A belated Blessed Easter to All!
The condemnation of Millenarianism, mentioned in our last blog, will be discussed here at greater length in order to shine a much-needed light on why we find Matt. 28:20 in Holy Scripture translated in two or three different ways into English. As Mr. Javier Morrell-Ibarra noted in last week’s blog, all versions of the Bible he consulted did not read “consummation of the world,” as did all the 10 or more 19th and 20th century Bibles consulted here, but “consummation of the ages/centuries.” There may be a good explanation for this, which is what we intend to explore here. This will be part on of a two-part series.
Below readers will see the actual condemnation of Millenarianism issued by the Holy Office in 1944, in both Latin and English. There is an explanatory paragraph and history of the error provided here, however, which is omitted in Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1957 edition, (and this edition has been proven deficient regarding other teachings as well). It attributes this condemnation to one Manuel de Lacunza-Diaz S.J., whose work, we learn, had already been condemned by the Holy Office in 1824. What is most notable in this explanation of the condemnation is that “It is not possible to teach systematic Millenarianism, even if moderated” as Catholic revelation. And yet such a form of moderated Millenarianism has been taught, at least as a possible outcome, even after this second condemnation was issued. It is usually shored up with Catholic prophecies and Marian apparitions, some not approved, to make it appear more believable.
Extracts from Lacunza’s work and other sources will be examined below to explain how widespread his teachings have become among Catholics and Protestants alike.
Manuel Lacunza y Diaz on the Millennium and Antichrist
The following excerpts are taken from Wikipedia. Lacunza’s quotes will appear in blue. “The first of Lacunza’s “new discoveries” was that: ‘I am not of the opinion that the world – that is, the material bodies or celestial globes that God has created (among which is the one on which we live) – has to have an end, or return to chaos or nothingness from which it came forth.’ He protested against the common teaching that at the end of the world, the earth would be consumed by fire… Secondly, Lacunza concluded that the Biblical expressions “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 that would be closed by the coming of Christ and the beginning of His kingdom on Earth. At this time the living would be judged and the Jews converted, after which a new society would be established for a thousand-year reign of justice and peace.”
Lacunza wrote: “El Terino (a very learned author) … His words are these: ‘But it shall be fully accomplished towards the end of the world, in the general conversion of all the Jews unto Christ,’ the same which I say, with this only difference: that I place after the end of the age, the same event which he… pretends to place ‘towards the end of the world.’ … Along with this great event announced in almost all the scriptures, you shall likewise find at the end of this present earth, or which is the same, the end of the day of men, which the Lord so frequently called the consummation of this age; and immediately after this day, you shall find that of the Lord, the age to come, the kingdom of God, the new earth and the new heavens, wherein dwelleth righteousness, peace, love, and uniformity in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same laws and customs, a uniformity of language among all the peoples, tribes, and families of the whole earth”.
“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… The resurrection of all the individuals of Adam’s race, the last judgment, the ultimate sentence, and the execution of this ultimate sentence, cannot take place immediately upon and in the very natural day of the coming in glory and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ….” But Lacunza is wrong.
“Lacunza’s interpretation of Biblical prophecy led him to believe that during the period before the “day of the Lord” there would be an apostasy within the Catholic Church which would make it part of a general system which he labelled Antichrist, in the sense that there would be a general “falling away” in doctrine among the churches, resulting in moral apostasy. In this sense the Antichrist would be composed of “a moral antichristian body, composed of many individuals … animated by the same spirit”, which would consist of “seven false religions [that] should unite to make war against the body of Christ, and against Christ himself ” – which was in accordance with his personal interpretation of Revelation 13:1. In The Coming of the Messiah in Majesty and Glory, Lacunza compared his views on the Antichrist – that Antichrist was a general moral apostasy within the churches – with what he declared to be the “universally recognized” view of his day:
“This Antichrist is universally recognized as a king, or most potent monarch … It is commonly said, that he will take his origin from the Jews, and from the tribe of Dan … shall feign himself Messiah, and begin to perform so many and such stupendous works, that the fame thereof being soon spread abroad, the Jews shall fly from all parts of the world, and from all the tribes, to join themselves to him, and offer him their services … After Antichrist shall have conquered Jerusalem, he shall, with great ease, conquer the rest of the earth … The ambition of this miserable and vilest Jew, shall not rest satisfied, by becoming the universal king of the whole earth … but he shall immediately enter into the impious and sacrilegious thought of making himself God, and the only God of the whole earth … Whereupon shall arise the most terrible, the most cruel, perilous persecution against the church of Jesus Christ; and it shall last for three years and a half … Upon his 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” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Lacunza).
