by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 18, 2023 | New Blog
+ Dedication of the Basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul +
As mentioned in last week’s blog, St. Vincent Ferrer seems to have had some sympathy for the teachings of Joachim of Fiore, even though St. Thomas Aquinas, who St. Vincent quotes often and follows in other writings, had already condemned those who held Abbot Joachim’s and similar teachings. (The teachings of St. Vincent will be discussed in greater detail next week.) This week, we wish to address the teachings of St. Thomas, of whom one modern-day philosophy professor notes, “There comes a point, however, where Ferrer breaks with Aquinas over a central topic: the possibility of having knowledge of the end times –– those of the coming of the antichrist and the end of the world. Aquinas had written a series of rebuttals of William of Saint‐Amour and other authors who upheld the possibility of such knowledge. For Aquinas, the end times could not be known about, either through reasoning or through a revelation. Jesus of Nazareth himself appears to have denied this possibility: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” (Acts 1:7).
“He tells how a hermit has assured him that two of his companions had had a revelation that “the antichrist was already born”. Ferrer replies with the same words from the Bible (Acts 1:7) used by Aquinas to counter William of Saint-Amour, although, according to the hermit, Jesus’s words applied only to those he was addressing (the Apostles), not to those destined to undergo the tribulations brought by the antichrist. Then, in a sermon on 8 July 1411 and a letter dated 27 July 1412, Ferrer adopts the hermit’s interpretation as his own…”
So what St. Vincent was doing was basing his mission on the revelation of the hermit (and a vison he possibly attributes to himself) — in other words, on private revelation. Or, as St. Thomas refers to it, “Human reason or conjecture.” And yet St. Vincent does make some distinctions in what he teaches regarding Antichrist. And although St. Vincent may have relied on human reason, it is clear he proved that his mission was from God by the miracles he performed during his lifetime.
St. Vincent Ferrer
“The death of Antichrist and the end of the world will occur at the same time. The shortness of the duration of the world after the death of Antichrist has led me to this conclusion, for nowhere in the whole Bible or in the writings of the Doctors can I find a longer period assigned by God for the repentance of those whom Antichrist has seduced than forty-five days after his death.
“The second conclusion I draw is that until Antichrist is actually born, the time of his birth will be hidden from mankind.
“So, even though there were the most illuminating revelations of the divine Wisdom concerning these matters, it was not necessary for the Apostles and Doctors of the first ages of the Church to know the time of the coming of Antichrist and the end of the world; but after his birth it is expedient for men, even though they be sinners, or so ignorant as to know nothing of the Apostles and Doctors, to know of this birth, so that they may be forewarned and prepared.This is in accordance with the wisdom, mercy and knowledge of God, who from the beginning of the world was accustomed to send messengers to warn men of any great tribulation about to come to pass. Noah was warned before the deluge, Moses before the liberation of Israel, Amos before the destruction of Egypt, and so on.” Before treating these predictions in light of St. Thomas’ teachings, a note is in order on what has been said previously in this blog and in site articles on Antichrist and the Second Coming.
(Clarification of these statements will be provided under the Conclusion heading.)
Antichrist and the Second Coming
I have speculated at length on the relevance of recent events and their possible relation to the Second Coming. Prior to that, I had already written for decades on the identity of Antichrist — the usurper Paul 6. But what I wrote took place AFTER Antichrist had already appeared, and could be credibly identified as such, not BEFORE. And while St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine definitely do teach that no one could actually predict the date of Antichrist’s appearance or that of the Second Coming, once he has actually been credibly predicted to appear and has come and gone it would seem remiss to not warn others that surely the Second Coming is not far off, particularly if signs seem to point to this.
St. Thomas could scarcely have discounted Pope Paul IV’s warning about HOW the abomination of desolation would attempt to insinuate himself into the papacy, while not predicting at exactly what time this would occur. Nor could he dare find fault with Christ’s own Vicar, Pope St. Pius X, who warned in 1903 that Antichrist already had been born. It was common knowledge that Pope St. Pius X was gifted with precognition, and certainly this sainted pope was no mere hermit who was said to have had a vison, since his teachings were assisted by the Holy Ghost. It has been based on these two predictions, also on Pope Pius XII’s laws regarding papal election, that the identification of Antichrist’s reign became clear and was later able to be determined.
St. Thomas Aquinas: Contra Impugnantes, on the Inability to Determine the Arrival of Antichrist and the Last Judgment
Chapters 3 and 4 (These are random extracts form a very long discourse by St. Thomas)
“Hence religious, because they exercise the office of preaching in a learned manner, are regarded as the forerunners of Antichrist.
- “I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb” (Rev. xiii. 11). On these words of the Apocalypse the Gloss remarks: “The description of the tribulation which will be caused by Antichrist and his princes is followed by a narrative of the evils which will befall the Church, by means of the apostles of Antichrist, who will travel throughout the entire world.” Again, “coming up out of the earth” signifies “ going forth to preach” (Gloss). On the words “it had two horns” the Gloss remarks: “These preachers are said to have two horns, because they will profess to imitate the innocent and spotless life of our Lord, to work miracles resembling His, and to preach His doctrine; or else because they will usurp to themselves the two Testaments.” Hence it would appear that they who go forth to preach, with the knowledge of the two Testaments, and with an appearance of sanctity, are the apostles of Antichrist. (Comment: Which is exactly what Novus Ordo and LibTrad pseudo-clergy do.)
“Julian the Apostate was the first to conceive this idea. He, as we are told in ecclesiastical history, forcibly prevented Christians from acquiring knowledge. Those therefore who imitate him, by forbidding religious to study, act in a manner opposed to the precepts of Scripture. We read, for instance, in Isaiah (v. 13): “Therefore is my people led away captive, because they had not knowledge.” “Because,” remarks the Gloss, “they would not have knowledge.” Now voluntary ignorance could not deserve punishment, were not knowledge praiseworthy.
“2. In the Prophet Hosea (iv. 5) we read: “In the night I have made your mother to be silent. My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge; because you rejected knowledge, I will reject you that you shall not do the office of priesthood to me.” This text clearly shows how severely ignorance will be punished.
“3. In Ps. cxviii. 66, we read: “Teach me goodness and discipline and knowledge.” On these words, the Gloss says: “Teach me goodness, i.e. inspire me, with charity; teach me discipline, i.e. give me patience; teach me knowledge, i.e. enlighten my mind. For that knowledge is useful, whereby a man becomes known to himself.”
“4. St. Jerome writes to the monk Rusticus: “Let a book be never absent from your eyes or hand.” Hence the learning of the saints is preferable to the holiness of the unlearned. In the same epistle, after enumerating the books of holy Scripture, St. Jerome continues: “I beseech you, brother, let these books be the companions of your life and the subject of your meditation. I know nothing but these, and seek no other thing. Don’t you see that in this way you may on earth enjoy the Kingdom of heaven?” A heavenly life then consists in the constant study of Holy Scripture.
“5. St. Paul points out that knowledge of the Scriptures is essential to preachers. For, he says (1 Tim. iv. 13), “Till I come attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine.” It is evident from this that a knowledge of what they are to teach, is necessary for those whose duty it is to preach and to exhort.
“6. St. Jerome writes to the monk Rusticus: “Spend much time in learning what you must later on teach.” Once more he writes to the same, “If you desire to enter the clerical state, study, in order that you may teach.” … (Comment: Catechetical teaching was greatly neglected in favor of promoting the new liturgy, as theologians writing pre-Vatican 2 observed.)
“There shall arise false Christs and false prophets” (Mark xiii. 22), the Gloss says: This verse is to be understood as referring the heretics who attacked the Church, declaring that they were Christs. The first of these impostors was Simon Magus; the last will be Antichrist.” He who preaches without, any commission to do so, or teaches false doctrine, does so inspired by some bad motive, either of covetousness, or pride, or vain glory. Such men are deprived of the grace of God; and consequently commit sins, more or less heinous. But everyone who preaches for the sake of gain or popularity is not, necessarily a false apostle or false prophet; otherwise there would be no distinction between a hireling and a false apostle. They who preach for the sake of anything save of the glory of God and the good of souls are hirelings; let their preaching be true or false, authorised or unauthorised. BUT SUCH MEN CANNOT BE CALLED FALSE PROPHETS, UNLESS THEY EITHER BEAR NO COMMISSION, OR TEACH FALSE DOCTRINE. (Comment: Here we have a definition of LibTrads from St. Thomas own mouth!) “In the same way, every sinner who administers the sacraments, or preaches the Word of God, is not necessarily a false apostle or a false prophet. For true prelates are true apostles; although at times they may be sinful.
Chapter 5
“1.St. Augustine says (Epist. ad Hesychium): “You say the Gospel tells us that no man knows that day or hour. I tell you, as far as my understanding will suffice, that no man can know the month nor the year of the coming of the Lord. This seems as if the words had been understood to mean that, though none can say in what year the Lord will come, it is possible to know in what septet or decade of years his coming may be expected.”
“2. Certain men were condemned in the early days of the Church for teaching, as men teach now, that the coming of the Lord was imminent. We have this on the authority of St. Jerome (De illustr. viris), and of Eusebius, (Ecclesiast. Histor.).No period, either long or short, can be determined, in which is to be expected the end of the world, or the coming of Christ or of Antichrist. It is for this reason that we are told that “the day of the Lord shall come as a thief” (1 Thes. v. 2), and that as “in the days of Noah they knew not till the flood came and took them all away, so also shall the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt. xxiv). St. Augustine, in his Epistle to Hesychius, speaks of three classes of men who made assertions respecting the coming of our Lord. One class expects Him soon; another later; and the third declares its ignorance of the time of His coming. This last opinion meets with the approbation of St. Augustine, and he censures the presumption of the others. Then he concludes by saying: “It is thus uncertain by what generations the final period of time, which begins with the coming of our Lord and is to end with the end of the world, is to be counted.” God has chosen, for some wise purpose, to keep this hidden. So it is written in the Gospel. St. Paul also declares that “the day of the Lord is to come like a thief in the night.”
“3. (1) They quote the words of Daniel (vii. 25) concerning Antichrist: “He shall think himself able to change times.” That is to say, according to the Gloss, “ His pride is so excessive that he strives to alter laws and ceremonies.” On account of these words the days of Antichrist are said to be at hand, because certain men try to alter the Gospel of Christ into another gospel, which they call “eternal.” The Gospel of which they speak is a certain Introduction to the books of Joachim, WHICH IS CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH. Or else it is the doctrine of Joachim, whereby they say the Gospel of Christ is altered. But granted that this hypothesis were true, it would be no token of the approach of Antichrist. For even in the days of the Apostles, certain men tried to alter the Gospel of Christ. Thus St. Paul says (Gal. i. 6): “I wonder that you are soon removed from him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another Gospel.”
“(2) The second sign of the coming of Antichrist is supposed to be found in the words of the Psalmist (ix. 21): “Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them.” This the Gloss interprets to mean “the Antichrist, the giver of an evil law.” As the doctrine which we have already mentioned, which they call the law of Antichrist, was promulgated at Paris, it is thought to be a sign that Antichrist is at hand. But it is not true to say that the doctrine of Joachim, or that which is contained in the Introduction to the Gospel of Joachim, however reprehensible it may be, is the doctrine which will be preached by Antichrist.
“(3) The third supposed sign of the coming of Antichrist is found in the Book of Daniel (v) and in Isaiah (xxi). We read there the account of the hand that wrote Mane, Thecel, Phares on the wall of Babylon. Those who believe that Antichrist is at hand, maintain that the same prediction which formerly was written up in Babylon is now written in the Church. Mane was interpreted to mean, “God has numbered your Kingdom and has finished it”; and the Kingdom of Christ is now numbered, for it has been foretold that it is to endure a thousand two hundred and seventy years. Thecel signified, “You art weighed in the balance and found wanting”; and the “Eternal Gospel” is preferred to the Gospel of Christ. Phares meant your Kingdom is divided and is given to the Medes and Persians”; and the Kingdom of the Church is now finished and given to others.” (Comment: It may not have applied in St. Thomas’ time but certainly applies to the Novus Ordo today.)
“Thus, the writing on the wall signified both the destruction of the Church and the ruin of Babylon. (Comment: St. Jerome does say that everything written in the New Testament was foreshadowed in the Old Testament.) “This, however, seems a very foolish idea. St. Augustine tells us (18 de Civ. Dei) that certain men said that Christianity was to last for three hundred and sixty-five years, and that at the end of that time it was to cease to exist. Thus, it is no new thing to assign a limit for the duration of Christianity, since this was done even before the time of Augustine. Hence this is no reason for believing Antichrist to be at hand. St. Augustine says likewise (ibid.) that in his time some men estimated that four hundred years, others that five hundred, were to elapse between the Ascension of Christ and His second coming. Others, again, reckoned that this period was to embrace a thousand years. But the words of our Lord, “It is not yours to know the times or the moments” etc. (Acts i. 7), expose the folly of all such suppositions. St. Augustine, furthermore, blames the kind of arguments.
