+St. Paul the First Hermit+
(URGENT REQUEST: In light of the continuing attempts to infiltrate and divide those praying at home by various entities both known to us as well as others yet to be identified, we beg our readers to please join us in the Unity Octave novena beginning on January 18, Feast of St. Peter’s Chair in Rome. To recite these prayers, please scroll to the bottom of the blog HERE.)
The unanimous teachings of the Fathers on Antichrist
There has been much (unnecessary) confusion arising from the assertion on this site that Paul 6 was Antichrist. Some are suggesting that this belief is not in conformity with the unanimous opinion of the early Fathers and does not take into consideration Catholic prophecy regarding the reign of Antichrist. First, we will address the topic of the unanimous opinion of the Fathers.
The Council of Trent as well as the Vatican Council teach that whatever the early Fathers agree on unanimously regarding faith and morals must be accepted as coming from the Church Herself. Yet Pope Leo XIII wrote in Providentissimus Deus, (Nov. 1893): “Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for ‘in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,’ according to the opinion of St. Thomas.”
In other words, only the Holy See may determine when the unanimous opinion of the Fathers has rightly been stated or understood, and the only exception to this general rule is when a highly esteemed Church official has declared that something contained in Holy Scripture is indeed the unanimous opinion of the Fathers. The one issue that so many of these so-called Catholic writers on Antichrist consistently fail to address is the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice as the very act that will allow the correct identification of the Man of Sin. So many refer to the institution of the Novus Ordo as the “abomination of desolation” but neglect to identify the one instituting it as Antichrist! Henry Cardinal Manning succinctly states in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See that: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” This statement we can trust, but not the statement of those attempting to prove the unanimous opinions of the Fathers support their claims without even demonstrating that such an opinion is truly a) unanimous, as demonstrated by approved authors and b) to be believed as a matter of faith.
And Pope Pius XII writes in his encyclical on Holy Scripture, Divini Afflante Spiritu: “There are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the holy Fathers is unanimous.” We cannot take the word of lay people writing today that such texts are unanimous, for such writers often confuse the common opinion of the Fathers with their unanimous opinion. This is why we may only take the word of approved authors that a certain teaching is truly unanimous. But when a pope has himself taught infallibly on the subject of Antichrist the very fact he has thus taught demands our firm assent and obedience. Such is the case with Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which defines who and what is to be considered the abomination of desolation and how the abomination could enter into the Holy Place through an invalid papal election. (For those who object that Antichrist and the abomination are not the same thing, please see the article HERE.) We also have the testimony of Pope Leo XIII in his long St. Michael’s prayer that: “In the Holy Place itself… they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep will be scattered.” Popes Pius XI and Pius XII also warned that Antichrist was already within the gates. The Holy Place also is designated as the Church in St. Jerome’s commentary in the Breviary for the 24th and last Sunday after Pentecost.
The second objection, that Paul 6 as Antichrist does not reflect the predictions contained in private revelations is not a valid accusation. Those evaluating these revelations are nearly always of the LibTrad persuasion, including the Lefebvrist and Monarchist Yves Dupont, whose The Antichrist is provided on one site to “refute” the idea that Paul 6 was the Antichrist. While Dupont’s writings on other topics are not objectionable per se, his estimation of the prophecies cannot be said to amount to anything a Catholic is required or even advised to believe regarding the advent of Antichrist. The theologian Gerson, in his Treatise on the examination of doctrines, relates that Pope Gregory XI, when on the point of death, holding the sacred body of Christ in his hands, protested before all, and warned them to beware both of men and women, “who under the guise of religion, speak visions of their own head” for that he, seduced by such, had neglected the reasonable counsel of his friends, and had dragged himself and the Church to the hazard of imminent schism, if her merciful spouse Jesus had not provided against it.” Pope Benedict XIV said these revelations: “…ought not to, and cannot receive from us any assent of Catholic, but only of human faith, ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PRUDENCE, according to which the aforesaid revelations ARE PROBABLE, and piously to be believed.” Today we cannot even be certain these prophecies are faithfully reproduced.
Catholics must not consider such revelations equivalent to a papal pronouncement, or the unanimous consent of the Fathers and/or approved theologians. (See the article HERE.) As one theologian has remarked: “Many of these revelations are beyond the needs and the intelligence even of persons already far advanced in the spiritual life and are often clothed in language quite unintelligible. And herein precisely lies a new source of anxiety, BECAUSE A NEW DANGER, NAMELY, THE DANGER OF UNDERSTANDING THE REVELATION IN A WRONG SENSE, WHICH MAY EASILY LEAD TO POSITIVE ERROR AND SIN AGAINST THE “RULE OF FAITH.” And this is what has happened with many of these revelations regarding Antichrist. Also, some of these revelations contain errors later condemned by the Holy See, such as the teaching regarding the Great Monarch and an earthly millennium as taught by Joachim of Fiore, also others (see HERE).
Grades of certainty regarding Antichrist
Given the confusion created by these LibTrad writers, a reader has requested “a more detailed description and analysis” of the points offered on this site and attributed to the work of an approved theologian, Fr. A. Lemman’s The Antichrist. These points and their commentary can be found in Rev. Denis Fahey’s The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, pgs. 175-190. We intended, in offering reference to this work, that readers study Fahey’s work itself for a better understanding of the topic. But to avoid any confusion for those not able to access this work, quotes will be taken from it below to better explain the basis for Fr. Lemman’s evaluation of these points.
- Things that are certain about Antichrist;
- Things that are probable;
- Things that are undecided;
- Things that have not a solid foundation
- Things that are CERTAIN (that is, those things which must be believed either from Holy Scripture or the unanimous opinion of the Fatherss. These include:
- He will be a trial for the good (Apoc. XIII, 7), and a chastisement for the impious and the apostates (II Thess., II, 9-11). TSB: This is all that is provided, Holy Scripture being sufficient.
- He will be a man, a human person. (Lemann: “Antichrist is not a myth or a fiction, as Renan, in his silly fashion, tried to show.1 Neither must he be confused with a sect, a collection of impious men, an atheistic environment, or a period of persecution, as certain pious persons have imagined. Antichrist will be a human person, appearing in an epoch of atheism and of wicked sectaries.”)
- He will not be Satan in human form but only a man (Suarez, De Antichristo, Sect. 1, n. 4 and 5). (TSB: it could be said, however, that he might be possessed by the devil.)
