Is the Abomination of Desolation the same thing as Antichrist?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 24, 2021 | New Blog

+Our Lady of Ransom+

Some have objected that the term abomination of desolation does not necessarily refer to Antichrist and therefore the use of this phrase by Pope Paul IV in his bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is not a true interpretation of this Scripture phrase. In the next few blogs that will be posted here, the importance of understanding the meaning of these distinctions will be demonstrated. Catholics cannot be ignorant of the truths so necessary to understanding the current world situation today and its relation to their faith. As we draw closer to the culmination of the events that surely must be precipitating either the end proper or some worldwide disaster, no one can afford to any longer believe the fairy tales that some earthly force will deliver us; we alone are the captains of our own souls. Below please find the answer to this important question according to Catholic sources.

St. Jerome

The best source of information on this topic is St. Jerome, who according to the Catholic Encyclopedia “was very careful as to the sources of his information… The Biblical knowledge of St. Jerome makes him rank first among ancient exegetes.” St. Jerome wrote as follows on the abomination: “It is possible to apply this text easily to either the Antichrist, to the statue of Caesar which Pilate placed in the Temple or even to the equestrian statue of Hadrian, which down to this present day stands on the very site of the holy of holies. In the Old Testament, however, the term abomination is applied deliberately to idols. To identify it further, ‘of desolation,’ is added to indicate that the idol was placed in a desolate or ruined temple. The abomination of desolation can be taken to mean as well every perverted doctrine. When we see such a thing stand in the holy place, that is in the Church and pretend it is God, we must flee…,” (Breviary Lesson for the 24^th and Last Sunday after Pentecost).

The value and the amazing utility of this phrase, as explained by St. Jerome, is that it expresses several meanings, all of which correspond to the behavior and person of Antichrist and fit the actions of Paul 6 to a “T.” Other commentators concur with St. Jerome. Commenting on the term abomination of desolation in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Francis Gigot writes: “While most commentators regard the first ‘shíqqû,’ usually rendered by ‘abomination,’ as designating anything (statue, altar, etc.) that pertains to idolatrous worship, others take it to be a contemptuous designation of a heathen god or idol. Again, while most commentators render the second ‘shômem’ by the abstract word ‘desolation,’ others treat it as a concrete form referring to a person, ‘a ravager,’ or even as a participial known meaning ‘that maketh desolate.’

“After studying the picture of Antichrist in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians, one easily recognizes the ‘man of sin’ in Daniel 7:8, 11, 20, 21, where the Prophet describes the ‘little horn.’ A type of Antichrist is found in Daniel 8:8 sqq., 23, sqq., 11:21-45, in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes. Many commentators have found more or less clear allusions to Antichrist in the coming of false Christs and false prophets (Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:6, 22; Luke 21:8), in the ‘abomination of desolation,’ and in the one that ‘shall come in his own name’ (John 5:43; Catholic Encyclopedia, A.J. Maas). Both these articles make it clear that the abomination has been identified with Antichrist, and who else has ravaged the Church, propagated heresy and made Her desolate if not Paul 6 and the V2 usurpers?

St. Bernard

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Antichrist we read that: “Antichrist simulates Christ, and the Pope is an image of Christ, [so] Antichrist must have some similarity to the Pope, if the latter be the true Vicar of Christ.” This was certainly expressed in the writings of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, and this allusion to a false pope as the abomination and Antichrist pre-dated Pope Paul IV. St. Bernard, a Doctor of the Church, was the champion of Pope Innocent II. Innocent later recovered the papacy from antipope Anacletus, who for several years occupied the papal see in Rome.  We find in St. Bernard’s letters the following:

“Whether we like it or not, the words of the Holy Ghost must sooner or later have their fulfillment and the revolt predicted by the Apostle (2 Thess. 2:3) must come to pass. ‘Nevertheless, woe to that man by whom it cometh; it were better for him if that man had not been born,’ (Matt. 18:7; 26:24). Who is this antipope but the ‘man of sin’ (2 Thess. 2:3)… That beast of the Apocalypse, to whom has been given a mouth speaking blasphemy and power to wage war against the saints (Apoc. 13:5-7) “He has seated himself in the Chair of Peter…The holy place…he covets, not for its holiness, but for its height. He has, I say, got possession of the holy place [but]…not through the merit of his life. The election whereof he boasts is buta cloak for his malice. To call it an election at all is an impudent lie…”

In another letter he writes: “Behold, Innocent, the Christ, the anointed of the Lord, is ‘set for the fall and resurrection of many’ (Luke 2:34). For they that are of God willingly adhere to him, while opposed to him stand Antichrist and his followers. We have seen the ‘abomination of desolation standing in the holy place,’ (Matt. 24: 15), to obtain which the antipope ‘burned with fire the sanctuary of God’ (Psalm 73: 7). He persecutes Innocent and hence all innocence…”   (The Life and Teaching of St. Bernard, Ailbe J. Luddy, O. Cist., 1927). Clearly St. Bernard identifies the Holy Place with the See of Peter, nothing else. In this he simply follows St. Jerome. Why would Paul IV deviate from these two great doctors?

The Council of Florence

The following was taken from the Council of Florence, held in Florence, Italy from 1438-1447, a little over 100 years before the reign of Pope Paul IV. The Council was a continuation of the Council of Ferrara, and that council in turn was a continuation of the Council of Basel, in Switzerland. It was convoked in 1431 by Pope Martin V and in 1440 condemned the reign of Antipope Felix V (Duke Amadeus of Savoy). Clearly the idea of an antipope or false pope as the incarnation of Antichrist was not limited to the letters of St. Bernard, as evidenced by excerpts from the council below.

“With the approval and help of this sacred ecumenical council, avenge with condign penalties this new frenzy which has become inflamed to your injury and that of the holy Roman church, your spouse, and to the notorious scandal of the whole Christian people. By the authority of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul and by your own authority, remove and separate from God’s holy church, by a perpetual anathema, the aforesaid wicked perpetrators of this prodigious crime and their unfortunate heresiarch and veritable antichrist in God’s churchtogether with all their supporters, adherents and followers and especially his execrable electors or rather profaners.

“For our part, as soon as we were aware from the reports of trustworthy people that so great an impiety had been committed, we were afflicted with grief and sadness, as was to be expected, both for the great scandal to the church and for the ruin of the souls of its perpetrators, especially Amadeus that antichrist whom we used to embrace in the depths of charity and whose prayers and wishes we always strove to meet in so far as we could in God.Already for some time we had it in mind to provide salutary remedies, in accordance with our pastoral office, against an abomination of this sort.

“That within fifty days immediately following the publication of this letter, the antichrist Amadeus should cease from acting anymore and designating himself as the Roman pontiff and should not, in so far as he can, allow himself to be held and called such by others, and should not dare hereafter in any way to use papal insignia and other things belonging in any way to the Roman pontiff; And that the aforesaid electors, or rather profaners, and adherents, receivers and supporters should no longer, either in person or through others, directly or indirectly or under any pretext, aid, believe in, adhere to or support the said Amadeus in this crime of schism…”

Pope Leo XIII

Then we have the prayers written by Pope Leo XIII, reportedly following a frightening vison of demonic activity throughout the world; this happened sometime before 1886.  On September 25, 1888, Pope Leo XIII approved a prayer to St. Michael the Archangel with a 300 days indulgence that was at some point included in The Raccolta. The passage from this prayer pertinent to what is being discussed here reads: “In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”

Two years later, Pope Leo XIII approved a new, longer prayer, “Exorcism against Satan and Apostate Angels,” including the 1888 prayer, which served as a sort of preamble to a series of exorcism prayers. These prayers were later appended to the Roman Ritual. This prayer eventually disappeared from the Raccolta and some Traditionalists claim it referred not to any infiltration of the Holy See, but to political events occurring at the time. It was removed, they said, because the pope was in negotiations with certain political powers and hoped to resolve the matter. While this could be true, no sources are cited to verify it. Nor can it be denied that it could just as easily have referred to a danger to the pope and his retinue, with Mariano Rampolla then Pope Leo XIII’s secretary of state. Why else include this prayer in an exorcism, of all things, if this was not a serious matter? A pope would not allow some transient political events to influence the content of a sacramental rite.

Pope Paul IV merely confirmed the idea of a false pope as Antichrist and Antichrist as the abomination, following St. Jerome and St. Bernard. Pope Leo XIII utilized the same language to describe what was happening to the Church during his pontificate. We cannot dispute the outcome; what they described is precisely what we have witnessed.

Paul IV’s usage of the abomination of desolation

“Whereas We consider such a matter to be so grave and fraught with peril that the Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and. kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by no one in this world — (even he) may be corrected if he is apprehended straying from the Faith. Also, it behooves us to give fuller and more diligent thought where the peril is greatest, lest false prophets (or even others possessing secular jurisdiction) wretchedly ensnare simple souls and drag down with themselves to perdition and the ruin of damnation the countless peoples entrusted to their care and government in matters spiritual or temporal; and lest it befall Us to see in the HOLY PLACE the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, We wish, as much as possible with God’s help, in line with our pastoral duty, to trap the foxes that are busily ravaging the Lord’s vineyard and to drive the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be silent watchdogs, unable to bark, or lest We come to an evil end like the evil husbandmen or be likened to a hireling.”

Given the content and recurring condemnations of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV’s intent in issuing this bull is unmistakable. We see above that no less than St. Jerome interprets “the holy place” as the Church itself. And St. Jerome is the ultimate authority on scriptural interpretation. As for the abomination of desolation, the Catholic Encyclopedia has confirmed that commentators understand it as referring to Antichrist, although as St. Jerome also says it can mean “every perverted doctrine,” as well as idol worship. This would include:

“Bread idols, bread of lying, bread of wickedness, wheat bringing forth thorns, profitless wheat, vine without grapes, wine of iniquity, bitter wine, the wine of the condemned, the two iniquities [bread and wine], a strange god, idols without life, an idol moving the God of the Eucharist to jealousy, altars unto sin, a sin graven on the horns of the altar, sin of the sanctuary, unacceptable holocaust, a conspiracy, vain sacrifices, throne of iniquity, sin of the desolation (Dan. 8:13), falsehood personified, a lying vision, the abomination of desolation, (Dan. 11:31)” (Fr. Kenelm Vaughn’s Divine Armoury)” So both the person and the idol worshipped is included in the same phrase used by Daniel as biblical usage elsewhere demonstrates.

