successful occupancy of the chief places in the principal States, their mutual understanding from one end of the world to the other, then in presence of such a preponderance, we have no difficulty in realizing that they will be able to contribute to the establishment of the formidable empire of Antichrist.”

TSB: To be accepted as the Messias, Antichrist would need to be of the Jewish race. That Paul 6 presented as a Jew and was of Jewish heritage was pointed out by Fr. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga in the 1970s. (See the proofs HERE.) It is also a matter of established fact that both he and Angelo Roncalli, the false prophet, pandered to the Jews and absolved them of all guilt in Christ’s Passion and death on the Cross. In his de Controversiis on Antichrist, St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that it is a certainty that Antichrist will be of the Jewish race and will be received by them as the Messiah. P. Huchede teaches the same in his History of Antichrist,

Second Probability 

The persecution of Antichrist will last three years and a half.

Lemman: ”And they [the Saints] shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time” (Dan., VII, 25). “And power was given him to do two and forty months ” (Apoc. XIII, 5). It has been pointed out previously (eleventh point that is certain), that the power and the persecution of Antichrist will be only temporary. That is certain. Is it possible to determine their exact duration? One can give only a probable, not a certain, answer, according to the two texts quoted.” (See HERE for proofs showing that belief in the literal three years and a half are not a matter of faith and Catholics should adopt an opposite view whenever reason or obvious facts would dictate otherwise.)

What constitutes true probability? The scholastic theologian Rev. A.C. Cotter, S.J., in his work, The ABC of Scholastic Philosophy defines a probable opinion as follows: “Probability admits degrees; for one motive may be better and more solid than another. Thus if ten scientists testified to the truth of the atomic theory the layman has a stronger motive for assenting than if only one scientist proposed it. Hence:

1. a) One opinion may be more probable than another, as happens when better arguments are had for the one than for its opposite.
2. b) An opinion is said to be highly probable if there are excellent reasons for it and hardly any against it.
3. c) An opinion is most probable if there are excellent reasons for it, hardly any for contrary opinions on the same matter.
4. d) An opinion is the only probable one if there are solid though not infallible reasons for it and if all other opinions concerning the same matter are certainly wrong or devoid of any solid foundation.
5. e) Two contradictory propositions may be probable at the same time. This happens when the motives for them are disparate so that they do not destroy each other.

Things that are UNDECIDED

(These are four points that are not based upon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or upon precise texts of Holy Writ.)

1) His name; 2) his nationality; 3) the seat of his empire.

TSB: Given that Montini corresponds to all the points that are listed above as certain, and even settles those that are probable, it can then be deduced that he does fit the description of Antichrist. The final undecided point is 4)The temple in which he will present himself. Once it is proven that a) Montini b) was of Jewish heritage and c) pretended to reign in the Church itself, from d) Rome, all four undecided points are then settled.

Things that have not a solid foundation

— The date for Antichrist’s coming (The Church forbids anyone to set a future date for his coming, but neither can anyone deny clear signs he has come. All the commentators writing on Apocalypse and the end times assume that those living in these times will be able to “read the signs of the times.”)

Conclusion

This is not intended to be an exhaustive evaluation of the Antichrist question. This study of Antichrist’s appearance has been spread out over several decades and is presented in different articles on my website. It also is addressed at length in my 2018 work, The Phantom Church in Rome. What many fail to understand regarding Antichrist is that the prophecies contained in Apocalypse are intended primarily to be taken in a spiritual or mystical sense and only secondarily in a literal sense. As Rev. Huchede points out in his work, some passages are amphibological, that is, capable of more than one interpretation. What also is not appreciated here is that some teachings even of the early Fathers were later condemned, such as that of millenarianism. The Great Monarch prophecies first taught by Joachim of Fiore were an instrumental part of this false millenarianism, and the Church later condemned his teachings. Pope Pius XII then determined that millenarianism cannot be safely taught. (See HERE).

According to Holy Scripture, Antichrist’s coming will be preceded by the Great Revolt, most often referred to by Scripture commentators as a general falling away of both the Catholic hierarchy and faithful. Henry Cardinal Manning says this began with the Reformation. This Man of Sin will be revealed only after “he who witholdeth” is taken out of the way,” most likely meaning the Pope. Pope Paul IV tells us in his 1559 bull that the abomination will be revealed following an invalid papal election. The early Fathers teach unanimously he will cause the Holy Sacrifice to cease, and will pretend to speak for God, as if he were God. Please tell me this: If Antichrist has yet to come, WHO will revolt from the Church (hardly any Catholics left anywhere), WHAT sacrifice will cease (no valid sacrifices are now being offered), and HOW would anyone ever believe such a person could speak for God in wreaking all the havoc that was Vatican 2 (since this is a privilege reserved only to a validly elected Pope?!) I have explained in the work HERE that Antichrist’s system could possibly produce a final physical and literal manifestation of Antichrist who would attempt to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. But this person would not himself be the Man of Sin in a spiritual sense.

No one has all the answers on this topic, but if they attempt to address it, they must follow all the rules in place. I have tried to do this to the best of my ability. The saints and Scriptural scholars writing on Antichrist left his final identification to those living at the time of his appearance on the world stage. St. Bellarmine writes: “All prophecies when they are fulfilled are made evident” (Ibid). Rev. Huchede agrees, writing: “The events connected with the end of the world will alone remove the mystery in which the sacred text is at present enveloped… What is mysterious [can only] be explained by the event.” For a better understanding of the situation today, in light of what was already occurring in the 19^th century, please read the works of Henry Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ and The Present Crisis of the Holy See. Both are available for free download at archive.org.