- He will have great powers of seduction, owing to certain personal qualities. (“Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish,” II Thess., II, 9, 10).
TSB: Paul 6 undoubtedly charmed the Protestants, the Orthodox and the Jews, who he invited to the false Vatican 2 Council. He won the applause of world figures and the admiration of the “faithful” with his address to the UN. The theological world gloried in his Modernistic teachings, and nearly all accepted and taught them. He gave every appearance of being a true pope and reconciling all world religions, including Communism and Freemasonry, to Catholicism, when this was a doctrinal impossibility.)
- His career beginnings will be lowly (“The horn is called small, because it will grow little by little, and because it will arrive at domination, not by hereditary right, but by fraud” Cornelius a Lapide, in Ep. ad Thess., II, II.)
TSB: Montini was sickly and studied for the priesthood at home. He initially rose through the ranks as any other cleric. He did not receive the formal position of Secretary of Vatican State but acted only as a “pro-secretary.” Owing to the deceptions he perpetrated during Pope Pius XII’s reign, he was refused the cardinalate.)
- He will increase in power and make conquests. (TSB: Over time, Paul 6, as a Vatican official, secretly became involved with the British intelligence agency the OSS during WWII, and after the war ended, the CIA, preparing to align himself later with world governments. As a cardinal under the false prophet Roncalli, he continued this campaign openly until his invalid election as “pope.” See Lemann on no. 7 below.)
- His rule will be worldwide. (Lemman: “With the help which will be furnished him by the anti-Christian societies, this enemy of Our Lord Jesus Christ will be able to form a gigantic empire in a short time.” Pope Leo XIII warned: “What is aimed at and what is intended is the overthrow of Christian institutions and the reconstruction of States on the basis of Pagan Naturalism” (Letter to the Sacred College of Cardinals, 1901).
TSB: Paul 6 helped prepare the way for the democratization of all Christian states by the U. S. Because he pretended to be the head of what the world perceived as the Catholic Church, his reign was universal.
8.He will wage a terrible war against God and the Church. Fr. Fahey: “Father Lemann indicates some of the measures which, to judge by the experience of past persecutions, Antichrist will enforce more thoroughly and more cruelly than ever before. Two of them are: Proscription of Christian teaching and obligatory teaching of error. We can see them already in force in the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Father Lemann adds that ‘The schools without God or rather against God are a preparation for the second measure.’ In that he is perfectly correct, for the Declaration of the Rights of Man of the French Revolution, in the name of which these schools function in France, signified repudiation of membership of Christ, and was thus a declaration of war on the Divine Plan for Order.”
TSB: Christian teaching was removed from public schools in the U.S. during Paul 6’s reign. Following Vatican 2, the catechisms were all revised and error taught to previously Catholic school children worldwide. Error was officially taught by command of a pretended pope from the Holy Place with the adoption of “for all men,” first in the missalettes distributed to the faithful beginning in 1959, and later formally by the abrogation of the Latin Mass in 1969.)
- He will claim to be God and will demand exclusive adoration. (Fr. Fahey: In 1903 Pope St. Pius X wrote: “So extreme is the general perversion that there is reason to fear that we are experiencing the foretaste and the beginnings of the evils which are to come at the end of time, and that the Son of Perdition, of whom the Apostle speaks, has already arrived upon the earth.” (Note: Leo Panakal later pointed out that when St. Pius X wrote these ominous lines in 1903, Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Paul VI, was six years old.) “So great are the fury and hatred with which religion is everywhere assailed, that it seems to be a determined effort to destroy every vestige of the relation between God and man. On the other hand — and this is, according to [St. Paul], the special characteristic of Antichrist— with frightful presumption man is attempting to usurp the place of his Creator and is lifting himself above all that is called God. Thus, powerless to extinguish completely in himself the notion of God, he is attempting to shake off the yoke of His Majesty and is dedicating the visible world to himself as a temple, in which he has the pretension to receive the adoration of his fellow men, ‘So that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God.” (II Thess., II, 4 ; Encyclical Letter, E Supremi Apostolatus Cathedra, Oct. 4, 1903).
TSB: Francis teaches: “A spark of the Divine is in each of us; therefore, Man is God.” Both Paul 6 and John Paul 2 taught the same. Paul 6 taught: “Are you looking for God? You will find Him in man.” (John Clancy, Dialogues: Refelections on God and Man, 1965). Paul 6 placed himself above all that is called God by pretending to speak in His name as pope. As Pope Pius XI taught: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means I am God on the earth” (April 22, 1930).
- By means of diabolical prodigies, Antichrist will seek to prove that he is God. (Lemman: “The question is often asked,” writes St. Augustine, “whether these expressions ‘signs and lying wonders’ are to be understood in the sense that the prodigies wrought by Antichrist will be only apparent, not real; or as signifying that the really extraordinary feats performed by him will draw on to error and falsehood those who accept them as proofs of a divine mission ?’* The great Doctor replies: ‘This will be known later’ (City of God). This hesitation has given rise to two currents of opinion (Suarez, de Antichristo). Some think that the prodigies wrought by Antichrist will be real prodigies and that they will lead to the acceptance of falsehood, that is, to belief in the divinity of Antichrist. Others hold that all the miracles of Antichrist will be false and unreal and that they will be accepted as true thanks to the action of the demon on the senses of his followers. ‘”He will come, when he comes, with all Satan’s influence to aid him: there will be no lack of power, of counterfeit signs and wonders” (The New Testament, by Mgr. R. A. Knox; also agreeing with these works as entirely false prodigies is 1 Cornelius a Lapide., II Thess., II, 9; Bern, a Piconio, II Ep. ad Thess., c. 11, 9.; also St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis de Sales).
- Antichrist will cause the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to cease.
TSB: This is not contained in Fr. Fahey’s coverage of Fr. Lemman’s points. Fr. Lemman admits in the introduction to his points that “Space will permit of only a brief outline of what is contained under A, B, and C.” Henry Cardinal Manning clearly states in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See that: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” I dare say that Card. Manning is a greater authority on this topic than Fr. Lemman. And not only is this a unanimous opinion of the Fathers; three notable Doctor of the Church — St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Francis de Sales — also teach this as well. St. Bellarmine is adamant on this matter, stating no one can claim Antichrist has come as long as the Mass of Pope St. Pius V is in place (De Contoversiis: on Antichrist, Ryan Grant translation, p. 67). For, having written his work in 1590, St. Bellarmine was undoubtedly referring to the Mass of Pope Pius V, since Pope St. Pius V promulgated his constitution Quo Primumin 1570.
