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.”

How Liberal Trads ushered in the Operation of Error to believe lies

by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 29, 2023 | New Blog

+St. Michael the Archangel+

The Month of October, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary

Prayer Society Intention

“O Queen of the Most Holy Rosary,…. show unto all men that thou art the queen of peace and forgiveness.” (Raccolta)

As we commented last week, the restoration wars rage on — a repositioning strategy to determine who’s going to acquire paying members. And even a few of those pretending to pray at home are showing their true colors. People are anxious, tired and confused, meaning they are unusually vulnerable. And that always bodes ill for making decisions in matters of faith. But the real problem with Traditionalists hasn’t even been fully realized yet. Many forget that beginning around the time of the French Revolution, three distinct deviations within Catholicism gradually emerged that had not existed before: Liberalism, Americanism and Modernism, all of which were condemned by the popes as heresy. Especially in this country Catholics were at risk, given the so-called liberties touted as democracy. Even certain Novus Ordo Internet commentators admit that all Americans calling themselves Catholic today are infected with these three heresies to some extent.

The Vatican Council condemned the anti-papal heresies related to Liberalism (Gallicanism, Febronianism, Josephism). These heresies advocated limiting papal infallibility considerably and held the bishops equal to — and as a body, even superior to — the popes. But after the council closed, a type of semi-Gallicanist faction emerged that opposed Henry Cardinal Manning’s Ultramontane position, limiting ex cathedra pronouncements to a handful, denying the infallibility of disciplinary decrees and holding the opinion that bishops received their jurisdiction directly from Christ, (then still a free opinion. See the history of this development HERE.) Disciplinary decrees, however, had already been declared infallible by the Vatican Council: “If anyone thus speaks that the Roman Pontiff has… not the full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those things which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…Or that this power is not ordinary and immediate…over pastors and faithful altogether and individually; let him be anathema.”

To further shore up the teaching on disciplinary decrees, between 1873-1876 Pope Pius IX issued Quartus Supra, Quae in patriarchatu and Etsi multa, all of these encyclicals dealing with the binding force of papal disciplinary decrees on the faithful. But the Liberal minimalists began to declare that those things laid down for belief in encyclicals were not binding, an error Pope Pius XII later condemned in Humani generis, along with the idea that ex cathedrapronouncements were rare. And in Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII settled the question on whether bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from Christ when he taught:

“Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called “principal parts of the members of the Lord… Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” As you might guess, this did not please those Liberal minimalists hard at work in Pius XII’s day, who had hoped to receive a greater share of power in the Church. Minimalism was fought strenuously by Msgr. Joseph Fenton as we have seen is several past blogs. But in the end, the liberals won out.

Traditionalists are the purveyors of Liberalism

Liberalism was the most insidious among the heresies; it seduced Catholics by degrees and failed to present Catholic teaching as an integral whole. That’s why it rests toward the bottom of the Masonic pyramid. In previous blogs we have illustrated the point that Traditionalists (and closet Traditionalists among those claiming to pray at home) practice liberal charity, but it goes far beyond that. They are Liberals through and through, in varying degrees, and most of their followers are completely unaware of this. In examining the modus operandi used by 19^th century Liberals and adopted by Traditionalists, something else emerges. A pattern establishes itself that fits in quite comfortably with modern propaganda techniques and the dissemination of lies and disinformation.

The judgment of this fact is not our own but is taught by approved and respected Catholic authors writing in the 1800s, when Liberalism first made its ugly appearance. We are only applying their observations to the methods Traditionalists use today. These men witnessed Liberalism at work firsthand, so can hardly be accused of not recognizing it for what it is. We refer to Rev. Felix Sarda y Salvany (Liberalism is a Sin), and Louis Veuillot (The Liberal Illusion), both of them Ultramontanes in the era of the Vatican Council. It is primarily from these two sources that we note the following characteristics of “Liberal Catholics,” an appellation both authors agree is a contradiction in terms.

— The predominating element in Liberalism (also Americanism) is the right to one’s own ability to interpret and judge, to assert their own opinions and theories as authentic, independent of papal authority. (Liberalism teaches that all have individual rights of every kind, many of these issuing from the state, not God-given human rights. Liberals teach that these rights are superior to our belief as Catholics and any religious duties or responsibilities. Liberalism was the earliest stage of Modernism.)

— Liberals teach that: “Individual judgment is the rule of faith… The true sense of revealed doctrine is not always certain and human reason has something to say in the matter” (Sarda). This is nothing more than the Protestant principle of private judgment.

— Liberalism’s negative unity is rooted in denial, for it depends on the varying degrees of the truths it denies in order to maintain its existence.

— This denial can be observed in the Liberals’ failure to draw out the logical conclusions of their own principlesand the opinions held by their advocates, stopping short of the consequences logically flowing from its erroneous premises. (Several instances of this will be demonstrated below.)

— Liberals work to confuse ideas and distort the proper meaning of words. (See below.)

— “They show themselves with some appearance of probity and sound doctrine… but are more dangerous and more baneful than declared enemies” (Pope Pius IX, brief to Circle of St. Ambrose in Milan, 1873). Sedevacantists boast they are staunch upholders of the papacy.

— Liberals apologize, excuse, extenuate, soften and explain away points of faith, practice and discipline. (Soft stance on Canon Law, especially those canons governing jurisdiction and heresy, apostasy and schism; abuse of the principles of epikeia and necessity).

— “They subject God’s authority to the scrutiny of reason,” (Sarda), pretending that they can rightfully interpret and dismiss papal teaching when even approved theologians were forbidden to do this.  Only the lawgiver (the Roman Pontiff) may interpret his own documents.

— They believe that, as Rev. Sarda notes: “The limits of the Church’s infallibility may be determined by human science… The Church is of course infallible but they choose to determine when and what She shall speak infallibly, [placing] the formal motive of faith in human reason.”