“(Acts i. 7), (St. Augustine, furthermore, blames the kind of arguments used in such conjectures. He compares them to the hypothesis of some that as there were ten plagues of Egypt, so there were to be ten persecutions of the Church. He says that such opinions are mere human conjectures, established on no foundation of truth. Those who interpret the handwriting on the wall as prophetic of the speedy coming of Antichrist, show their agreement with the Scripture that they reprobate; because, like the Scripture, they say that the beloved Babylon is soon to be destroyed. But there is no real similitude. For the handwriting in Babylon was divinely displayed, and it was therefore a proof of the truth; but the writing, of which these would-be prophets speak, is a figment of error, on which no argument can be founded expose the folly of all such suppositions.” (Comment: Joachim’s writings were a figment of error because he expected the world to end based solely on his own prognostications. The prophecies in Apocalypse are also divinely displayed but were not fulfilled in St. Thomas’ day.)
“6. Many false prophets shall arise and shall seduce many.” We are told that this sign is now manifested, because certain religious appear who are called false prophets. If we compare it with the Gloss on the passage in the Gospel of St. Mark (xiii), where false prophets are understood to mean heretics, or those who, after the Passion of our Lord and before the destruction of Jerusalem, seduced the Jewish nation. We have also already spoken at length on the subject of false prophets.
“7. There have been in all ages men in the Church who appeared perfect, and yet originated heresies. We may mention Pelagius, Nestorius, and Eutyches. There have also been many others of the same description. But they did not, therefore, prove that their charity had grown cold. For, although they did not follow the teaching of the Gospel, they did not persecute it. There is no need of persecution, where there is no defender of the truth. Such a persecution would revive extinct errors; and, under pretext of refuting them, would teach them to the people; and this is the greatest of dangers. Hence St. Gregory says (14 Moral.) that after Eutyches had died leaving no followers, he would not labour to exterminate his errors, lest he should again fan them into flame. (Comment: Modernism, synthesis of all heresies, fanned these flames into a conflagration.)
Chapter 6
“They assert that these seducers will be neither barbarians, nor Jews, nor Gentiles. But this opinion is contrary to the prophecy of the Apocalypse: “Satan… shall seduce the nations which are over the four quarters of the Earth, Gog and Magog” (Rev. xx. 7). On these words, the Gloss says: “Satan will first seduce these two nations; he will then proceed to deceive others.” Or, according to another interpretation, by Magog is understood all persecutors who proceeded, at first by secret, and afterwards, by open persecution. Hence barbarians are not excluded from the persecution of Antichrist, as they would persuade us.
“For St. Paul did not mean that the same men would be guilty of all the vices which he enumerates, but that some of his words would apply to some men, and that other parts of his reproof would be true of other persons. Hence it is not necessary that all those who are likely to endanger the Church should present an appearance of piety. It is merely implied that some of them will do so. In like manner, the early Church suffered persecution from believers and unbelievers alike. “In perils from the Gentiles… in perils from false brethren” (2 Cor. xi. 26).
“The emissaries of Antichrist, we are next told, will not be found among the manifestly wicked. This opinion is, however, clearly opposed to the 82nd Psalm. The Gloss explains that the whole of that Psalm treats of the persecution of Antichrist. It adds that among his other emissaries, the “Philistines” signify those who are drunk with worldly luxury… But, although some of the emissaries of Antichrist may wear an appearance of piety, it is not necessary that they shall all seem godly. Christians of the early Church were persecuted both by the impious and by the apparently pious.” (Comment: Materialism, foundation stone of the Masonic pyramid, paved the way for all other errors.)
“We are further told that the ministers of Satan will be found among those who devote themselves to study… St. Paul was referring not to men who seduce others, but to silly women who suffer themselves to be led astray. Granted, however that the words apply to men who mislead others, they can only refer to those who, in their studies, depart from the way of truth. Hence the text is often interpreted of heretics. Those who hold a contrary opinion, however, quote in support of it the following words of St. Gregory (13 Moral.) on Job xvi.: “My enemy has looked at me with terrible eyes.” “The incarnate Truth,” says St. Gregory, “chose for His preachers poor and simple men. But Antichrist will send as his Apostles men who are cunning and double-tongued and imbued with the wisdom of the world…” Therefore, the true preachers of Antichrist are learned men, who lead worldly lives and attract men to vice. But even if Antichrist were going to ruin the Church by means of learned men, it would not be by their agency alone.
“We are further told that the envoys of Antichrist will be found among those learned men whose opinion is esteemed as peculiarly weighty and valuable… St. Paul says of them, first that they will have an appearance of godliness, and then that they will be “men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim iii. 5). Stress is also laid on the words, “they came forth from us” (1 John ii. 19), which means, as the Gloss says, “they shared with us in the Sacraments.” But this quotation is no argument. For St. Paul does not say of the men to whom he refers that at first they wore an appearance of piety, and that then, laying it aside, they became infidels. What he means is that while these men had a superficial semblance of godliness, they were at the same time infidels at heart.” (Comment: And here we see exactly what happened with the rot that entered into the Church and led to Roncalli’s election: the cardinals and bishops had only “a superficial semblance of godliness, they were at the same time infidels at heart.” They were pretenders who could only elect and support a master pretender.)
Summary
“1. The first error lies in defining the heralds of Antichrist as one race of men, when, as “we know by the Gloss on Ps. lxxxii, Antichrists will spring from all classes of men.
“2. The second error lies in the fact that though diverse authorities may be quoted in support of individual points, no class of men furnishes all the necessary conditions.
“3. Even were some such men found amongst religious, other such might likewise be found among men who are not religious. Hence this argument does not tell more against religious than against seculars.
“4. If some religious are to be emissaries of Antichrist, all religious will not be his adherents. Perhaps very few religious will join Antichrist, as he is to recruit his ranks from all classes of men.
“5. It is praiseworthy to be a Christian, a learned man, a prudent counsellor, and a religious. These attributes, therefore, are no reason for concluding that their possessor is to be a forerunner of Antichrist.” (End of of St. Thomas commentary)
Conclusion
Now of course St. Vincent Ferrer wrote and taught long after the death of St. Thomas Aquinas. And if there had really been anything objectionable in his writings, anything even approaching the condemned doctrines that Abbot Joachim taught, he would never have achieved sainthood. Nor would he have been noted for his miracles. So while Saint Thomas Aquinas’ teachings must definitely be honored here and taken to heart, that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be new developments and new perspectives on the coming of Antichrist and how this would come about. It is clear from what has been written above that we are not predicting Antichrist is going to come as was St. Vincent or naming a date for anything. We are simply observing that it certainly appears that he has already come and that as St. Thomas Aquinas himself says in his own works, we cannot properly estimate the time-period between Antichrist’s death and the end of the world, when so many will believe they have nothing to fear and live “in peace and security.” We must simply pray and watch.
Neither St. Thomas nor St. Vincent Ferrer ever foresaw how everything in the Church would be so utterly destroyed. The death of Antichrist will not be complete until the final perpetrator of his system is annihilated, the last reincarnation of his imposture. We know Antichrist and the false prophet will be thrown alive into the lake of fire and how could this be? Only if the final judgment began with their bodily resurrection and casting into that lake of fire by Christ during the Battle of Armageddon. That is the beginning of the Final Judgment, and on its heels will most likely follow all the rest.
What St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized in his writings above is the inability of forecasting Antichrist’s future coming and the Second Coming according to insufficient evidence, particularly that based primarily on human conjecture. That is not what has been done in the case of the Great Apostasy, the advent of the Novus Ordo church and the Cessation of the Holy Sacrifice. The consequences of these things St. Thomas never even considered. We are not conjecturing anything in the future here; we have witnessed it with our own eyes. St. Thomas also is denying that certain prophecies in the Old Testament can be used by his opponent William St. Amour, a follower of Abbot Joachim, to justify his case. That does not mean it could not and does not apply to the case at hand today. Basically St. Thomas believed that not much would really be known about the coming of Antichrist until the actual event.
Next week, we will see the virtues St. Vincent Ferrer advises Catholics to practice during Antichrist’s reign, and how he viewed Antichrist’s persecution and Christ’s Second Coming.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 12, 2023 | New Blog
+24th Sunday after Pentecost+
It never fails to amaze me how many different ways the enemy can attempt to confuse and defuse those who are trying to defend the faith and obey the laws of God. And this time, while standing next to an oversized portrait of St. Thomas Aquinas, no less! This attack comes from a Novus Ordo apologist, Taylor Marshall, who, ever so slyly insinuates that those praying at home are adhering to an old heresy that has been defended and advanced by some Novus Ordo theorists, but mainly LibTrads and other schismatic sects, for decades. (His video can be viewed HERE.) Of course he makes his accusations based on the assumption that those praying at home actually have valid and licit sacraments available to them but choose instead to forego them in favor of approaching God directly, when no valid Sacraments save marriage and Baptism are available to us today. And needless to say, he is inviting us to receive the infernal parody of the Sacraments offered by the counter-church. When pigs fly.
The heresy Marshall refers to is that of “Bl.” Joachim of Fiore, a 13th century Capuchin abbot, but he fails to inform his viewers that Joachim’s status as a beatus is one arbitrarily assigned to him by his admirers, not by a true pope, (see here). He even gives his feast day as May 29, which can be found in none of the beati listed with the saints in Butler’s Lives of the Saints or elsewhere. Marshall never really classifies the abbot’s teachings as heretical, when in reality Pope Alexander IV, in 1256, condemned Joachim for his teachings and those of his followers, (but this was after his death). The Lateran Council and Pope John XXII also condemned his followers for teaching the same errors. But even before this, his teachings had been condemned by St. Thomas Aquinas and other theological schools, although St. Thomas Aquinas was aware that “…however dangerous the abbot’s doctrines were, the Joachites [his followers] had gone far beyond them” (Bernard McGinn; see Conclusion below for citation). So what was it that Joachim of Fiore taught? We read from the Catholic Encyclopedia, followed by my comments:
“There are three states of the world, corresponding to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In the first age the Father ruled, representing power and inspiring fear, to which the Old Testament dispensation corresponds; then the wisdom hidden through the ages was revealed in the Son, and we have the Catholic Church of the New Testament; a third period will come, the Kingdom of the Holy Spirit, a new dispensation of universal love, which will proceed from the Gospel of Christ, but transcend the letter of it, and in which there will be no need for disciplinary institutions. Joachim held that the second period was drawing to a close, and that the third epoch (already in part anticipated by St. Benedict) would actually begin after some great cataclysm which he tentatively calculated would befall in 1260. After this Latins and Greeks would be united in the new spiritual kingdom, freed alike from the fetters of the letter; the Jews would be converted, and the “Eternal Gospel” abide until the end of the world.”
Comment: No need for disciplinary institutions? Wasn’t this precisely the goal of the Modernists, and wasn’t that goal largely realized in the1983 revision of Canon Law and the rule of LibTrad pseudo-clergy, minus any need for a true pope? Isn’t it indeed the Novus Ordo that has introduced the “Novus Ordo Missae” and the new age of the “Holy Spirit” by sanctioning charismatic “Catholicism”?
“The sect of the “Joachists” or “Joachimists” arose among the “spiritual” party among the Franciscans, many of whom saw Antichrist already in the world in the person of Frederick II, nor was their faith shaken by his death in 1250. One of their number, Fra Gherardo of Borgo San Donnino, wrote a treatise entitled “Introductorium in Evangelium Aeternum”, of which the contents are now known only from the extracts made by the commission of three cardinals who examined it in 1255. From these it is clear that the Joachists went far beyond what the abbot himself had taught. They held that, about the year 1200, the spirit of life had gone out of the two Testaments and that Joachim’s three books themselves constituted this “Eternal Gospel,” which was not simply to transcend but to supersede, the Gospel of Christ. The Catholic priesthood and the whole teaching of the New Testament was to be rendered void in a few years.”
Comment: Well it may have taken them a little over 700 years but isn’t that exactly what they have accomplished?!
“This work was solemnly condemned by Alexander IV, in 1256, [DZ 458, regarding Abbot Joachim’s follower and champion, William of St. Amour] and the condemnation involved the teaching of Joachim himself. His central doctrine was confuted by St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica (I-II, Q. 106, a. 4), and its Franciscan exponents were sternly repressed by St. Bonaventure. Another blow was given to the movement when the fatal year 1260 came, and nothing happened.” So what exactly does St. Thomas Aquinas have to say about St. Joachim’s teachings? From Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 106, a. 4:
“On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mat. 24:34): “I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all (these) things be done”: which passage Chrysostom (Hom. lxxvii) explains as referring to “the generation of those that believe in Christ.” Therefore the state of those who believe in Christ will last until the consummation of the world…
“I answer that: Therefore no state of the present life can be more perfect than that of the New Law, since the nearer a thing is to the last end, the more perfect it is… We are not to look forward to a state wherein man is to possess the grace of the Holy Ghost more perfectly than he has possessed it hitherto, especially the apostles who “received the first fruits of the Spirit, i.e. sooner and more abundantly than others,” as a gloss expounds on Rom. 8:23… As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), there is a threefold state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second is that of the New Law; THE THIRD WILL TAKE PLACE NOT IN THIS LIFE, BUT IN HEAVEN.