- The domination and persecution of Antichrist will be merely temporary. The Man of Sin will be destroyed (Dan., VII, 26; Apoc, XIX, 20; II Thess., II, 8).
TSB: Paul 6 died like any other man, although his system remains. Although he was a Traditionalist, Francis Panakal did support his work with solid proofs regarding Paul 6’s identification as the Man of Sin. In his 1983 work, The Man of Sin, Panakal noted that Montini died on the feast of the Transfiguration, Aug. 6, 1978, relating it to 2 Thess. 2: 9-10: “And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
During the Transfiguration, Christ’s countenance and entire Body became dazzlingly bright, signifying his identity as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The spirit of his mouth Panakal associates with Christ actually addressing Paul 6 as he did St. Paul, asking, “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecuteth me?” He opines that Paul 6 did not know he was the Antichrist until the moment of his death, and that after he learned his true identity he was destroyed by this revelation. Panakal points to one unconfirmed report in a Catholic publication which related that Paul 6 cried out and his face became contorted shortly before he breathed his last, and the putrefaction of his body began immediately after his death.
Things that are PROBABLE
First Probability: The Jews will acclaim Antichrist as the Messias and will help to set up his kingdom.
Lemman: “I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive ” (St. John, V, 43).” It is upon” this reproach addressed by Our Lord Jesus Christ to the Jews, his contemporaries and adversaries, that this belief is based, and it can be said that it is the common opinion of the Fathers of the Church, for example, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Ephraim, St. John Chrysostom, etc., etc.. . . . When we see the enormous financial power of the Jews increasing daily, when we consider their intrigues, their successful occupancy of the chief places in the principal States, their mutual understanding from one end of the world to the other, then in presence of such a preponderance, we have no difficulty in realizing that they will be able to contribute to the establishment of the formidable empire of Antichrist.”
TSB: To be accepted as the Messias, Antichrist would need to be of the Jewish race. That Paul 6 presented as a Jew and was of Jewish heritage was pointed out by Fr. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga in the 1970s. (See the proofs HERE.) It is also a matter of established fact that both he and Angelo Roncalli, the false prophet, pandered to the Jews and absolved them of all guilt in Christ’s Passion and death on the Cross. In his de Controversiis on Antichrist, St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that it is a certainty that Antichrist will be of the Jewish race and will be received by them as the Messiah. P. Huchede teaches the same in his History of Antichrist,
The persecution of Antichrist will last three years and a half.
Lemman: ”And they [the Saints] shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time” (Dan., VII, 25). “And power was given him to do two and forty months ” (Apoc. XIII, 5). It has been pointed out previously (eleventh point that is certain), that the power and the persecution of Antichrist will be only temporary. That is certain. Is it possible to determine their exact duration? One can give only a probable, not a certain, answer, according to the two texts quoted.” (See HERE for proofs showing that belief in the literal three years and a half are not a matter of faith and Catholics should adopt an opposite view whenever reason or obvious facts would dictate otherwise.)
What constitutes true probability? The scholastic theologian Rev. A.C. Cotter, S.J., in his work, The ABC of Scholastic Philosophy defines a probable opinion as follows: “Probability admits degrees; for one motive may be better and more solid than another. Thus if ten scientists testified to the truth of the atomic theory the layman has a stronger motive for assenting than if only one scientist proposed it. Hence:
- a) One opinion may be more probable than another, as happens when better arguments are had for the one than for its opposite.
- b) An opinion is said to be highly probable if there are excellent reasons for it and hardly any against it.
- c) An opinion is most probable if there are excellent reasons for it, hardly any for contrary opinions on the same matter.
- d) An opinion is the only probable one if there are solid though not infallible reasons for it and if all other opinions concerning the same matter are certainly wrong or devoid of any solid foundation.
- e) Two contradictory propositions may be probable at the same time. This happens when the motives for them are disparate so that they do not destroy each other.
Things that are UNDECIDED
(These are four points that are not based upon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or upon precise texts of Holy Writ.)
1) His name; 2) his nationality; 3) the seat of his empire.
TSB: Given that Montini corresponds to all the points that are listed above as certain, and even settles those that are probable, it can then be deduced that he does fit the description of Antichrist. The final undecided point is 4)The temple in which he will present himself. Once it is proven that a) Montini b) was of Jewish heritage and c) pretended to reign in the Church itself, from d) Rome, all four undecided points are then settled.
Things that have not a solid foundation
— The date for Antichrist’s coming (The Church forbids anyone to set a future date for his coming, but neither can anyone deny clear signs he has come. All the commentators writing on Apocalypse and the end times assume that those living in these times will be able to “read the signs of the times.”)
This is not intended to be an exhaustive evaluation of the Antichrist question. This study of Antichrist’s appearance has been spread out over several decades and is presented in different articles on my website. It also is addressed at length in my 2018 work, The Phantom Church in Rome. What many fail to understand regarding Antichrist is that the prophecies contained in Apocalypse are intended primarily to be taken in a spiritual or mystical sense and only secondarily in a literal sense. As Rev. Huchede points out in his work, some passages are amphibological, that is, capable of more than one interpretation. What also is not appreciated here is that some teachings even of the early Fathers were later condemned, such as that of millenarianism. The Great Monarch prophecies first taught by Joachim of Fiore were an instrumental part of this false millenarianism, and the Church later condemned his teachings. Pope Pius XII then determined that millenarianism cannot be safely taught. (See HERE).
According to Holy Scripture, Antichrist’s coming will be preceded by the Great Revolt, most often referred to by Scripture commentators as a general falling away of both the Catholic hierarchy and faithful. Henry Cardinal Manning says this began with the Reformation. This Man of Sin will be revealed only after “he who witholdeth” is taken out of the way,” most likely meaning the Pope. Pope Paul IV tells us in his 1559 bull that the abomination will be revealed following an invalid papal election. The early Fathers teach unanimously he will cause the Holy Sacrifice to cease, and will pretend to speak for God, as if he were God. Please tell me this: If Antichrist has yet to come, WHO will revolt from the Church (hardly any Catholics left anywhere), WHAT sacrifice will cease (no valid sacrifices are now being offered), and HOW would anyone ever believe such a person could speak for God in wreaking all the havoc that was Vatican 2 (since this is a privilege reserved only to a validly elected Pope?!) I have explained in the work HERE that Antichrist’s system could possibly produce a final physical and literal manifestation of Antichrist who would attempt to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. But this person would not himself be the Man of Sin in a spiritual sense.