— They dismiss dogmatic bulls such as Unam Sanctam and In Coenae Domini, even though “the popes inserted these bulls into Canon Law.”  (Veuillot) And here we must add Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the confirmation of this bull by Pope St. Pius V (Intermultiplices) Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, (which some now hold as non-binding) as well as Pope Pius XII’s papal election Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. But the Traditionalists dismissing these bulls and other binding papal decrees are not clerics, are not approved authors nor are they experts of any kind. Henry Cardinal Manning tells us in his The Vatican Decrees and their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (1875) that: “The Vatican Council… definition, by retrospective action makes all Pontifical acts infallible” and here he includes Unam Sanctam, Unigenitus and Auctorum Fidei. Cardinal Manning I believe without hesitation; Traditionalists have no authority.

— In pretending to be Catholic, Liberals demand “…the moderation and charity recommended by the pope(s) to Catholic writers, [which] applies only to Catholic polemics between CATHOLICS on FREE QUESTIONS” (Sarda; see recent series on religious discussion).

— Liberals either discredit their opponents or pass them by in silence. The truth and papal authority being abandoned as the ultimate good, they preach impartiality, tolerance and compromise, but they never practice what they preach. They consistently resort to ad hominem attacks, loaded questions, arguments beside the point or that beg the question, and engage in equivocation. This is no surprise since Liberals and Modernists alike despise the scholastic system of logic. They have never and will never refute an argument point by point.

— “Liberalism is a false Catholicity… It is paganism disguised in Catholic forms and using Catholic language.” In short, Pope Pius IX describes “Catholic” Liberals as “worse than demons” (Sarda).

Distorted meaning of the term Tradition

Not only are Traditionalists Liberals, but they equivocally use the word “Tradition” to describe themselves, when they more accurately match the description of those condemned for Traditionalism in DZ 1649. The advocates for this system taught: “Reason of itself is radically unable to know with certainty any truth or, at least, the fundamental truths of the metaphysical, moral, and religious order. Hence our first act of knowledge must be an act of faith, based on the authority of revelation” and the common consent of society. This is also the teaching of Liberalism as seen above. The very idea that the word Tradition can in anyway be associated with Traditionalists today is preposterous, since furthermore, as Pietro Parente and his fellow authors write in their Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, the “…organ [of Divine Tradition] is the living magisterium of the Church (the Roman Pontiff and the bishops united with and subordinate to him).”

So from now on, then, these Traditionalist sects will be referred to here as LibTrads, reflecting these two heresies. These errant sects can scarcely claim they are the successors of the Continual Magisterium. They possess no validly consecrated bishops, as infallibly taught by Pope Pius XII in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, far less a canonically elected Roman Pontiff. And in fact, they believe the Church can be governed by bishops alone without a head bishop, meaning they believe the “body of bishops” is superior to the pope as the heretical Gallicanists hold, even when a true pope exists. This heretical principle is also held by some who pray at home, claiming, “there must always be bishops,” without specific inclusion of the pope as head bishop. And the use of this phrase is yet another example of the LibTrad confusion of terms, since it bears the appearance of truth to the less discerning. But in not insisting there must first and foremost be a pope as head of these bishops for the Church to even exist, they deny the teachings of the Vatican Council.

Can LibTrads insist on using their own reason to judge papal teaching and at the same time hold that one is unable to know such truths by way of reason? Yes. Note above that the heresy of Liberalism teaches “the TRUE SENSE of revealed doctrine is not always CERTAIN and human reason has something to say in the matter.”  Here we see the denial that Catholics are able to arrive at certitude, for the heresy of Traditionalism teaches: “Reason of itself is radically unable to know with certainty any truth or, at least, the fundamental truths…” Well this being the case, and the pope being absent, who is able to decide the “true sense” of these  truths? LibTrads consistently refer to the “sensus Catholicus” and their pseudo-clergy’s commission to fulfill the Divine law regarding “the salvation of souls.” This comprises, then, the heresy of Traditionalism’s “an act of faith, [in their validity as successors of the Apostles] based on the authority of revelation,” i.e., the Divine law they say commands them to act. So there must be some directing force, in this case LibTrad pseudo-clergy, deciding for everyone else — those unable to reason for themselves or arrive at certitude — who will speak for the Church in the absence of the Roman Pontiff. They are the ones who “choose to determine when and what She shall speak infallibly.”

This brings us to the remarks in Rev. Sarda’s work regarding, “The dogmatizers of the [Liberal] sect… who teach liberalism in books, in discourses, in articles; by argument or by authority…  Practical liberalists… like a flock of sheep with closed eyes, follow their leaders. They know nothing in truth of principles and systems and did they perceive the perversity of their instructors, they would perhaps detest them. But deceived by a false cry or shibboleth they troop docilely after their false guides. They are nonetheless the hands that act while the theorists are the heads that direct… They are less excusable than those liberals who have never been within the pale of the Church. In short, they sin with their eyes open.” And once again, we have a perfect description of LibTrads.

Individual rights v. duties of priests and faithful

When Pope Pius XII died, those among the faithful infected with Liberalism and Modernism fell prey to these LibTrads after Paul 6 introduced the Novus Ordo Missae. Shell-shocked and vulnerable, with the majority ignorant of their faith, they were ripe for the picking, and their Liberal organizers well knew it. Rather than educate them, which was the first obligation of any lawful clergy (which they were not), LibTrads indiscriminately offered them the Latin Mass and invalid Sacraments. Since the focus of Liberalism is on the inviolability of individual rights versus the absolute obligation to obey the popes and perform one’s Catholic duties, LibTrads appealed to the faithful’s “right” to request the sacraments, excluding the fact that this right applied only if they were not in some way excommunicated (which many were). And they neglected to explain that only lawful pastors, as the Church defined them, were allowed to administer the Sacraments. The entire focus was placed on the Mass and the heretically exclusive idea of a ”community priesthood.” This was no different than the Novus Ordo crowd’s insistence on their “rights” to greater participation in the liturgy and the use of the vernacular.

Negative unity and denial

And here we see demonstrated the negative unity aspect of these LibTrads, a loosely based unity predicated on the denial of various Catholic truths and the failure to draw out logical conclusions — consequences logically flowing from their erroneous premises. If they denied that it could be absolutely determined whether the current holder of the See in Rome was truly vacant (material-formal excuse) they could continue to reign as the hierarchy. If they denied that VAS was an infallible decree that they irrevocably accept, they could continue to claim validity. If they denied VAS applied to them, they could provide the Mass and Sacraments. This in turn would allow them to deny that Paul 6 was Antichrist and the Sacrifice had ceased. All this is assuming that there was no overriding agenda powering the LibTrad movement, and such an assumption would be a huge mistake. For there is every indication that long before Vatican 2 ever occurred, there were preparations to re-channel and misdirect Catholics exiting the Vatican 2 church, and this we have explained in previous articles and blogs.