Paul IV is concerned with the persons perpetrating the crime. The reason for this is clear — he realizes that souls will be dragged down into hell if these people are not recognized as imposters and removed from office. He clearly sees that the best way to prevent perversion of the faithful is to remove the wolves from the sheepfold before they can devour the sheep. There can be no idol worship ever set up if there is no one to institute it. It is obvious that he believes the abomination to be heresy, and only a heretic could introduce idol worship. Pope Paul IV is careful to explain that a pope could never become a heretic but could only appear to become one owing to commission of it prior to election, invalidating the election.

The exception would be that a pope [erring in his private capacity] could be corrected, as the pope says above, (but not removed unless he refused to accept correction). But one who publicly spoke or otherwise disseminated heresy is a different matter. Paul IV distinguishes as follows: “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, even as mentioned, a Legate; 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.”

So here we see that one appearing to be a Roman Pontiff who was a heretic before his elevation or had strayed from the faith in some way is considered never to have obtained the office. If we now consider the abomination of desolation as the pope uses it, we can observe the following. 1) This is a definition of that term, since the Protestants at that time were contending a validly elected pope could become a heretic, i. e., Antichrist. It is not conceivable that Paul IV was not aware of this or did not have it in mind when writing the bull. In the preamble to his bull, the Pope states he intends to drive away “those who [are] corrupting the sense of the Holy Scriptures with cunning inventions.”2) It is a definition because prior to that time the holy place had been designated by some commentators to mean the Temple in Jerusalem and by others the Church.

The abomination had also been primarily interpreted as a false sacrifice or idol worship, not heresy per se. 3) Certain commentators limited application of the abomination to the time of the Jewish antichrist Antiochus, not extending it to the time of Antichrist as prophesied in the New Testament. Pope Paul IV definitely extended it to our own time. A papal definition is rendered, according to Msgr. J. C. Fenton and Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, when some matter that has been in dispute is addressed by the pope; that matter is then no longer up for discussion. We must remember how the doctrines regarding the Holy Mass and the papacy both were being attacked by Luther and other Protestants during Pope Paul IV’s reign. The pope had good reason to believe that if a heretic of the Lutheran persuasion ever secretly ascended to the papacy, the Mass could be endangered. And as we see today, Paul IV had good reason to fear that just such a thing could happen.

When in doubt, consult Can. 18

In a case of doubt, for those questioning Pope Paul IV’s intention regarding his mention of the abomination of desolation, Canon 18 requires that Catholics first resort to parallel passages of the Code, if any; to the end and circumstances of the law and to the mind of the legislator. Here it is most important to consult the end and circumstances of the law. Therefore, it is necessary to delve into the history behind the bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which we have done before but which will be useful to repeat here.  Pope Paul IV suspected Cardinal Giovanni Morone of heresy, something to do with the misinterpretation of Scripture and his sympathies with the Lutherans. Morone also reportedly had been holding meetings behind the pope’s back to promote himself as Paul IV’s successor even prior to the pope’s death.

This prompted Paul IV to write Cum ex. Morone was tried for his heresy and imprisoned. But when Paul IV died, he was back in the running for the papacy. He ran full force, however, into Cardinal Ghislieri, the future Pope St. Pius V. The historian Hergenrother, in his “The History of the Popes” reports that Morone’s campaign as papabili was “quashed by the intervention of Cardinal Ghislieri, who pointedly remarked that Morone’s election would be invalid owing to the question mark hanging over his orthodoxy,” (emph. mine). And this is the opinion not only of a great Pope, but of a great saint.

We also have the following quote from Paul IV himself, provided by author Glenn Kittler: “If I discovered that my own father was a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him,” Paul IV said. During the trial of Cardinal Morone, Kittler says that Paul IV “decreed that any cardinal accused of heresy could not be elected pope,” (The Papal Princes, pg. 254). And there is to be no exception concerning those who deviated from the faith “secretly” before their election; that is, some heresy that was committed pre-election but became public only after the election. They too are automatically deposed. Here we have a perfect reflection of the mind of the lawgiver concerning an election, which today is worth its weight in gold.

In response to Morone’s attempt to promote himself as pope, Paul IV also penned the apostolic constitution Cum secundum Apostolum sometime in 1559. The constitution decreed extreme penalties against those who discuss the election of the future pope, behind the back and without permission of his predecessor while he is still alive, a crime now visited by Pius XII with the highest possible excommunication on the books: a latae sententiae penalty reserved in a most special manner to the Holy See. (This bull is listed in the footnotes to Pope Pius XII’s 1945 constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.) This means that only the pope can dispense from such a censure.

As explained in a previous blog, Pope Paul IV was a very strict disciplinarian. He gave no quarter where heresy or the honor of the Church was concerned. Pope Paul III appointed him to head the Roman Inquisition after Paul IV himself suggested it be convened. His whole career seems to have been devoted to stamping out heresy at all costs, and given the terrible toll exacted by the Protestant Reformation, who can wonder that this would be so? His legacy on this topic is enshrined in Canon Law, with Cum ex… cited as a footnote in several canons, nearly all involving heresy. The articles below in the Archives section of the site chronicle this.

1. Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio: Infallible & Retained in the Code (PDF)
2. How “Cum Ex…” Is Retained In the Code (PDF)
3. “Cum Ex…” and Ecclesiastical Discipline
4. Doctrinal Conclusions Drawn From “Cum Ex…”

Finally, there is this regarding the interpretation of the law from Rev. Amleto Cicognani’s Canon Law:

1. Clear words admit no interpretation nor conjecture of the will.
2. General words are to be generallyunderstood, (“excommunicated”).
3. Where the law does not distinguish, neither are we to distinguish.
4. An indefinite expression is equivalent to one that is universal.
5. The words of law also should be considered in their context, (“except,” “any just reason”).
6. Any argument made should not be made outside the heading of the statute, (i.e., it should remain within the bounds of the subject being discussed under the heading of each section insofar as is possible. The heading for the statutes derived from Pope Paul IV’s bull involves censures and excommunication for heresy.)
7. Where the words are not ambiguous, they need no interpretation.

(For more on this topic visit https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/canon-law/who-interprets-the-law/)

Nothing in Pope Paul IV’s law is unclear or ambiguous; ergo, it needs no interpretation. As proofs go, Canon Law tells us it is absolute and no other proof against it is admissible. We have no reason whatsoever to believe Pope Paul IV would not follow the teaching of St. Jerome and St. Bernard, also the Council of Florence and other councils, in his bull. The abomination of desolation is any high-ranking heretic who purports to hold an ecclesiastic (or even secular) office and publicly teaches heresy. This includes the pope. We know he is speaking, however, of the pope in this passage because he refers to him standing in the Holy Place, that is the See of Peter, as St. Bernard teaches. And this can be gleaned from the circumstances of his law regarding Cardinal Morone.

Conclusion

Many of the controversies concerning the times in which we live can be answered by asking the following question: Who is prophesied to take away the Continual Sacrifice? Daniel tells us it is the Antichrist of our day. Will anyone deny that the Sacrifice has indeed been taken away by John 23 and Paul 6? It would be difficult to find even a Traditionalist who would deny this. But as is so tellingly the case with all these Traditionalists and Novus Ordo types, they fail to complete the logical consequences of what they believe and follow them to the very end. Only Antichrist could have abolished the Sacrifice. It is the unanimous opinion of theologians, as stated by Henry Cardinal Manning, that the Sacrifice will indeed cease:

“The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” And the Council of Trent has determined that when the Fathers unanimously agree on a point of Holy Scripture, as explained above, they cannot be mistaken.

We find in St. Paul that Antichrist will be dispatched as follows: “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, (2 Thess. 2: 8).” In other words, as Rev. Haydock explains, it will be an easy thing to take out the Son of Perdition. It is no coincidence, then, that Montini died on the day that he did. According to the reports of the Swiss guards, as related by John Parrot in the 1990s, he was tormented days before his death, and cries of despair were heard coming from his room; his face reportedly became so contorted no one could bear to look at him. His agony was ended on the feast of the Transfiguration. Holy Scripture describes the appearance of Christ during the Transfiguration as follows: “His face did shine as the sun, and His garments were white as snow” (Matt. 17: 2). This fact is examined at length by Francis Panakal in his work, The Man of Sin. It is something at least to ponder, for often the dramatic fulfillments we seek today can be explained in less obvious ways. We need only think of the Apostles, who missed so many of the meanings of Christ’s parables. Yet regarding the abomination of desolation Christ advises, “Let him who reads understand.”

We have no pope, but Christ’s Church will last forever

by T. Stanfill Benns | May 11, 2025 | New Blog

+Third Sunday after Easter+

Happy Mother’s Day, Blessed Mother, and a blessed day to all Catholic mothers everywhere!

The seventh king of Rome, a Francis fan, has taken the name of Leo XIV. As a reader astutely observed last week, “Prevost took the name of Leo on the great feast of St. Michael, aping the Catholic Church’s Leo XIII and his great devotion to the Archangel Michael.” The name he chose suggests he intends to focus on social issues and since assuming his role as usurper, he singles out the regulation of AI as one of his primary goals. Committed to the Vatican 2 changes, he seems anxious to implement a larger “tent” for those identifying as Catholic, and this could possibly include Latin Mass devotees. But given his predecessor’s stand on Traditionalism, this seems unlikely. Time will tell. It will be an empty gesture anyway, if and when it does occur.

With the invalid election of Angelo Roncalli, the Church entered into the age of Antichrist, the end of the age of the Church that culminates in the consummation. As St. John of Damascus wrote in his An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV : “ It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to come. Every one, therefore, who confesses not that the Son of God came in the flesh and is perfect God and became perfect man, after being God, is Antichrist (1 John 2:22). But in a peculiar and special sense he who comes at the consummation of the age is called Antichrist.” And many other Fathers and Doctors of the Church have taught the same. As we have explained at length in previous blogs, the mantle of preserving the Church has fallen to those who recognize the signs of the times and keep the faith at home.

Leo 14 may reign from Rome as king of the Vatican 2 sect, but we continue to march to the fulfillment of prophesy outlined in the Apocalypse. A review of why this is the case seems appropriate and is presented below.

Christ’s promises to be with us till the end of time

The promises Christ made to His Church — that it would last until the end of time — have not been made void by the reign of the usurpers. But we must understand the word Church as the Church Herself understands it. Initially the one and only Vatican Council, held from 1869-1870, was scheduled to supply a definition of the Church, for as Henry Cardinal Manning explains, “In all theological treatises, it had been usual to treat of the Body of the Church before treating of its Head… But the Church in council when, for the first time it began to treat of its own constitution and authority, changed the method; and like the Divine Architect of the Church began in the historical order with the foundation and Head of the Church… The doctrine of the Church does not determine the doctrine of the primacy but the doctrine of the primacy does precisely determine the doctrine of the Church. In beginning therefore with the head, the council has followed our Lord’s example both in teaching and in fact.” (The Vatican Council Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, 1875).