No one has all the answers on this topic, but if they attempt to address it, they must follow all the rules in place. I have tried to do this to the best of my ability. The saints and Scriptural scholars writing on Antichrist left his final identification to those living at the time of his appearance on the world stage. St. Bellarmine writes: “All prophecies when they are fulfilled are made evident” (Ibid). Rev. Huchede agrees, writing: “The events connected with the end of the world will alone remove the mystery in which the sacred text is at present enveloped… What is mysterious [can only] be explained by the event.” For a better understanding of the situation today, in light of what was already occurring in the 19th century, please read the works of Henry Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ and The Present Crisis of the Holy See. Both are available for free download at archive.org.
+Feast of the Epiphany+
According to Merriam-Webster, an epiphany, in its modern-day definition means: 1) a usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something; (2) an intuitive grasp of reality through something (such as an event) usually simple and striking; (3) an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure. While we know that the feast of the Epiphany is celebrated to commemorate the Magi’s recognition of the Messiah, His first manifestation to the Gentiles, those among us have had our own epiphanies that have led us to where we are today. The three kings saw the star in the East and came to adore Him. They somehow knew as astronomers of sorts that the star’s appearance in the heavens was the portent of an exceptional event, even though they were pagans. What they experienced was an inspiration of the Holy Ghost on which they acted. These inspirations must not be ignored, for that amounts to a rejection of a gift sent directly by God for our spiritual benefit.
Eyes wide open
Of course most people today are unaware of this because they have no knowledge of the faith. But they do know what instinct and gut feelings mean and sometimes will heed these promptings. Without any real understanding of these inspirations of the Holy Ghost I also struggled to deal with the warnings I received as a young woman yet in my teens — and mind you I did not deserve to receive such a grace! It came one lonely night while I was watching something on television about the changes in the Church. A voice simply came to me and warned me I would live through times no one had ever seen before. From that time on I began looking over my shoulder but the chaos and immorality of the 1960s was enough proof for me that what I was hearing was true.
Three or four years later I read a book called None Dare Call it Conspiracy about the influence of the Illuminati in the various governments worldwide. In the 1980s I read Solange Hertz’s works on the Masonic origins of America’s government and this would further increase my understanding of how extensively Freemasonry had infiltrated not only governments but the Church Herself. I was beginning to see that I lived in very dangerous times. After returning briefly to the Novus Ordo to confirm my suspicions that they were no longer Catholic, I began exploring the Traditional movement and spent nearly five years with the ORCM, even writing for their publications. I also began reading books of Catholic prophecies and finally realized we were definitely living in the end times. All of this was the result of my initial inspiration but it would take many years of research to find my way out of the LibTrad and conclavist rabbit holes I fell into along the way.
The invalidity issue
When praying at home as a conclavist, I believed that LibTrad clergy were illicit and lacking jurisdiction but were not necessarily invalid. That was enough to avoid their operations as sacrilegious. But the validity question begged to be resolved because as Catholics we must not base how we act or believe on anything questionable if the question can be laid to rest; this is the teaching of the best moral theologians. After leaving conclavism, I began stating in articles that I wrote on my website that all LibTrad clergy were questionably valid on several counts. And finally I discovered that a proper understanding of Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) rendered all LibTrad clergy invalid from 1958 on and also invalidated the acts of clergy validly ordained and consecrated under Pius XII who accepted the usurpers as true popes. This is because even validly consecrated bishops must act only in communion with a canonically elected Roman Pontiff and the priests which they supply jurisdiction to cannot receive it from them if these bishops no longer possess it.
I had resolved the question of who these usurpers were early on in the game following others who already believed Paul 6 was Antichrist. To the best of my knowledge, I was the only one to point out however that John the 23rd acted as the false prophet predicted in chapter 13 of the Apocalypse. I went on to write articles and books that explained how this was so and how the role he played in creating Montini a cardinal and preparing him for his future “papacy.”
Once the invalidity issue was proven and resolved it became clear that after the death of all the bishops consecrated by Pius XII, there was no possibility of electing another Pope. The minute it became clear John 23rd was working with Paul 6 to destroy the Church these bishops were obligated to call a papal election, and because they failed in this duty, they lost the right to vote under Canon Law. They also became heretics and were disqualified per VAS from voting in any election for recognizing both John 23rd and Paul 6 as true popes. So since 1978 when Paul 6 died, we have been existing in a gray area mentioned by St. Thomas Aquinas, a time that he said would exist following the death of Antichrist but before the destruction of his remaining system and Rome itself. None of this would ever have become clear to me, manifest, if I had not followed my initial inspiration and all its implications to the very end.
Our time is short
Christ tells us in Matthew 24: 21: “There then shall be great tribulation such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor shall there be.” And this was the gist of my initial inspiration — brought home in such a way, at such a time that I felt I could not ignore it. Certainly I erred many times after receiving that revelation before finally coming to the proper conclusions. But it never left me and proof that it was clear and true is now too frighteningly obvious to deny. We spoke last week of the dangers of video debates and discussions and how the Church forbids us to engage in these. None of these videos spend much time on the perils of the end times or urge prayer and penance. But given how short our time on this earth truly is, nothing is needed more today than prayer and penance which is the very remedy urged at Fatima and prescribed for end-time Jews by Christ in Luke 11: 29. We are where we are today because not enough Catholics prayed and performed works of penance and almsgiving.
In recent social media posts (if any of these can be trusted at all) numerous individuals have reported strange happenings such as seeing hosts of angels in the skies, hearing trumpet blasts and experiencing unexplained knockings late at night. Some of the alleged trumpet blasts, if that is what these really are, are even recorded and replayed in these posts. Similar happenings occurred before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD and certain historic battles during wartime. Are we being warned? I think it is possible but then weren’t we as Catholics already warned long ago to no avail by Our Lord, the popes and our Blessed Mother? So who will take any further warnings seriously?