New pray at home converts: beware of video & CD “Catholicism”

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 31, 2023 | New Blog

+The Circumcision+

Prayer Society Intention for January, Month of the Holy Name

“We wish to make reparation each day, dear Jesus, for those who profane Thy Holy Name.”

A reader has recommended as excellent the sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori HERE. Video sermons are one of the ways that the wisdom of the saints can be made available to Catholics today. Such unabridged sermons  in audio form coming from saints and approved members of the hierarchy are what true Catholics should be accessing, and this is the topic we are addressing here.

An unsettling beginning to the New Year

It has come to my attention that once again, there is an ongoing effort by certain individuals also advocating praying at home to “collect” those exiting the Novus Ordo and various LibTrad sects by appealing to this younger set via videos, podcasts and other venues. The reasons for concern regarding these efforts will be explained below.

In 1990, my first work Will the Catholic Church Survive…? was released to the public, calling for a papal election. At that time I had been praying at home since 1985. The book explained in depth why Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini were ineligible for election to the papacy, offering proofs of their ineligibility and using Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio to prove they could never have been validly elected. It also provided dogmatic and canonical proofs that LibTrads possessed no jurisdiction, were at least questionably valid and were committing sacrilege by offering mass and sacraments to their followers. The case for praying at home was then presented on the basis of Bd. Pope Innocent XI’s teaching that one cannot receive questionably valid and illicit sacraments without sinning mortally against the first commandment. That was 35 years ago, when those now promoting praying at home on their blogs and social media platforms were still members of the Novus Ordo sect.

These important proofs were the fruits of long years of study, 10 to be exact, and many trips to the local seminary library to purchase books and fill my library with theological works. But it is following the inevitable consequences of these proofs made public so long ago that people find so challenging, even mind-boggling. For once it is realized that both Roncalli and Montini were heretics (Modernists not to mention Freemasons) prior to their respective elections, as even sedevacantists realized in the early 1980s, such elections were then considered non-existent, as explained in my 1990 book. This was clear from reading Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, first available in English in the mid-1980s. The 1990 book was the second published defense of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, first translated into Spanish by Dr. Carlos Disandro in 1978, following the attacks of the St. Pius X Society and other LibTrads. So since the elections of these men were invalid as the Bull infallibly proclaims, nothing whatsoever which followed really happened; it was all an illusion.

 And if an illusion, there was no need to spend any time tediously refuting the errors introduced by Montini and Roncalli — ALL their acts could be dismissed wholesale. This is a truth infallibly confirmed by Pope Pius XII in his 1945 papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. No election of Roncalli and hence Montini means there was never a false Vatican 2 council; nor were there ever changes to the liturgy, the sacraments or Catholic doctrine. And ecumenism, condemned as a heresy by both Pope Pius XI and Pius XII was never endorsed by a true pope. All of these things were made null and void by Roncalli’s non-election and Pope Pius XII’s election law and are entirely unworthy of any consideration. THAT is the reality all have failed to grasp. It is further confirmed by St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching that a doubtful pope is no pope, a principle evidenced in the actual practice of the Church.

So all the time spent in various debates, also constant Internet coverage and criticism of Novus Ordo events and errors has only made it more difficult to discover, address and denounce the true consequences of the vacant see, also Modernist tendencies within the Church pre-1959 that led to Vatican 2. Had the line been firmly drawn at the death of Pope Pius XII and the invalid election of Roncalli and the pre-1959 errors that LED to Vatican 2 addressed once the full extent of the damage was realized, the Traditionalist movement with all its errors would never have predominated.

St. Paul taught, “But prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:2). The Jews of Berea “Received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so,” we read in Acts. Who among even those still calling themselves priests really did this? It was laymen, not the clergy, who uncovered Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. It was a layperson who insisted upon obedience to Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and his teaching that the bishops are entirely subordinate to the pope. Rev. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga may have commissioned Anacleto Gonzalez-Flores to write The Plot Against the Church, attempting to halt Vatican 2, and he did declare the see vacant and Montini the Antichrist in the mid-1970s. But what was the true value of what he did seeing that he founded the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM) and was later discovered to be a Freemason?!

Failure to provide proofs, credit others

Any research conducted then was never followed through to its logical conclusions where jurisdiction and the necessity of the papacy was concerned. And those still muddling around in the errors of the Novus Ordo sect are only returning to the vomit that led us down the wrong path in the first place. The teachings of the Continual Magisterium must be the focus of any attempts to win souls today, and those still mucking around in the Novus Ordo or LibTrad sects simply need to be told that the burden of proof, according to Canon Law, is on THEM, not on us — no debates, no back and forth, nada. Pope Pius XII drew the line in VAS and we are merely holding that line. If they could prove that infallible document does not apply to them, THEN there might be a discussion, but that can never be the case. Signed papal documents entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis can never be contested.

Unfortunately other bloggers and social media personalities promoting praying at home today refer to these decades-old proofs but do not refer them to any source; or they act as though these proofs are self-evident or known to their audience in some other way. They do not themselves produce proofs drawn from Scripture, the continual magisterium, Canon Law and the scholastics, as Holy Scripture and the Church demands but only vaguely reference them. And what they do produce is often taken from what is quoted by others. (And my sincere thanks to those who do give proper attribution in their efforts to promote praying at home.)