What else do they deny? The scenario of those believing there will be a restoration of the Church generally goes like this: The papacy would be usurped for a time or the pope would be forced into exile, Antichrist would reign briefly before or after a restoration of the Church, but the Church would be rescued by a great pope (and according to some, a great king) and life would go on. This of course is not what ALL Catholic prophecies, only selected ones, foretold, and there are many variations on this theme. But Church teaching, Canon Law and Catholic commentary on Holy Scripture tell a different story. And there has been no attempt by LibTrads to employ all these resources to arrive at a solution that is fully in accord with Catholic teaching.

Illogical conclusions and false consequences

It is true that some reliable Scripture commentators predict a restoration. But these same commentators did not foresee what happened to us. They did not anticipate a protracted interregnum and the apostasy of all the bishops and cardinals. They wrote before the issuance of the election laws of Pope St. Pius X and Pius XII. Only a few of them wrote after these binding documents were issued and Pope Pius XII handed down his decision on millenarianism. Most importantly, these commentators did not factor in the possibility, in light of Canon Law and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, that all the bishops and cardinals would apostatize and none of those who claimed to remain faithful would come forward. They never considered that the Church’s ability to canonically elect a successor to St. Peter would be allowed to expire. And the commentators who do not allow for a restoration see the Church ending sometime after Antichrist’s death, but they do not set a time for how long this period might last.

Earlier this year we explained why a restoration is not possible today, and how the confusion perpetuated by LibTrads came about. As the Vatican Council teaches, “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,” (DZ 1821). A house can be swept away yet its foundation remains. Notice that the Council says, “overthrow the Church,” yet this cannot mean the Roman Pontiff. For as Rev. E.S. Berry explains in his The Church of Christ: “The Church as it exists in particular places may fail; even the Church of a whole nation may fall away as history abundantly proves. The Apostolic See of Rome is the only particular Church to which the promise of perpetual indefectibility has been made. (p. 56). The Church without Her head can be diminished, scattered, but never entirely destroyed.

One scholarly work in particular proves that the true teaching of the Vatican Council did NOT support the idea that the hierarchy would exist until the consummation of the world by fire OR support the restoration theory. “The idea that the Church shall have a pope, bishops, seminaries, etc. until the literal last day of the world, until the Lord returns, is widespread and plays a significant role in debates between Catholics about consequences to be drawn in the face of the Great Apostasy that has become visible since the robber council of the 1960s. Looking at original Latin documents and writings of the Magisterium, the Fathers, Doctors and Saints, and the Vulgate as well as other editions of Holy Scripture, a different picture comes to the fore. As a matter of fact, the Vatican Council solemnly teaches that the Lord promised shepherds and teachers until the consummation of the age which, according to Catholic commentary, begins with the revelation of Antichrist who is announced to reign before the return of the Lord. Hence, apostolic succession seems to have come to an end already, and we deal with shepherds of vengeance” (B. E. Strauss, Even to the Consummation of the Age, with impressive documentation from the Fathers and Holy Scripture. This PDF is available on request.)

Cessation of the Continual Sacrifice

From the Vatican Council we read: “In order to restrain impetuous minds… We, renewing the decree [of the Council of Trent], declare that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. And for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers” (DZ 1788). Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton comments: “The Council of Trent identified the unanimous teaching of the Fathers with the interpretation of the Church itself as the standard for the correct explanation of Holy Scripture” (The Concept of Sacred Theology, 1941).

And indeed, Henry Cardinal Manning, in hisThe Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested byProphecy wrote: “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.” Speaking of the verse in St. Paul, 2 Thess. 2: v. 7-8,  which reads “He who now holdeth do hold until he be taken out of the way, and then that wicked one shall be revealed.” And Manning says that ALL the Fathers also teach Antichrist will be an individual, identifiable person, a member of the Jewish race.

The withholding power and the Great Apostasy

In his The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Card. Manning also wrote: “The barrier, or hindrance, to lawlessness will exist until it is taken out of the way.  Now what is the meaning of the words, until it ‘be taken out of the way’? The Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail.  That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy.  When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed. The event may come to pass that as our Divine Lord, after His three years of public ministry were ended, delivered Himself of His own free will into the hands of men, and thereby permitted them to do that which before was impossible, so in His inscrutable wisdom He may deliver over His Vicar upon earth, as He delivered Himself, and that the providential support of the temporal power of the Holy See may be withdrawn when its work is done…

“When the whole number of those whom He hath chosen to eternal life is filled up. It may be that when that is done, and when the times of Antichrist are come, that He will give over His Vicar upon earth, and His Mystical Body at large, [for a time]… The Church would, as in the beginning, again be made up of members voluntarily uniting themselves together throughout the whole world, having indeed a legal recognition here and there, but wandering up and down the earth, without any contact with the nations of the world as such…” And here Manning ends with a warning to the LibTrads: “For as surely as the Son of God reigns on high, and will reign “until He has put all His enemies under His feet,” so surely everyone that lifts a heel or directs a weapon, a tongue, or a pen, against His faith, His Church, or His Vicar upon earth, will share the judgment which is laid up for the Antichrist whom he serves… ‘Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall he broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder’” (Matt. 21:44). Christ’s Vicars shall not be mocked.

Why would any organization calling itself Catholic, seeing the destruction wrought by John 23 and Paul 6, and the prophecies being fulfilled before their very eyes, interpret what they were seeing any way other than Holy Scripture describes? This teaching of Cardinal Manning on the Holy Sacrifice ceasing was first published in 1970 in a work on prophecy that enjoyed numerous printings! Catholics watched their cardinals betray them in electing Roncalli, their bishops betray them at the council he called and both Roncalli and Montini betray them by destroying their Mass. What kept them from seeing it? The denial orchestrated by the LibTrad pseudo-clergy, “the Liberals’ failure to draw out the logical conclusions prophesied in Holy Scripture, consequences logically flowing from Divine Revelation. Their grand plan to elevate themselves to power and supplant the papacy, to realize the Gallicanist dream while maintaining the appearance of orthodoxy, could be realized only if they made it appear that “Reason of itself is radically unable to know with certainty any truth or, at least, the fundamental truths.” 