Warnings come even from unlikely sources
The following is taken from a work published 18 years ago by a member of the Novus Ordo sect. While I reject its basic premise — that it is neo-cons that must be watched and feared as “fascists” (since the author fails to see that both right and left work together to achieve their end-of-days Masonic goal) — the author’s warning bears repeating here because it shows how even the right observations can lead to the wrong conclusions. This book, in the end, winds up advising a la Francis’ theology (well after all he is Novus Ordo) that Americans adopt a one-world religion in order to avoid endorsing a one-world government!!! Yet it mentions what would happen once the Church and lawful governments were destroyed, even if how this was to come about or be resolved was wrongly interpreted by the author.
“The radical… cabal in the White House answers to a “world shadow government,” a private, international, rogue network that also controls most of the world’s financial and media institutions as well other governments/intelligence agencies, etc., most notably those of England, Israel, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia (Tarpley, 2006). This “secret government” rules through fear, terror, torture, secrecy, propaganda and lies. The goal of this criminal syndicate is to establish a global corporate dictatorship as well as to destroy nation states, democracies, and civil liberties. Historian Webster Tarpley (2006) identifies this “rogue network,” concluding:
We are living in the twilight of the Anglo-American world order, a system of planetary domination by the Whig financier faction since just after 1700. This system had certain positive features, but it has now become a barrier to human progress, and it is past time for it to exit the world scene.
“The corporate-controlled media provides mass propaganda that supports the official explanation, despite its inevitable absurdities, etc. This same organizational structure has been utilized again and again by governments to fabricate synthetic terrorist attacks all over the world2 (Tarpley, 2006). Any hope of dismantling the emerging global corporate dictatorship must begin by dismantling the myths and lies, such as the official 9/11 myth, that support it… This Machiavellian… cabal is part of the same “secret government” that orchestrated the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy assassinations, the secret wars of the CIA, the Iran-Contra affair, the Vietnam War, World Wars I and II, and the Great Depression (Still, 2004, Schoenmann, 2004).
“I would speculate, along with Ruppert (2002), that immediate goal of the global “ruling elite” is to establish American domination over the entire world through the phony “war on terrorism.” However, this sequence of wars could easily lead us into an apocalyptic, and perhaps final, world war, accompanied by a total collapse of the world economy. Then, they may decide to abolish most, if not all nation states, including the U.S., in order to usher their long-sought “one world government.” They may or may not elect to utilize the structure of the U.N. as the organizational center. This long-sought “New World Order”, if it comes to pass, would be the culmination of their centuries-old dream of creating a more or less permanent “oligarchy of the wealthy”.
“My hope and belief is that once these crimes are exposed to the light of day, this cabal will be brought to justice and humankind will be able to progress toward a more peaceful and equitable future. Clearly, we are at a turning point in history… The only time that Jesus got angry in his entire ministry was when he physically threw the “money-changers” out of the Temple for practicing extortion and “usury.” Well, modern “money-changers” have now taken control not only of the Temple and the Church, but virtually all the other institutions as well (Still, 2004)…
In many ways, America has a spiritual heart, but we are now being deliberately misled by the propaganda of our religious as well as our political and cultural leaders. Many of us are now waking up to the fact that our government has declared and is fighting a war upon “we, the people.” This relentless class warfare pits the super-rich against everyone and everything else. Middle class America has a distinct disadvantage in this war, because most of us do not understand that war is being waged against us…” (9/11 was an Inside Job and a “Psy-Op”, Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Department of Anthropology and Geography, California State University, 2006).
We have no time to waste on hours-long videos that cannot point us to sufficient written proofs to support their content. Nor are we permitted by the Church to participate even passively in debates posted by so-called Catholics interviewing non-Catholics. We all need to spend this time on our knees begging for the graces necessary to save our souls and the souls of those we love. We don’t know how long we may have or exactly what will happen once Antichrist’s system is defeated and Rome is destroyed. We do know what the older, more reliable scripture commentators tell us: that once these things occur, the Second Judgment is imminent. Having ignored so many warnings and inspirations already, can anyone identifying as Catholic today hope to escape all these evils unless they face their Almighty Judge with a mournful countenance, clothed in sackcloth and ashes?!
A brief note on video gaming
Last week we warned of the dangers regarding unnecessarily lengthy videos claiming to promote praying at home which instead are devoted to rehashing Novus Ordo deviancies and challenging (only certain) LibTrad errors. We did not, however, venture into the realm of video games. The best argument offered on the use of video games for any age level, that video games should be classified under the category of what St. Francis de Sales says must be called “dangerous amusements” can be viewed here: https://thosecatholicmen.com/articles/avoid-video-games/ , but we must add an important caveat.
This apparently Novus Ordo site does not take into consideration the fact that we have no pope to decide such things. No one can render a truly educated or definitive decision on the dangers of video games in the absence of a true pope. If even Novus Ordo writers believe St. Francis de Sales would classify video games as dangerous amusements, why, as these authors advise, would we even want to limit their use to the “better” video games, with moderation, among teens? Is it logical to suggest that lesser dangers are not as harmful to older children when they could easily lead to greater ones, especially when it seems so many families today are predisposed to various addictions? Those advocating this moderation cite certain benefits to such usage, but couldn’t those benefits be better enjoyed some other way without recourse to video games?
What is puzzling here is that LibTrads, and here we include those advocating praying at home among them, will adamantly insist their women wear nothing but longer skirts to remain modest, when one pope has even stated that women wearing pants is not forbidden. Women are adults, if subject to their husbands wishes and preferences, but when it comes to those still under obedience to parents, that is something different. For the parent cannot allow or encourage the child to do something that could lead to mortal sin and would him/herself incur such sin if this was the case. Clear thinking must prevail on this matter so important to Catholic family life. Follow St. Francis de Sales then, not the opinion of some Novus Ordo or LibTrad layperson.
Prayer Society Intention for January, Month of the Holy Name
“We wish to make reparation each day, dear Jesus, for those who profane Thy Holy Name.”
A reader has recommended as excellent the sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori HERE. Video sermons are one of the ways that the wisdom of the saints can be made available to Catholics today. Such unabridged sermons in audio form coming from saints and approved members of the hierarchy are what true Catholics should be accessing, and this is the topic we are addressing here.
An unsettling beginning to the New Year
It has come to my attention that once again, there is an ongoing effort by certain individuals also advocating praying at home to “collect” those exiting the Novus Ordo and various LibTrad sects by appealing to this younger set via videos, podcasts and other venues. The reasons for concern regarding these efforts will be explained below.