The council ended early owing to threats of war in Italy, so while a preliminary draft of the Church’s definition had been drawn up, it was never voted on by the Council Fathers and therefore cannot be counted as the official teaching of the Church. This preliminary draft stated:

“Christ’s Church… the only Society of salvation, will last until the end of the world, ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution…It evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circumstances in which it is constantly displaying activity. Nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore Christ’s Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, its governing body, so that through His visible Body Christ may always be the way, the truth and the life for all men.” (The Church Teaches, The Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary’s, Kansas, 1955). This unofficial draft version of the constitution on the Church, however, must be rightly reconciled with the infallible dogmatic constitutions which comprise the Vatican Council decrees. In the Council’s dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ, we read, regarding the constitution and foundation of the Church:

“As [Christ] sent the apostles whom He had selected from the world for Himself, as He, Himself had been sent by the Father, so in His Church He WISHED the pastors and the doctors to be even to the “consummation of the world” (Matt. 28: 20)… And since the gates of hell to overthrow the Church, if this were possible, arise from all sides with ever greater hatred against its divinely established foundation, we judge it to be necessary for the protection, safety and increase of the Catholic flock to set forth the doctrine on the institution in perpetuity and nature of the sacred Apostolic primacy in which the strength and solidarity of the whole Church consist, to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the universal Church…” Later Pope Leo XIII would also teach:

 “…Christ the Lord WISHED that by the strength and solidity of the foundation the gates of hell SHOULD BE PREVENTED from prevailing against the Church. All are agreed that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not of any certain portions of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them.” (Satis cognitum, 1896). And from Henry Cardinal Manning’s translation of the Vatican Council documents found in the appendix to his work The Vatican Council Definitions: “If then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter SHOULD have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema” (DZ 1821).

Free will and heresy

“Wished” and “should” certainly are not the equivalent of  “promised,” “will” and “would.” Man’s free will enters in here and it is men, evil bishops and cardinals, who betrayed Christ by electing Angelo Roncalli, an unworthy candidate on several counts as the first usurper in a long line of papal pretenders. God never deprives man of free will, and they freely conspired to betray the faithful just as Judas betrayed Our Lord. By so doing they became heretics incapable of electing anyone — for heresy means “to choose.” LibTrad pseudo-clergy accuse those praying at home of denying the Church can never fail because they maintain valid and licit bishops no longer exist and canonical election of a true pope is now impossible. But we have never said the Church has failed or no longer exists.

They, on the other hand, by operating without a canonically elected pope at their head, themselves deny that the Church will last as Christ constituted it. They also deny that the Mass has ceased and Antichrist has already come and gone, although his system remains. This they assert by their actions, pretending that invalidly consecrated bishops, without Peter’s canonically elected successor as head bishop, is the Church Christ founded on earth. To believe that Trad pseudo-clergy are valid is to deny the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, an infallible papal constitution, and this results in exclusion from the Church, the Mystical Body.

There must be allowance made for that dreadful time when Antichrist will finally come, wielding power “to make war with the saints and overcome them” (Apoc. 13:7). Antichrist is identified as the abomination of desolation, for not only does he usurp the Holy See — as anticipated by Pope Paul IV in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — but as prophesied in the book of Daniel and unanimously taught by the early Fathers, he will cause the Continual Sacrifice to cease. The Vatican Council and the Council of Trent both teach that this is a truth of faith all Catholics are bound to believe. It is not the Mass that Catholics should have rushed to save, but apostolicity of doctrine. For as Henry Cardinal Manning states above, “the doctrine of the primacy does precisely determine the doctrine of the Church.”

The Four Gospels, Francis Patrick Kenrick, Archbishop of Philadelphia, 1849

“The perpetuity of the commission [to teach all nations] without any interruption is most fully expressed. The AUTHORITY  to teach and baptize with all the functions consequent thereon remains forever. The Apostolic ministry continues to the end of the Christian dispensation which is to last till time shall merge in eternity.”

Christ’s Church, Msgr. G. Van Noort, 1959

“’I am with you at all times as long as the world will last.’ The phrase “as long as the world will last “is a clear reference to the end of the world (Matt. 13: 40; 24:3). And so until that day comes, Christ will be at the side of the apostles as they teach, sanctify and rule. He will be at the side not only of the apostles personally for they were soon to die but at the side of those who will take up the work of the apostles throughout the centuries and will thus form with them one moral person… Therefore the VISIBLE CHURCH will last forever and in an incorrupt state. It will go on forever safeguarding the doctrine of Christ, administering His sacraments and instructing all peoples in His precepts.”

Commentary on the New Testament, Rev. Leo Haydock, 1859

“Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world, embraces two points necessary for the Church; viz. integrity of doctrine, and sanctity of life; for, if either of these should be wanting to the Church, it might then be justly said, that she had been left and abandoned by Christ, her Spouse. (Estius) — Jesus Christ will make good his promise: 1. by always dwelling in the hearts of the faithful; 2. by His sacramental presence in the Holy Eucharist; 3. by his providential care, and constant protection to his holy Catholic Church. These last six lines of St. Matthew’s gospel, says the bright luminary of France, Bossuet, most clearly demonstrate the infallibility and indefectibility of the one, holy, Catholic Church, which all are commanded to hear and obey.”

Catholic Scripture Manuals, Book of Matthew (commentary, Madame Cecilia, 1906)

(Commenting on Matt. 28-20): “Until the end of the world there must exist an authorized teaching body to carry on the work of the apostles… Unity of doctrine must therefore be a mark of the true Church. The doctrines taught by the successors of the apostles must be the same as those which the apostles themselves taught; hence the true faith must be Apostolic.”

A priesthood chosen by Pope Pius XII

Christ has always been the Head of the Mystical Body and we are the visible members of that body.  As we read in the New Testament: “…You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people God has purchased.” (I Peter 2:9.) “He has …made us a royal race of priests, to serve God, his Father.” (Apoc. 1:5-6.) “…they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” (Apoc. 20:6.) St. Augustine comments on the above as follows: “Now this is not meant only of those whom the Church specifically calls bishops and priests, but as we are all called Christians because of our mystical chrism, our unction, so are we all priests in being the members of one priest.” (I St. Peter 2:9, City of God, Book 20, Chapter 10.)

We are visible members of the Mystical Body, the Church. Pope Pius XII infallibly designated the Church on earth as Christ’s Mystical Body in His encyclical Mystici Corpus Christi, teaching that: “The cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice… the practical observance of the same laws” and their obedience to Christ’s vicar on earth. Pope Pius XII continues:

“Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth… That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.”  It was Pope Pius XII who provided the infallible definition of the Church as Christ’s Mystical Body in Mystici Corporis. In this encyclical he taught that bishops do not receive their jurisdiction directly from Christ, but only through the Roman Pontiff. Christ is now our only Head, and He keeps forever in existence the papacy and the Deposit of Faith, preserved and interpreted by His Vicars. In later works,  Pope Pius XII extended jurisdiction to the laity in general, shortly before his death.

“The Apostolic See does not simply tolerate your action, it enjoins you to exercise the apostolate, to devote your efforts to fulfilling the Christian’s great missionary duty, that all the lost sheep may be assembled in one fold and under one shepherd…This initiative of the lay apostolate is perfectly justified even without a prior explicit ‘mission’ from the hierarchy… Personal initiative plays a great role in protecting the faith and Catholic life, especially in countries where contacts with the hierarchy are difficult or practically impossible. In such circumstances, THE CHRISTIANS UPON WHOM THIS TASK FALLS MUST, WITH GOD’S GRACE, ASSUME ALL THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES. It is clear however that, even so, nothing can be undertaken against the explicit or implicit will of the Church or contrary in any way to the rules of faith or morals, or to ecclesiastical discipline” (The Mission of the Catholic Woman, 1957; entered into the AAS and therefore binding on Catholics. See more HERE).

So we have been given an actual canonical mission by Pope Pius XII, declaring us successors of the hierarchy in their absence. This provided we obey all the laws of the Church and adhere to ALL Her teachings. Pope Pius XII had previously outlined this mission in the following address: “The faithful and more precisely the laity are stationed in the front ranks of the life of the Church and through them the Church is the living principle of human society. Consequently they must have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church; that is being the community of the faithful on earth under the guidance of their common leader the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. THEY ARE THE CHURCH and therefore, even from the beginning, the faithful, with the consent of their bishops, have united in associations directed to the most diverse types of human activity. And the Holy See has never ceased to approve and praise them” (Feb. 20, 1946 address to the newly made cardinals).

The true and only test of faith is NOT the continuation of the Mass and Sacraments, which cannot exist without valid bishops approved by the Roman Pontiff. The true test of faith is adherence to all Christ did and taught. He founded all on St. Peter and his successors, the core of the Church’s unity, and predicted that once the shepherd is struck, the flock will scatter. The lack of unity we witness today is the fulfillment of that prophesy.

Summary

We may no longer have the visible elements of the Church — the papacy, the hierarchy, Mass and all but two of the Sacraments. But they have not ceased to exist, either. They will always exist in Heaven because Christ instituted them — we simply no longer have access to them. We do have their spiritual substitutes — Spiritual Communion and the Perfect Act of Contrition. Baptism, the most necessary sacrament, is still available to us. And as long as we have repented of our sins, made amends and asked God to lift any excommunications we may have incurred by participating in Novus Ordo or Traditional services, we can count ourselves as visible members of Christ’s Mystical Body, at least by desire. The meaning of the term Mystical Body is explained below.