 And yet any reasonable person could have drawn the logical conclusions had they been taught or taken the initiative to learn the entire scope of Catholic truth in the first place. Had they followed the sequence of the prophecies that foretell the progression of the Great Apostasy and the coming of Antichrist, found in Daniel, St. Paul, Matthew 24 and the Apocalypse, and prayed for the grace to understand it, the lies of the LibTrads and NO would have fallen apart. Christ orders us to read the book of Daniel, that we might be able to recognize the abomination of desolation, noting, “He that readeth, let him understand” (Matt 24:15). And in his infallible Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV, speaking as Christ on earth, defines this phrase as an invalidly elected man usurping the papacy.

St. Paul says that first comes the apostasy (the defection of the cardinals and bishops, which began before Pope Pius XII ever died, leading to Roncalli’s invalid election and Vatican 2. This was succeeded by the defection of the once faithful who remained within the Novus Ordo church). But the appearance of the abomination cannot occur unless “he who withholdeth” (the pope) is first “taken out of the way”; THEN the Man of Sin is revealed, (but how long this takes or in what manner he is revealed is not explained). And only after this, according to the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, does the Sacrifice cease.  As Rev. Sarda wrote, “The seduction of liberalism is not of the kind that blinds by a false light but rather the seduction which, in sullying the heart, obscures the understanding,” and Christ urged us to properly understand his words. Here Rev. Sarda describes yet another prophecy now fulfilled — the LibTrad operation of error, to believe lies.

All the events above we have witnessed with our own eyes. Even LibTrads will admit that Paul 6 officially abrogated the Holy Sacrifice and set up an idol — the heretical monstrosity denying Christ’s own words — on the bare table altar. Yet they fail to follow through with the consequences and admit this man was the Antichrist, the Man of Sin. Holy Scripture does not speak of a blissful time of peace following Antichrist’s death, nor a glorious restoration — that comes from the works of private revelations and commentators writing before Pope Pius XII’s decision om millenarianism. It speaks only of the final judgment and the New Jerusalem. The belief that the 1,000 years in Apoc. 20: 2-3, 7 was the predicator of that peace and restoration was sanctioned as unsafe by Pope Pius XII. Failure of the cardinals and bishops to obey his papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis forever robbed the Church of the ability to re-establish the papacy, signaling the consummation of the age of the Church.

What Christ has in store for us next is uncertain, but most Scripture commentators predict only His Second Coming following the death of Antichrist and his system. As E. B. Strauss says and Rev. Haydock confirms, “…there is not only no reason to expect true shepherds and teachers during the consummation of the age. On the contrary, biblical prophecy, as expounded by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, announces false shepherds and teachers as well as Antichrist, sent by the Lord, sitting in the holy place, slaughtering, selling, and devouring the sheep.” This is easily discerned by reviewing Matt. 24, for once Christ announces the coming of the abomination, there is mention only of the danger of false prophets and false Christs, and the need to pray and watch and not grow weary of doing good. This extends even into Matt. Ch. 25. Once the book of Apocalypse commences, there is no relief seen for the faithful, for as Ch. 13: 7 proclaims, “It was given unto him [Antichrist] to make war with the saints and to overcome them.” Daniel says that Antichrist “will crush the saints of the Most High” (Ch. 7:25).

Conclusion

By obscuring these facts, the LibTrads have successfully prevented their followers from arriving at the inevitable conclusion — that there can be no valid hierarchy, hence no Mass and Sacraments today and no restoration. There is nothing they can point to — in Scripture or papal teaching — to support this hypothesis once it is admitted, as Holy Scripture and the  Fathers show, that Antichrist has come and the Sacrifice has ceased. Their organizers and those controlling them behind the scenes have done so for obvious reasons, i.e., the two motives that fuel the ambitions of everyone today: power and money.  The 19^th century Maryland Redemptorist, Fr. Michael Muller, C.s.s.R, includes a poem in his book, The Church and Her Enemies, that tells us where we all stand today. It should convince anyone who believes that what we are now experiencing can be reversed that such is definitely not the case. And we note here that Fr. Muller does not even factor in here the arrival of Antichrist, — his usurpation of the papal See and the cessation of the Continual Sacrifice — which has now occurred. That should put all on notice who truly think this situation is reversible. And it should finally force them to re-examine, then correct, the fatal misdirection of their thinking processes by Liberals parading as the true Catholic Church.

(The following rendition of Fr. Muller’s poem, kindly brought to our attention by a reader, has been somewhat rearranged and adapted, but is faithful to the original meaning.)

• When senators openly buy the seats they occupy, legislators sell bonds for votes, and Christian statesmen pocket leprous notes;
• When brutal ignorance is armed with power and corporations the poor devour;
• When even the pulpit lends its aid to political parties for selfish and unholy ends, and the courts of justice scoundrels tend;
• When the press with great abandon brazenly broadcasts error;
• When luxury and corruption rules and despots seize the land, creating terror;
• When by reckless gamblers great fortunes are made, and swindling bankers ply their thrifty trade;
• When officials plunder savings accounts and rob the poor, who deemed their little pittances secure;
• When funds held for the poor common man are plundered then rationed, by officials who run the city, state and nation;
• When the curs bark at the heels of honesty and worth and every day sees some new monstrous birth of fraud and ingenious con-artistry, of a monstrous and unnatural villainy;
• When lying no longer disgraces even those who hold the highest places but has become a national disease; and when perjuries are thick as leaves on trees;
• When stock investments are fraudulently watered down and forbidden interests in the national treasury are found;
• When a country pays for private transportation and foots the bill for female vanities and shameful disportation;
• When murders and murderers multiply, their perpetrators acquitted and pardoned if it suits party uses and needs;
• When the widow goes unrelieved and the fatherless are wronged by naked greed;
• When devotion sleeps in cinders of contempt and the land with these leprous sins is rent;

WHEN YOU SEE THESE RIVALS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH THEN REND YOUR GARMENTS, AND LIKE JONAH CRY: REPENT OF YOUR SINS — THE END IS NIGH!!!