And while they may warn others against practicing doctrinal minimalism or insist that one must carry the logical consequences represented by the facts through to the very end, they do neither of these things and only continue to further confuse those already swimming in a sea of confusion. This because they resort to sophistry by begging the question, assuming as true that which they have not yet proven as true to those they are addressing. They then proceed to the illogical scholastic arguments known as false induction and false interpretation, owing to the errors mixed in with their assertions.

They are thus in violation of the moral law and Catholic ethics by failing to render attribution to those before them who have resolved theological issues by quoting the popes, the councils, Holy Office decisions, Canon Law  and the works of approved authors. The collection and actual presentation of those facts in logical order, from various sources, is a product of the intellect and is considered intellectual property. And yet individuals presenting as bona fide Catholics and defenders of the faith encourage others to pray at home but do so only by accommodating the research and conclusions of previously copyrighted works written by others.

And what is even worse is their subtle addition of errors to these teachings, making it appear that other authors also endorsing praying at home are in agreement with them. All this is then passed off as THEIR OWN invention and conclusions, and this can result in grave moral and legal consequences. For this sin against the seventh commandment they are bound to make restitution, for some even sell works over the Internet based on the non-attributed works of others. Are we not justified then in questioning their sincerity, honesty and motives and in demanding an accounting?!

Not only do they fail to condemn all LibTrad clergy and their operations as invalid per Pius XII’s VAS, but they also maintain “friendships” with those in that sect and even continue to promote the writings of those who frequent or have frequented it. After a second warning, a heretic avoid is the general rule. Yet despite solid evidence readily available for review that these pseudo-clerics and lay leaders have led others astray and have been guilty of errors in their thinking and writing, these “friendships” are not abandoned. Instead, the same attitude prevalent among the LibTrads is adopted — to label anyone of that sect a heretic is a gross violation of charity. This can only be described as cooperation in heresy and a perfect example of liberal charity in action. And this we have already addressed at length before.

Do videos, podcasts etc. effectively convey the faith?

One of the requirements most crucial to theological discussion (NOT debate) is the following: “Theologians must… be able to teach effectively and clearly” as Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton notes, and any credible journalist knows the value of clear and concise verbiage in explaining complicated issues to the public. Video and Internet commentary and debate, especially if lengthy (some run into several hours!) and punctuated with unrelated queries and minutiae, often interrupts the listener’s ability to absorb the essential elements of theology necessary to understand the true teachings of the Church. Few people have time to sort through such lengthy discourses, and yet this is what they are expected to do to learn the truth.

Such presentations have even been touted as “brilliant.” But discriminating readers who want the full story, as one reader pointed out, will demand more than such disjointed presentations of the faith. They will take the time to read written works examining the various errors of the day condemned by the popes and councils and will ponder them, for this is the way taught by the theologians to truly arrive at a better understanding of the truth. Confusion is to be avoided at all costs.

Until the advent of television in the 1950s, faith was either received by hearing or in written form — study meant reviewing written notes from lectures or taking copious notes from textbooks to process or memorize.  Pope Pius XII heartily approved of the modern means to transmit the faith (movies, television, radio) in his Miranda Prorsus, but only when free from any hint of doctrinal or moral error.  And certainly he was not aware at that time of the actual mesmerizing effects of television, something that would only later be discovered. Over time, television also was linked to anti-social behavior among young people and a lowering of their IQ scores, and this is no surprise. For it is by our use of language that we communicate our thoughts to others by talking, reading, and writing, not just talking alone.

Television, videos and CDs  provide no such exchange. They are a one-way form of communication with no question-and-answer period or the ability to challenge or evaluate content. If not carefully monitored for subject matter, it is more akin to a propaganda tool than an educational vehicle. So if these mediums are employed to promote the faith it must be sparingly, and only in a judicious manner, since these means have never been properly vetted or evaluated by the Church.

One of the reasons CD, podcast and video “Catholicism” is so popular is something I will call fad Catholicism.  Written presentation is “old hat” because it requires the application of the intellect and the understanding.  Videos and podcasts are the way to go, the “in” way to get your daily dose of “truth” from a popular personality appearing on a well-traveled social media platform. It tends to the adoption of a modern-day outlook on things, the development of personality cults and the fan club mentality. It measures truth by “likes,” a nod to the opinions of the mob.

These communication methods may be used productively to summarize truths of faith and direct people to source material where everything appears in written form, confirming those truths. But the complexity of the situation in the Church today is not suited to glib video or audio presentations. Explanations of the various errors and the truths they contradict must be read, understood, studied and studied again. Notes must be taken, if one is serious about understanding it. Questions must be asked and answered by those knowledgeable about the subject, and I have answered my fair share of these. None of this can be effectively accomplished with podcasts and videos, which only produces and further encourages the practice of intellectual laziness.

Are Catholics allowed to debate non-Catholics?