“First [Christ’s Mystical Body] will be an empirical, concrete, visible, tangible thing… for it is a human institution, a human society. And it is a society quite visibly and tangibly. Its sociology and Canon Law can be written down, it has its clearly defined members and its definite seat. Secondly the Church will be an invisible reality; a life of thought, love and grace that is infused into souls… THE EXPRESSION ‘MYSTICAL BODY’ DESIGNATES THE MYSTERIOUS AND INTERIOR ELEMENT OF THE CHURCH… it does not designate the external [juridical] aspect of body except so far as it is the outward manifestation of the interior soul which consists in such a mystery… It is a union… primarily internal and supernatural. It is the supernatural union of the sanctified soul with Christ and with all other sanctified souls in Christ… The bonds that unite Christians to Christ and to one another are organic, physical, sacramental, although supernatural and invisible…

“The communion of saints is an invisible society, a “Church” or “ecclesia” in the broad sense, a moral body. Its invisible, moral, or juridical head is the glorified or exalted Christ. Besides the many or multiple external visible elements, clergy and laity, hierarchical structure, sacraments, sacramentals, etc., the Church must possess an inner element which, intimately united to the visible elements, must be the formal cause of the unity and identity of the organism, formal cause, too, of its own peculiar life which is supernatural and divine… The invisible elements… form together with the visible elements, its body, one, undivided and indivisible whole, informed and vivified by the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost. This living, visible organism, of which the Holy Ghost is the soul in the real but mystical sense, is the Mystical Body of Christ, or the mystical Christ…” (end of Gruden/Mersch quotes).

In the absence of the hierarchy, we are all that is left of the Church, and Pope Pius XII has commanded us to carry on Her existence on earth. Christ will be with us until the very end, whether that be the end of our life on this planet or the Second Coming. He has promised to never leave us orphans, and is ever true to His promises.

Anticipating the “Conclave” for Rome’s 7th king

by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 29, 2025 | New Blog

+St. Catherine of Siena+

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

“Most loving Mother, consider the cruel warfare waged by the world the flesh and the devil against our souls and see how many are perishing in the strife… Deign to pray for us without ceasing to the Blessed Trinity that we may have the grace to be ever victorious over the devil.” (The Raccolta)

Introduction

In the blog HERE, we wrote the following on who might become the next Roman usurper once Francis met his Maker.  Readers may wish to review what we said, but the gist of it is repeated below.

It is likely Francis’ “successor” will make it appear that the Novus Ordo church is rejecting the changes and returning to its previous pre-Vatican 2 position, similar to what Pres. Trump says he is doing with this country. It will be a seduction so convincing, so diabolically clever that many LibTrads will “return” to this church, believing — as they have been falsely led to believe through private revelation and their pseudo-clergy — that this is the promised restoration of the true Church. Those who refuse to buy into it will be persecuted at some point. The Latin Mass of St. Pius V may appear to return, and all the sacramental rites could be “restored” to their previous forms. After all, isn’t it said that appearances are everything?

But the Mass, the Sacraments, the sacramentals — NONE OF THESE COULD EVER BE VALID AGAIN WITHOUT A CANONICALLY ELECTED POPE, impossible to obtain since the death of Pope Pius XII.  So it will cost the usurpers nothing to appear to make such concessions. This is the only way the enemies of the Church can make it appear the Mass and a falsified “return to Tradition” could cease when political antichrist comes. This cessation will convince the world he is the true antichrist, not Paul 6, for the worldly do not take the spiritual nature of Scripture into account. Political antichrist, long anticipated by the Protestants,  will then be seen as the one who abolishes the mass and destroys Rome, when it was long ago destroyed dogmatically and spiritually. And this will be the greatest and final deception. In fact, preparation for this event has been underway for some time now.

For the past two years, articles have been circulating on the internet that the Novus Ordo is already preparing for such a shift. A January 2025 report claims the return is prompted by “a perceived dilution of doctrine,” noting that new NO clergy are suddenly more orthodox and desire a return to the Church’s ancient roots (see HERE). In another essay on why “the Latin Mass is returning” (March 2023 article HERE), one can find two-years-worth of articles covering how one is to make this shift, why, dress at mass, conduct, history, etc., a rather remarkable effort to facilitate such a “return.” An April 2024 Associated Press article HERE announces “an immense shift” toward the old ways.

Kingly candidates 

So it certainly seems that a brainwashing-style build-up has taken place already to justify such a reintroduction of the “old ways,” even though this may result in a loss of progressives. As always, the focus is on the liturgy, not the papacy. As long as the ritual trappings are properly replicated and the appearances of what once was are in place, (if a “conservative” is elected as the next usurper), LibTrads will be properly mollified and will happily go on about their simulated existence. While it cannot be stated with any certainty that the next imposter elected will take the “old school” route, several conservative “cardinals” are in the running and a few of them are mentioned below.

Raymond Burke, 76, United States — A well-known conservative, Burke has criticized Francis repeatedly for his stance on divorce and remarriage. Appointed “cardinal” by Benedict 16,  he is popular among the recognize and resist faction.

Peter Erdo, 72, Hungary —This man has criticized Francis for his teaching on divorce and immigration. He comes from Josef Cardinal Mindszenty’s Hungary, always a more conservative-minded country.

Robert Sarah, 79, Guinea — Some call Sarah a “conservatives’ fantasy candidate,” an all-out champion of doctrinal and liturgical issues and an outspoken Francis critic. Media speculators note that the election of a black pope would make it more difficult for liberals to object to such a “return to Tradition.”

Of course the false election could also produce a moderate or yet another progressive such as Francis just as easily. If this occurs, especially in the case of a progressive, then it is likely that a split might take place. This given the trending “return to Tradition” and the adamant opponents of Francis, who have been agitating against his policies for the past decade. What all believe to be the Catholic Church could then appear to sport two or even three “popes,” (sedevacantists might join in), creating a chaotic situation that would serve the enemy just as well. Watch for dramatic twists and turns, as portrayed in the offensive movie-doc Conclave, since such productions also “prepare” audiences for unexpected outcomes contrary to Catholic doctrine and practice. A terrorist attack could occur, but more likely this event will be saved for later in the game, when Rome is physically destroyed.

Mass deception

We have gone into great detail HERE to explain why the Mass cannot be considered valid outside the guardianship and protection of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff. In Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII taught: “The entire liturgy has the Catholic Faith for its content…it bears public witness to the faith of the Church. For this reason whenever there was a question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils, in their recourse to ‘theological sources,’ as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the Liturgy…The rule for prayer determines the rule for belief.’ [However] the Sacred Liturgy does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic Faith… If one desires to differentiate and described the relationship between faith and the Sacred Liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say… ‘let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer…

“The Sacred Liturgy does include Divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men… The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification… No private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body, and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.’”  Here we see that Pope Pius XII deliberately reversed the “Lex orandi, lex credendi” touted by the liturgists to prove a point: Catholic doctrine stands outside and above the liturgy. The changing of “for many” to “for all” certainly was invalid, for those usurpers reigning after Pope Pius XII’s death were mere men, having been ipso facto excommunicated, disqualified for any office and invalidly elected according to the Sacred Canons.

The inexcusable and criminal refusal to abide by Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and declare the “election” of Angelo Roncalli invalid as well as all subsequent “elections” was deliberate and pre-arranged. It was carefully orchestrated under the guise of the liturgical renewal movement as explained in previous blogs. It was the culmination of centuries of planning by secret societies to overthrow Catholic monarchies and finally the papacy. It was the Reformers who first discovered the perfect distraction — abolish the authority of the papacy, then introduce the slogan “It is the Mass that matters.” In other words, reduce the faith to its liturgical expression. That slogan was the hue and cry of what became the Anglican Church once Henry VIII became its head. Those who failed to study papal encyclicals and Catholic history were then doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Pro-Tridentine Mass literature condemning the liturgical innovations flooded what passed for Traditional Catholic media from the mid-1960s on and continues to this day. Likewise the obsession with what goes on in the apostate halls of the Vatican, with the day-to-day rundown of new blasphemies and sacrileges introduced by the usurpers, accompanied by mock horror and a wringing of hands. We expect evil to be any less terrifying?? And the controversy continues over “teachings” of the false Vatican 2 council as well, with trusted “experts” pointing out and debating its various errors and heresies. What has worked for the enemy in the secular press works just as well in what is passed off as the Catholic press. Keep those trying to figure things out embroiled in controversy, constantly arguing with each other, battling over scandalous “clergy,” perpetually splitting off into dissident sects. That way no one will ever know that the answer all along was very simple, if very sad; one that would resolve all questions and end all divisions. The great deception must continue, to serve and fund the deceivers.

The truth that sets us free

Following only the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, we can breathe a sigh of relief and escape the cacophony created by “the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil.” When we once accept the infallible truth that no man who is a heretic (or suspected heretic) pre-election could ever become pope (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV), that no true pope could ever speak heresy on matters of faith, morals or discipline, (The Vatican Council, 1869-70), and that no one may usurp papal jurisdiction or change Canon Law in any way during an interregnum, then we have our answers.

1. Angelo Roncalli was a suspected heretic pre-election and a confirmed heretic post-election; he never became pope. None of his acts were valid or could ever become valid.
2. The 1958 college of cardinals was disqualified from ever electing another pope (Can. 2391§1).
3. Ergo:

• Vatican 2 never happened
• All following “popes” were usurpers
• No one ordained contrary to Canon Law or consecrated outside papal jurisdiction without the papal mandate ever became members of the clergy.
• We are forbidden to consider them validly ordained and consecrated under pain of excommunication (denying the authority of the Roman Pontiff to so declare them and assisting them in their crimes.)
• We cannot and must not attend their sacrilegious services.
• We must never allow ourselves to be contaminated with the false propaganda spread by those who, failing to consider the truths above, consistently attempt to draw us into debates and media hype; refuse to accept papal teaching; destroy our peace, obfuscate the facts and attempt to divide us or doubt our position.

We have stepped outside of the infernal Satanic circle surrounding the pentagram and they hate us for it. We have refused to join hands with them in their evil enterprises. We have aligned ourselves with Christ and His vicars alone, St. Peter to Pope Pius XII, and we will not be moved. We have fled to the desert of prayer and sacrifice, penance for our sins and any good works we can perform. We are not lonely or alone here, for Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, our Guardian Angels, are ever at our side. We await the coming of Our Lord, the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Christ has risen, but the Passion of the Church continues

That early father of the Church, St. Cyprian wrote: “Most of the bishops… set over the Lord’s churches throughout the world, hold to the method of evangelical truth and of the Lord’s tradition, and depart not by any human and novel institution, from that which Christ our master both taught and did…The Will of God is what Christ has done and taught,”(Faith of Catholics, Vol. 1, Msgr. Capel, editor). Likewise the Asiatic bishops, commenting on the approbation of the canonical books of Scripture, stated that: “As, on this principle of what Christ had done and taught, the writings of which we are speaking were admitted as sacred and divine…” (Ibid). So what aspects of Christ’s Passion and death on the Cross have the faithful today been asked to mirror, to “…fill up what is wanting to the Passion of Christ”?