Gates of Hell will not prevail against “Marian Church of consummation”

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

+St. Robert Bellarmine+

Happy Mother’s Day Blessed Mother!

(Please read new additions to Mr. Javier Morell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide here.)

Introduction

In our last blog we focused on the meaning of the male child to whom the woman gives birth in Apoc. 12: 5, pointing out that certain commentators have identified this child as the Pope reigning immediately prior to the coming of Antichrist, (Frs. Berry, Kramer). We also explained the meaning of the “rod of iron” with which this Pope was to rule the Church from heaven, tracing its meaning to word origins and biblical usage.

That this form of explaining the Apocalypse is not any sort of private interpretation or novel method of expounding on this prophetic book is explained in detail by Rev. Bernard LeFrois, S.V.D. in his The Woman Clothed With the Sun (1954, Orbis Catholicus, a division of Herder Books, Rome). Lefrois calls this the collective method and uses it to cast light on further phases of Apocalypse 12, including the meaning of the woman herself, of the wilderness/desert and the great eagle, of the 1,260 days, the woman’s offspring, St. Michael’s role in opposing the dragon and the identity of the true remnant.

The results are both enlightening and gratifying and hopefully will help those trying to make sense of the Apocalypse better understand the methodology and imagery used by St. John. Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M, D.SScr., Professor at the Collegio Angelico in Rome, writes in his The Catholic Student’s Aids to the Bible, Vol. V: “In a very real sense we are now at ‘the last hour.’ The interpretation, then, of the Apocalypse must be governed by the rules which hold good in the interpretation of all prophecy. The full light will not be thrown on this prophetical book till those last things have received their ultimate fulfillment. The book [Apocalypse] is replete with mystery; it is itself the sealed book of Chap. 5…  St Jerome says: ‘John’s Apocalypse contains as many mysteries as words… in every single word lie hid many meanings.’ And St. Augustine said: ‘In… Apocalypse, many things are said in obscure fashion for the exercising of the reader’s mind. There are but few points in it, but their investigation opens up a laborious understanding of other points… ”

What follows will show readers exactly how the Apocalypse perfectly applies to those praying at home, providing ample proof of the love and tender care both Our Lord and His Blessed Mother have showered on those of us struggling to keep the faith. The sources quoted will demonstrate beyond a doubt that we are carried in the arms of our Blessed Mother, protected by St. Michael, strengthened by the Holy Ghost, and armed with the weapons necessary to conduct the spiritual combat on earth that, if we pray earnestly for perseverance, will earn our eternal reward.

What is a collective

A collective is “…an object both individual and collective. [It is] not disparate, diverse or unrelated, both together forming a unit or totality. The identical symbol in one and the same passage represents simultaneously both the individual and the collective. Both the Holy Ghost and the sacred author intended it as such… The individual collective is a fluctuation of symbols concerning individual and collective interpretations; neither is to be considered primary or secondary. This commingling of the collective and individual ‘is proper to Hebrew mentality’ (Rohr) or ‘vicarious solidarity’ (Lattey), or ‘corporate personality, where the whole group including its past, present and future members might function as a single individual through any one of those members conceived as representative of it’” (Wheeler Robinson). LeFrois endorses Robinson but relates what Robinson describes to “the semitic total conception of things or thinking of the individual and the species at one and the same time.” He also refers it to types.

This solves the problem of the Protestant interpretation of Apocalypse, which held primarily to the ancient context in which it was written, or to events that have already passed (historicism). St. Robert Bellarmine and other Jesuits taught that Apocalypse rather predicts future events culminating in a period occurring immediately prior to the Second Coming — the futuristic or Catholic interpretation of Apocalypse (also the book of Daniel and 2 Thess. 2). Collectivism gives the sacred book a wider scope of past, present and future. As Rev. Jean-Pierre de Caussade observes in his Abandonment to Divine Providence, it is a continuing cycle repeating itself until the final consummation. Collectivism is seen in the Apocalypse’s mention of the seven churches, the two witnesses, both Mary and the Church as the great sign, the beast with seven heads, and in other verses.

The woman and the popes

“And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” (Apoc. 12:1)

For centuries, commentators generally interpreted Apoc. 12:1 as referring primarily to the Church. But in his definition of the Assumption, Pope Pius XII described Our Lady as “…clothed with the sun and crowned with stars.” Pope St. Pius X also indulgenced a prayer that reads in part: “O Mary, crowned with stars, who has the moon for your footstool and the wings of the angels for your throne…” (AAS 37, 1904-1905). While LeFrois does not credit this as an official interpretation of Apoc. 12:1, he quotes Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu as encouraging exegetes to find a new solution to the interpretation of this verse, since many more modern authors began associating it with the Blessed Mother. LeFrois provides a lengthy list of these. In the collective sense, Mary can be seen as the woman giving birth not only to her Divine Son, but to all the members of the Mystical Body after Christ’s death on the Cross. It is most fitting that Christ placed His Mother in St. John’s care, and St. John in His Mother’s care, embracing the entire Church — fitting because it was this very apostle who gave us the Apocalyptic visions.

LeFrois calls Our Lady both an individual and a collective, “an arch-type of the Church… clothed in the fullness of the Divinity… [She] alone conceived the entire Christ, both head and members, to be mother of all the living.” LeFrois insists, however that the male child she bears in Apoc. 12: 5 can only be the Messiah Himself, symbolizing the joint rule of God with Christ. The “rod of iron” he defines as the rigor Christ will exercise in the end to punish and judge His enemies. But if we apply the collective method to this verse, how can it not also refer to the pope then reigning, who is “taken out of the way” (2 Thess. 2: 7)? For while Our Lady gives birth to the Messias, it is the Church, already part of the collective, which, in like manner, “gives birth” to the pope. This is what Frs. Berry and Kramer believed, and what Henry Cardinal Manning taught would occur shortly before Antichrist reigns. This pope, of course, would be one of the members Our Lady conceived, belonging to the Mystical Body, the actual earthly head of that Body; the very member who defined the nature of the Mystical Body in Mystici Corporis Christi.