We are obligated by Canon 1325 §1 and §2 to profess our faith and defend it publicly whenever silence, subterfuge or our manner of acting would indicate our acceptance of such errors; that is all. But Can. 1325 §3 must also be carefully considered: “Catholic shall not enter into any disputes or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without the permission of the Holy See, or in urgent cases, of the local ordinary” (Revs. Woywod-Smith commentary). Revs. T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis comment on this canon:

“This prohibition applies only to matters of faith and to public discussions viva voce; printed debates or conferences are subject only to the rules regarding books.” Dom Charles Augustine states in his commentary on this same canon: “The Sacred Congregation has often expressly forbidden [such debates] on the ground that they do more harm than good, since false eloquence may cause error seemingly to triumph over truth… When such disputations are expressly permitted, care should be taken that only capable and prudent speakers be employed to defend the Catholic side.”

No individual can be a judge in their own case of whether they are capable or prudent. Nor can anyone but the Holy See or the bishop act as judges in such cases. Some have argued that the prohibition of Can. 1385 forbids anyone to publish without ecclesiastical approval, but this is an impossible law to obey in these times since there is no hierarchy to grant such permission. Therefore the law ceases to bind. The higher law prevails, and that law is to defend the faith re Can. 1325 §1 and §2.

There is also the  obligation to aid our neighbor in extreme spiritual necessity, obey the longstanding papal command to supply for the absence of the hierarchy by engaging in Catholic Action and the catechetical apostolate and the duty to avoid the heresy of quietism, which teaches: “…the desire to do anything actively is offensive to God and hence one must abandon oneself entirely to God and thereafter remain as a lifeless body” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912). All this can be fulfilled by producing written refutations of error, which is less dangerous by far than debates.

And something else should be considered here — those watching and promoting such debates are guilty of cooperating in the sin of the one conducting them, since the Church forbids  it. Here we see the value of obedience, not attachment to our own will and the desire to engage in worldly novelties.  This is the reason for not presenting our own suppositions and opinions, to obey the teachings of the Continual Magisterium and those theologians approved by the Church and not follow those who have never been approved by the Church to instruct or debate. In this way those approved by the pre-1959 Church are still teaching us, even if we place these teachings in context regarding our current situation. Videos, CD’s and podcasts cannot successfully convey these teachings in their entirety. Readers should not confuse what I only RELAY on this site with my status as a writer or presenter. As Catholics we are obligated to defend the faith publicly — it is not an option.

Putting a price on the faith

So although I greatly appreciate and depend upon the generosity of my donors to meet maintenance costs for my site, I have not stressed the need for readers to donate or made appeals for monetary contributions. I do what I do because God requires an accounting from me. Making an actual business of defending the faith is tantamount to the moneylenders selling their goods in the Temple. Christ did not put a monetary value on what He taught, although he did say that the laborer is worthy of his hire. Therefore, while it is commendable to help support the maintenance of websites that teach the truth it is a voluntary thing. The Church has never demanded that one tithe any given amount under pain of sin.

But on the other hand Catholics should be very conscious of who they are donating their money to and where it might be going. Many people will take the comments or advice of those who they are promoting as great orators or defenders of the faith without really looking into their background and it’s essential that such a thing be done. In many cases these self-proclaimed experts sport degrees or credentials from non-Catholic (including LibTrad) sources, and these should be considered as a detriment, not a recommendation (see the article here). There are those who now promote praying at home who have inexplicably bounced around in their thinking processes and their stated beliefs to such an extent that one could justifiably question the reasoning behind their many inconsistencies. This is especially true if they advertise themselves as well-educated and well-connected.

Case in point: David Bawden once chastised me for neglecting my daily duties to my family by writing to defend the faith instead of devoting time to these duties. This even thought I was writing with my husband’s express permission and my children were nearly grown. Also, I had worked full time or part time since 1987 (retiring in 2020) in addition to my household duties and writing efforts. I felt this was quite presumptuous of Bawden, particularly since he had seldom been gainfully employed and was at the time demanding that we support him (as “pope”). I later found other instances among those claiming to defend the faith full time without a steady income of any kind, relying mainly on their supporters to fund their defense of the faith.

This certainly is not Catholic since our daily duties must always come first. And as stated above, our efforts should not be considered as optional or a service provided to others that should be compensated, but our bounden duty as Catholics commanded to profess their faith when not doing so would constitute a denial of that faith.

Spotting written or spoken red flags

Most of us have been mistaken and fallen into error at different times in matters of faith. But those who then go on to try and defend the faith after publicly renouncing their errors and making reparation for the damage they have caused (whenever possible) must then hold themselves to a certain standard, especially on the public forum that is the Internet. Recent examples of renewed efforts to attract members of the Novus Ordo sect and LibTrads to pray at home are sadly lacking in a complete grasp of the true status of Traditionalist pseudo-clergy, despite their claims to the contrary.  Prudence demands we vet these individuals carefully, especially when we detect the following:

1. Doesn’t use proper Catholic terms
2. Inconsistency in statements related to truths of faith
3. Promotion of works produced by non-Catholics
4. Cooperation or the appearance of cooperation with non-Catholics
5. Skirts issues regarding the validity of Traditionalist orders
6. Does not openly condemn Traditionalism including sedevacantism as heresy (when as one reader has aptly pointed out, Traditionalism is worse by far than the Novus Ordo sect)
7. Vague references that are not fully explained (ambiguity) or sufficiently cross-referenced
8. Failure to practice what they preachSelf-promotion, name dropping
9. Repeated appeals for financial support, especially when voluntarily unemployed
10. Failure to:

• follow scholastic form, as they are bound by the Church to do
• properly attribute sources and faithfully cite the works of others
• make the necessary theological connections
• address, correct and renounce errors when corrected (incorrigibility, pertinacity)
• renounce previous false teachings publicly and retract any errors
• advise readers of his/her non-approved Church status by insisting on adherence to the teachings of the popes, Councils, Canon Law and approved theologians.
• Refer readers to the original sources, not their commentaries or thoughts on these sources.