Comments on the above
That the world will not be destroyed by fire then renewed contradicts Holy Scripture and is one of the specific errors condemned by the Holy Office. This is Millenarianism pure and simple, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this topic, and is likewise condemned. The earth will be consumed by fire, consume meaning to “take up, redeem,” to “1. Do away with completely; DESTROY” (Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary). The destruction of the world by fire IS Catholic revelation. God will then renew the earth and when souls are united with their bodies, many commentators believe they will live on earth as an extension of Paradise, and this will be the New Jerusalem. We read in Matt. 24:14-15: “And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come [consummatio]. When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.” Surely this is clear enough for everyone, coming from Our Lord Himself. When he pronounced from the Cross “It is consummated…” his life was done; finished, just as the Church was and the world shall be. Pope Paul IV told us who that abomination would be, and everyone has discredited his bull.
Lacunza taught there was a 1,000 year or more period of peace and a restoration of the Church between the death of Antichrist and the actual coming of Satan to surround “…the camp of the saints” (Apoc. 20:8). The Apocalypse is a very difficult book to understand and rightly interpret, and I am no Scripture scholar. But if we place the chaining of Satan at the beginning of the fifth century — when the persecution of the early Christians was at an end — until the time of the beginning of the great apostasy, when he was loosed — first the Gallicanist heresy, in the late 1300s-early 1400s, then the Protestant Reformation, (because Gallicanism is what fed Luther’s revolt and King Henry VIII’s establishment of the Anglican church) — we have roughly 1,000 years. Some Scripture commentators have advanced this opinion. Even though the Orthodox schism happened in 1054, the schismatics seem to have retained jurisdiction and delivered valid Sacraments for their own people (by implicit permission of the popes), although Catholics were strictly forbidden to participate in these ceremonies and Sacraments without incurring the censure for communicatio in sacris and schism/heresy.
St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of a period where Antichrist will die, and life will go on as before, just as we have seen: “Although men be terrified by the signs appearing about the judgement day, yet before those 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.” (Supplement to the Summa Theologica, 73:1). This could account for the fact that the death of Antichrist (Paul 6) did not immediately result in the consummation, or his being hurled into the lake of fire. And it may be that this interlude vaguely referred to in Scripture confused Lacunza and prompted him to think it signified a lengthy period of peace. I have speculated that what we are seeing is the survival of Antichrist’s system of papal usurpation, its perpetuation and the reign of Afinal satanic antichrist, not THE antichrist, although it will be short-lived. This, I think, could be the final assault launched by Satan on the remnant referred to in Apoc. 20:8. Am I correct? Who knows; only time will tell.
No 1,000 years of earthly peace
Lacunza believed the “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.” But the end of the “ages/centuries” seems to refer to the end of the Church’s time on earth which we have already witnessed; for then Christ says He will be with us “even to the consummation.” This is what B. E. Strauss notes in his piece quoted in my last blog. “The consummation of the ages denotes the last of all ages of the world, the age of the Church. This last age consummates the ages that came before, and it is itself consummated by the consummatio saeculi, by the consummation of the (last) age” or actual consummation by fire/end of the world. Strauss points out that the most common interpretation is not consummation of the ages or centuries, but consummation of the world. In order to avoid even mitigated Millenarianism, it is important to not associate any reversion to the “end of the age/centuries” translation with the meaning intended by Lacunza (and the many others today who follow him): the belief in a 1,000-year period of peace.
I believe it is very likely that the phrase “the consummation of the world” was translated into English versions of the Bible in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Great Britain precisely because it is there that this Millenarianist belief fulminated among the Protestants and certain Catholic circles, especially in the U.S. and Great Britain. Until the actual event, it appears the Church felt it was too dangerous to make any distinction between end of the “age of the Church” and the age of Antichrist, because this would only have aided Her enemies and caused Her premature dissolution. It also would have created panic and confusion among the faithful. There are many signs that even theologians such as Henry Cardinal Manning, who predicted the taking away of the papacy (St. Paul’s “he who withholdeth”) doubted there would be a restoration of the Church. For while Manning has much to say about the time of Antichrist and what leads up to it, he also mentions the Church’s final triumph but fails to explain when/how it will occur.