The pope and Christ rule dually as Head of the Church on earth. As Pope Pius XI stated: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the vicar of Christ, which means I am God on the earth.” LeFrois simply failed to extend the collective method directly to Apoc. 12:1, perhaps to avoid controversy. Other commentators, however, did so apply it, and we have seen that their estimations more closely fit the circumstances we experience today.

The 1,260 days in the wilderness

“And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her for 1,260 days” (Apoc. 12: 6).

(River in tundra, Alaska)

Revs. Berry, Allo, LeFrois, and the Fathers Lactantius and St. Hippolytus all maintain there will be two separate 1,260-day periods where the Church will be protected from the full brunt of Antichrist’s torments. (St. Augustine says these days can mean any length of time, according to Fr. Arminjon, as does St. Bede, and LeFrois and Heidt, among others agree). The first period follows the invalid 1958 election and is set in days but appears to be an indefinite period — three- and one-half years. The second time-period mentioned is referred to as a time, times and half a time, or the entire time.

LeFrois explains: “Oddly enough, there is no mention of the time element of three and a half years in the book of Kings where the life of Elias is recounted… but only of ‘many days’ when there was no rain. Hence it seems that the phrase three and a half years is a technical symbol, which does not wish to express so much a period of time as a period of tribulation and woe, (emph. his). This of course does not exclude the idea that it is a period of time, but it clarifies the issue that three and a half years are not to be taken in a literal sense.” Abbe Constant Fouard, in his St. John and the Close of the Apostolic Age notes that: “These three years and a half, the half of seven, the number signifying perfection, denote an imperfect time which will not be completed.”

LeFrois quotes a J. Bonsirven in support of this statement. He continues: “The peculiar detail of 1,260 days, which is intended to be the equivalent of 42 months as well as three and a half years, may refer simply to the Messianic era in its entirety, considered from various angles, (Rev. Allo).” So Rev. Allo also agrees with this interpretation of the 1,260 days or 42 months as an indefinite time period. One Father, St. Augustine, states that, “…The word day in Holy Scripture is to be understood in the sense of any length of time,” (Malachias 3: 1,2;” The End of the Present World and Mysteries of the Future Life, Rev. Charles Marie Antoine Arminjon, 1881). The first time the Church shelters in the wilderness (Verse 6), the second time in the desert (verse 14). Revs. Kramer and Berry opine the wilderness is some non-Catholic nation signified by the great eagle but Kramer also identifies the two wings as those of St. Michael, aiding the Church, as does Rev. LeFrois. A few other commentators suggest this as well.

This could indicate the St. Michael Prayer abrogated by the false Vatican 2 council in 1964 and officially abrogated with the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969, when many finally realized what the V2 changes really meant and began to exit the Church. As mentioned before, the three years and a half (1,260 days) all assume to be the brief duration of Antichrist’s entire reign is described by many commentators as only the heighth or pinnacle of his reign of (spiritual) terror. This might be counted from Paul 6’s victorious address to the United Nations Oct. 4, 1965 — two weeks after the passage of the schema on religious liberty by the council fathers –1,997 to 224 — to the official promulgation of the Novus Ordo on April 3, 1969: this is almost exactly three years and a half. After leaving the Novus Ordo church, Catholics found themselves wandering in the wilderness. Wilderness, in this sense, could mean (at least a temporary)  cleansing from “all inclination to idolatry” (Fr. Kramer) as was the case with the Chosen People in the wilderness or desert. But of course, this did not last.

Wilderness defined in detail

LeFrois, by cross-referencing wilderness to its root origins and usage in Holy Scripture observes that basically wilderness means “being solitary (from the Greek), which could translate to “on your own.” It is also a “solitary place devoid of people,” or with only “a few inhabitants.” For Our Lord, the wilderness is “a solitary place well-suited for communion with God.” It  can also mean “a place of refuge for the persecuted, a woman desolate because she is without children.” It also suggests disobedience and chastisement (1 Cor. 10:5,  6-11; Heb. 3: 8, 3-17;Ps. 77, 78). If wilderness is seen as a conviction that one can only pray at home to observe God’s laws, then certainly it can serve as a fitting penance for previous disobedience to those laws as well as a chastisement for all Catholics, in losing the Mass and Sacraments. In this sense we might view ourselves as scapegoats, sent into the wilderness in the Old Testament bearing the sins of the people (Lev. 16: 1-34), there to perish for the sins of others (by martyrdom of blood or of spirit; the “white martyrdom” St. John himself experienced as a result of his exile to the isle of Patmos). Christ Himself has been called a scapegoat, for He took upon Himself all of our sins. We should therefore wear our exile as a badge of honor.

But LeFrois paints a more glorious picture of this wilderness/desert experience, writing that: “Wilderness implied par excellence God’s special divine Providence toward Israel and her delivery from the enemy through God’s intervention (Jn. 3: 14,  6:31, 49; Acts 13:18). Also 3 Kgs. 17:2 and 19:3 and the Didactic books of Psalms and Wisdom refer to the wonderful things wrought by God for His people in the wilderness. The Messiah was to make His appearance in the wilderness in proper sense of the word, but reactionary forces also associated themselves with the wilderness and our Lord warned them against this: “If they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness, do not go out,’” Matt. 24:26, (Ed — A pointed reference to Traditionalist reactionaries who took matters into their own hands). “But Apocalypse depicts the wilderness as a place of refuge for the woman fleeing from the dragon and in pursuit of her. So wilderness is not literal but symbolic… Wilderness implies God’s special divine Providence and intervention by which the woman is sustained in life until a period of trial and tribulation is over.” And yet it can be said in our case to apply literally in a sense as well.

LeFrois then quotes the Bible verse that Protestants use to justify the rapture, for the REAL RAPTURE lies in God’s miraculous intervention and Our Lady’s protection of her children on this earth. LeFrois continues: “The wilderness is a definite place or state. The woman is inviolable against attacks of Satan not only by means of her being carried away to a place prepared by God but also by means of the earth coming to the aid of the woman and swallowing up the river the dragon had poured from his mouth” (Apoc. 12:16). He then describes how God sends the woman (Mary and the Church) “…special divine protection through angelic assistance and she is kept miraculously from harm and destruction.” While being sheltered in the wilderness with Our Lady, which LeFrois refers to several times, the faithful are miraculously protected. Eagle wings, he says, points to the extraordinary. And although he explains it in a different way, Rev. Rev. H.B. Kramer also intimates this miraculous intervention, commenting on Apoc. 10: 7, which he interprets as assuring “the preservation of the faithful and the triumphant ascendancy of the Church above the smoke of the great conflagration.”