“Reply to Objection 3: “The Old Law corresponded not only to the Father, but also to the Son: because Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Law. Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 5:46): “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of Me.” In like manner the New Law corresponds not only to Christ, but also to the Holy Ghost; according to Rom. 8:2: “The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” etc. Hence we are not to look forward to another law corresponding to the Holy Ghost.”
“Reply to Objection 4: Since Christ said at the very outset of the preaching of the Gospel: “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat. 4:17), it is most absurd to say that the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom. But the preaching of the Gospel of Christ may be understood in two ways. First, as denoting the spreading abroad of the knowledge of Christ: and thus the Gospel was preached throughout the world even at the time of the apostles, as Chrysostom states (Hom. lxxv in Matth.). And in this sense the words that follow—“and then shall the consummation come,” refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, of which He was speaking literally. Secondly, the preaching of the Gospel may be understood as extending throughout the world and producing its full effect, so that, to wit, the Church would be founded in every nation. And in these sense, as Augustine writes to Hesychius (Epist. cxcix), the Gospel is not preached to the whole world yet, but, when it is, the consummation of the world will come.”
According to Rev. R. Gerald Culleton’s The Prophets and Our Times (1941), Abbot Joachim also taught: “After many prolonged sufferings endured by Christians… a remarkable Pope will be seated on the Pontifical throne under the special protection of the angels. Holy and full of gentleness, he shall undo all wrong, recover states of the Church, reunite the exiled temporal powers and shall… recover the Kingdom of Jerusalem. All men will return to the primitive Church and there shall be only one pastor, one law, one master — humble, modest and fearing God (the Pope). The true God of the Jews our Lord Jesus Christ will make everything prosper beyond all human hope because God alone can and will pour down on the wounds of humanity this oily balm of sweetness….
“This angelic Pope will preach the gospel in every country. Through his zeal and solicitude, the Greek church will be forever reunited to the Catholic Church. The dispersed nation of Jews shall also enjoy tranquility… At the beginning, in order to obtain these happy results, having need of a powerful temporal assistance, this holy pontiff will ask the cooperation of the generous monarch of France, the great monarch. At that time a handsome monarch, a scion of King Pepin will come as a pilgrim to witness the splendor of this glorious pontiff whose name shall begin with R… The temporal throne becoming vacant, the Pope shall place on it this king whose assistance he shall ask.”
And all the above might have been a possibility if the papacy had not been usurped unopposed by a canonically elected pope for 65 years, until a certainly valid election became impossible. (According to the Catholic Encyclopedia under Antichrist, Abbot Joachim foresaw this usurpation but not its consequences.) Below we will read at greater length from the essay Joachim of Fiore and Apocalyptic Immanence, by Paul Ziolo, Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, 2017) regarding the far-reaching implications of Abbot Joachim’s teachings.
“1) Human history is divided into three successive Ages (in Joachimite terms, the Ages or Status (Lat. status (pl.) in the sense of epochs, aeons or psychospiritual ‘conditions’) of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit). Humanity is currently situated in the Second Age – the age of struggle and transition, while the Third will be the ‘New Age’, bringing the resolution of all conflict and an endlessly static ‘spiritualised’ state of human perfection. Sometimes (as in the Marxist interpretation), time and distance bring about a re-evaluation, so that the age of struggle and transition is transposed to the Third – (modes of production based on hunter-gatherer economies, feudal slavery, then Capitalism as an age of struggle and illumination) – which will finally culminate in a Fourth Age of stasis and perfection (the Marxist ‘withering away of the State’).
2) The New Age will heralded by the victorious struggle of the God-anointed ‘World Emperor’ in alliance with the ‘Angelic Pope’ over the ‘Beast of the Apocalypse’ (the evil, secular power) and the Antichrist ( the Antipope or the incarnation of the secularised Papacy).
3) The New Age will be ushered in or ‘catalysed’ by two new monastic orders – one engaged in the active life, the other – the ‘spiritual order’ – in the contemplative. In later interpretations (e.g. by the Jesuits and modern totalitarian philosophies) these two orders became fused into one.”
Ziolo then provides four illustrations representing the Trinity and the three different phases. The final phase actually points to the establishment of the Novus Ordo church, a fact that conveniently escapes Taylor Marshall. Ziolo continues, and the comment on the title of Fig. 4 is entirely his own:
“Fig.4 is entitled DISPOSITIO NOVI ORDINIS – the Configuration of the New Order (note the somewhat sinister implications of this title). This image depicts the social structures of the Third Status, laid out in the form of the human body (representing the ‘Body of Christ’) and, at the same time, the Cross of Jerusalem (the new Civitas Dei or City of God)… The lowest (and largest [social structure]) is that of the Sheep (Ovis) – i.e. the People. Democracy still has a long way to go.
“For romantics and reactionaries of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the medieval ‘Abbot of Calabria’ [Joachim] had become a remote, mysterious, almost legendary figure whose cryptic prophecies, vast systematisation of history and brilliantly illuminated figurae began to exercise that fascination created by distance in time. The passing centuries had seen an increasing extension, generalisation and abstraction of the Joachimite program within the broader context of the traumatic collapse of the Christian group-fantasy… Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries therefore, the Joachimite visions are found embedded in the writings of a dense network of European literati, feminists, visionaries, reformers and revolutionaries… These fantasies were always latent in European history, given form through the immanence of dynamic trinitarianism and canonical endorsement by the Joachimite prophecies…
“The main vehicle for the diffusion of Joachim’s ideas remained the Eternal Evangel, compiled by Santo Donnino in 1252. Although this work occasionally inspired searches for and scholarly work on, the primary sources, as well as encounters with the hypnotic figurae, it became the main emotional ‘mirror’ through which visionaries sought to re-interpret the present in terms of the past. This European network included such personalities as George Eliot, Pierre Leroux, George Sand, Ernest Renan, Matthew Arnold, John Addington Symonds, Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Pater, Joris-Karl Huysmans, W.B. Yeats, D.H Lawrence, the painter Wassily Kandinsky, the metahistorian Arnold Toynbee and the psychoanalyst, C.G. Jung…” (Marshall explains in his video that a modern psychoanalyst, Jordan Peterson, has stated he is a member of the church of “St.” Joachim of Fiore, so beware — especially given what follows below.)
“Three of these figures deserve special mention in view of their relevance for psychohistory,” [but here we will mention only one of these]. “Joris-Karl Huysmans’ 1891 novel Là-Bas (‘Down There’) is a psychohistorically interesting work — parts of which have actually been transcribed onto psychohistory websites. The novel is a study of Satanism, child abuse and human sacrifice in the form of what is in fact an autobiographical novel (part of a series). Two narratives, displaced in time, are intertwined in the text – the protagonist Durtal’s involvement with Parisian Satanic cults of the late 19th century (the era of the notorious so-called Mass Priests) and a biography of the early 15th century child rapist, mass murderer and Satanist Gilles de Rais. Through this double narrative Huysmans develops his main thesis – that archaic, infanticidally-based psychoclass structures, ever latent but hidden and held in check during periods of comparative social stability (such as the earlier Middle Ages), may re-emerge during times of pronounced social anomie and disintegration. The novel is threaded with Joachimite ideas.
“[But] The darkest fruits of the Joachimite tree were the archaist and futurist totalitarian systems of the 20th century – in which Joachim’s viri spirituales became transformed into the brutal SS and communist party ‘cadres’. How did this happen? As I have stated, the wandering Fraticelli had played a major role in the dissemination of pseudo-Joachimite ideas… from the 13th-14th centuries, thus preparing the ground for the heretic and reformist movements that were to culminate in the Reformation itself. Lutheran reformers in turn transmitted the revolutionary ideas of Joachimism via Bohemia and Poland to Russia… In Russia, the ancient conception of Moscow as the ‘Third Rome’, dating from the fall of Constantinople in 1453, was a natural product of purely Trinitarian (rather than apocalyptic) thinking. After the increasing ‘self-divinisation’ of the Russian Monarchy, beginning with the assumption in 1547 of the title of Tsar by Ivan IV (‘The Terrible’), and especially after the Nikonian Reforms of 1652, apocalyptic movements began to proliferate and acquire a distinctly Joachimite tinge.
“By the late 19th century, philosophers, writers and visionary historians such as Soloviev, Merezhovsky, Dostoievsky and Danilovsky displayed a thorough acquaintance with the Joachimite program and had incorporated it into their own visions of Russia’s ‘destiny’. The ground was therefore well prepared for the Marxist conception of history as comprising three economic phases: primitive communism, class- structured society and the ‘new communism’ (with the Third International inaugurating the transition to the communist version of the Third Status) as well as the later Leninist-Stalinist formulations of the Party as the ‘vanguard of the Revolution’. The ideological ‘cadres’ were to become Joachim’s ‘contemplative’ order while the GPU-NKVD-KGB were to assume the role of the ‘active’ order.
“In Germany, where the seeds of the Joachimite tree had been planted by reformers and long watered by generations of conservative Lutherans, the Third Status was clearly envisaged in terms of the Third Reich (it should be remembered that it had been the Emperors of the ‘First’ Reich that had served as the original prototypes for Joachim’s ‘Worldly Emperor’). Under Nazism, the two orders at first coalesced into the SA, then later into the SS (neither the SD nor the Gestapo served any specifically ideological function). The most poisonous fruit of the tree came to flower after the division of the SS into the Waffen-SS and the Totenkopfverbände (‘Death’s Head’ Guards) in 1936, with the latter specifically entrusted with the engineering of the Holocaust.
The Joachimite vision continues to influence modern conceptions of the future. One of its most specific ‘translations’ is found in [Isaac] Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy…. This vision continues to colour all political and economic visions and policies that conceive of human destiny as a march towards some form of paradise, as unilinear progress or as the realisation of some ‘Manifest Destiny’… Apocalyptic thought will always be part of any re-envisioning of world culture promulgated by the alliance between the Euroamerican scientific-technological establishment and global corporations. In seeking to establish a New World Order built on global capitalism, such entities still strive to realise Joachim’s Dispositio Novi Ordinis in terms of the present…” (End of Ziolo quotes).
The above is confirmed by no less than Novus Ordo “Cardinal” Henri de Lubac, S.J.:
“Joachimism exerted a significant influence upon the thinking of people, de Lubac maintained, as far apart in their views as the once-liberal then utopian-socialist Henri de Saint-Simon, the Nazi racial theorist Alfred Rosenberg, and, above all, Karl Marx and associated Marxist theorists such as the German philosopher Ernst Bloch. Underpinning all these ideas, de Lubac held, was a type of laicized millenarianism which conveyed the sense that a new age was about to dawn as history inevitably progressed toward some type of this-worldly utopia… In his Mémoires sur l’occasion de mes écrits, de Lubac wrote:
“Under the various forms it has assumed, I consider Joachimism to be a still-present and even pressing danger. I recognize it in the process of secularization, which, betraying the Gospel, transforms the search for that Kingdom of God into social utopias. I see it at work in what was so justly called the “self-destruction of the Church” [after Vatican II]. I believe that it can only aggravate the misery and cause the abasement of our humanity.” (See complete article here). It is no surprise that according to Wikipedia and other works by Novus Ordo authors, the condemned Modernist Ernesto Buonaiuti, declared a vitandus heretic by Pope Pius XI, was one of the first researchers in the modern-day application of Joachinism. Buonaiuti was the Modernist seminary professor Angelo Roncalli befriended, and this friendship was the reason Roncalli himself was labeled by Pope Pius XI as a suspected Modernist.
So finally we know the actual origins of this Great Monarch, Holy Pope business and where it is now headed — Heaven on earth with technocracy as its god. LibTrads embracing it today have no clue that this is actually a neo-Modernistheresy they are committing themselves to, although their pseudo-clergy at the top most likely do know. Even the secular world understands this as the following quote demonstrates: “Joachim has always had a double reputation, as saint and as heretic, for cautious Christian thinkers and leaders have seen his writings as HIGHLY DANGEROUS. The debate as to whether he was orthodox or heretic continues today” (Encyclopedia Britannica). But of course there can be no such debate on the part of Catholics in view of the papal condemnations listed above. And while LibTrads may object that it is a spiritual revival they are anticipating, not a secular one, they need to heed the teaching of the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas and other Church Fathers, as will be explained below.