Conclusion

If efforts be made to attract those trapped in non-Catholic sects to the practice of praying at home are to be successful, there must first be a meeting of the minds among those promoting the practice of the faith at home regarding the dogmas on which our faith is based. I have long advocated for this united effort but I have been consistently shunned, falsely charged with teaching error, and my attempts to correct others who likewise advise Catholics to pray at home but who hold false doctrines have been ignored. What I have insisted upon is that the Church’s clear teachings regarding heresy and jurisdiction be properly understood and obeyed if one is to truly sever ties with Traditionalists and other non-Catholic sects and keep the faith at home. The Church teaches only one truth. In accord with the scholastic method, I have repeatedly offered numerous proofs from papal and conciliar documents, also Canon Law, to demonstrate what the Church teaches.

Similar proofs, however, have not been produced by those claiming to lead others to the conclusion they must practice their faith at home. Nor have they bothered, as they are obligated to do, to refute any of these proofs by producing credible evidence they are in error, even though this is required by Canon Law.  Time is a precious commodity and our time on earth is short. Christ could return at any moment, asking why we have not prayed and watched. Praying and watching does not include wasting our time “watching” hare-brained videos. Watching means setting a guard over oneself to avoid the snares of the enemy as outlined above, not credulously lapping up the visually regurgitated meanderings of those fascinated with Novus Ordo deviancy. Those considering praying at home deserve the truth; they deserve a united dogmatic front which the Church has always maintained to support them in making such a life-changing decision. They do not deserve to be led down yet another rabbit hole or diverted from verifying what is said for themselves, only later to discover they were misled and misinformed.

What all should seek is the highest possible degree of unity we can obtain among those praying at home without a visible Roman Pontiff and hierarchy. As Henry Edward Cardinal Manning wrote: “Truth goes before unity. Where truth is divided, unity cannot be. Unity before truth is deception. Unity without truth is indifference or unbelief. Truth before unity is the law and principle and safeguard of unity” (The True Story of the Vatican Council, 1877). Do those accommodating the works of others and sidestepping issues of heresy and sacramental invalidity show any respect for the truth? Are they ”consistent Catholics?” You decide.

WHO CARES about what’s happening in pagan Rome — soon it will burn

by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 13, 2023 | New Blog

+St. Edward the Confessor, King+

I cannot believe how even those bloggers who should be more sensitive to the dangers of flogging (long-dead) horses keep chronicling the adventures of Francis. They get all excited and go on and on, exclaiming: “See what he did now…  Can you believe it?” And “What does it mean for x, y, and z?” These are questions that have very obvious answers. After all, what else can you expect from a false pope who was bent on deceiving as many as he can? This is just so much sensationalism. It’s gossip, it’s drama and all they’re doing is managing to give Francis more oxygen. What is really disturbing, however, is the attitude that prevails — the idea that somehow all this is actually worthy of any consideration.

We should have much better things to do with our time which is growing shorter by the minute, for those of us among the senior crowd especially, but also for everyone in general. If this war in Israel is truly what it appears to be as I speculated in the Spiritual Teotwawki article, we could soon see events leading to the Second Coming. Of course this could be a short-lived war in Israel as some of the skirmishes over there have proven to be in the past. Or it could escalate into what is described in Apoc. 16 and 19. Whether it does or not all depends on the realization that the following events have already occurred:

• The great apostasy of the hierarchy, and those among the laity remaining in the Vatican 2 church following the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae;
• the usurpation of the Holy See first by the false prophet, John 23, who makes it possible for Antichrist to reign;
• then the usurpation by Antichrist proper, Paul 6, who officially causes the Continual Sacrifice to cease and completes the destruction begun by the false prophet.
• Antichrist’s system continues — the beast dies and lives again with a repeating cycle of false prophets and false popes.
• And yet given Paul 6 playing the role of Judas during the reign of Pius XII and the cessation of the Sacrifice, only hecould truly be the Man of Sin.
• We live now in the time described by Saint Thomas Aquinas following Antichrist’s death.
• As explained HERE, this is a time comparable to the 70-year Babylonian Captivity — but these times will be shortened.

Secure your wedding garments

Pope Pius XII died 65 years ago this month. Could our captivity be perhaps five years or less, since Christ promised these times would be shortened less no flesh be saved (Matt. 24:22)? We may find this out shortly. Christ tells us in Apoc. Chapters 3: 3 and 16:15 that he comes as a thief, but it appears the full import of this verse has not been appreciated. A thief takes the occupants of the household entirely by surprise; the residents have no idea they have been targeted as victims of thieving or robbery. Given the deteriorating condition of the world both culturally and economically, and especially the decline of law and order, the residents of the household should have been more vigilant and taken precautions. After all they were told to pray and watch but as the foolish virgins in Matthew 25: 1-12, they failed to provide oil for their lamps. That oil symbolizes wisdom — the understanding Christ expects from His faithful followers on reading Holy Scripture. But what is it that they have not understood and why will they be surprised by the thief?