On Palm Sunday, Christ wept over Jerusalem, prior to casting the money changers from the Temple (Luke 19:41). This just after His disciples declared him a king. Today we weep over the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place, the See of Rome desecrated in large part by the world’s money changers who became intimately involved in Vatican finances, thanks to Montini (Paul 6). This following an era where the dogma of Christ reigning as King had been widely proclaimed. And what Jesus predicted of Jerusalem in Luke Ch. 19 is a harbinger of what also will happen to Rome for this transgression:

“If thou also hadst known, and that in this thy day, the things that are to thy peace; but now they are hidden from thy eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, and thy enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and straiten thee on every side,  And beat thee flat to the ground, and thy children who are in thee: and they shall not leave in thee a stone upon a stone: because thou hast not known the time of thy visitation” (Luke 19: 42-44). For the destruction of Rome likewise is foretold in Apoc. 18, v. 2, 21: “And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird:  Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies… And a mighty angel took up a stone, as it were a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying: With such violence as this shall Babylon, that great city, be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.”

Christ was betrayed by Judas, holder of the common purse and nephew of Caiphas, just as Montini betrayed Pope Pius XII by introducing his friend Michele Sindona into the management of the Church’s funds. This allowed the Sicilian Mafiosa Sindona to eventually use the Church’s monies from charitable donations for money laundering purposes. Francis Cardinal Spellman and the Knights of Malta (SMOM) were reportedly involved in this affair. This mingling of the sacred with the profane began when Montini was appointed Bishop of Milan, after losing his position as Pope Pius XII’s pro-secretary and forfeiting Pope Pius XII’s endorsement as cardinal. Later Sindona played a major role in the Church’s finances under Montini as “pope,” beginning in the spring of 1969. In exiting the Novus Ordo following the introduction of the “new mass” that same year, the faithful were, in a sense, casting the money changers from the Temple. The Sindona/P2 scandal would not erupt, however, until the 1970s, after Sindona’s manipulation of finances left the Church nearly bankrupt.

The betrayal of the faithful by their own pastors began with the Modernist clergy electing Angelo Roncalli, just as the apostles fled from the scene at the beginning of the Passion. And as the most recent blog on the infiltration of Traditionalist ranks in Mexico and the U.S. explained earlier this month, Masonic forces were working to set up the Traditionalist movement even before Roncalli’s election. Christ was betrayed by them just as we have been betrayed. Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin and those running the Novus Ordo and other non-Catholic organizations have tried us in the court of public opinion, branding us as “radical Traditionalists.” The same charges have been laid against us as were laid against Our Lord: we are uneducated, insane, liars, and cult members, this for championing the never-changing Catholic truths we hold and present.

We follow all the popes, Christ’s own appointed vicars, and everything they taught, as the expression of God’s will. Christ frequently acknowledged He who sent Him, God the Father, announcing: “I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me” (John 6: 38). This was the same Father whom the Jews professed to reverence and obey, the God of Israel. But in reality, the Jews answered only to the Sanhedrin, God being left out of the equation. They did their own will, not God’s. They had long ago murdered their own prophets. They willfully ignored all the prophecies pointing to Jesus as the Messiah, for they wanted an earthly king, and He did not suit their needs. Nor do we suit the needs of LibTrads who wish only to belong to a visible, earthly church, one of their own making, not God’s. We point out inconvenient truths and demand they obey the popes and Canon Law, something they have no intention of doing.

Conclusion

We are considered an embarrassment and are treated as fools and outcasts, just as Our Lord was treated. And so we march to Calvary willingly bearing our crosses, and one day, when persecution reaches its heighth, some of us, at least, expect to die there. The rest of us will die as white martyrs if, God willing, we can keep the faith in these pagan times. We accept the loss of the papacy and the Mass as God’s will, prophesied in Holy Scripture and taught by the popes, and offer it up as a penance for our many sins. The theologian John-Pierre de Caussade warns about advising others to follow certain forms of spirituality, maintaining that self-abandonment to God’s will, to the present moment alone is suitable for all souls wishing to find their proper spiritual state. He emphasizes that, “The great and firm foundation of the spiritual life is the offering of ourselves to God and being subject to His will in all things” (Abandonment to Divine Providence).

Pope Pius XII wrote in Mediator Dei: “The people must offer themselves as victims…This offering is not in fact confined merely to the liturgical Sacrifice. For the Prince of the Apostles wishes us, as Living Stones built upon Christ the cornerstone, to be able ‘as a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ,’” (I Peter 2: 5). And so we offer ourselves as victims of the Father’s will, who sent Christ to save us; and to the will of Our Lord, eternal victim and true head of His Church. We have no Mass but God will accept pir spiritual sacrifices. We may often call out, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” but we know the answer: only prayer and the sacrifice of our own will can move God’s heart to have mercy on such an evil generation. In the words of Rev. Caussade:

“Since the world began, its history is nothing but the account of the campaign waged by the powers of the world and the Princes of hell against the humble souls who love God… Monster follows monster and the abyss engulfs them and spews them forth again amidst the incessant clouds of smoke… All these monsters come into the world only to stimulate the courage of the children of God and when they have finished their training, God allows them to slay the monster. A new monster appears and God summons fresh warriors into the arena. Our life here is a spectacle which makes heaven rejoice, rears up saints and confounds hell. And so all that opposes the rule of God only succeeds in making it more worthy to be adored. All the enemies of justice become its slaves and God builds the heavenly Jerusalem with the fragments of Babylon the destroyed.”

The seventh king may come; Babylon the Great will eventually fall. But God has reserved a place in Heaven for those who love Him enough to suffer, fight and die for Him.

After Francis, who will be the 7th king to rule in Rome?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 25, 2025 | New Blog

+St. Gabriel Possenti+

Introduction

With Francis near death, many are wondering what will happen next. Readers have often asked about what to expect in the near future and how we can explain this from passages in St. John’s Apocalypse. I have no real answers, only opinions, but I do know what those approved commentators writing before Pope Pius XII’s death have written. Many have been confused about the following passages in the Apocalypse and how they apply to us today. Different commentators offer different solutions, but the ones provided by Rev. Kramer and Rev. Haydock below seem to offer the best explanation of what we are experiencing today, and what may lie ahead. We begin with an analysis of Antichrist’s system, which continues today in Rome with the reign of the usurpers.

Rev. H. Bernard Kramer, The Book of Destiny, p. 395-97

Apocalypse Chap. 17, Verse 10

In verse ten, St. John turns his attention from the beast to the heads; to the whole series of successive world-dynasties. He therefore changes his viewpoint from the future to the present. In explaining the significance of the heads this verse clears up the meaning of verse nine. The seven heads are seven anti-God empires. Five of them have passed away. One of the world-empires exists; this is Rome, the sixth head. The seventh empire has not yet come, and when it appears, it shall exist only a short time. That is the empire of Antichrist.

The beast existed in and through all the ancient world-empires and shall show fullest development and expression in the empire and person of Antichrist. His empire shall embody, promote and propagate much more extensively idolatry, Caesarism or state supremacy, immorality and devil-worship and persecution of God’s people than the ancient empires did. The beast existed unceasingly from the ascendancy of Egypt as a world-empire until the end of the pagan Roman dominion. Each empire grew up in the shadow of its predecessor and attacked, crushed and ended the world-dominion of that predecessor. But the beast has ceased to exist since pagan Rome fell and shall come back to life when Antichrist resurrects it by satanic power. Yet it exists potentially in the ten horns (Dan. VII. 24) into which the sixth, the Roman empire was dissolved. Some of the ten horns seen by Daniel may be existing in our times.

Apocalypse Chap. 17, Verse 11

In this verse St. John returns to the time in which the beast does not exist. This verse is complicated in English; in Greek it is clear. The clause, “the same is also the eighth”, refers to the person of Antichrist. The rest of the verse points to his empire. The English translation, “is itself the eighth” is misleading, because the pronoun “itself” modifies “beast”. In Greek “ “the beast”, is neuter gender, while the pronoun is masculine, showing that not the “beast” is the “eighth”, but Antichrist considered as a person apart from his empire is the EIGHTH. His power, which is of satanic origin, is personal and is the means by which he establishes the seventh empire. This power is independent of the empire, is not conferred by it, because it is from the throne of Satan. Therefore he is something above and distinct from his empire as a ruling power. This chapter treats of Antichrist only in relation to his empire. Chapter XIII treats directly of his person and indirectly of his empire. In Greek the clause clearly refers to Antichrist, while in some English translations it cannot be discerned unless it be translated, as some have it, “he himself is also the eighth”.

Antichrist himself, as a human being endowed with satanic might and authority, is the Beast and the EIGHTH something, because he is the culmination and personification, the head and most complete expression of all evil that shall ever exist on earth. He has thus another reason and mode of existence in being the embodiment of sin fully developed in a human being, as Christ was the embodiment of virtue and perfection. Thus the text does not say that he is the eighth head, but his empire is one of the seven heads. He is himself something distinct from those empires, pre-existed, as it were, in the great sin of emperor-worship throughout the whole series of empires, which altogether constituted the empire of Satan, and whereof his own shall be the highest development. Likewise his authority being of satanic origin and personal is something above and distinct from his empire and constitutes an EIGHTH or spiritual empire direct­ing all military and civil resources in his empire and that of Babylon. That the Beast is foredoomed to a speedy end and complete annihilation is repeated for a purpose. It shall come out of the abyss to fulfill its destiny and then be annihilated. The faithful need not fear the beast exceedingly. (End of Rev. Kramer quotes)

“But the beast has ceased to exist since pagan Rome fell and shall come back to life when Antichrist resurrects it by satanic power,” Kramer wrote above.  We daily have sites such as Novus Ordo Watch and a few others screaming that Francis is a heretic and Rome is pagan, when the Catholic Church taught at the 1869 Vatican Council that no TRUE pope could ever fall into heresy while teaching the faithful. Kramer only confirms what Henry Cardinal Manning noted in his sermons — that pagan Rome could exist once again only if Antichrist had appeared on the scene to resurrect it. And Card. Manning was convinced, even in the late 1800s, that the paganization of Rome had already begun. There is no attempt whatsoever by LibTrads to discover or explain how and why, from solid Catholic sources, the Church could be without a true pope for nearly 67 years, or what this really means for Catholics. No mention of Antichrist and only sneers if this topic is even broached. My, how pleased he must be! But we will continue to try and make sense of things despite our critics, even if our speculations prove to be somewhat off course. Because Christ told us to read the signs of the times, and to try and understand what we read. We do our best, then, to obey Him.