Conclusion
“The nature of this third age explains why Joachim’s views can be characterized by the term “radical eschatology.” All medieval thinkers were eschatological in the sense that they accepted the Christian understanding of history that looked forward to the definitive event of the return of Christ and the end of time. Joachim’s sense of the imminence of his third age does not of itself make his thought distinctive; from Gregory the Great to Norbert of Xanten, popes and saints had been convinced that all things were fulfilled and they themselves would live to see the end. But Joachim saw the terrors of the time of the Antichrist as presaging an age of completion within history and not outside it; after the persecutions of the man of iniquity, God would initiate the age of the Holy Spirit, the perfection of the divine action within history. Only after the third age would come the final tribulation and the sabbath rest of eternity.” (The Abbot and the Doctors: Scholastic Reactions to the Radical Eschatology of Joachim of Fiore, Bernard McGinn, 1971).
McGinn explains in his work that theologians post-Vatican 2 were divided on the intent of Abbot Joachim, some believing that this age meant nothing more than a restoration of the Church, retaining all its institutions and Sacraments, and yet others — de Lubac among them — who saw the abbot’s intent as a church excluding the papacy, the sacraments and the hierarchical order. Whether this was actively intended by Abbot Joachim or whether his followers were the culprits in advancing this notion is anyone’s guess. But the final results leave no room for doubt. They all too clearly point out the failure of the Novus Ordo and LibTrad sects to reject the notion of a spiritualized version of Abbot Joachim’s “New Age” (such a telling term!) and adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure and St. Augustine — relying on private prophecy whose works were condemned as heretical versus Church teaching.
If we carefully consider what St. Thomas teaches in the quotes above, several things will become clear.
— “I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all (these) things be done”: which passage Chrysostom (Hom. lxxvii) explains as referring to the generation of those that believe in Christ.” Therefore the state of those who believe in Christ will last until the consummation of the world…” Notice that here St. Thomas says nothing about the ”fact” held by LibTrads that the hierarchy, meaning the cardinals, bishops and priests headed by a canonically elected pope, must be among those who still believe in Christ. As pointed out in other blogs, 70 years is counted as a generation in the Old Testament. And in 2028, it will be 70 years since the death of Pope Pius XII.
— “There is a threefold state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second is that of the New Law;THE THIRD WILL TAKE PLACE NOT IN THIS LIFE, BUT IN HEAVEN… Hence we are not to look forward to another law corresponding to the Holy Ghost.” This excludes any possibility of an “age of peace,” or of “the Holy Spirit,” as Joachim imagined. Joachim believed in two Antichrists; one before the third age and another at the end of the Third age, Gog and Magog, before the Second Coming. Holy Scripture teaches that there will be only one, “the MAN of sin, the SON of Perdition” (2 Thess. 2). The very fact that the papal seat is now vacant and that according to the laws and teachings of the Church there is no way competent electors could elect a true pope should convince those anticipating the age of peace. Truly the Great King and Angelic Pastor “revelation” was only a figment of Joachim’s overactive imagination.
— It is St. Augustine who insists in his City of God “That the thousand-year period of a “first resurrection” (Apoc. 20.4-6) cannot be taken to apply to an earthly future, as is well known. For Augustine (City of God 20.7-10), and for all medieval commentators following him until Joachim, the thousand-year kingdom of Revelation was meant to be understood figuratively as the spiritual resurrection of the elect reigning in the Church in the present.” (Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore, Robert E. Lerner Speculum, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul., 1985).
— “The preaching of the Gospel may be understood as extending throughout the world and producing its full effect, so that, to wit, the Church would be founded in every nation… And in this sense, as Augustine writes to Hesychius (Epist. cxcix), the Gospel is not preached to the whole world yet, but, when it is, the consummation of the world will come.” Was not the Church “founded in every nation” before Her demise, then, if only imperfectly? So should we not then expect the consummation?
— As St. Thomas teaches in the Supplement to the Summa (73:1), “Although men be terrified by the signs appearing about the judgment day, yet before these signs begin to appear the wicked will think themselves to be in peace and security after the death of Antichrist and before the coming of Christ, seeing that the world is not at once destroyed as they thought hitherto.” And these seem to be the times in which we live. As stated in an earlier blog, it is most likely that the first to be judged at the Final Judgement will be Roncalli and Montini, whose resurrected bodes will then be cast into the lake of fire.
The final nail in Abbot Joachim’s coffin is Pope Pius XII’s decision on even mitigated millenarianism. In this decree binding on the faithful the (AAS 36, 1944, 212) Pope Pius taught:
“In recent times on several occasions the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated millenarianism which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is the system of mitigated millenarianism cannot be taught safely” (Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, DZ 2296). Notice that Pope Pius XII uses the word “for example.” This can only mean that there are several other aspects of this teaching. And the teaching referenced can only be that of Manuel Lacunza, who is identified in the official notice of the Holy Office condemnation as the author of this system (see here). So what was it that Lacunza taught?
“Upon his [Antichrist’s] death, the Church, and the whole world, shall begin to breathe again, everything reverting to a perfect calm, and a universal joy. The Bishops, who had concealed themselves in mountains, shall return and resume their sees, accompanied by their clergy and some other Christian families, who had followed them in their voluntary exile. At this time shall come to pass, the conversion of the Jews, according to the universal spirit of the converters” The source for this information adds: “’End of the age’ and ‘end of the world’ refer to two different times. He understood the ‘end of the age’ or “day of the Lord” as merely the end of a phase of human history… 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… The dragon will once again be loosed and will return to deceive the whole world… “ (see here). And then shall come the Final Judgement.
So much for the LibTrad’s “return of the bishops,” which is among the many things Lacunza erroneously taught in his writings. Didn’t even de Lubac warn that Joachim would eliminate the need for the hierarchy? Why doesn’t Lacunza mention the pope? Because clearly he is a follower of Abbot Joachim, as the entirety of his works easily show. And as we know, Abbot Joachim’s writings were already condemned by the popes before Lacunza wrote. But most importantly, while in past blogs we have spoken of the end of the Church’s age on earth, or consummation of the age at the death of Pope Pius XII, this is not to be taken to mean there could be another or third age. All it means is that Christ is allowing a lengthy interval to elapse between Antichrist’s actual death and the destruction of his system, followed by the Final Judgment. This is in accord with St. Thomas’ own teaching on this subject, as noted above.
So on this the 24th Sunday after Pentecost, when the Gospel of St. Matthew announces the arrival of the abomination of desolation, let us not forget that he has already arrived (although his system is still with us). Surely we must exist in that indeterminate time period following the consummation of the age of the Church described by St. Thomas, awaiting the Second Coming. Next week we will see how even a great saint ran afoul of St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching and erroneously taught that Antichrist already had been born by relying too heavily on private revelations.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 6, 2023 | New Blog
+St. Zachary and Elizabeth+
Some housekeeping items
The web tenders have asked me to please remind those readers encountering the “page not found” notice when clicking on links to kindly clear their caches and refresh their browsers, then try again. If this does not resolve the problem, please notify me by email. Also, some typos and other strange discrepancies have been reported by one reader in the site videos. Please also notify me if you have encountered this.
What is truth?
I have often been asked how I can be so certain that what is written here is the truth. The only answer I can give to this question is to define truth. “What is truth?” Pontius Pilate asked Our Lord, after Jesus had just announced to Pilate He was “…the way, the truth, and the life.” Since Christ left the determination of His truth to be decided by the Roman Pontiffs and the ecumenical councils convened by them, the main sources used on this site are the popes and councils, the decisions of the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregations, Canon Law and approved scholastic theologians writing before the death of Pope Pius XII. Why “scholastic” theologians? Because the Roman Pontiffs have declared for centuries that the only trustworthy method of determining the truth is the scholastic method used by St. Thomas Aquinas; all other methods are in error.
The scholastic method teaches its students how to arrive at what is known as certitude, discussed at length in articles on this site for many years. Here is a quick review of this method and how it actually works below, paraphrased from the work ABC of Scholastic Philosophy, by A.C. Cotter, S.J., 1949.
Epistemology, that is major logic or criteriology, is the science of the certitude of our cognitions. Epistemology is 1) cognition: that which we know and 2) certitude, cognition which is necessarily true and known to be true. Epistemology determines the where, why and how of our cognitions. The sources of certitude include consciousness, external senses, intellect, reasoning and human testimony. Logical truth is conformity of the mind to an object; formal certitude is the ideal state of mind which is necessarily true and known to be true, such as 2 + 2 = 4 . Some openly and explicitly deny all formal certitude. These are the so-called skeptics, and their denial that one can obtain such certitude is condemned by the Church because it is contrary to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
What constitutes our cognitive faculties was mentioned above. First there is consciousness, which is awareness of our present internal acts to external senses. This is of course sight, hearing, taste smell and feeling. Also our intellect which is the faculty of thought. Under thought is included attention, judgment, reflection, self-consciousness, the formation of concepts and the processes of reasoning. Then there is reasoning itself, which can only be expressed correctly by the use of logic. Finally there is human testimony, which is credible only when provided by trustworthy witnesses. Rev. Cotter tells us that where a definite goal is to be attained, method is of supreme importance. Method is a way to arrive at a doctrine and logic is a treatise on method with the goal of obtaining correctness of thought.
Without the papacy, without sure guides, deprived of all the many advantages the Church offered Catholics for centuries, it is more important than ever that we learn to think according to the mind of the Church, according to Her own tried and true method. Truth cannot come through the endless dialogue and cacophony of useless human opinions broadcast perpetually by the LibTrads. Formal certitude alone, available to us only from the Continual Magisterium, is the one thing left to us — integral truth, binding on all Catholics, devoid of all heretical exclusivism or minimalization.
LibTrads lost in fog of denial
The past few blogs have explained how LibTrads fail to draw out the logical conclusions of the teachings of the Church, of their own stated principles and even of the opinions held by their pseudo-clergy, because they refuse to follow scholastic method which alone can lead to the truth. They fall into thinking errors which scholasticism was designed to prevent because they will not acknowledge the consequences logically flowing from their erroneous premises. LibTrads also work to confuse ideas and distort the proper meaning of words. The most especially fall into the logical fallacy of the vicious circle, assuming as true that which has yet to be proven, which applies generally to nearly every argument they present, since scholastic method is never followed. But most notably, in the course of their erroneous reasoning process, they depend on the varying degrees of the truths which are denied, in order to maintain the stance they have taken. Basically, they live, move and breathe in a constant state of denial. This is described by Michael J. Mahony, S.J., in his 1918 work Essentials of Formal Logic as, “Seeing what we wish to see and not seeing what we do not wish to see.”
This point is the wellspring from which all the errors of Traditionalists issue. Having failed to follow the rules, they proceed as if they never existed, or cannot possibly apply, or have ceased to exist “in this emergency.” They see what it is they want and wish to see: the Church as She once was, as they believed She would always be. Mass, Sacraments, clergy, the false certainty of Her restoration. They see Her in Her youth and middle age, but they do not see Her in Her declining years. In fact they will tell you that She will never decline or that Her decline is in the distant future. This in direct contradiction of Matt. 24, the prophets, and St. John’s Apocalypse (Ch. 13:7): “And it was given to Antichrist to make war with the Saints, and to overcome them.” They prefer children’s fairy tales to reality, which can be found only in the application of logic; they would rather believe lies than truth. They never observed the Church’s gaunt visage, disfigured by the cancer of Modernism, or heeded Her death rasps, the edicts and the warnings issued by a dying pope who was surrounded by his enemies.
Today nothing is more dangerous than to be lost in this denial. For in failing to draw out the proper consequences of the sede vacante, LibTrads of every shade have deceived not only themselves but anyone following them. Using evasions and specious arguments, they continue to ignore the basic infallible documents that would set them right and which teach the inevitable truths, these being primarily Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS), also Canon Law. Most important among these papal pronouncements is Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which predicts the precise arrival of the abomination of desolation in exactly the manner in which John the 23rd was invalidly placed into office. Yet they deny both VAS and Cum ex… as documents which either no longer bind or issue from human law alone.
Many have objected that John 23rd could not have been the Antichrist, the abomination of desolation foretold by Pope Paul IV, but they misunderstand the meaning of the term abomination of desolation, which can be used in several different ways. One of these is to describe anything or anyone unworthily entered into the sanctuary, and Roncalli was an, but not the antichrist, as antipopes were described before him. False worship also classifies as an abomination, and this undoubtedly was the Novus Ordo Missae, the John the 23rd missal and also the dialogue missalettes that John 23rd approved for distribution in 1959. Finally, it was Montini himself, introduced into the sanctuary from the moment Roncalli was invalidly elected.