Who will be ready if what we are looking at plays out as presented above? Not Protestants, who are waiting for the rapture, and/or the Temple to be rebuilt and animal sacrifices to be restored. Some of them believe Antichrist has already come and gone; others don’t even believe in him. Still others continue to style him as the papacy, and the Church as the “Scarlet Whore of Rome,” (although one Internet article notes that this the papal Antichrist teaching was largely abandoned following Vatican 2 and the abrogation of the Latin Mass). Novus Ordo sect members think they still have a pope and a continual sacrifice, so they aren’t actively expecting him. Not LibTrads, who may admit we live in the end times, but don’t believe Antichrist has come, since he will end the Continual Sacrifice and they still lay claim to valid clergy and the Latin Mass. They also believe a true pope could still be elected, despite Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and the death of all those bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII.  To all of these, Christ will come as a thief, because they have not loved the truth.

Of course many Protestants also believe that after the restoration of this Jewish sacrifice, the attempt of Antichrist to halt this Old Testament ceremony fulfills Daniel’s prophecy. And they predicate all the rest of the fulfillment of “Revelations” (the Apocalypse) on this belief. This is only the sad result of their stubborn refusal to recognize Christ’s true Church on earth and the offering of the Continual Sacrifice, for the Jewish sacrifice was never continual. Some Catholic commentators in the past did admit the possibility that Rome would be destroyed and at that time the new Jerusalem, a kind of forerunner of the new Jerusalem spoken of in the Apocalypse would be established — a restored papacy headquartered in Jerusalem. But we know today what they didn’t know: We know that we can’t expect to have another Pope because the means to do so (validly consecrated cardinals and bishops who have not abandoned the faith) no longer exist.

These authors writing about the restoration of the Church in Jerusalem also believed the prophecy regarding the conversion of the Jews would be fulfilled during such a restored papacy. But they failed to realize that there really are very few pure racial Jews left, as both Catholic and secular authors would later agree, as a result of the Jews migration to other nations and intermarriage with non-Jews. Today’s Jews are Rabinnic Jews by religion only, and do not even base their beliefs primarily on the Torah. Their man-generated literature is testimony to this. These older commentators also couldn’t foresee there would be a ruling by Pope Pius XII that would forbid belief in a literal millennium, actual or spiritual. This pretty much knocks out the idea of any kind of restoration of the papacy and the Church, in Jerusalem or elsewhere. Only Christ could miraculously restore the Church, but what have we done to merit this?

Apocalypse Chapter 16 — could it be here?

Now if we look at Chapter 16 of the Apocalypse, we see the sixth Angel pouring out his vial upon the great river Euphrates so that the waters would be dried up (verse 12). The Euphrates borders lands promised to Israel by Abraham. Rev H. B. Kramer writes: “The sixth trumpet turns loose the angels bound in the Euphrates to begin the massacre of one third of mankind” (The Book of Destiny). And some believe these angels are fallen angels, because they are “bound.” This happens so that the river might be prepared for the armies of the “kings from the rising of the sun” to march through it.  But the kings of the rising sun couldn’t be Japan which has the rising sun as its symbol, because that country is too small to wage war and was pretty much put out of the war business after World War II. So the only other place this could describe is China, and possibly India. Verse 13 speaks of evil spirits coming out from the mouths of the dragon, beast and false prophet — the anti-Trinity — “three unclean spirits like frogs. And these are the spirits of devils working signs (verse 14). And “they go forth unto the kings of the whole earth to gather them to battle against the great day of the almighty God.”

Well we certainly know that the secret societies, having now taken over the Vatican, fomented both the world wars, also other internecine wars, for centuries. They are the masters of chaos because their master reigns overs the chaos of Hell. Then we see the verse spoken of earlier: “Behold I come as a thief. Blessed be he that watcheth and keepeth his garments lest he walk naked and they see his shame. God shall gather them together into a place called Armageddon and then the seventh Angel pours out his vial and a great voice comes out of the temple from the throne saying ‘It is done.’” And it goes on to say how there will be “lightnings and voices and thunders and a great earthquakesuch as one as never has been since men were upon the earth such an earthquake so great.” Some, however, (Rev. Heidt, others) do not believe that this earthquake will be literal, but rather that it speaks of the great magnitude of the collapse of Antichrist’s system worldwide. And this certainly could be the case.

Verse 19: “And the great city was divided into three parts and the cities of the Gentiles fell. And great Babylon came in remembrance before God to give her the cup of the wine of the indignation of his wrath,” and great Babylon is Rome. “Rome, the great Babylon, is also destroyed and the cities of the Gentiles are laid waste. These cities are probably the capitals of those nations that submit to the domination of the neo-pagan empire of Rome and thus become parts of the empire of Antichrist. (Verses 20, 21): The severity of divine judgments against all unfaithful nations is graphically portrayed by the symbolic expressions of these verses. The destruction of the ancient Roman empire is described in almost identical language” (Rev. E. S. Berry, The Apocalypse of St. John). Get ready, America.And Rome, your days are numbered; the handwriting is already on the wall, as the prophet Daniel prophesied regarding King Baltasar: “MANE, THECEL, PHARES… this is the interpretation of the word. MANE: God hath numbered thy kingdom, and hath finished it. THECEL: thou art weighed in the balance, and art found wanting. PHARES: thy kingdom is divided…” (Daniel 5: 25-28).