In 1990, my first work Will the Catholic Church Survive…? was released to the public, calling for a papal election. At that time I had been praying at home since 1985. The book explained in depth why Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini were ineligible for election to the papacy, offering proofs of their ineligibility and using Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio to prove they could never have been validly elected. It also provided dogmatic and canonical proofs that LibTrads possessed no jurisdiction, were at least questionably valid and were committing sacrilege by offering mass and sacraments to their followers. The case for praying at home was then presented on the basis of Bd. Pope Innocent XI’s teaching that one cannot receive questionably valid and illicit sacraments without sinning mortally against the first commandment. That was 35 years ago, when those now promoting praying at home on their blogs and social media platforms were still members of the Novus Ordo sect.
These important proofs were the fruits of long years of study, 10 to be exact, and many trips to the local seminary library to purchase books and fill my library with theological works. But it is following the inevitable consequences of these proofs made public so long ago that people find so challenging, even mind-boggling. For once it is realized that both Roncalli and Montini were heretics (Modernists not to mention Freemasons) prior to their respective elections, as even sedevacantists realized in the early 1980s, such elections were then considered non-existent, as explained in my 1990 book. This was clear from reading Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, first available in English in the mid-1980s. The 1990 book was the second published defense of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, first translated into Spanish by Dr. Carlos Disandro in 1978, following the attacks of the St. Pius X Society and other LibTrads. So since the elections of these men were invalid as the Bull infallibly proclaims, nothing whatsoever which followed really happened; it was all an illusion.
And if an illusion, there was no need to spend any time tediously refuting the errors introduced by Montini and Roncalli — ALL their acts could be dismissed wholesale. This is a truth infallibly confirmed by Pope Pius XII in his 1945 papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. No election of Roncalli and hence Montini means there was never a false Vatican 2 council; nor were there ever changes to the liturgy, the sacraments or Catholic doctrine. And ecumenism, condemned as a heresy by both Pope Pius XI and Pius XII was never endorsed by a true pope. All of these things were made null and void by Roncalli’s non-election and Pope Pius XII’s election law and are entirely unworthy of any consideration. THAT is the reality all have failed to grasp. It is further confirmed by St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching that a doubtful pope is no pope, a principle evidenced in the actual practice of the Church.
So all the time spent in various debates, also constant Internet coverage and criticism of Novus Ordo events and errors has only made it more difficult to discover, address and denounce the true consequences of the vacant see, also Modernist tendencies within the Church pre-1959 that led to Vatican 2. Had the line been firmly drawn at the death of Pope Pius XII and the invalid election of Roncalli and the pre-1959 errors that LED to Vatican 2 addressed once the full extent of the damage was realized, the Traditionalist movement with all its errors would never have predominated.
St. Paul taught, “But prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:2). The Jews of Berea “Received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so,” we read in Acts. Who among even those still calling themselves priests really did this? It was laymen, not the clergy, who uncovered Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. It was a layperson who insisted upon obedience to Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and his teaching that the bishops are entirely subordinate to the pope. Rev. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga may have commissioned Anacleto Gonzalez-Flores to write The Plot Against the Church, attempting to halt Vatican 2, and he did declare the see vacant and Montini the Antichrist in the mid-1970s. But what was the true value of what he did seeing that he founded the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM) and was later discovered to be a Freemason?!
Failure to provide proofs, credit others
Any research conducted then was never followed through to its logical conclusions where jurisdiction and the necessity of the papacy was concerned. And those still muddling around in the errors of the Novus Ordo sect are only returning to the vomit that led us down the wrong path in the first place. The teachings of the Continual Magisterium must be the focus of any attempts to win souls today, and those still mucking around in the Novus Ordo or LibTrad sects simply need to be told that the burden of proof, according to Canon Law, is on THEM, not on us — no debates, no back and forth, nada. Pope Pius XII drew the line in VAS and we are merely holding that line. If they could prove that infallible document does not apply to them, THEN there might be a discussion, but that can never be the case. Signed papal documents entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis can never be contested.
Unfortunately other bloggers and social media personalities promoting praying at home today refer to these decades-old proofs but do not refer them to any source; or they act as though these proofs are self-evident or known to their audience in some other way. They do not themselves produce proofs drawn from Scripture, the continual magisterium, Canon Law and the scholastics, as Holy Scripture and the Church demands but only vaguely reference them. And what they do produce is often taken from what is quoted by others. (And my sincere thanks to those who do give proper attribution in their efforts to promote praying at home.)
And while they may warn others against practicing doctrinal minimalism or insist that one must carry the logical consequences represented by the facts through to the very end, they do neither of these things and only continue to further confuse those already swimming in a sea of confusion. This because they resort to sophistry by begging the question, assuming as true that which they have not yet proven as true to those they are addressing. They then proceed to the illogical scholastic arguments known as false induction and false interpretation, owing to the errors mixed in with their assertions.
They are thus in violation of the moral law and Catholic ethics by failing to render attribution to those before them who have resolved theological issues by quoting the popes, the councils, Holy Office decisions, Canon Law and the works of approved authors. The collection and actual presentation of those facts in logical order, from various sources, is a product of the intellect and is considered intellectual property. And yet individuals presenting as bona fide Catholics and defenders of the faith encourage others to pray at home but do so only by accommodating the research and conclusions of previously copyrighted works written by others.
And what is even worse is their subtle addition of errors to these teachings, making it appear that other authors also endorsing praying at home are in agreement with them. All this is then passed off as THEIR OWN invention and conclusions, and this can result in grave moral and legal consequences. For this sin against the seventh commandment they are bound to make restitution, for some even sell works over the Internet based on the non-attributed works of others. Are we not justified then in questioning their sincerity, honesty and motives and in demanding an accounting?!
Not only do they fail to condemn all LibTrad clergy and their operations as invalid per Pius XII’s VAS, but they also maintain “friendships” with those in that sect and even continue to promote the writings of those who frequent or have frequented it. After a second warning, a heretic avoid is the general rule. Yet despite solid evidence readily available for review that these pseudo-clerics and lay leaders have led others astray and have been guilty of errors in their thinking and writing, these “friendships” are not abandoned. Instead, the same attitude prevalent among the LibTrads is adopted — to label anyone of that sect a heretic is a gross violation of charity. This can only be described as cooperation in heresy and a perfect example of liberal charity in action. And this we have already addressed at length before.