What follows is only the personal opinion of this author. But it could be a secondary or minor interpretation of the scriptural verses on the seven hills in an allusive sense, with the one given by Rev. Kramer being the primary meaning. For as we read from the Douay-Rheims commentary on Apoc. 22:10: “We have no certainty when we apply these predictions to particular events. For as St. Jerome takes notice, the Apocalypse has as many mysteries as words, or rather mysteries in every word” (https://www.drbo.org/chapter/73022.htm).

Another observation: the seven hills

If there are seven heads of the beast throughout history, this symbolism could continue into the beast’s actual governance, giving further clues as to where he will reign and who will be his minions. In the 12^th century, the popes granted the Italian Cardinals jurisdiction as Local Ordinaries over seven dioceses (“hills” or “mountains”) of Rome. Later in the 12^th century, two of the dioceses were combined (Santa Rufina with Porto) reducing this number to six. But a seventh “hill,” one of the suburbicarian dioceses, was added back in the 1980s, and this addition seems to be a definite sign. The “seven heads” spoken of in Apoc. 13:1 are the seven empires. But then we go to Apoc. 17: v. 9, which tells us that, “The seven heads are seven mountains and they are seven kings upon which the woman sitteth.” This could also refer to seven dioceses, not mountains, ruled by seven Novus Ordo kings — the “cardinals,” and later “bishops” appointed by the usurpers who were the “heads” of these dioceses.

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that one of the meanings of Antichrist could be “a king who reigns during an interregnum.” These Novus Ordo lackeys are not truly cardinals and bishops, but lesser “kings” under the universal king, Pontifex Maximus, Antichrist’s successor. (The Catholic Encyclopedia ranks cardinals alongside kings and emperors in dignity.) The first usurper-king in this series would have been Angelo Roncalli (John 23), identified as the false prophet in my 1990 work, Will the Catholic Church Survive… Rev. Kramer says of the false prophet: “This false prophet, possibly at the behest of Antichrist usurps the papal supremacy… His assumed spiritual authority and supremacy over the Church would make him resemble the Bishop of Rome… He would be Pontifex Maximus, a title of pagan emperors, having spiritual and temporal authority.” This king reigns over the “whore of Babylon,” the prostituted version of Christ’s Church, a false church presenting as the true Church of Christ.

In 1962, Roncalli transferred the cardinal’s jurisdiction over the six dioceses surrounding the Vatican to the residential bishops, suggesting further reform. These “bishops” were answerable directly to Roncalli. The “cardinals” then became titular bishops only, possessing no ordinary jurisdiction over these dioceses. Initially the six traditional dioceses were Albano (1), Frascati (Tusculum) (2), Palestrina (3), Sabina (4), Ostia (5), and Velletri, Porto and S. Rufina (6) (https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/suburbicarian-dioceses). Today the dioceses are reorganized and listed as Ostia 1), Velletri-Segni (2) Porto-Santa Rufina (3), Frascati (4), Palestrina (5), Albano (6) and Sabina-(Poggio Mirteto) (7). John Paul 2 joined Segni to Velletri and Sabina to Poggio Mirteto in 1986. “According to ancient Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh king of Rome, established a Roman colony at the town, then known as Signia” or Segni (Wikipedia, Segni).

It is hard to believe there is no significance to the addition of Segni and the reorganization of the dioceses to create seven versus the traditional six dioceses. Segni, joined to Velletri and Poggio Mirteto, joined to Sabina are two entirely new additions. For from the 1100s to 1910 and from 1915 on, the cardinals, not the residential bishops, were assigned certain dioceses. Adding Segni appears to have fulfilled the prophecy of Apoc. 17:9, tying this prophecy in Apocalypse directly to the newly organized pagan Rome of the usurpers. Therefore, this biblical description could never have applied previously because only the usurpers could have ridden the beast seated on the seven mountains described in Apoc.17:4.

The identity of the ruler of the seven kings and the lesser kings is laid out in Apoc. 17:11. The beast (Paul 6) was a cardinal by all appearances, created by Roncalli. Yet in reality he was not a cardinal, because Roncalli was never pope. Becoming the second of the seven kings, he also was the eighth king, a bogus pope heading the entire system as the Man of Sin — Satan’s vicar, as Kramer explains. The lesser kings are kings by each succeeding Pontifex Maximus, but the ultimate exercise of their power rests with the eighth king (Satan joined to Montini and his successors) who lends them power to direct their activities. As antipope, Roncalli was the first universal king, playing his role as False Prophet. The inevitable result was the advent of that great harlot, the Novus Ordo church, sprawled in serpentine fashion across the seven dioceses and ruled from across the Tiber River by the eighth head — the system of Antichrist. The creation of the seventh diocese may only have been a sort of territorial marking, a sign that all of the former sees united to Rome were now in enemy control.

The scarlet whore atop the beast is “Babylon, the great” (Apoc. 17:5), the early Christians’ code name for Rome. In the hand of the scarlet whore is a golden cup, “…full of the abominations and filthiness of her fornication” (Apoc. 17:4). This cup is reminiscent of a golden chalice. Rev. Leo Haydock calls this verse “…common scriptural expressions for the abominations of idolatry.” She is “drunk with the wine of her prostitution” (Apoc. 17:2),  and this is no coincidence considering the corruption of the consecration formula for the wine in the Holy Sacrifice, replacing “for many” with “for all.” The worship of bread and wine idols is frequently mentioned in Holy Scripture in connection with types of false Christs, (and these usurpers ARE false Christs): “wine of iniquity”(Ps. 4,17: “the wine of the condemned” (Amos 2,8); “the two iniquities (bread and wine)” (Osee 10, 10); “bread idols” (Jer. 7, 18); “the bread of deceit” (Prov. 23, 3); “idols without life” (Ps. 105, 28). This we find in Rev. Kenelm Vaughn’s Divine Armory of Holy Scripture, (pgs. 754-55).  Emperor-worship also is involved here, as Rev. Kramer notes. For these usurpers, so fond of their followers’ rapt attention, are not popes, but emperor-kings.

Who will be the seventh king?

Bergoglio is dying, and the new king in this line once he passes would be the seventh usurper reigning since Pope Pius XII’s death. Seven is a number that we find numerous times in the Apocalypse; among other things, it signifies completion. In Chap. 1, seven candlesticks represent the seven churches throughout the ages and their bishops are symbolized by seven stars or angels (Rev. Berry). This is mentioned again in the first verse of Chap. 2. Seven spirits of God and the seven stars are mentioned in the first verse of Chap. 3. Seven lamps and seven spirits of God in Chap. 4, verse 5; five mentions of seven in Chap. 5; 1 in chapter six, several in Chap. 8, and so on throughout the entire book. This number may not seem important to us mortals, but it means something to God. The seventh hill was created by Roncalli and could indicate that this has some special significance. It could be that these agents of Antichrist believed that the seventh king is the one who will deliver the kingdom into the hands of Satan, head of the one-world church of all religions.

We do not know his identity, but as stated in our last blog, it is likely he will make it appear that the Novus Ordo church is rejecting the changes and returning to its previous pre-Vatican 2 position, similar to what Pres. Trump is doing with this country. It will be a seduction so convincing, so diabolically clever that many LibTrads will “return” to this church, believing as they have been falsely led to believe, through private revelation and their pseudo-clergy, that this is the promised restoration of the true Church. Those who refuse to buy into it will be persecuted. The Latin Mass of St. Pius V may appear to return, and all the sacramental rites could be “restored” to their previous forms. What can it hurt? They can never be valid again without a canonically elected pope, so it will cost the usurpers nothing. This is the only way that it can appear, when political antichrist comes, that he is the true antichrist, not Paul 6. Political antichrist will then be seen as the one who abolishes the mass and destroys Rome, when it was long ago destroyed spiritually. And this will be the greatest and final deception.

As prophesied, the reign of this seventh king, if indeed he is the final usurper and this opinion holds, may well last for only 42 months, or three and a half years. But again, it could be longer, since that number may only symbolize an indefinite period as some commentators believe. Will Enoch and Elias physically appear during this time? Perhaps, if they have not already appeared in other manifestations as again, some commentators teach. All this of course is only speculation, and only time will tell whether or not it comes to pass. There will be twists, turns, contradictions and surprises. The subjects of this seventh king will be those Christ threatens to vomit from His mouth — the final, pitiful remnant of the last church of Apoc. Chap. 3, the Laodicea church. This is the seventh and final church before the end.

As Francis Panakal, author of The Man of Sin first observed, “In Pope Pius XI’s Summi Pontificatus, after describing his generation as one “’tormented … by spiritual emptiness and deep-felt interior poverty,” the pope applied to it this passage of the Apocalypse as follows: ‘Thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked’ (Apoc. 3:17). This particular passage is a description of the church of Laodicea which, in the opinion of Catholic interpreters, is a representation of the Church as a whole during the time of the Antichrist. Thus Pius XI’s application of this passage of the Apocalypse to his time would, in effect, be an indication that the age of the Antichrist had in some way already begun.” And indeed it had.

The seventh church — Laodicea

In his first address as pope, Pope St. Pius X warned Catholics that Antichrist had already been born. At that point in time, Giovanni Battista Montini (Paul 6) was six years old. The exorcist Rev. Theophilus Riesinger, O.P.Cap., revealed in 1940 what he had learned in his exorcisms — that Antichrist was already alive and would begin his persecutions in 1952, the very year Pope Pius XII first fell ill from chromic acid poisoning. Montini was then his acting pro-secretary. Pope Paul IV, in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, prophesied how he would come to power as the abomination of desolation — through an invalid papal election. Shortly before his death in 1939, Pope Pius XI warned that the world already had entered that deadly phase that would see the fulfillment of prophesy, the end of the age of the Church and the rule of Antichrist. It is important to weigh carefully the words of Christ through St. John to the angel of this Laodicea church, the last church, for in these words we see all that has happened to us today. We read from Apoc. Chap. 3: 14-22:

“And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:

“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore and do penance. Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne: as I also have overcome and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”

Here we need the wisdom of Rev. Leo Haydock to make the most sense we can out of these verses. Reverend Haydock calls being hot nor cold a “dreadful reprehension,” one few recognize as such. Being cold means being “guilty of great sins.” Being hot means being zealous and fervent in piety. Being lukewarm indicates that one is “slothful, negligent and indolent” in seeking Christian piety and perfection and in “all things regarding the service of God.” For this they are guilty before God of great sins and “forfeit his favour and grace.” They fancy themselves as being safe and good because they live as others do and “are not guilty of scandalous and shameful crimes to which others are addicted.” The lukewarm are further from true conversion than the cold; “they live and die with a heart divided between God and the world,” where greater and more shameful sinners are at least cognizant of the abhorrence of the vices that they commit. “Stupidity is more dangerous than absolute wickedness”  — the cold still have a conscience. Christ, beginning to vomit the lukewarm from His mouth, means that they will be lost if they fail to reform.