The coming of the King and the end of Babylon

Apoc. 16 concludes: “And every island fled away and the mountains were not heard, and great hail like a talent came down from heaven upon men and men blasphemed God for the plague of the hail because it was exceeding great.” After the fall of Babylon is described at length in Apocalypse, Chap. 18, St. John then foretells the coming of the King (of Zion), Christ Himself, clothed in garments stained with the blood of the martyrs and mounted on a white horse: “I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war with him that sat upon the horse and upon and with his army. And the beast was taken and with him the false prophet who brought signs before him wherewith he seduced them who received the character of the beast and who adored his image. These two were cast alive into the pool of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were slain by the sword of him who sitteth upon the horse which proceedeth out of his mouth and all the birds were filled with their flesh” (Ch.19: 13, 19-20).

Some question the fact these two men shall be cast alive into the pool of fire, since John 23 and Paul 6 are already dead. But who is to say Christ will not raise them from the dead to be cast into hell — the first of the damned, being the most reprobate of all — in anticipation of the Final Judgement? For at the Final Judgment which is then imminent, both those destined for Heaven and deserving Hell will be resurrected and judged. Kramer says that because they have already been cast into the pool of fire they will not be resurrected for the General Judgment. Or it may be that the successors of Antichrist in Rome are meant here, since these men all form one diabolical system.

The character or mark (etymologically meaning a sign or impression) of the beast according to Rev. Arminjon and others is to be a hellish sort of baptism that denies the Trinity, which the Novus Ordo sect has accomplished in changing the form and intention of baptism to Holy Spirit from Holy Ghost, (see here). Nor is there mention in the ceremony of the bestowal of sanctifying grace or the removal of original sin. Instead the child or adult is “initiated into the community” and is “empowered to sanctify creation.” The same could be said of invalid Novus Ordo ordination, where the fingers of the priest and the heads of the bishops are anointed with oil, and those anointed in confirmation are confirmed as soldiers of the Antichrist and his hellish system. All this because Paul 6 changed the form of ALL the Sacraments instituted by Our Lord.

If Enoch and Elias are meant to appear physically, (and some commentators believe they have already come and gone in various individuals), it will be now. It will take awhile for this war to play out. Past world wars have lasted about four years if we count just America’s involvement, not Europe’s. The Two Witnesses will teach for three and a half years if they do arrive, so this would fit that time frame. Francis is now openly spouting his heresies, not cleverly veiling them in ambiguous terms as did his predecessors. This final manifestation of Antichrist “…will observe no restraint, will show his hand and act openly” (Rev. Charles Arminjon, End of the Present World and Mysteries of the Future Life), representing the heighth of iniquity.  But Francis may soon be a thing of the past if reports about his health and his recent physical appearance is any indication. So who will be the next antichrist? Do we even want to know?

Pray and watch

What we must watch now is the progression of this new war. Yes, Christ told us there would be wars and rumors of wars (Matt. 24: 6). But the book of Apocalypse above also tells us there will be a final battle. This war could drag out for awhile, or it could culminate very quickly in a major confrontation  involving Russia, China, No. Korea, No. Vietnam, other southeast Asian countries, India and of course America and her allied forces in Europe. Gog and Magog (Apoc. Ch. 20: 7) represent the sum total of this battle, for they are first mentioned in Ezechiel Ch. 39 as arriving “in the latter days.” Commentators generally agree that these two forces symbolize the nations of the entire world, something that has become possible only in our own time.

In Apoc. 9:16 the size of Antichrist’s army is estimated at 20,000 times 10,000, or as Rev. Leo Haydock comments on this verse”…200 millions. Such an immense multitude cannot be accounted for but by supposing a great part of it to consist of the infernal beings in human form as it is doubtful whether there be that number of men capable of bearing arms upon the whole globe of the earth.” In Haydock’s 19^th century this surely did seem impossible but not in our own, especially given the populations of China and India alone. This is yet another sign that should the Israeli war appear to be headed for Armageddon, this definitely indicates that only in this time period could such a battle take place. For these forces are all comprised of those aligned with the monetary system of Antichrist, to which the church in Rome, along with the U.S., has been tied to for at least 65 years. So when great Babylon falls, so falls the world’s economic system, as Apocalypse Ch. 19 foretells, and Rev. Berry explains above.

That the Novus Ordo church was created as the tool of American efforts by the CIA to spread democracy and ecumenism across the globe is explained in The Phantom Church in Rome and by the author David Wemhoff in his workon John Courtenay Murray, also in several other works. But this war will not make sense to those who have no understanding of these facts, and no idea that Antichrist has come and gone, leaving his system to reign in his stead. Could the scenario described above be yet in the future? Of course; none of us knows or can know for certain what God has planned for us. Yet many of those who do not believe this is the time of Antichrist know that the cabal that controls the world’s monetary system must be broken in order for those enslaved by its yoke to survive, monetarily and physically.

But doesn’t Ch. 17-18 of Apocalypse describe the fall of Great Babylon and the collapse of this system? And do not the chapters preceding it and the Book of Daniel, also Matthew Chap. 24, also 2 Thess. 2 of St. Paul prophesy regarding the coming of Antichrist BEFORE this system collapses? Christ could scarcely come to destroy Antichrist and his rule over the nations, taking down Babylon with him, if that evil one did not precede the creation of that system. Because the operation of error rules, truth has been cast down to the ground. As we have pointed out before, Catholics exiting the Vatican 2 church after the abrogation of the Latin Mass left because of its cessation; yet they didn’t read the Scriptures or the works of the saints and Fathers! That cessation could happen only following the reign of Antichrist. Even the private revelations so many relied upon to inform them about what was happening to the Church told them that much.