Do videos, podcasts etc. effectively convey the faith?
One of the requirements most crucial to theological discussion (NOT debate) is the following: “Theologians must… be able to teach effectively and clearly” as Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton notes, and any credible journalist knows the value of clear and concise verbiage in explaining complicated issues to the public. Video and Internet commentary and debate, especially if lengthy (some run into several hours!) and punctuated with unrelated queries and minutiae, often interrupts the listener’s ability to absorb the essential elements of theology necessary to understand the true teachings of the Church. Few people have time to sort through such lengthy discourses, and yet this is what they are expected to do to learn the truth.
Such presentations have even been touted as “brilliant.” But discriminating readers who want the full story, as one reader pointed out, will demand more than such disjointed presentations of the faith. They will take the time to read written works examining the various errors of the day condemned by the popes and councils and will ponder them, for this is the way taught by the theologians to truly arrive at a better understanding of the truth. Confusion is to be avoided at all costs.
Until the advent of television in the 1950s, faith was either received by hearing or in written form — study meant reviewing written notes from lectures or taking copious notes from textbooks to process or memorize. Pope Pius XII heartily approved of the modern means to transmit the faith (movies, television, radio) in his Miranda Prorsus, but only when free from any hint of doctrinal or moral error. And certainly he was not aware at that time of the actual mesmerizing effects of television, something that would only later be discovered. Over time, television also was linked to anti-social behavior among young people and a lowering of their IQ scores, and this is no surprise. For it is by our use of language that we communicate our thoughts to others by talking, reading, and writing, not just talking alone.
Television, videos and CDs provide no such exchange. They are a one-way form of communication with no question-and-answer period or the ability to challenge or evaluate content. If not carefully monitored for subject matter, it is more akin to a propaganda tool than an educational vehicle. So if these mediums are employed to promote the faith it must be sparingly, and only in a judicious manner, since these means have never been properly vetted or evaluated by the Church.
One of the reasons CD, podcast and video “Catholicism” is so popular is something I will call fad Catholicism. Written presentation is “old hat” because it requires the application of the intellect and the understanding. Videos and podcasts are the way to go, the “in” way to get your daily dose of “truth” from a popular personality appearing on a well-traveled social media platform. It tends to the adoption of a modern-day outlook on things, the development of personality cults and the fan club mentality. It measures truth by “likes,” a nod to the opinions of the mob.
These communication methods may be used productively to summarize truths of faith and direct people to source material where everything appears in written form, confirming those truths. But the complexity of the situation in the Church today is not suited to glib video or audio presentations. Explanations of the various errors and the truths they contradict must be read, understood, studied and studied again. Notes must be taken, if one is serious about understanding it. Questions must be asked and answered by those knowledgeable about the subject, and I have answered my fair share of these. None of this can be effectively accomplished with podcasts and videos, which only produces and further encourages the practice of intellectual laziness.
Are Catholics allowed to debate non-Catholics?
We are obligated by Canon 1325 §1 and §2 to profess our faith and defend it publicly whenever silence, subterfuge or our manner of acting would indicate our acceptance of such errors; that is all. But Can. 1325 §3 must also be carefully considered: “Catholic shall not enter into any disputes or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without the permission of the Holy See, or in urgent cases, of the local ordinary” (Revs. Woywod-Smith commentary). Revs. T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis comment on this canon:
“This prohibition applies only to matters of faith and to public discussions viva voce; printed debates or conferences are subject only to the rules regarding books.” Dom Charles Augustine states in his commentary on this same canon: “The Sacred Congregation has often expressly forbidden [such debates] on the ground that they do more harm than good, since false eloquence may cause error seemingly to triumph over truth… When such disputations are expressly permitted, care should be taken that only capable and prudent speakers be employed to defend the Catholic side.”
No individual can be a judge in their own case of whether they are capable or prudent. Nor can anyone but the Holy See or the bishop act as judges in such cases. Some have argued that the prohibition of Can. 1385 forbids anyone to publish without ecclesiastical approval, but this is an impossible law to obey in these times since there is no hierarchy to grant such permission. Therefore the law ceases to bind. The higher law prevails, and that law is to defend the faith re Can. 1325 §1 and §2.
There is also the obligation to aid our neighbor in extreme spiritual necessity, obey the longstanding papal command to supply for the absence of the hierarchy by engaging in Catholic Action and the catechetical apostolate and the duty to avoid the heresy of quietism, which teaches: “…the desire to do anything actively is offensive to God and hence one must abandon oneself entirely to God and thereafter remain as a lifeless body” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912). All this can be fulfilled by producing written refutations of error, which is less dangerous by far than debates.
And something else should be considered here — those watching and promoting such debates are guilty of cooperating in the sin of the one conducting them, since the Church forbids it. Here we see the value of obedience, not attachment to our own will and the desire to engage in worldly novelties. This is the reason for not presenting our own suppositions and opinions, to obey the teachings of the Continual Magisterium and those theologians approved by the Church and not follow those who have never been approved by the Church to instruct or debate. In this way those approved by the pre-1959 Church are still teaching us, even if we place these teachings in context regarding our current situation. Videos, CD’s and podcasts cannot successfully convey these teachings in their entirety. Readers should not confuse what I only RELAY on this site with my status as a writer or presenter. As Catholics we are obligated to defend the faith publicly — it is not an option.
Putting a price on the faith
So although I greatly appreciate and depend upon the generosity of my donors to meet maintenance costs for my site, I have not stressed the need for readers to donate or made appeals for monetary contributions. I do what I do because God requires an accounting from me. Making an actual business of defending the faith is tantamount to the moneylenders selling their goods in the Temple. Christ did not put a monetary value on what He taught, although he did say that the laborer is worthy of his hire. Therefore, while it is commendable to help support the maintenance of websites that teach the truth it is a voluntary thing. The Church has never demanded that one tithe any given amount under pain of sin.
But on the other hand Catholics should be very conscious of who they are donating their money to and where it might be going. Many people will take the comments or advice of those who they are promoting as great orators or defenders of the faith without really looking into their background and it’s essential that such a thing be done. In many cases these self-proclaimed experts sport degrees or credentials from non-Catholic (including LibTrad) sources, and these should be considered as a detriment, not a recommendation (see the article here). There are those who now promote praying at home who have inexplicably bounced around in their thinking processes and their stated beliefs to such an extent that one could justifiably question the reasoning behind their many inconsistencies. This is especially true if they advertise themselves as well-educated and well-connected.