While LeFrois combines the wilderness and desert period into one period, he could not foresee how it might be interpreted differently in what would transpire following the invalid election of Angelo Roncalli (John 23). First the Church was delivered from the idolatry of the Novus Ordo usurpers and their sacrilegious liturgy. But as explained in Apoc. 12:17, Satan waited to war against the rest of her seed, those born prior to the death of Pope Pius XII who had not yet reached maturity. This is when the second wave hit – Traditionalism parading as true Catholicity, luring the faithful once again into sacrilege. Only a tiny minority would escape this subterfuge to shelter in the desert. For this reason the wilderness/desert will be treated as two separate periods here, and what he says about the Church nourished in the wilderness will be applied instead to their desert time.

Desert vs. wilderness

“And… the dragon… persecuted the woman who brought forth the man child, and there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time from the face of the serpent.” (Apoc. 12: 13-14)

The meaning of desert corresponds with the desolation wrought by Antichrist and his system, as in the abomination of desolation. Desert is defined by Merriam-Webster as: “3. A desolate or forbidding area.” From etymology it can be defined as a “waterless, treeless region of considerable extent” …in Middle English, [which] gradually became the main meaning, Classical Latin indicated this idea with deserta, plural of desertus.” It also can mean “to leave, abandon, either in a good or bad sense; fact of deserving a certain treatment (for good or ill) for one’s behavior.” (https://www.etymonline.com/word/desert) Wilderness, on the other hand, is defined at the same site as “wild, uninhabited, or uncultivated place,” The word is show as wil+ deer+ ness, deer or “deor” being the equivalent to “wild animal, beast, any wild quadruped” and ness  “denoting action, quality, or state.” So perhaps wilderness indicates Catholics subject to men they do not yet know are beasts, the sea beast and the land beast, (John 23 and Paul 6) of Apoc. Ch. 13, But this ends when Paul 6 announces the institution of his “new mass.”

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The word wilderness, which is more frequently used than desert of the region of the Exodus, more nearly approaches the meaning of the Hebrew, though not quite expressing it… When we speak of the desert our thoughts are naturally borne to such places as the Sahara, a great sandy waste, incapable of vegetation, impossible as a dwelling-place for men, and where no human being is found except when hurrying through as quickly as he can. No such ideas are attached to the Hebrew words for desert.  It is from the root dabar, “to lead” (cattle to pasture)The inhabitants were mostly nomads. For the desert was not a place regularly cultivated like the fields and gardens of ordinary civilized districts. Rather, it was a region in which was to be found pasturage, not rich, but sufficient for sheep and goats… The desert, too, was looked upon as the abode of wild beasts…” [the assaults on those praying at home by Traditionalists]. “It was not fertilized by streams of water, but springs were to be found there… ‘Arabah, derived from the root ‘arab, “to be arid”, is another word for desert… It conveys the idea of a stretch of country, arid, unproductive, and desolate.

“Horbah, derived from the root harab, “to lie waste”, is translated in the Septuagint by the words eremos, eremosis, eremia. In the Vulgate are found the renderings ruinœ, solitudo, desolation… The lexicon of Gesenius gives as the first meaning of horbah, “dryness”; then as a second meaning, “a desolation“, “ruins.” Jeshimon, derived from jasham, “to be desolate”. It was looked upon as a place without water, thus Isaiah 43:19: “Behold I shall set up streams in the desert [jeshimon].” So those of us praying at home can be seen as sin-goats led out to pasture by Our Lady, the Holy Ghost and St. Michael, after the ruin and desolation of our Church, to live as solitaires in a place that provides limited food and water, but enough to sustain (spiritual) life. This spiritual desert experience is referred to indirectly by St. Francis de Sales, who noted that while the early Fathers fled to the desert to avoid contamination of the world and persecution of their enemies, in the early centuries they were deprived of the Sacraments. Yet we have the necessary Sacraments, and our manna, the Act of Contrition and Spiritual Communion. We live in the desert, until released by death or the Second Coming.

(Man in robe walking in the desert created with Generative AI technology.)

So the distinction between wilderness and desert is an important one. In the wilderness, 1958-1969, for a brief time, there was yet (limited) access to valid Sacraments, for there are sometimes mighty rivers and streams (water signifying the Sacraments in general) in the wilderness. Catholics then, for the most part, were not yet aware that their Church had been hijacked. But conditions in the desert are not so kind. There is a big difference between uncultivated land (meaning it could be cultivated) and land largely unable to be cultivated; between streams and rivers and (seasonal) creeks and springs, or infrequent oases. The two separate time periods of the woman’s escape from the clutches of the dragon (1,260 days, 42 months, Apoc. 13:5) are both part of the collective (time, times and half-a-time) of Apoc. 12:14. The Church is actually in the desert/wilderness for the entire time, (70 years, or an entire biblical generation) although many do not realize this until later. The Man of Sin runs his course, but his system lives on, resulting ultimately in the return of Satan to encompass the camp of the saints (Apoc. 20: 7-8).