The “eye salve” mentioned in Apoc. 3:18 is necessary for them to see their plight and indicates their willful ignorance. Being naked when they think they already possess the white garment of salvation describes to a “T” both those complacent in their Novus Ordo beliefs as well as those LibTrads who are certain they have the graces they need through the sacraments when they have nothing; they know not their blindness and nakedness. It also can refer to any of us who pridefully believe that we are guaranteed salvation because we no longer belong to any of these sects; we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Those who continue in their ignorance and blindness can only be described as having entered into the operation of error to believe lies described by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2. Christ warns us the Church will be rebuked, chastised and required to do penance to become zealous. But how can this possibly fit in with a restoration of the Church, when Laodicea is the last of the seven churches?! Those who overcome with Christ will share a throne in Heaven with Him, for He too has overcome. Is this not a subtle reference to the passion of the Church? In Apoc. 13:7 it is said that Antichrist will “overcome the saints” but in verse 10 of this chapter we find that the faith and patience of the saints will save them in the end.

Conclusion

For decades, many have rejected the idea, first advanced by Francis Panakal and Rev. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga, that Paul 6 was the Antichrist. It is the proposition I presented in my first book, released in 1990. There I expanded on the topic, introducing additional evidence in subsequent e-books and articles. Those objecting to this belief falsely maintain: “There must always be bishops” and/or cite the necessary restoration of the Church before the end, but only a pope canonically elected can claim to be the successor of St. Peter. As discussed in our last blog, we have never been promised a restoration of the Church in Holy Scripture, and private revelations cannot be made the equivalent of Church doctrine; they have been known to be manipulated and falsified. All that follows once Antichrist appears is the battle of Armageddon, the destruction of Babylon, the Final Judgment and the consummation.

Some also have objected that because Christ will throw Antichrist and the False Prophet into the lake of fire alive, as recorded in Apoc. 19: 20, this means he has not yet come: “And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet, who wrought 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.” They hold that this verse proves that Antichrist will not appear until later, at the very end, following the restoration. I have countered that for the empire of Antichrist to exist today in Rome and worldwide, which it does, there first had to exist the Man of Sin, THE Antichrist, to establish this empire, a truth we are bound to believe. And this is what Rev. Kramer refers to above.

If one looks at all that Montini accomplished during his reign and before, no one can deny that he was the primary architect in the destruction of the Church. Nor can they possibly contest the fact that nearly half of faithful Catholics abandoned the Vatican 2 church once the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced. The cardinals and bishops betrayed the Church by invalidly electing Roncalli, and the once-faithful laity failed to reject the false Church — this was the Great Apostasy. The Continual Sacrifice had ceased, true Catholics knew this, and only Antichrist could have caused its cessation. To be the perfect mirror of Christ, Satan also had to have his vicar, and this could not be accomplished with a Protestant idea of a political figure persecuting. The Apocalypse must be taken spiritually, and Pope Paul IV himself told us who the abomination of desolation would be in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

There is another explanation of Antichrist perishing alive in the pool of fire, however, that no one has considered. Because this event seems to immediately precede the Final Judgment, the meaning of “alive” could refer to the resurrected bodies of the beast and false prophet, (John 23 and Paul 6), being among the first to be so resurrected and judged, so that all the faithful may see them destroyed. Various commentators, Rev. Kramer among them, have opined that at the Last Judgment the faithful who have escaped the wiles of Antichrist will sit with Christ in judgment on those who destroyed His Church. This seems to be what Christ Himself suggests in Apoc. 3:21. Christ stands at the door and knocks (Apoc. 3:20); His arrival is imminent, Kramer warns. He invites us to the marriage feast. But those who refuse to apply the eye salve and repent, who fail to open the door, shall be cast out into the exterior darkness.

1955 Fr. Cronin work upholds VAS on Trad invalidity

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 2, 2025 | New Blog

†Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary†

Light a candle, purge the darkness from your souls

Prayer Society Intention for February, month of the Holy Family and the Blessed Trinity

“O Most Holy Trinity , who art dwelling by Thy grace within my soul, make me love Thee more and more.” (Raccolta)

(Please pray for a reader’s mother’s swift recovery from her stroke and for the repose of the soul of Timothy Hunt, requiescat in pace.)

Introduction

A post last week on the Novus Ordo Watch site (definitely not recommended, but which sometimes publishes accurate articles on matters of faith), has provided a thought-provoking sequel of sorts to the article on the rehash of Robert Robbins’ objections posted here last week. Since it will be quoted and discussed at length below, the article can be viewed HERE. I do, however, possess an original edition of Rev. John F. Cronin’s work, the author cited in the article, and have verified all the quotes from his work. Not that there was any question that the quotes were accurate, but firsthand quotes are always preferable to those relied upon secondhand.

The article opens with comments on the confusion regarding the extent of the binding nature of papal documents, both before and after Vatican 2, a confusion that could easily have been dispelled by drawing a firm dividing line at the moment of Pope Pius XII’s death Oct. 9, 1958. When such chaos as occurred at Vatican 2 exists, the safer course demands that all which is doubtful be rejected, and only that which is certainly orthodox be trusted. There were means to determine this and these means were available via seminary libraries, local libraries by inter-library loan, from Catholic booksellers and later the Internet. I know this because I began purchasing books from seminary libraries and these other venues in the early 1980s. At that time there was no Internet, so everything was done the hard way. I assumed others were doing the same, and a select few were so doing; but not for the same reasons.

The Novus Ordo Watch article seemingly states that it was not generally understood, following Vatican 2, that irrevocable assent was required not only to infallible papal documents but also to those things taught in the ordinary magisterium. As explained in an article posted several years ago HERE, the confusion was generated by those opposing Henry Cardinal Manning and strict interpretation of the Vatican Council decrees. Pope Pius XII ended this confusion with Humani generis by teaching that: 1) What is taught in official papal documents is not binding, para. 20; 2) Ex cathedra pronouncements are rare, para. 21, 3) Restrictions can be placed by theologians on what constitutes an ex cathedra pronouncement, and theologians may dictate a formula for the actual wording of the pronouncement, para. 21.

For over three decades, we have quoted Bellarmine, Manning, Berry, Tanquerey, Billot, Garrigou-Lagrange, Fenton, Connell, Herve, Van Noort and others who in many cases taught what was contained in Humani generis long before it was written. Cronin now joins this list of theologians. But when papal documents written by Pope Pius XII and his predecessors were readily available in the 1960s and 1970s, as were the explanations by these theologians, why was no one citing their binding nature then? Why were the revered “Traditionalists,” such as Saenz-Arriaga, Lefebvre, Oswald Baker, Vezelis, Kelly, et al insisting that these teachings were not strictly binding, that Canon Law was to be interpreted liberally or dismissed, that they did not strictly apply in an “emergency” when Pope Pius VI himself, in the letter Charitas, taught that they most certainly did?

If these sites are going to now insist that their readers accept the binding mature of papal documents, then let there be no exceptions to this rule. But we know they are making exceptions — and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law governing interregnums, also obedience to Canon Law, are primary among them. The entire debacle that became Traditionalism and later Sedevacantism could have been avoided if those who presented themselves to the faithful as orthodox clergy and established Traditionalist groups had carefully studied papal teaching and Canon Law before embarking on their (lucrative) careers. But that was not consistent with their motives. The papacy was not the focus of their attention, only the Mass and Sacraments, as if the latter could validly exist without the former. And this is why they had to find a way around the jurisdiction issue, which tells us they knew there was a problem. So they pretended epikeia could fill the gap, excluding Canon Law and binding papal teaching.

Where the problem began

Below we will comment on some of Cronin’s remarks as they relate to the above, but first we will address the objections noted in the article made by Pope Pius XI denouncing the prideful assumption by Catholics that papal decrees not issued ex cathedra were not binding.

“For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104).

And to this we add, from Pope Pius XII’s Humani generis, (nos. 29-31): “It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason for it falls to reason (to demonstrate God’s very existence and the truths of faith)… But reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly trained, that is when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by early Christian ages and which moreover possesses an authority of even higher notes, since the teaching authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets…” (and here of course he is speaking of Scholasticism).

“Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, in which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. The Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor, since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light. His doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping safely and usefully the fruits of sound progress.”

If we seek an answer to why the doctrine on papal obedience has been so perverted, it is found in the tenets of the Modernists, whose hatred of authority, magisterial teaching and Scholasticism is well-known. And, (with the exception of des Lauriers, Carmona, Zamora, McKenna and Vezelis), where did all of those who later served as Traditionalist “bishops” receive their training? In Novus Ordo seminaries and secular universities and then the Society of St. Pius X, which at least nine of them later exited. Does anyone really believe that these men could possibly have received Catholic training in these institutions, saturated in Modernism and Rationalism? For there they were taught by men never approved by the Church, in seminaries never erected by a canonically elected pope and admitted as candidates to the priesthood by those who had no right or power to call them. And we wonder why people are confused and have not obeyed the popes…

(The quotes below are taken from Rev. John F. Cronin, Catholic Social Principles: The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church Applied to American Economic Life [Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1955], pp. 55-61; 685. Imprimatur, 1950. Rev. Cronin’s ecclesiastical career is summarized HERE.) 

On minimalism

Fr. Cronin —“In the first place, the teaching mission of the Church is not confined to infallible pronouncements by the pope or ecumenical councils. Christ’s injunction to teach all nations was not limited by any qualifications… The Church has been commissioned by God to teach with authority on matters of faith and morals. It has been promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In rare cases, the fullness of this guidance is invoked in a solemn definition of an article of faith. But the great bulk of Church teaching is had through the normal channels of pronouncements by the popes, bishops, and theologians… A “minimist” attitude of accepting only infallible pronouncements is simply un-Catholic.”

T. Benns — We have addressed this before. As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton wrote: “Ultimately theological minimalism was a device employed BY LIBERAL CATHOLICS to make the rejection of authoritative papal teaching on any point appear to be good Catholic practice.Sometimes it took the crass form of a claim that Catholics are obligated to accept and to holdonly those things which had been defined by the explicit decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Holy See. This attitude… was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his letter Tuas Libenter (DZ 1683). Another crass form of minimalism was the opposition to the Vatican Council definition of papal infallibility. The men who expressed that opposition sometimes claimed to hold the doctrine of papal infallibility as a theological opinion but they showed a furious hostility to the definition which proposed that doctrine as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith” (“The Components of Liberal Catholicism,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, July 1958).