Jesus commands us to understand our times

Most likely it was fear of ridicule or at least the prospect of being discredited in the eyes of their contemporaries — of taking the RADICAL, versus the more commonly accepted stance — that kept them from fully realizing the implications of all that had taken place. In his The Mystery of Iniquity, (1945) Rev. Paul Furfey wrote: “At times it is disconcerting to reflect that Christ expects us to do what He did… We can call ourselves Christians, followers of Christ only to the extent that we dare to imitate Him… There must be no guilty silences; we must tell the whole truth. By telling the whole truth we shall make it clear that our fundamental doctrine is as different as possible from materialistic teachings… It will attract ridicule, ostracism and finally persecution but it is our plain duty.” LibTrads, however, as explained in an earlier blog, have interrupted the thinking processes of their followers and have deflected them from performing this duty in order to solidify and more firmly entrench their own position, false teachers that they are. The arrival and identification of Antichrist publicly is an unpleasant and inconvenient truth. But it is more than that — it is a truth that must be fully appreciated in order to save our souls, to survive spiritually in times of outright persecution. “For he that endures unto the end shall be saved” (Mark 13:13).

It is our Lord Himself who has commanded us to learn these things in His discourse on the end times: “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” (Matt 24: 15). And again he tells us through St. John in Apoc: 13: 18: “Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the number of him is six hundred sixty-six.” Yes, the discourses on how we are to interpret this number and what it will really mean are few and they do not all agree, because they could not see what we see today. But if we COUNT that number, as the verse tells us to do, it is clear that it applies in many different ways to Giovanni Baptiste Montini, Paul 6, the fulfillment of the Mystery of Iniquity. How do we know this? “Let [us] count the ways…” as in the old Browning sonnet. The commentators, even St. Robert Bellarmine, said only those living in these times would fully know and understand.

Evil times and false prophets

We also know what kind of man he will be, and how he will appear as an invalidly elected pope, which Pope Paul IV taught us infallilbly in his bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, where he defined such a usurper as the abomination of desolation. This we discussed in our last blog. Furthermore, we know we live in these times because Christ tells us that they will be times of “…great tribulation such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be” (Matthew 24:21). And the same thing is prophesied in Daniel 12:1: “But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great Prince who stands for the children of thy people and a time shall come such as never was from the time that nations began, even until that time.” In Luke 21:18 Christ predicts that during these times: “…a hair of your head shall not perish.” Some believe this means that these persecutions will be mostly spiritual although of course some will be martyred towards the very end.

“For many shall come in my name… and they will seduce many” (Matt. 24:5). “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you beforehand” (Matt. 24: 24-25). And St. Timothy tells us: “In the last days shall come dangerous times… Evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse, erring and driving into error” (2 Tim. 3: 1,13). And yet no one has believed our Lord or his Apostles, and thus have fallen victim to these seducers. Rev. Leo Haydock writes on thee verses: “Would Christians attend to the injunctions of their divine Master… we would not see the miserable confusion occasioned in the Catholic Church by unsteady Christians who are guilty of schism, forsaking the one, true fold and one true shepherd, to follow their blind and unauthorized leaders.” Even if Catholics identified the abomination of desolation warned about in Daniel and by Christ in Matt. 24 only with the cessation of the Continual Sacrifice, they should have been on guard regarding the dangers of following these blind guides. But we know this was not the case, and that the operation of error spoken of by St. Paul has prevailed.

Time is running out

God has pleaded with His people in Zach. 1: 2-6; Jer. 51: 45, Joel 2: 12-14; 2 Cor. 6: 14-18 and Apoc. 18:4, to repent and convert; it is never too late but I am afraid we are running out of time. Some commentators believe that after the destruction of Antichrist and with him a large portion of the human race, a brief time will be given for those who are left to repent — among them the Jews — prior to the Second Coming. But God has already given Catholics the opportunity to repent and they have refused it. In the early days of the Church, those guilty of crimes were deprived of the Sacraments, Holy Mass and Church membership indefinitely for certain grave offenses, until Church authorities decided they had performed sufficient penance for their sins. As we have noted before, we have been designated, as was our Lord, to be the scapegoats in these times, to be punished for our own sins, yes, but also to be punished for the sins of the wicked generation that began slowly departing from Catholic belief before we were ever born.

Those who have accepted this punishment and heeded God’s warnings have tried to expiate for the sins of the rest. The laborers in the vineyard who labored even a short time were paid the same as those who had worked all day, so latecomers need not despair. What is written here is an attempt to point those seeking the truth to the places where they may find them — the popes, the councils, the Fathers and doctors, Canon Law and approved theologians. This in an effort to accomplish what is written here: “And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. And he was returning, sitting in this chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him” (Acts 8: 27-31).

Sit with us and ponder these things; pray unceasingly and do not slumber, but watch for the Bridegroom, keeping oil at the ready for your lamps. Do not risk being thrown into the outer darkness. For “Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? Prudent, and he shall know these things? For the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall in them” (Hosea 14:9). Let us all be as those spoken of in Daniel 12: 3: “But they that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: and they that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity.”