On eagle’s wings

An eagle could easily signify the mighty assistance of the Holy Ghost, ordinarily depicted as a dove. Those who are borne on the wings of the eagle to the desert may be referenced in the following verses: Exodus 19:4: “I have carried you upon the wings of eagles and brought you unto myself;” Malachi 4:2: “But unto you that fear my name the Sun of justice shall arise, and health in his wings”; and from Isaias: 40:31; “But they that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.” All of these verses are replete with the idea of nourishment and protection, renewal of spiritual health and strength; everything needed by the weary faithful tossed to and fro in the turbulent wake created by the Sea Beast. Berry says the two wings symbolize faith and prayer; Rev. Haydock says love of God; others, prayer and contemplation. Commenting on the verse from Exodus, Rev. William Heidt says: “The figure [in Exodus] would carry overtones of loving care, of speedy assistance, of absolute security… As Israel’s stay in the desert of Sinai was cherished as her ideal period of intimacy with Yaweh, so the woman fleeing into the wilderness…”

The serpent, frustrated at the woman’s escape, sets off to “make war with the rest of her seed who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Apoc. 12:17). Analyzing the origins of the word seed,  LeFrois observes: “In speaking of the rest of her offspring, the seer implicitly refers to the entire offspring. Hence the vision represents the entire offspring of the woman as a unit which she brings forth in verse 5 after [the male child] is carried off to God’s throne. The rest of her offspring are still on earth (verse 17)… This symbolizes a totality which comprises both an individual and a collectivity. The rest of her offspring makes it clear that they are the members of Christ, or the branches of the true vine in the language of John. The rest of the woman’s offspring are contrasted with the child who was born of her and snatched away to the throne of God.

“The rest are characterized as those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus (Apoc. 12: 17). Hence, though the woman gives birth to them and they form part of her “sperma” or seed, they are her spiritual sons similarly as the Gentiles by faith become the spiritual sons of Abraham.” And this “sperma” alone initially could come only from the woman’s spouse, the Holy Ghost, who has carried her and the Church itself into the desert on His mighty wings. Not only are the woman’s offspring bound to keep the commandments and bear witness, but they must also keep all the laws of the Church and obey all the commands of Christ’s vicars who spoke with His voice while on earth. This Pope Pius XII states in Mystici Corporis Christi, in his definition of who comprise the Church and may be considered as Her members. And this same pope binds all from heaven, during this extended earthly interregnum, with his papal election constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which infallibly nullifies and invalidates any attempt to change papal or canon laws.

LeFrois says of those faithful nourished in the desert/wilderness: “[Word] is a favorite Johannine expression occurring eight times in the gospel, 11 times in the Apocalypse and seven times in the first letter. In all but a few cases it is bound up with the commandments or the word given to the disciples by Christ that they might live worthily as children of God. In the Apocalypse, commandment is never spoken of without Jesus being mentioned. Whole passages from 1John are a commentary on the phrase ‘keep His commandments.’ Such a one abides in God; such are the children of God and they receive whatever they ask of God; whoever bears testimony that Jesus is the son of God abides in God and God in him; everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is the child of God.

“In Apoc.12:17 the rest of the woman’s offspring are characterized as those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus, hence the woman’s offspring is the Messias-King who is the Son of God, and the sons of God members of Christ who are also born of her. Together they are destined to rule the nations (Apoc. 12:5 and 2:26). Together they are destined to share the throne of God (Apoc. 12:5 and 3:21). But first of all, in the footsteps of the Lamb, they must be prepared for persecution and death. The Lamb’s sacrificial death is their pledge of victory (Apoc. 12:11), and they will conquer by confessing Christ even unto death (12:11). When the dragon goads the beast on to overcome them, ‘Here is a call from the endurance of the Saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus’ (Apoc. 14:12).”

Conclusion

The etymology of the word “camp,” from the 1520s, is “a place where an army lodges temporarily… tents or rude places of shelter… body of adherents of a doctrine or cause… The Latin word had been taken up in early West Germanic as *kampo-z and appeared originally in Old English as camp “contest, battle, fight, war” (see etymology link above). So when the Church militant, those trying their best to be soldiers of Christ, are surrounded in their temporary desert abode, then comes the very end. LeFrois concludes his work with the following comments: “In Apocalypse 12 we are dealing with an optical or visionary context. Events widely separated in their fulfillment are described together. Sharing the nature of the apocalyptic, they refer partly to the past and partly remain to be fulfilled. Abrupt passage from the one to the other is quite in keeping with what has been mentioned above. If these basic facts are kept in mind, the message of Apocalypse 12 becomes clearer.

“The sounding of the seventh trumpet was not only the signal for the third woe. it also proclaimed the consummation of God’s mystery or sacred designs. Thus the Angel made it known in Apoc. 10:6-7: “The angel… swore by him who liveth forever and ever… THAT TIME SHALL BE NO LONGER…  But in the days of the voice of the seventh Angel, when he shall begin to sound the trumpet, THE MYSTERY OF GOD SHALL BE FINISHED, as he hath declared by his servants the prophets.” Hence the seer has the last sounding of the trumpet introduce THE CONSUMMATE STAGE OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH simultaneously with the third woe, “ (Ed. — and this is the confirmation of the end of the age). “If in the godless reign of Antichrist the mystery of evil shall seem to triumph over everything, the mystery of God shall have reached maturity and shall stand prepared to bear witness to the Lamb. But before that scene unfolds, the stupendous vision of chapter 12 is introduced which discloses the reality behind the scenes, clarifies the goal as well as the means to reach it and imparts the needed assurance of victory…

“On that Marian Church of the consummation Satan sees but the woman he hates and hence the full flood of his spirit is launched against her. It is a last gigantic attempt to blot out the image of the woman from the face of the earth. He will muster the whole world and all nations against her in a destructive avalanche of terror and death. But God protects the chosen Mother of Christ. Though the beast may kill many of the Saints and thus seem to conquer them, the Marian church remains inviolable and indestructible till the very end of time for the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. God will intervene to sustain her both with angelic assistance and divine judgments on the satanic hordes. In her special place prepared by God, Satan will not enter nor shall he overcome her. It is the inviolable character of the Virgin Mother that is blossoming forth also in this respect in the totality for which she stands. For Satan there is only defeat…

“Let Christ’s faithful ones lift up their heads in confidence. Though the beast rules mightily from east to West and is adored over the whole world, dominion and power and universal rule belong to Christ and those that are one with Him. From His mouth issues a sharp sword which with to smite the nations and He will “rule them with a rod of iron;” He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.”

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

by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 14, 2023 | New Blog

+St. Justin, Martyr+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining Millenarianism

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

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

No spiritual period of peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antichrist will be a specific individual

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

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

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

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

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

St. Bernard and Pope Paul IV define Antichrist

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

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

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

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

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

Cessation of the Continual Sacrifice

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sorry for misspelling your name in past blogs!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Pius II, Execrabilis, 1460.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution of this fable:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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