For with Roncalli as “pope,” Montini became his coadjutor and official advisor, and this had been the case even prior to Roncalli’s “election.” Roncalli was the false prophet and Paul 6 was the actual Antichrist. They had been close friends since the 1930s and ruled together just as prophesied in Ch. 13 of Apocalypse. Roncalli almost immediately made Montini a “cardinal” in the new counter church. Furthermore Montini worked very closely with Roncalli from the time he was elected knowing he was going to succeed him; a deal made secretly with the CIA. Montini also ghostwrote Pacem in Terris, according to several credible reports, as well as authoring other pseudo-papal documents. But because LibTrads reject Paul IV’s bull, coupled with these well-known facts, they fail to fully draw out the consequences. Instead, they stop short of admitting that Pope Paul IV taught that two men, both invalidly elected, would be the abomination of desolation, standing in the Holy Place.
Enter the second part of the equation, that is Pope Pius XII’s election constitution. Flying in the face of this infallible teaching, LibTrads insist that their pseudo-bishops can substitute for the Pope and rule the Church. In their liberal charity, they may be afraid of calling people heretics, but I’m not one to pull any punches. This is nothing but the heresy of Gallicanism, plain and simple, dealt the death blow at the Vatican Council. Deny that and heresy is the only word to describe it. VAS is so clear that no one should have any questions about its import. And VAS is not the only binding Church teaching they deny. Incredibly, as seen below, LibTrads manage to manipulate the teachings of Pope Leo XIII to support their belief that “there must always be bishops,” who can constitute the Church without the Pope. (This heresy is refuted here and here.)
What LibTrads ignore in quoting Pope Leo XIII
The following is excerpted from what LibTrads quote regarding Pope Leo XIII’s supposed intent that the bishops have the ability to rule the Church in the absence of the Pope.
“Only the Church of Jesus Christ has been able to preserve, and surely will preserve unto the consummation of time, her form of government. Founded by Him Who was, Who is, and Who will be forever (Heb. 13:8), She has received from Him, since Her very origin, all that She requires for the pursuing of Her divine mission across the changeable ocean of human affairs. And, far from wishing to transform Her essential constitution, She has not the power even to relinquish the conditions of true liberty and sovereign independence with which Providence has endowed Her in the general interest of souls” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Au Milieu de Sollicitudes, Feb. 16, 1892, n. 17).
“But as the Church was to last to the end of time, something more was required besides the bestowal of the Sacred Scriptures. It was obviously necessary that the Divine Founder should take every precaution, lest the treasure of heavenly-given truths, possessed by the Church, should ever be destroyed, which would assuredly have happened, had He left those doctrines to each one’s private judgment. It stands to reason, therefore, that a living, perpetual “magisterium” was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching” (Encyclical On the Church in Scotland by Pope Leo XIII, 1898).
“And, since it was necessary that His divine mission SHOULD BE perpetuated to the end of time, He took to Himself Disciples, trained by Himself, and made them partakers of His own authority. And, when He had invoked upon them from Heaven the Spirit of Truth, He bade them go through the whole world and faithfully preach to all nations, what He had taught and what He had commanded, so that by the profession of His doctrine, and the observance of His laws, the human race might attain to holiness on earth and never-ending happiness in Heaven. In this wise, and on this principle, the Church was begotten…
“For to the Apostles and their LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS ALONE these words have reference: “Going into the whole world preach the Gospel.” “Baptizing them.” “Do this in commemoration of Me.” “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them.” And in like manner He ordered the Apostles only and those who should LAWFULLY succeed them to feed – that is to govern with AUTHORITY – all Christian souls. Whence it also follows that it is necessarily the duty of Christians to be subject and to obey. And these duties of the Apostolic office are, in general, all included in the words of St. Paul: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God” (I Cor. iv., I). (Par. 10)… Jesus Christ commanded His Apostles and their successors to the end of time to teach and rule the nations. He ordered the nations to accept their teaching and obey their authority. But his correlation of rights and duties in the Christian commonwealth not only could not have been made permanent but could not even have been initiated except through the senses, which are of all things the messengers and interpreters” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis cognitum, 1896).
A classic case of heretical exclusivism
A better example of the heretical exclusivism evidenced above (emphasizing one dogma to the exclusion of others, also known as the fallacy of special pleading in Scholastic philosophy), could not be found anywhere. Pope Leo predicates the ability of the Apostles to teach and rule entirely on their LAWFUL succession, meaning that even if validly ordained and consecrated (which they are not), LibTrads are obligated to PROVE their “clerics” receive the POWER or jurisdiction necessary to their appointed office from the head bishop, the pope. That this power comes from the pope and not to bishops directly from Christ was infallibly defined by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi and elsewhere. Under Canon 147, no office can be validly obtained without being granted by competent ecclesiastical authority according to the sacred canons. In 1950, Pius XII quoted the Council of Trent as the source of this canon, declaring anyone who appointed themselves to such offices as “thieves and robbers.” He also declared that such persons were excommunicated for heresy under Can. 2314 no. 1, adding additional penalties for those subverting ecclesiastical authority and anyone aiding them. And this decision is binding on the faithful, being entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. (Canon Law Digest, T. Lincoln Bouscaren, Vol. III, AAS 42-601).
During a sede vacante, Pope Pius teaches in VAS, no one may usurp papal jurisdiction, and it is left to the pope alone to appoint bishops and issue the mandate permitting consecration. This was originally decided by the Council of Trent. It is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction, a subversion of ecclesiastical authority, to proceed without the required mandate, And in VAS, Pope Pius XII infallibly declares that if such acts are undertaken during an interregnum, including any supposed ordination of priests, they are null, void and invalid (see here). But to ramp up their contention that bishops must always exist, LibTrads entirely ignore these infallible teachings. Yes, bishops should exist until the end of time, as Pope Leo XII states, but only as long as they are operating under their HEAD bishop, the pope, which of course Pope Leo XIII presumes. That he does so presume is seen in this portion of Satis cognitum which LibTrads do not dare quote out for their readers:
“…Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3)… “…Christ the Lord WISHED that by the strength and solidity of the foundation the gates of hell SHOULD BE PREVENTEDfrom prevailing against the Church. All are agreed that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not of any certain portions of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them.”
This is the way these disgraceful “promoters of the faith” lead well-intentioned Catholic inquirers astray. And it goes much deeper than that. These false guides have succeeded in convincing people that they cannot become so “extreme” that they finally do reach the proper conclusions and realize the consequences of what is taught in infallible pronouncements, taken as an integral whole. Such individuals they wrongfully label as “totalists,” a pejorative used to discourage readers from unhealthy rigidity or “dogmatism.” But as Rev. A. C. Cotter explains, “Unfortunately the terms dogmatism, “dogmatic,” “dogmatize” etc. usually have a sinister meaning implying blind or unreasonable stubbornness and sticking to one’s own opinion. [However] In Catholic usage, a dogma is a revealed truth which the Church proposes to all as revealed and therefore to be believed.” (And it is in this sense only that dogmatic is used in the articles on this website). If those quoting Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum and other documents had properly qualified them in the context indicated by Pope Leo, it would soon be seen that what this pope was saying could not apply in any way to LibTrad pseudo-bishops,or to the time period in which we find ourselves today.
End, or consummation, of the age
In blogs written earlier this year, we discussed the difference between the end of time/the present age versus the final consummation of the world. And in those blogs, we made it clear that the end of time, the consummation of the ages or consummation of time itself was an expression used to indicate the end of the juridical Church’s time on earth. The Church’s time on earth could end only if he who withholdeth was permanently taken out of the way, which could happen only if a Pope died and all the qualified electors also died, so that no one could elect another true Pope. This has actually occurred. But to demonstrate this is NOT to say that Christ reneged on HIS promises! It only describes an act strictly executed by man exercising the free will God gave him, an innate quality which cannot be taken from him. Christ was true to His promise: the Gates of Hell never prevailed against the Church as long as a canonically elected pope reigned. So what is Pope Leo’s meaning of the end of time?
If we find Pope Leo XIII mentioning the end of time in his papal documents, we cannot presume that he meant the consummation, for if he had he would have simply used that word. The Popes had to allow for a time when the Church would fall under grievous attack, and even they could not fully be certain of what would transpire during those dreaded times. Even Christ could not tell the Apostles when we would experience the last days; He described only in general terms what we could expect. The Church’s “time” ended with the reign of Antichrist; the two periods could scarcely be said to overlap because Antichrist proper could never reign as long as the holding power was in place. That he who was prophesied in the Book of Daniel to take away the Continual Sacrifice and change times and laws has reigned tells us this event indeed has transpired. And the advent of that hellish period has led us to where we are today. LibTrads of course will never admit this, and by refusing to believe Paul 6 was Antichrist they have entirely miscalculated every other aspect of their very existence. Pride and whatever other insidious motives they may entertain will not allow them to correct their position.
They should be reviewing the other encyclicals Pope Leo XIII wrote, primarily Humanum genus and those encyclicals written by his predecessors on the same subject. And if only a smattering of research was conducted these LibTrads would clearly understand that we are in a most precarious position now, one that cannot be resolved by their constant wrangling and erroneous speculations; one that will come upon us so quickly that some will have little time to even realize far less reconsider their heretical, schismatic state and repent. For Christ has warned us, “I come as a thief.” Those reading these papal teachings must surely come away with the idea that all the popes feared has come to fruition, and as Pope Pius XI said regarding Christ’s kingship, all governments will certainly topple. Apocalypse 17-19 describes this event. But we are not there??? Think hard on this question as you read below and understand that the children of darkness are wiser in their day than the children of light.
Masonic predictions on war in Israel
(The following letter is believed to have been written by 33rd degree Mason and Sovereign Grand Commander Albert Pike. Pike is believed to have had close ties with the Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini, a 33rd degree Freemason who became the head of the illuminati in 1834 and whom some credit with founding the Mafia in the 1860s. Pike reportedly wrote a letter to Mazzini on August 15, 1871, in which he outlined his vision for three world wars which would ultimately bring about one world government. There is no trace of the original letter today which is reputed to have been on display at the British Museum in London as late as 1977. Pikes plan called for Communists, Nazis and political Zionists, also other international movements, to unite and allow themselves to be used to foment three global wars and at least two major revolutions. The following are extracts from Pike’s letter to Mazzini.)
The First World War — World War I
“The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the “agentur” [agents] of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken religions.”
The Second World War — World War II
“The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm.”
The Third World War — said to be the last.
“The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other.
“Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion… We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil.
“Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in public view.
“This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.”
So there we have the real reason for fighting World War I and II, and the blueprint for the current war in Israel — Satan’s own plan for world domination.
Conclusion
Unlike non-Catholics, Catholics have the advantage of viewing the above with the sure knowledge that regardless of who among the ranks of Freemasonry wrote it, such diabolical machinations were foretold long ago, beginning with the popes in the 1700s and continuing until the death of Pope Pius XII. And papal teaching on this terrible menace to both our faith and governmental institutions is no “conspiracy theory,” but a belief binding on Catholics and punished by excommunication. We see all the players at work here: the political Zionists, the neo-Nazis and the Communists. We see their final goal, which the popes also envisioned: pure Satanism.
We also see the intended means of accomplishing their goal — the battle of Armageddon, described in chapters 16 and 19 of the Apocalypse. When these satanic forces encompass or surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city is precisely when this battle takes place. The beloved city of course is Rome prior to its destruction, and Rev. Leo Haydock tells us the “camp” of the saints refers to those faithful scattered throughout the world. Christ intervenes when Satan and his armies surround us, when they are moving in for the kill.
We cannot know for certain if Satan and his minions will rule us for a short period of time prior to this battle or whether the battle will come suddenly, preventing his rule. For already, in so many ways, Satan has ruled both openly and secretly for several centuries. And if he ruled universally, it seems no truly Catholic souls could ever survive. But if this attack is sudden, it would fulfill the prophecies of Christ as a thief, and LibTrads will never know what hit them. This is the most grievous and terrifying work of the devil, to have seized those destined to be Christ’s own and to have so warped their minds they cannot think aright and are even immune to any attempts to dissuade them from their errors. That is Satan’s TRUE triumph, one which no one sees.
Once the civil war planned by Pike’s collaborators has decimated this and other nations there will be no Latin Mass or pseudo-clergy to rely upon, and then where will these LibTrads be? Their so-called leaders should have been rigorously training them to survive these times, but they have made them codependents instead, unable to think and act for themselves. If the attacks break out soon as many now fear they will be left to their own devices without knowing how to maintain their spiritual life and could even abandon their faith entirely when it is apparent that all they have been promised will never come to pass. It will be easy then to convince them the Church was always a lie, and that Christ has not been true to His promises, seeing that She has literally disappeared. The despair they would then experience could well disable even the best of them. That is why for decades so many have worked diligently to practice keeping the faith at home, preparing for the times that are fast approaching.