We see that this heretical attitude was condemned long ago. So how and why has it been allowed to fulminate among those who pretend to lead and direct those believing themselves to be “Traditional” Catholics today?

Acta Apostolica Sedis

Fr. Cronin — “As a second point, the form of teaching is relatively unimportant. Rather it is the solemnity and definiteness as determined by the text itself. It is true that the very nature of an encyclical, addressed to the entire world, implies a certain solemnity. But a broadcast, a papal letter, an allocution, or even an address to a particular group may, under certain circumstances, involve important and binding teachings on some matters.

T. Benns — We must remember that Cronin wrote just before the release of Humani generis, which taught that even papal letters, allocutions or addresses can be binding if entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. According to Msgr. Fenton: “Those allocutions and other papal instructions, which, though primarily directed to some individual or group of individuals, are then printed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis are directives valid for all of the Church militant. We must not lose sight of the fact that, in the encyclical Human generis, the Holy Father made it clear that any doctrinal decision printed in the pontifical Acta must be accepted as normative by all theologians. I This would apply to all decisions made in the course of the Sovereign Pontiff’s ordinary magisterium” (“Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” American Ecclesiastical Review).

Infallibility of two papal teachings spurned

Fr. Cronin — “The obligatory nature of such assent is particularly serious when the pope declares that he has, not only the right, but the duty to pronounce with supreme authority the… teaching of the Church. ‘Respectful silence, which consists in neither rejecting nor criticizing the given teaching,’ is inadmissible in this matter…“The… encyclicals and addresses contain various levels of teaching. At the highest level are the references to revealed teaching as embodied in the Scriptures.”

T. Benns — And yet we have those still insisting today that Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, is not infallible. This when Pope Paul IV wrote:

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio

“Whereas We consider such a matter to be so grave and fraught with peril that the Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and. kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by no one in this world — (even he) may be corrected if he is apprehended straying from the Faith. Also, it behooves us to give fuller and more diligent thought where the peril is greatest, lest false prophets (or even others possessing secular jurisdiction) wretchedly ensnare simple souls and drag down with themselves to perdition and the ruin of damnation the countless peoples entrusted to their care and government in matters spiritual or temporal. And lest it befall Us to see in the holy place the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, We wish, as much as possible with God’s help, in line with our pastoral duty, to trap the foxes that are busily ravaging the Lord’s vineyard and to drive the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be silent watchdogs, unable to bark, or lest We come to an evil end like the evil husbandmen or be likened to a hireling… (para. 2)

“We approve and renew, by Our Apostolic authority, each and every sentence, censure or penalty of excommunication, suspension and interdict, and removal, and any others whatever in any way given and promulgated against heretics and schismatics by any Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors… Upon advice and consent concerning such as these, through this Our Constitution, which is to remain forever effective, in hatred of such a crime the greatest and deadliest that can exist in God’s Church, We sanction, establish, decree and define, through the fullness of Our Apostolic power, that although the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties keep their force and efficacy and obtain their effect (bishops archbishops and Cardinals committing heresy, apostasy or schism) are forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank” (para. 3; end of Cum ex… quotes).

And then of course there is Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, specifically written to determine what is to be done during an interregnum and the rules and regulations for the canonical election of a true pope. Pope Pius XII wrote, in the preamble to his constitution: 

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis

“Continually in the course of the centuries, Our Predecessors solemnly determined to order and define the procedures of governance of the vacant Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff, for which they were supposed to provide; and in the same manner they endeavored to apply themselves with watchful care and to devote their energies to useful rules in the weighty business divinely entrusted to the Church, to wit, electing the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, who on this earth is the Vicar of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and as supreme Pastor and Head feeds and rules all the Lord’s flock. However, since there was already a desire to have collected into one place these laws about electing the Roman Pontiff, enlarged in number in preceding ages, and since some of them, less accommodated to special circumstances, had become outdated on account of changed conditions, the great man Pius X, our Predecessor, with judicious advice decided forty years ago to reduce them (appropriately selected) to a summary, having published the well-known Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica on the twenty-fifth of December of the year 1904.

“Wherefore, having seasonably considered the matter, with sure knowledge and the plenitude of Our Apostolic power, We have undertaken to publish and promulgate this Constitution, which is the same as that given by Pius X, of holy memory, but reformed throughout…”

As Cronin notes above: when a pope quotes from the writings of other popes in his own works, showing their great authority, “…these writings are considered binding upon the faithful.” And, “The form of teaching is relatively unimportant. Rather it is the solemnity and definiteness as determined by the text itself. The obligatory nature of such assent is particularly serious when the pope declares that he has, not only the right, but the duty to pronounce, WITH SUPREME AUTHORITY, the… teaching of the Church.”

The Sedevacantists who first published these excerpts from Rev. Cronin surely cannot applaud Cronin for his championing of the papacy and at the same time read the preamble to Pius XII’s constitution above and claim it does not irrevocably bind them! For the constitution is all Cronin says it must be: (a) a serious document, treating in its first three paragraphs the dogmatic scope of papal jurisdiction during an interregnum, (b) with grave import given to Pius XII’s words and commands, which (c) he backs with centuries of papal teaching contained in Pope St. Pius X’s original constitution. Anyone who could ignore his stated intent of issuing it, “with sure knowledge and the plenitude of Our Apostolic power” is definitely not Catholic or is incapable of all rational thought. Pius XII’s intent to invalidate any election not conducted exactly as the constitution commands; any acts usurping papal jurisdiction or anything contrary to papal or Canon Law is likewise secured in. para. 3 by his “Supreme Authority.” And paragraph 108 strengthens what is said in the preamble.

Conclusion

“God established an eternal chair in Rome… The primacy of Peter will endure forever through the special assistance promised it when Jesus charged him to strengthen his brethren in the faith” (Pope Pius XII, Address Vi è a Roma, Jan. 17, 1940). The etymology of eternal is from “…the late 14c., from Old French eternel “eternal,” or directly from Late Latinaeternalis, from Latin aeternus “of an age, lasting for an age, enduring, permanent, everlasting, endless,” contraction of aeviternus “of great age,” from aevum “age” (from PIE root *aiw- “vital force, life; long life, eternity”). And forever can mean: “…an indefinitely long period of time; without end” (Internet and other sources). We know that in the sense that Christ binds in Heaven whatever is bound on earth, the papacy is eternal; that binding will exist always, since God Himself has no beginning and no end. The primacy will endure likewise, for Christ is the invisible Head of His Mystical Body, the Church.

But we also know that the Church on earth will have its end. Henry Cardinal Manning writes: “Some of the greatest writers of the Church tell us that in all probability, in the last overthrow of the enemies of God, the city of Rome itself will be destroyed; it will be a second time punished by Almighty God, as it was in the beginning… The writers of the Church tell us that in the latter days the city of Rome will probably become apostate from the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ; and that Rome will again be punished, for he will depart from it; and the judgment of God will fall on the place from which he once reigned over the nations of the world…The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist, and of these prophecies of Daniel, without a single exception, as far as I know, and they are the Fathers both of the East and of the West, the Greek and the Latin Church — 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.” (The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy, 1861).

What was the first sign that all these things were about to befall us? The gradual dismembering, then finally the abolition of the Latin Mass. Some 40-50 percent of Catholics exited the Church in the late 1960s, early 1970s following the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae, so they indeed recognized this sign. Cardinal Manning’s warning regarding the Mass was first published in 1970, one year after the cessation of the Mass, when Robert Bergin issued his first edition of These Apocalyptic Times (printed by Fatima International). The book sold so many copies it quickly ran to many additional printings. But what Catholics didn’t know is that the unanimous opinions of the Fathers must be taken as a rule of faith, and that this is binding on Catholics for belief per the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council (DZ 1788, 1809). NO ONE may interpret Scripture otherwise, and yet this failure to acknowledge the significance of this event as taught by the Church Herself is precisely what spawned Traditionalism. This successfully prevented the faithful from realizing that the cessation of the Mass meant that Antichrist was among us.

Once the Novus Ordo Missae was instituted, who among aspiring Traditionalists read the binding pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs for the answers, or humbly and with a right intention consulted Canon Law? Oh no, they sought out “bishops” who had tacitly resigned their offices and were yet affiliated with apostate Rome, instead, and allowed themselves to be convinced that papal teaching was not binding unless issued ex cathedra. They did not bother to translate the one constitution that governed our situation and would have answered their questions. That constitution would not be fully translated from the Latin until 2012, when it was posted on this site! Early Traditionalists located and had translated Cum ex Apostolatus Officio on the 1970s, but the Society of St. Pius X and other LibTrad factions dismissed this obviously infallible bull as a disciplinary document, despite the fact that it clearly taught who would be considered the Antichrist if a heretic or schismatic was elected and “accepted” as pope. And this by providing a Scripture reference. Rev. Cronin rates such papal teaching as follows: “At the highest level are the references to revealed teaching as embodied in the Scriptures.“

Then of course there is Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis itself, fully complying with all of Rev. Cronin’s prerequisites for a binding papal document but dismissed as “an ecclesiastical law.” It erases the “papacy” of Roncalli, nullifiying his election on several counts. It also invalidates the acts of all those attempting to be ordained without valid tonsure or dimmissorial letters or attempting consecration without the papal mandate. In short, VAS stopped the Traditionalist movement dead in its tracks, before it ever began. NOW concludes its excerpts from Rev. Cronin with this statement: “Catholics must assent to what the Pope teaches because he teaches it.” Firm and irrevocable assent must be given to anything entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and decrees which mention previous infallible pronouncements and/or declare a person excommunicated.

But what they don’t mention is the inevitable penalty for multiple, repeated failures to assent to these papal acts — forfeiture of Church membership. That occurs just by enrolling oneself in a Traditionalist sect and remaining there, denying the papacy by pretending the juridical Church could ever exist without a canonically elected pope; attending “Mass” and receiving the “Sacraments” from laymen who never became priests or bishops; believing and accepting teaching from these same laymen as though it was authoritative. This explains how followers of LibTrad pseudo-clergy became “confused” regarding the binding nature of papal teachings.

(Please join us for next week’s blog and a surprising look at how Catholics in Communist countries coped when their faith was sorely tried.)