Case in point: David Bawden once chastised me for neglecting my daily duties to my family by writing to defend the faith instead of devoting time to these duties. This even thought I was writing with my husband’s express permission and my children were nearly grown. Also, I had worked full time or part time since 1987 (retiring in 2020) in addition to my household duties and writing efforts. I felt this was quite presumptuous of Bawden, particularly since he had seldom been gainfully employed and was at the time demanding that we support him (as “pope”). I later found other instances among those claiming to defend the faith full time without a steady income of any kind, relying mainly on their supporters to fund their defense of the faith.
This certainly is not Catholic since our daily duties must always come first. And as stated above, our efforts should not be considered as optional or a service provided to others that should be compensated, but our bounden duty as Catholics commanded to profess their faith when not doing so would constitute a denial of that faith.
Spotting written or spoken red flags
Most of us have been mistaken and fallen into error at different times in matters of faith. But those who then go on to try and defend the faith after publicly renouncing their errors and making reparation for the damage they have caused (whenever possible) must then hold themselves to a certain standard, especially on the public forum that is the Internet. Recent examples of renewed efforts to attract members of the Novus Ordo sect and LibTrads to pray at home are sadly lacking in a complete grasp of the true status of Traditionalist pseudo-clergy, despite their claims to the contrary. Prudence demands we vet these individuals carefully, especially when we detect the following:
- Doesn’t use proper Catholic terms
- Inconsistency in statements related to truths of faith
- Promotion of works produced by non-Catholics
- Cooperation or the appearance of cooperation with non-Catholics
- Skirts issues regarding the validity of Traditionalist orders
- Does not openly condemn Traditionalism including sedevacantism as heresy (when as one reader has aptly pointed out, Traditionalism is worse by far than the Novus Ordo sect)
- Vague references that are not fully explained (ambiguity) or sufficiently cross-referenced
- Failure to practice what they preachSelf-promotion, name dropping
- Repeated appeals for financial support, especially when voluntarily unemployed
- Failure to:
- follow scholastic form, as they are bound by the Church to do
- properly attribute sources and faithfully cite the works of others
- make the necessary theological connections
- address, correct and renounce errors when corrected (incorrigibility, pertinacity)
- renounce previous false teachings publicly and retract any errors
- advise readers of his/her non-approved Church status by insisting on adherence to the teachings of the popes, Councils, Canon Law and approved theologians.
- Refer readers to the original sources, not their commentaries or thoughts on these sources.
If efforts be made to attract those trapped in non-Catholic sects to the practice of praying at home are to be successful, there must first be a meeting of the minds among those promoting the practice of the faith at home regarding the dogmas on which our faith is based. I have long advocated for this united effort but I have been consistently shunned, falsely charged with teaching error, and my attempts to correct others who likewise advise Catholics to pray at home but who hold false doctrines have been ignored. What I have insisted upon is that the Church’s clear teachings regarding heresy and jurisdiction be properly understood and obeyed if one is to truly sever ties with Traditionalists and other non-Catholic sects and keep the faith at home. The Church teaches only one truth. In accord with the scholastic method, I have repeatedly offered numerous proofs from papal and conciliar documents, also Canon Law, to demonstrate what the Church teaches.
Similar proofs, however, have not been produced by those claiming to lead others to the conclusion they must practice their faith at home. Nor have they bothered, as they are obligated to do, to refute any of these proofs by producing credible evidence they are in error, even though this is required by Canon Law. Time is a precious commodity and our time on earth is short. Christ could return at any moment, asking why we have not prayed and watched. Praying and watching does not include wasting our time “watching” hare-brained videos. Watching means setting a guard over oneself to avoid the snares of the enemy as outlined above, not credulously lapping up the visually regurgitated meanderings of those fascinated with Novus Ordo deviancy. Those considering praying at home deserve the truth; they deserve a united dogmatic front which the Church has always maintained to support them in making such a life-changing decision. They do not deserve to be led down yet another rabbit hole or diverted from verifying what is said for themselves, only later to discover they were misled and misinformed.
What all should seek is the highest possible degree of unity we can obtain among those praying at home without a visible Roman Pontiff and hierarchy. As Henry Edward Cardinal Manning wrote: “Truth goes before unity. Where truth is divided, unity cannot be. Unity before truth is deception. Unity without truth is indifference or unbelief. Truth before unity is the law and principle and safeguard of unity” (The True Story of the Vatican Council, 1877). Do those accommodating the works of others and sidestepping issues of heresy and sacramental invalidity show any respect for the truth? Are they ”consistent Catholics?” You decide.
Wishing you all a happy and holy ChristMass and a Blessed New Year
A ChristMass Lullabye
A great star is seen in the Bethelehem sky.
Our hope of redemption Messiah and Lord;
This sweet Baby-King whom wise men have adored.
They gave precious gifts but Christ Jesus so small, One day you shall give the best gift of them all.
Hush-a-bye, Hush-a-bye, Your Mother must rest
So sweet Babe don’t you cry.
Oh Child of great destiny humbly I kneel
Close by Mary’s side and a kiss dare to steal.
Your dear Mother one day shall hold you as now.
Her tears bathe Your bloodied and insensate brow.
For us You were born – born sweet Baby to die.
© Copyright 1981, T. Stanfill Benns
+ Sts. Rufus and Zosimus, Martyrs+
As the war in Israel rages on and anti-Semitism allegations against Pope Pius XII continue to be lobbed, implicating the pre-Vatican 2 Church in the persecution of those practicing the Jewish faith, those accusing the Church of anti-Semitism might wish to consider the article below written by none other than the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1958. This article was reprinted in The Catholic Mind in 1959. It will bring sneers from certain LibTrads all too willing to believe the worst of Pope Pius XII and who certainly will now consider him a “Jew lover.” But it should be entered into evidence as proof that far from persecuting the Jews, Pope Pius XII did all he could to assist them and protect them. This of course without ever compromising Catholic belief or the Liturgy in any way. All in perfect accord with the command of the Master: “Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you” (Matt. 5: 43-44).
Wishing you a blessed conclusion of the Advent season this week and every grace.