It is interesting that in Apostolic times, those who had publicly sinned (as in attending the services of non-Catholics) and who refused to recant their sins suffered major excommunication and were termed as “delivered unto Satan.” This meant that not only were they deprived of all communication with members of the Church, the prayers of the faithful, Mass attendance and reception of the Sacraments but were actually cursed, and also subjected to “…corporal vexations and torments inflicted by the evil one. This opinion has the support of Saint John Chrysostom and most of the Greek fathers, and among the Latin fathers of Saints Pacianus, Ambrose and Augustine. Certainly corporal afflictions and torments were effects of sin not uncommon in the early days” (Rev. Francis Hyland, Excommunication, 1928). Hyland writes that the phrase anathema was attached only to those offenses involving heresy, and this condemnation is attached to the very teaching that the Council of Trent condemns regarding those clerics or pseudo-clerics who insert themselves into positions once considered offices in the Church (DZ 967).
We have returned then to the Church’s early days, where such violations were punished more severely. For by refusing to leave their blind guides, LibTrads have been delivered to Satan both spiritually and literally. In the early Church, those who repented from their sins and stood ready to do penance were forgiven and gradually readmitted to the Church, but many still were unable to attend Mass or receive the Sacraments. By praying at home we obey God’s commands, hoping to become worthy of His mercy and to do penance for our sins.
“For I know my iniquity, and my sin is always before me. To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee: that thou mayst be justified in thy words and mayst overcome when thou art judged. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me. Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise” (Psalm 51: 3-7; 17).
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 29, 2023 | New Blog
+Feast of Christ the King+
The Month of November, the Poor Souls in Purgatory
Prayer Society Intention
“O blessed souls, pray for us poor miserable sinners who are in danger of being damned and losing God forever!”
When I first began to explore the traditionalist or LibTrad movement, I started out with studying prophecy and quickly realized that it gave me many possible scenarios but no concrete answers. And while I was in that phase of my development I spoke and corresponded with many starry-eyed LibTrad-type men and women who spoke as though it was almost a given that despite the chaos that had engulfed the Church, in the end everything would be fine: Christ would come to destroy his enemies and we would return to the late Middle Ages. What I couldn’t understand and was puzzled about even then was how was the Church going to go on without a true Pope?
The belief that prevailed then and still prevails runs like this: after the coming of Antichrist a great monarch would pair with a holy Pope and between the two of them they would battle to recapture the Vatican and restore the Church. But unfortunately this is now impossible because we have no pope, and no cardinals OR bishops to elect a pope. LibTrads accuse those praying at home of denying the Church’s indefectibility and making the restoration of the Church impossible. But they fail to appreciate the fact that the only individual truly indefectible and capable of guaranteeing that indefectibility was the last canonically elected Roman Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, and that the clock has now run out on electing his successor. And if that vacant and unopposed See in Rome can never be filled, and Pope Pius XII and Canon Law says it cannot, then we are on the brink of the final events in world history.
The Israeli war
U.S. support for Israel in undertaking this recent war is justified by government officials as necessary because they’re one of our primary allies. And of course this is true. But I would like to see what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a Catholic king somehow associated with the United States who needed the same type of assistance. Of course long ago secret societies made certain that there were no longer any Catholic monarchies left, or if left, that such individuals were only impotent figureheads lacking any real power. Protestants support Israel’s right to establish or defend their country in anticipation of what they believe will be the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, which a good number of Protestants teach will happen in the latter days, and perhaps even now.
While these Protestants believe that the sacrifice that will be taken away is the Jewish sacrifice, Catholics know, of course, that it was the Continual Sacrifice of the Mass that would cease, not the Jewish sacrifice. So what these Protestants anticipate according to online reports is basically: the Rapture, the coming of the Jewish Messiah/Antichrist who will reign for 3 1/2 years and halt the sacrifices, the destruction of Antichrist by Christ, the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and the restoration of Israel during a 1,000-year peace. The basis for these prophecies is found primarily in the Old Testament. But if they would only listen to and obey their Bible, teaching them about their “Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,” to whom they pretend such devotion, they would understand that:
“For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things; by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers there unto perfect: For then they would have ceased to be offered: because the worshippers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer: But in them there is made a commemoration of sins every year. For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me: Holocausts for sin did not please thee. Then said I: Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me: that I should do thy will, O God. In saying before, Sacrifices, and oblations, and holocausts for sin thou wouldest not, neither are they pleasing to thee, which are offered according to the law. Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth. In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.
“And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, forever sitteth on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool. For by one oblation he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. And the Holy Ghost also doth testify this to us. For after that he said: And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts, and on their minds will I write them: And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more. Now where there is a remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin. Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ; A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh, And a high priest over the house of God” (Hebrews, Ch. 10: v. 1-21). And it is the renewal of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross alone in His one and only true Church which from that time on satisfied for sins.
Thoughts on Christ’s Kingship
In his work, The Kingship pf Christ, Father Denis Fahey quotes as follows from the Communist Lenin: “The United states (of the world) and not only of Europe: that is the state formula of the union until the day when the complete victory of communism will bring about the definite disappearance of every state, even purely democratic.” That pretty much explains where we are today. Fahey goes on to comment, quoting from Pere Lavaud O.P., who was summarizing Thomistic principles:
“Two extreme errors are to be avoided in this question of national relations. The first is imperialism, according to which a particular nation would have the right, if it were strong enough, to lord it over the others and to realize absolute unity of temporal power on earth. From this excessive pretension there necessarily follows the ambition to dominate and enslave the spiritual power of the Church which opposes and condemns these excesses. The second extreme is internationalism which denies nations the right to distinct national life within their own frontiers and proclaims the necessity of setting up an immense world Republic. This idea is just as absurd as that of the Communists… According to the Communist doctrine, everything in the bosom of the nation must be in common amongst individuals; the family must cease to be. According to internationalism, everything in the world must be in common amongst men; nations must disappear. Communism and internationalism complete one another. That the temporal plane of a world Republic… can exist only on the spiritual plane is not less hostile to the Church than imperialism.”
Pope Benedict XV also taught: “The advent of the universal Republic which is longed for by all the worst elements of disorder and confidently expected by them is an idea which is now ripe for execution. From this Republic, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and common community of possessions, would be banished all natural distinctions nor in it would the authority of the father over his children or of the public power over the citizens or of God over human society be any longer acknowledged. If these ideas are put into practice there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard of terror” (Motu proprio Bonum sane, July 25th 1920).
Fahey explains that Christ has direct spiritual power over the faithful and indirect power over the temporal sphere. Quoting St. Thomas he writes: “Now St. Thomas distinguishes a twofold function of the grace of headship analogous to the double role exercised by the head with regard to the members of the body. ‘The head ,’ St. Thomas says, ‘has a twofold influence upon the members: an interior influence because the head transmits to the other members the power of moving and feeling; and an exterior influence of government, because by the sense of sight and the other senses which reside in it the head directs a man in his exterior actions’ (Summa III, question 8 answer 6). We must distinguish between the spiritual and the temporal kingship of Christ or between His primacy and the supernatural order and His primacy in the natural order. That this Kingdom is in a special manner spiritual and concerned with things spiritual is quite plain from the extracts from Scripture… and Christ’s own line of action confirms this view.
“To Jesus Christ then as King, Spiritual Ruler, appertains to set before the faithful the common end that they should attain and to point out to them the means of attaining it, thus guiding the exterior and visible movement of the whole Mystical Body to eternal happiness. To Jesus Christ, King, it belongs also to determine the proper sanctification for the precepts He imposes to reward and punish His subjects according to their desserts. Finally it is for Jesus Christ as King, in virtue of the work of redemption which He must accomplish to conquer His Kingdom and defend His faithful subjects against the enemies who strive to overthrow his reign here below. Christ’s spiritual Kingship is militant and the struggle against moral evil must go on as long as men remain here below exposed to suffering and death to corruption and sin. Only in eternity shall the triumph be complete by the victory of the good and the defeat of the wicked.” And Rev. Leo Haydock says the same: Christ will truly reign as King only in heaven.
Of course we know what happened that led to everything we’re seeing today regarding the dissolution of nations and the destruction of the monarchies in the past. We know from whence it came and that this was always the aim of the secret societies and has been for centuries. Not only that, but there are other forces that join themselves with the secret societies to make sure that this is accomplished; forces that have always hated the Church and will hate Her until the very last day the earth exists. And when it comes to governments, it is that fatal error that there must be this toleration of all religions which is nothing more that Liberal creed of religious indifference. In his encyclical Tametsi, Pope Leo XIII said on Nov. 1, 1900 concerning Christ our Redeemer:
“About the rights of man as they are called, the people have heard enough. It is time they should hear of the rights of God… There is no one who does not see it. Liberty as it is now understood is to say a liberty granted indiscriminately to truth and error, to good and to evil and it ends only in destroying all that is noble, generous and holy, opening the gate still wider to crime, suicide and to a multitude of the most degrading passions. When an organism perishes and corrupts it is because it had ceased to be under this action of the causes which had given it its form and constitution. To make it healthy and flourishing again it is necessary to restore it to the beautifying action of those same causes.”
And this from his encyclical letter on Human Liberty: “As to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called Liberalism. For in allowing that boundless license on which We have spoken they exceed all limits and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty.” It is necessary to point out here as we have in recent blogs the ravages of this liberalism and how it began just like Modernism began: in the heart of the Church herself. Because there were actually people who called themselves Catholic liberals and they did even more damage than Protestant liberals could ever have thought of doing. They struck from within and they continue to strike from within, which is why we now have assigned them the name LibTrads. It should never be forgotten that the ultimate goal of tolerance was to make certain that the entire playing field was leveled in this country and loyal members of the clergy fought against this for decades.
Most important in this fight were Rev. Francis J Connell and Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton who opposed all of the attempts to have religious liberty installed within the documents of the false Vatican 2 council. But they failed to move “innocent” cardinals and bishops who were promoting this even at the first session of the council, and in the end the teaching of John Courtney Murray on religious tolerance was incorporated into official council documents, complementing the promulgation of ecumenism. This meant that in America as well as other countries, no one had the right to stand up and oppose anyone who condemned Catholic teaching. It also affected the right to evangelize others and to bring them into the Catholic fold. Certain LibTrads continue this tradition by trying to inject it into the spiritual sphere by challenging the apostasy of the bishops which they say occurred in 1965 instead of on Pope Pius XII’s death in 1958. That they could find it in themselves to tolerate the very errors that led millions of people astray can be explained only by the long-entrenched error of “Catholic” liberalism.
Establishment of the Feast of Christ the King
Excerpts from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quas Primas, 1922, fixing the Feast of Christ the King for the last Sunday in October, condemns the same errors noted above.
“It has long been a common custom to give to Christ the metaphorical title of “King,” because of the high degree of perfection whereby He excels all creatures. So He is said to reign “in the hearts of men,” both by reason of the keenness of His intellect and the extent of His knowledge, and also because He is very truth, and it is from Him that truth must be obediently received by all mankind. He reigns, too, in the wills of men, for in Him the human will was perfectly and entirely obedient to the Holy Will of God, and further by his grace and inspiration He so subjects our free-will as to incite us to the most noble endeavors. He is King of hearts, too, by reason of His “charity which exceedeth all knowledge.” And His mercy and kindness which draw all men to Him, for never has it been known, nor will it ever be, that man be loved so much and so universally as Jesus Christ.
“But if we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that He may be said to have received from the Father “power and glory and a kingdom,” since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with Him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created.
“Do we not read throughout the Scriptures that Christ is the King? He it is that shall come out of Jacob to rule, who has been set by the Father as king over Sion, His holy mount, and shall have the Gentiles for His inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for His possession. In the nuptial hymn, where the future King of Israel is hailed as a most rich and powerful monarch, we read: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of Thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness.”
“There are many similar passages, but there is one in which Christ is even more clearly indicated. Here it is foretold that His kingdom will have no limits, and will be enriched with justice and peace: “In His days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace… And He shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.”
“It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute Her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings… Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a law-giver, to whom obedience is due. Not only do the gospels tell us that He made laws, but they present Him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and He promises that they shall remain in His love… All must obey His commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions He has imposed.
“On many occasions, when the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, He repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around Him in admiration and would have acclaimed Him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate He declared that His kingdom was not of this world…
“What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” We said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”
“Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the Last Judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for His kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.