The Church’s final triumph, according to most of the commentators writing even before the Holy Office decree, is Christ’s Second Coming and the destruction of Antichrist’s system. In the end we win, but not without paying a terrible price. The Holy Office decree tells us that the idea of even a mitigated Millenarianism, which some would describe as a spiritual restoration minus Christ’s physical reign on earth and the resurrection of some of the dead – cannot be safely taught. And yet this idea of a glorious, peaceful period of restoration is the very hinge on which the Traditionalist door swings — Lacunza’s mitigated Millenarianism, condemned by the Holy Office. The Great Monarch and Holy Pope prophecies, Our Lady’s message at Quito, Ecuador, the La Salette message, the Fatima peace, the Catholic Restoration – rah, rah, sis-boom-bah, rally around the Traddie flagpole. Yes, we quote La Salette, although selectively. And yes, we also quote Fatima, but as all know who are reading this, we backed off that message considerably last year when it was revealed that Pope Pius XII had serious doubts about it.
It is now known that Our Lady told Sr. Lucia the pope would consecrate Russia to her but it would be TOO LATE. Traditionalist and Novus Ordo Fatima promoters say the Fatima promise of peace was “unconditional” but that was based on the conversion of Russia, which never happened and now can never happen, since we have no Pope and therefore no Church.
Private prophecy cannot trump divine revelation. There can be no restoration of the Church, no “peace” other than the absence of another actual world war and no monarch charging in on a white horse to save us. We have no validly ordained and consecrated bishops and the line of succession cannot be restored. The lost ten tribes have already converted, so the majority of the Jews have already entered the Catholic fold centuries ago at the beginning of the Great Apostasy (see the article documenting this here). It is time for those calling themselves Catholic to grow up, accept God’s will signified in the decisions of the Roman Pontiffs and prepare for the coming of Our Lord.
Protestants base their teachings on Lacunza
Lacunza’s teachings are what the Protestants later used to concoct their false teachings on Dispensationalism, an outgrowth of Masonic British Israelism, because his was the first theological treatise to propose the idea of the rapture. This has already been discussed in our previous article, The Final Chapter… Dispensationalists believe that:
- Believers will be raptured several years before the Second Coming.
- That before the Second Coming, the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt.
- The Jerusalem temple, not the Church, is where Antichrist will show himself as God.
- Following the Second Coming and an earthly peace, this same temple will exist in Jerusalem, or possibly a new or reconsecrated one.
- During an earthly millennium, animal sacrifices offered at this temple will commemorate Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.
This is a Jewish restoration versus the idea of a “Catholic restoration,” both of which are absurd. The Jewish restoration idea was even advanced by at least one Catholic Scripture scholar in the 1950s! So much for the condemnation of Millenarianism by the Holy Office. If a verifiable canonically elected pope and at least a few of the hierarchy had survived the Great Apostasy, such a restoration might have been possible, but no more. In order to prevent those not familiar with the many extravagant interpretations by the commentators on the Apocalypse form becoming completely lost in the apocalyptic maze, we say this about Mr. Morrell-Ibarra’s series continued below.
Summary of consummatio saeculi
His observation that “the end of the world is a period of time encompassing different events” means this: It is intended as an overview of the world’s end, from the very beginning of the Great Apostasy (at the time of the Protestant Reformation and the issuance of Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio predicting the abomination of desolation) all the way up to Christ’s actual Second Coming, and the progression of events in between. This period begins with the apostasy of Catholic rulers and their people foretold by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2 (“for lest there come a revolt first”), and finally ends in the apostasy of the cardinals and bishops (the stars falling from Heaven, Apoc. 6:13, according to Rev. Berry), with the subsequent scattering of the faithful. This in turn causes the papal see to be left vacant owing to an invalid election of a heretic by heretics and fulfills the prophesy of “he who withholdeth” (the Church, but primarily the Pope) being taken out of the way.
Then begins the reign of the False Prophet, as predicted in Apocalypse Chapter 13, who prepares the way for the installment of the Sea Beast, or Antichrist proper, who changes all times and laws, desolates the Church and causes the Continual Sacrifice to officially cease. This then becomes the creation of the system of Antichrist, a succession of false popes, which predominates until the papacy is handed over to the New World Order religious leader. This man will be Satan incarnate who will REPLACE God in the minds of worldlings, Satan encompassing the camp of the saints at the very end. All of this is predicted by various commentators and can be carefully chosen as puzzle pieces to combine what we see with what Holy Scripture and the Church teaches. This then assists us in completing the final tapestry of the Second Coming, which will be discussed in our next blog.