“He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God.” (End of Quas Primas quotes)
***************************
“Christ … has been set by the Father as King over Sion, His holy mount… All must obey His commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions He has imposed… Also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. [The establishment of this feast] will call to their minds the thought of the Last Judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults… When the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, He repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around Him in admiration and would have acclaimed Him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate HE DECLARED THAT HIS KINGDOM WAS NOT OF THIS WORLD…”
Protestants and others ignorant of their faith would make a mockery of Christ’s very mission to suffer and die for sinners and open the gates of heaven. They would make of Him once again a worldly king, by presuming that a peace following the death of Antichrist could see a restored papacy and more or less Catholic world government. That Christ will reign as king only in heaven is something that should be apparent simply from what He Himself said. Catholic Bible commentators have opined that the destruction of the Temple described in Dan. Ch. 10:27 indicates the temple shall never be rebuilt. And the two attempts that have been made to rebuild it have resulted in the deaths of construction workers, voices sounding from heaven and all sorts of other portents indicating that it was never intended to be rebuilt. In an address to Belgian pilgrims on Sept. 6, 1938, Pius XI said: “Abraham is called our patriarch, our ancestor. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham… No, it is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism… [For] spiritually, we are Semites.”
Yes, WE are heirs to the promise made to the Jews who forfeited it in denying the true Messiah. WE are the obedient and loyal subjects of Christ, the King over Sion, and will ever profess the right to His Kingship. “Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth. In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once… The selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers there unto perfect… For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away.” Our Christ, King; Our Holy Sacrifice — this is what they have attempted to take away from us. But He shall reign forever and ever, and in the end He will come as a thief, sword in hand and crowned by His Father, to claim His earthly throne, deliver the faithful and avenge the blood of the saints and martyrs. Please join us in the consecration today to the Sacred Heart, blessed with a plenary indulgence.
Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart
(Taken from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Annum sacrum, 1899)
Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thine altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy most Sacred Heart. Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy most Sacred Heart.
Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to their Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.
Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof and call them back to the harbour of truth and unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one shepherd.
Be Thou King of all those who even now sit in the shadow of idolatry or Islam, and refuse not Thou to bring them into the light of Thy kingdom. Look, finally, with eyes of pity upon the children of that race, which was for so long a time Thy chosen people; and let Thy Blood, which was once invoked upon them in vengeance, now descend upon them also in a cleansing flood of redemption and eternal life.
Viva Cristo Rey!
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 22, 2023 | New Blog
+Mission Sunday+
“So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).
Summary of what follows
- It is no longer technically correct to state that the Church now exists in a state of interregnum.
- Canon Law teaches that bishops appointed under Pope Pius XII lost their offices when accepting transfers to other dioceses by Roncalli.
- Jurisdiction comes with the appointment to an OFFICE; the office cannot be VALIDLY obtained unless conferred “…by the COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY” (Can. 147).
- Bishops who did not depart from Roncalli did NOT receive a pardon from their censures, Canon Law states.
- Different canons govern the lifting of censures and those canons do not contain footnotes to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Therefore one cannot maintain that Cum ex… can be used to interpret these canons.
- Bishops openly cooperated with Roncalli in destroying the Church founded on St. Peter.
- Even without recognizing Roncalli as a false pope, these bishops were personally guilty of heresy for conspiracy against the papacy, contempt of faith and harm to souls.
- Given these violations, their acts produced results and the imputability of the delict was not taken away.
New objections have been made regarding the application of Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and it is important to completely understand this subject in order to attain certitude regarding how and when the Great Apostasy began amongst the hierarchy. Bishops reigning when Pope Pius XII died cannot be excused for their actions under Roncalli, and this is not a matter of opinion, but one determined by the facts, as judged by Canon Law and Church teaching. They became heretics either before or shortly after his death, for their failure to challenge and renounce innovations to the liturgy forbidden by Pope Pius XII and in committing other heresies. The following links will provide background for this.
https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-cardinals-electing-bishops-recognizing-roncalli/; https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/6997-2/ (Scholastic method neglected in determining apostasy of bishops)
Below we will try to unravel some of the strange aberrations in thinking on this subject by appealing to Canon Law and the commentaries, also plain old common sense.
Interregnum definition and the relocation of bishops
Objection: A Bishop remains a Bishop during an interregnum …The fact that Roncalli changed the place of many Bishops (transfers) and gave them false powers and false charges does not mean they lost their jurisdiction over their flock, but only that they could not use their jurisdiction outside their limits.
Response: First, we must define interregnum. An interregnum (meaning among, between etymologically) PRESUMES that the election of a pope is ongoing. In other words, in the case of a disputed election the term itself, as the Church understands it, indicates the selection process is still in progress. (A better terminology is the sede vacante, or vacancy of the See.) Please prove there was ever a time when the Church allowed the See to remain vacant without opposing a true pope to an antipope or actually being engaged in a conclave; such an occasion does not exist. I realize some authors claim that the right to elect a pope never expires, but this is true only if the subject matter yet exists (validly appointed and truly Catholic cardinals or bishops, in the absence of the cardinals, to elect a pope) and the moral conditions are still in place (the previous election has been drawn into question by even a minority of cardinals or bishops). This statement is based on the teachings of Henry Cardinal Manning.
There was no disputed election and no faithful cardinals or bishops called to postulate a canonical election. Therefore these bishops could not have retained their jurisdiction during this time-period because it never existed; it does not correspond to the actual meaning of the word or the Church’s meaning/intended use of it. As Rev. A.C. Cotter so aptly notes in his 1949 work, the ABC of Scholastic Theology, “By far the most fruitful source of error is our careless use of words, or rather the vague notions we have of the meaning of words… [Writers must make] absolutely sure (a) of the various meanings of terms and (b) of the exact meaning they attach to them in the present discussion.” These bishops accepted Roncalli as valid; they did not realize an interregnum even existed, nor did the faithful. So why would they have retained their positions?
Papal elections must be held within 18 days of the vacancy; ecclesiastical elections within three months. In the event the cardinals fail to elect or are disqualified for electing a heretic, the election devolves to the bishops. They must convene to elect within at least the three-month period, in straightened circumstances, or they lose the right to elect (Can. 162). The right to elect a true pope never expires, but as already stated above, the conditions for an unquestionably canonical election can expire and did expire when all the bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII became schismatics under Roncalli with no one to absolve or reinstate them.
Transfer of bishops
Regarding the transfer of bishops by the usurper, Can. 429 states: “If the Bishop has incurred excommunication, interdict or suspension… the vicar general’s jurisdiction is suspended together with that of the Bishop (Can. 371).”
And Can. 430: “The episcopal see becomes VACANT on the death of the Bishop, on his resignation accepted by the Roman Pontiff, on his transfer and on his deprivation of office made known to the Bishop.” These men vacated the positions assigned to them under Pope Pius XII to which their jurisdiction was attached to accept a “bishopric” from a usurper. This argument that jurisdiction is retained by these bishops is totally nonsensical because if a bishop is transferred from Timbuktu to Haiti, how can he possibly minister to subjects in Timbuktu any longer? If they deliberately accepted the transfer, they no longer have a flock, because jurisdiction can be exercised only over those subjects assigned to bishops by competent ecclesiastical authority.
Jurisdiction comes with the appointment to an OFFICE; the office cannot be VALIDLY obtained unless conferred “…by the COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY” (Can. 147). Roncalli didn’t have it and Cum ex…says all his acts are null, void and invalid. There is a decision on this Canon entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis as documented on this site many times. This decision quotes from the Council of Trent to clearly show that what is NOT conveyed by those who are not competent ecclesiastical authorities is jurisdiction, for the Canon with the anathema attached clearly states: “If anyone says that… those neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority but come from a different source Are LAWFUL ministers of the word and of the sacraments let him be anathema” (DZ 967).
The Holy Office wrote: “No one can presume to intrude himself or others into ecclesiastical offices and benefices without a legitimate canonical investiture or provision. And Pope Pius XII issued excommunications ipso facto and specially reserved to the Holy See against this: 1) By those who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authority or who attempt in any way to subvert their authority and 2) By anyone who without a canonical investiture or provision made according to the Sacred Canons occupies an ecclesiastical office, benefice, or dignity or allows anyone to be UNLAWFULLY intruded into the same or retains the same.” There are no exceptions here made for bishops!
These bishops who accepted these transfers, of their own free will, resigned the offices given to them by Pope Pius XII and with that all right to minister to their former flocks as well as any granted them by the usurper Roncalli. “Vacancies occur by the voluntary act of the incumbent or by compulsion” (Cath. Encyclopedia). Show me anything in Canon Law or papal documents which contradicts this.
No departure from Roncalli = no lifting of censures
Objection: The Bull Cum ex… is very clear in para. 7 that bishops not leaving Roncalli did not incur censure.
Response: What did Pope Paul IV have in mind when he said that the cardinals and bishops etc. could leave the usurper without any fear of censure “at any time”? Notice, however, his precise words, for he said that the cardinals who elected “one straying from the faith… a heretic or schismatic [pretender] to the papacy… It shall be lawful for all and sundry… to DEPART with impunity [meaning without punishment] at any time from obedience and allegiance to said promoted and elevated persons… For the greater confusion of persons thus promoted and elevated, if they attempt to continue their government and administration, all may implore the aid of the secular arm against those so advanced and elevated.” And here he anticipated not only the removal of the usurper, but also a new papal election.
Paul IV did not foresee our situation here; that of multiple heretics usurping the See. In referring to this “one’s” deposition, he does not extend it past the time of his usurpation, as already stated in the links above. No one left Roncalli, and the entire paragraph — the lifting of any punishment or censures — is predicated only on their departure from the usurper. Failure to admit that is outright dishonesty. And more than that, it is a blatant contradiction of the entire array of Canons regarding the lifting of censures. Latae sententiae censures can be lifted only under the following conditions:
(1) The ecclesiastical superior is obliged by law to grant absolution from censures as soon as the offender amends and gives due satisfaction. But in the case of vindicative penalties (attached to the censure against heresy, apostasy and schism in Can. 2314), it is left to the prudent judgment of the superior to concede or refuse dispensation from the penalties to an amended offender (Can. 2236).
(2) A person is considered to have desisted from his obstinacy when he has truly repented of his offense and has at the same time made proper satisfaction for the damages and scandal caused or has at least earnestly promised to do so (Canon 2242).
(3) Any censure once contracted cannot be removed except by legitimate absolution. Absolution cannot be denied whenever the offender ceases to be obstinate as declared in Canon 2242. The censure once incurred binds the offender even though the law is changed later on and the penalty abolished (Can. 2248).
(4) Rev. Stanislaus Woywod states under Can, 672§1 that the religious who has given signs of complete amendment for three years is to be readmitted to his order. But the reason for dismissal must have been grave, as stated in Can. 647§2. In the case of material heresy or schism, infamy also is incurred as a vindicative penalty, and only the pope can lift it. After three years this censure could be ignored regarding infamy of fact, (Can. 2295), but not infamy of law, as is the case with Can. 2314. The offender would still need to seek absolution for material heresy and/or schism when it is available, and until then cannot posit any ecclesiastical acts.
Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) also factors in here. VAS excommunicates the cardinals for interference by the secular powers, for failing to tag Roncalli for campaigning for himself pre-election (confirmed by several different sources), and for other violations. These latae sententiae excommunications are reserved to the Holy Father in a “most special manner” (Can. 2330), for he alone can judge them. Excommunication of this sort deprives them of all jurisdiction, from the time of Roncalli’s “election,” until lifted by a true pope. Until then they are not permitted to function. VAS states that Pius XII’s election constitution (NOT Paul IV’s Cum ex…) is the only law that applies to Roncalli’s attempted election. So Cum ex… cannot be disingenuously used to absolve the cardinals, but rather it is VAS which holds them liable. In addition, in para. 7 of Paul IV’s bull, the emphasis has shifted from who incurs censures for heresy, apostasy and schism to who can be excused from cooperating with the usurper and under what conditions.
We are justified in following the old law as long as it is clear (a) there is doubt in some matter; (b) there is no other law governing the situation (Can. 20) and (c) that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is footnoted to the laws of the 1917 Code which now governs this particular question. This is explained in Can. 6 n.3 which states: “Those canons which agree with the old law in part only must be interpreted according to the old law in the part they agree with it; and according to the meaning of the words [Can. 18, 19] employed in the part they differ from it.” The need to cease from obstinacy before pardon is clearly outlined above and is implied in Paul IV’s bull. “It shall be lawful for all and sundry who would have been subject to persons so promoted and elevated, had these not first strayed from the Faith or been heretics, or incurred or incited or committed schism…to DEPART.” Roncalli committed and incited schism. Those who would remain with such a usurper would be held guilty of the same before departing and if remaining. Only by departing could they avoid the censure.
Cooperation in sin
Objection: Nobody can pretend to know for a fact that all the Cardinals and Bishops were collaborating with Roncalli after his false election. And only the Roman Pontiff may judge the Cardinals (Can. 1557).