Mr. Morrell Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide, Pt. 5
- Fable of the supposed validity of the spurious orders of the sedevacantist “traditionalist” imposters and hirelings.
All these false christs hide behind the supposed validity of their fraudulent titles and dignities, although inwardly they know they are illicit, which is why these charlatans avoid, like vampires avoid light and holy water, naming the word “illicit”, because according to them, what really matters is if they are “valid”, since that would make everything they touch “holy”, and thus they deceive many unwary souls with little or no knowledge of the Magisterium and the 1917 CIC, who grant them a credit and a competence none of those disobedient hypocrites possess. The improvised pseudo-theology of the Thucist and Lefebvrist sectarians has wreaked havoc, as they have created a kind of “new” magisterium to justify themselves and their sacrilege, despising and minimizing the one true Magisterium that every creature is obliged to obey if they want to save their souls, hence chaos and confusion are rampant.
In reality, none of them has really understood the difference between validity and liceity, which is why they manage to deceive the simple so easily, so an urgent explanation of both key concepts is required.
To be licit, permission from the Pope is required, also a canonical mission so as to be consecrated Catholic Bishop (Can. 953), and so that he can ordain Catholic priests; this canonical mission is fundamental, since it is what would make the minister Catholic, have Apostolic Succession, be part of the Hierarchy of the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church, have an ecclesiastical position or office (Can. 147) and, consequently, have the power to rule the flock of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a power that only the Pope can transmit to the Catholic Bishops, a power that the Pope receives immediately from Christ Our Lord [cf Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentem, Apostolorum Principis Sepulcrum]. Therefore, liceity is an ESSENTIAL requirement to function as a cleric, since lacking this, one is NOT a Catholic but a schismatic.
On the other hand, to be valid, permission from the Pope is not required, therefore one is not a Catholic, one does not have an ecclesiastical office, one does not have jurisdictional power, hence one is an intruder since he has not entered through the gate of the sheepfold, so he does not have the power to rule the flock of Christ; to be valid, it is only required that the ordaining minister be a validly consecrated bishop (matter, form, intention), that is, without the permission of the Pope, but evidently all these consecrations and ordinations will be illicit, desecration, gravely sinful, all of them being excommunicated both the ordaining bishop and his ordinands, since they are outside the Mystical Body of the Church, lack mission and power to rule, and are intruders who would only perform invalid acts, which, if carried out, would be gravely sacrilegious. This is the case of the Greek and Russian Orthodox schismatics, who were valid clergy, but completely illicit, non-Catholic.
Pope Pius XII, 1951
ACTAS S. CONGREGATIONUM SUPREMA SACRA CONGREGATIO S. OFFICII II DECRETUM DE CONSECRATIONE EPISCOPI SINE CANONICA PROVISIONE
“The bishop of any rite and dignity, who confers episcopal consecration on someone without having received the appointment of the Apostolic See or without it having been expressly confirmed, and also the one who receives said consecration, even if both do so coerced by grave fear (canon 2229 § 3, 3°), they incur ipso facto excommunication reserved in a very special way to the Apostolic See.” (AAS 43 1951, 9th April, pp. 217-218)
“All those who support a priest, bishop or diocesan administrator who has not legitimately received his mission from the Pope, and all those who maintain relations with him in spiritual matters, are, like the one they support, treated by the Church as schismatics, because with such an action they separate themselves from the unity of the Church.”
Manual of the Christian Religion, 1891, p. 371 by Wilmers Wilhelm, 1817-1901.
Valid = ordained without the permission of the Pope, non-Catholic, without power of government, all his acts are sacrilegious, sinful, null and void.
Licit = ordained with the permission of the Pope, Catholic, with power of government, his acts are sacred.
His Holiness Pope Pius VI tells us in this regard:
“… ministers without a mission and pastors without jurisdiction, and consequently intrusive parish priests, would only do null acts, and all the functions they exercised would be equally desecration.”
It is abundantly clear that the supposed validity these intruders claim is of no use to them at all, because it does not make them Catholic since they never received permission or Jurisdiction from the Pope. Therefore, it is absurd and even suicidal for them to cling to this very dubious validity to justify their sacrilege and desecration in the eyes of their misled followers. Furthermore, they are not even valid (!), as they are nothing more than simple laymen in disguise, since the Magisterium denounces and proves them guilty, as we will have the opportunity to demonstrate throughout this essay.
- Fable of the supposed “ignorance” about the Magisterium and Canon Law on the part of those who sought the Holy Orders when it was forbidden to do so.
This is probably the most “humane”, subtle fable those hypocritical impostors can appeal to in order to gain the sympathy and trust of the extremely disoriented faithful. Its false logic would be formulated as follows:
“You dare state that we are invalid and illicit for seeking the Holy Orders from people [Lefebvre & Thuc] who, according to you, were not worthy and could not confer any Orders on us, having lost Jurisdiction after apostatizing along with the rest of Catholic Bishops on December 8, 1965… BUT WE DIDN’T KNOW IT BACK THEN (!?) We were completely IGNORANT of Canon Law and the Magisterium (!?), and WE JUST WANTED TO BE ORDAINED PRIESTS (AND BISHOPS) FOR THE HONOR AND GLORY OF GOD, AND FOR THE GOOD FOR SOULS, AND TO SAVE THE CHURCH (!?) We didn’t know anything, we just wanted to help prevent the disappearance of the Priesthood and the true Catholic Mass (!?) Therefore, HOW DARE YOU JUDGE US, AND JUDGE OUR HOLY INTENTIONS?… HOW DARE YOU IMPUTE THESE SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS OF BEING SCHIMATIC AND HERETICAL INTRUDERS TO US?”
To which we will respond with complete serenity and firmness in the following manner:
“If the offender making this claim is a cleric, his petition for mitigation must be dismissed, either as false or as indicating ignorance that is affected, or at least gross or supine. His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, ecclesiastical history, not to mention canon law, ensure that the attitude of the Church towards heresy was imparted to him… Thereafter, his professional associations and his contacts with Church affairs offer another guarantee that he must have known about heresy. Therefore, his present ignorance is unreal; or if it is real, it can only be explained as either deliberately fostered – affected ignorance – or else as the result of a total failure to do even a modicum of work regarding fundamental ecclesiastical theory and practice – gross and supine ignorance.”
Eric Francis Mackenzie, The Delict Of Heresy, 1932, p. 48
In this simple way, we will silence and hopefully put to shame those conceited schismatics. As a matter of fact, what annoys them all is when someone dares speak to them based on the unquestionable authority of the Magisterium, making them see they are hopelessly wrong. They cannot stand this and react like Pharisees, tearing their hair out, yet another evident sign that they are not in the truth but in error, since they only seek the acclaim of the simple and spiritually ignorant to feed their ego. This should come as no surprise, because looking back in the history of the Church, we will discover that the Supreme Pontiffs of Our Lord Jesus Christ have always spoken with divine authority because their word was sacred and infallible, yet many bad Christians and false brothers refused to believe in this dogma of faith, and for this reason they rebelled against the Papacy and its Magisterium, being the origin of fatal schisms and heresies. Here is the origin of evil: pride, the reluctance to accept that God had chosen certain specific men to entrust them with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose, and to teach, guard and govern the Flock of Christ Our Lord. And how could it be otherwise, behind this spirit of pride and rebellion we always find the father of lies, who was the first rebel who dared utter his impious “Non Serviam” in front of the Holy Trinity, which earned him the most lightning expulsion from Heaven and being hurled into the depths of Hell.
- Fable of “Non Una Cum” the antipopes of the conciliar sect, in this case, Bergoglio, aka “Francis”, according to which the grave sacrilege and desecrations of the sedevacantist intruders arising from Msgr. Thuc’s line would be “legitimized”, as well as of those performed by Lefebvrist pseudo “clerics” who later became sedevacantists.
According to this absurd logic, the only thing that counts would be to remain “Non Una Cum” Bergoglio, alias “Francis”, no matter if the Minister be heretical and schismatic, illicit, invalid, null and sacrilegious; all that would be secondary, the important thing is to be “Non Una Cum”, that is, to not be in communion with, even if those who tell us so have been excommunicated for disobedience to the Magisterium and for their adherence to schism and heresy, no problem, let us all repeat the wicked mantra of “Non Una Cum”, as if that were the magic wand that could turn their sacrilegious simulations into something acceptable to God Almighty, which is ridiculous and false.