Response: This is such a preposterous and mind-blowing statement that it seems almost unworthy of a response. We have cardinals who invalidly elected a man and bishops who never denounced him; bishops who these same objectors admit all excommunicated themselves for heresy at Vatican 2. We know that Montini and Roncalli were friends beginning in the 1930s, and that they were especially close in the 1950s. We have two popes, one warning us how Freemasons were bent on destroying the Church (Leo XIII) and the other warning us that Modernists had already infiltrated the ranks of the clergy (St. Pius X). We know for a FACT that all these cardinal/bishops and other bishops signed Vatican 2 documents and even those that didn’t attend or sign them died without ever attempting to elect a true pope, as they were bound to do. Let us count the ways one can cooperate in sin here by quoting from the Revs. McHugh and Callan in their work on moral theology:
“The cooperator acts as assistant or subordinate agent to the one who commits sin, providing him with moral or physical help, or supplying him with the means requisite for the act of sin… From the viewpoint of the external act, cooperation is positive or negative, according as one does something to help the principal agent, or does nothing to impede him… Cooperation is either occasional or effective. By occasional cooperation is understood that which leads another into sin, or allows him to be drawn into sin, but does not assist him to commit sin… By effective cooperation is understood assistance given another enabling him to carry out, or to carry out more easily, an act of sin on which he had resolved… According to its nature, an act of cooperation is intrinsically evil, if it has no uses except such as are evil… According to its circumstances, an act of cooperation is evil, if by reason of adjuncts it is wrong, as when it signifies approval of evil, gives scandal to others, endangers the faith or virtue of the cooperator, or violates a law of the Church.”
And of course Catholics must know the various ways they can commit cooperation: by counsel, command, consent, provocation, praise or flattery, concealment, participation or enjoyment, silence or inaction and defense of the wrong done. These bishops participated in the distribution of the missalettes containing the English translation of the consecration of the wine as “for all men,” contrary to the direct order of Pope St. Pius V”; they consented to everything said and done by those attending the preparatory meetings for the first session of the false V2 Council, and if read online these sessions contain many heresies and errors, (something noted by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton in his diaries); they participated in the first session of the false V2 Council, they then obeyed the command to recite the John 23 missal with its modified Canon of the Mass, adding St. Joseph (an innovation that had been requested by certain factions but refused for 150 years by true popes); they instituted all the calendar changes made by Roncalli and omitted the St. Michael’s prayer at the end of the Mass; and bishops complied with a secret document issued by Roncalli that sex offenders be transferred to different positions rather than held libel for canonical penalties, a major change from the policies of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. (Readers can request a copy of this document.)
All those acts enumerated above in which these bishops participated led them in the same direction: away from the teachings of the continual magisterium and towards ecumenism, aided by liturgical innovations. The heretical teaching alone that was allowed in seminaries by these bishops, beginning in 1960 — documented by investigative reporter Michael Rose in his Goodbye, Good Men, (2002) — is enough to indict these bishops as heretics. And there can be no question that they were — in every sense of the word. As far as the cardinals being able to be judged only by the Roman Pontiff, this is technically true. However, they are judged already by Pius XII in VAS, also by their external acts. And under Can. 2314, the infallible bull of that great Roman Pontiff, Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio), condemns and sentences them.
The consequences of latae sententiae censures
Objection: A bishop retains his jurisdiction during an interregnum as long as he is not a notorious heretic [or schismatic] or adheres to a sect like the one generated by Antichrist, Montini-Paul 6 in 1965.
Response: A latae sententiae sentence refers to an automatic excommunication. It is ipso facto (automatic) and is incurred the minute the law is broken. Can. 2314, the excommunication for heresy, apostasy and schism, also communicatio in sacris, is a latae sententiae sentence. In such sentences, the law itself serves as the canonical warning required in other sentences. And according to Cum ex…, the old law under Can. 2314, no declaratory sentence is necessary for the law to take effect. “Whenever it shall appear…” that Bishops have uttered heresy or committed schism, they shall: “ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power” (para. 6, last sentence).
The thing to be determined is precisely when the law was broken in each individual case and which law(s) were broken. In this case we know it was Can. 2314, Can. 188 n. 4 and Can. 1258. What is disputed here is when these bishops became heretics and schismatics. Leaving heresy aside for a moment, let us focus on schism. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as: “Schismatics and those who elude or obstinately withdraw from the authority of the reigning Roman pontiff. The schismatics here referred to are of two kinds: those who are such because they belong to separated Churches which reject the authority of the pope, and those who, being Catholics, become schismatics by reason of obstinate disobedience to the authority of the pope as such.”
While it is true Pope Pius XII was not still reigning, it is also true that since John 23 was never pope, the only pope or popes these bishops did owe obedience to were those who went before. One might be able to understand a mistaken identity of Roncalli as a true pope; what cannot be understood is how bishops consecrated during Pius XII’s reign or that of Pope Pius XI could possibly fail to obey their previous infallible teachings. And then there is the matter of the council to consider. The Catholic Encyclopedia continues: “All those, of no matter what state, rank, or condition, who appeal from the ordinances or mandates of the reigning Roman pontiff to a future ecumenical council, and all who have given aid, counsel, or countenance to this appeal. The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council, not only implies the superiority of the council over the pontiff but is preeminently an act of injurious disobedience to the Head of the Church” (censured with ipso facto excommunication for suspicion of heresy under Can. 2332).
Roncalli announced his council in January 1959. The cardinals and bishops knew there had been previous attempts to call a council, and most likely they knew the reason why: increasing tension between the liberals, moderates and conservatives among the bishops. They had to have known the conservatives — the integralists — were in the minority. Many viewed them as standing in the way of the reunion of Christendom. “The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council” was an appeal to Roncalli for relief from the “outmoded, oppressive teachings and attitudes” of his predecessors. It was Ottaviani and Ruffini who by their own admission made this appeal. And they made it against Popes Pius XI and XII under whom they had served. If this is not an example of injurious disobedience, I don’t know where a person could find one.
The difference between what betrayedcatholics is stating and what these objectors are stating is this: The objectors are saying that the bishops were not required to have the knowledge necessary to discern Roncalli was a heretic — something I have proven untenable in the links above. I am stating that regardless of whether they recognized him as a heretic or schismatic, they were guilty of heresy and schism PERSONALLY themselves — not for believing Roncalli was pope, but simply because what they adhered to was heresy and/or schism IN AND OF ITSELF. This is a very necessary and important distinction. “For all men” in the missalettes they approved and distributed was heresy; they were disobeying Pius XII in Mediator Dei, Pope Pius V in his de defectibus and Quo primum, and Popes Pius XI and XII in their condemnations of ecumenism. It had nothing to do with John 23rd, to whom they owed no obedience. Disobedience to the true Popes and contempt for their decisions is precisely the definition of schism as we’ve seen above. Revs. Alan McCoy and Innocent Swoboda point out that what they were doing was intrinsically evil, and indeed does amount to conspiring against the teachings of the TRUE Roman Pontiffs.
Presumption of guilt
“On evaluating the application of penalties in various delicts, Swoboda wrote: “The force of Can. 2200 §2 [which we have talked about at length in our writings for years] is to presume that the delinquent knowingly and deliberately violated the law when two facts are established beyond doubt: that the law was actually violated and that this particular individual was the cause of the illegal violation of the law.” Swoboda calls the presumption of guilt in Can. 2200 “an absolute presumption,” which Abp. Cicognani says cannot be directly attacked. It can be attacked only indirectly against the fact on which the presumption is based (Can. 1904). That means someone would need to produce verifiable facts — records, deeds or public statements — not a phrase from Cum ex… taken entirely out of context when Cum ex… is not even the law that applies here. This alone would show that certain bishops could not have been guilty of the crime of heresy and schism.
Continuing from Swoboda: “The presumption that a man is good ceases when it is established that he actually committed a crime and the burden of proving that the crime doesn’t exist rests with the accused… The presumption is that ordinarily when a man performs an action he is in possession of his faculties, that is he knows what he is doing and realizes the ordinary implications, both physical and moral, of his own conduct; also that he knows the law and the penalty of the law. And presuming knowledge of the law, the legislator merely supposes the individual has not failed in his obligation to know the law. Secondly, the law presumes a man is aware of the factual circumstances in which he is acting; that he knows his own actions and personal condition. Notorious facts which are presumed by the law to be known are those which are public or known to the people generally in the community and hence the law presumes they are also known in a given instance” (Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts, CUA, 1941).
Now what well-educated, devout Catholic could ever think that it is permissible not to believe in something that a pope had taught as a matter binding on the faithful? That the Church could just “change Her mind” and teach something new, when her teachings are forever the same? Yet obviously these bishops bought into this hook, line and sinker with Roncalli. And they were bound to know and do so much more than the faithful ever knew or did.
Usurpation, conspiracy and harm to souls
And Swoboda tells us something more. He writes: “It seems that usurpare and conspirare… can be included in the classification of expressions which presuppose simple dolus [meaning that the penalty is incurred whether the one committing the delict was aware of the fact that it was forbidden by Canon Law or not]. For it is difficult to understand how one could become guilty of the delicts described and defined by these terms through mere negligence or culpa [fault].” In other words, the nature of these acts themselves require a man to know exactly what he is doing. He then lists Canons 2331 and 2345 as the source of these crimes. Can. 2331 treats of those who: “…conspire against the authority of the Roman Pontiff or his legates, or against their legitimate commands and also those who provoke subjects to disobedience towards them.”
Canon 2345 states: “Persons who usurp or retain personally or through others goods and rights pertaining to the Roman Church automatically incur excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. If they are clerics they shall also be deprived of dignities, benefices, offices and pensions and shall be declared disqualified to obtain them.” And how better to conspire against the Roman Pontiffs than to frustrate all they ever taught by setting up the Vatican 2 church? Isn’t that exactly what we have witnessed?
Then there is this from Rev. Alan McCoy: “When an act is intrinsically evil [and here he mentions heresy, apostasy and schism as intrinsically evil], or involves contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or works to the detriment of souls… imputability is not taken away in such cases since in these instances the observance of the law still urges under the pain of sin, even though the most severe personal hardship or danger, or also the greatest private harm might come from such observance. And the reason for this is that some spiritual good, either of God or of the Church or of individual souls is involved…There is consequently always grave guilt in the deliberate transgression of such a law.”
And regarding how we are to view our current situation, Can. 2229 n. 3 §3, states: “Grave fear does not exempt from penalties later sententiae of the offense entails contempt of faith or of ecclesiastical discipline or public injury of souls.” McCoy has this interesting observation regarding when such public injury would occur: “When, then, would such harm to souls not be occult [meaning when would it be public] since there is a question of latae sententiae penalties, that is such as are incurred at the time the crime is committed. Only that case wherein the harm is public at the time of the actual commission of the criminal act can be considered here. Otherwise the delinquent would be uncertain as to the incurring of the penalty until the harm became public or until it became certain that it would remain occult.
“Using Canon 2197 as their guide one can maintain that the harm to souls is public in the sense spoken of in Canon 2229 §3, n.3 whenever the crime which evidently entails injury to souls is committed under such circumstances that it is immediately divulged or that it may and must be prudently considered that it easily will be divulged. The Code says that IF THE ACT TENDS TO PRODUCE RESULTS, the imputability of the delict is not taken away” (Force and Fear in Relation to Delictual Imputability and Penal Responsibility, 1944, Catholic University of America). And here McCoy explains that the very same must be said regarding a contempt of faith. How can anyone claim that the harm to souls was not public seeing the results of Vatican 2 and the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae? And yet McCoy says that when there is a question of latae sententiae penalties these are incurred at the time the crime is committed.
These crimes were committed gradually over a long period of time, but eventually these craven acts produced their RESULTS, as Rev. McCoy notes above. As each crime was committed, the sentences were incurred en masse — for these results were clearly public as well as profound and cannot be denied. Nor can the imputability of these delicts be taken away. This is true especially in the issuance of the 1959 missalettes, which effectively both demonstrated a contempt of faith AND SUCCESSFULLY CONDITIONED AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THOSE THEN CLAIMING TO BE CATHOLIC TO LATER ACCEPT THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE. It also can be seen in the deadly scourge of doctrinal minimalism condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani generis, an error courageously combatted in the 1940s and 1950s by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. And we must not forget the campaign for religious tolerance (indifferentism) — begun in the 1950s by John Courtney Murray and other Catholic writers — which culminated in the acceptance of this false doctrine as the handmaid of ecumenism at the false Vatican 2 council.
Conclusion
I guess the moral of this blog is not to take everything you read at face value. First and foremost what is stated above should convince those who study to make certain that whoever attempts to inform them do so from approved sources only, verifiable proofs, not their own opinions. Think things through and mull it over. Look up the actual meaning of the words; there are several Catholic dictionaries available for free download online. And look things up only in older secular dictionaries from the 1940s-50s. Do this until it makes perfect sense and all the kinks in thinking are worked out. The only value of the false conclusions presented by these objectors is that they remind us to stay alert and spur us on to a better understanding of what we read about what has happened to the Church, how it happened and why it happened. For that is essential to helping others understand, that they might be brought to the true faith. “Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5: 15-16).
