Traditionalists are aiders and abettors of Antichrist and his system: Henry Cardinal Manning

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 31, 2021 | New Blog

+St. Sylvester, Pope +

As the New Year dawns, we must repeat what we have said all these years, regardless of the heading to this blog. We wish all those who love the Catholic faith and desire only to keep it the full freedom to know and exercise that faith, a freedom we believe Traditionalists do not enjoy today. This owing to the many errors Traditionalist pseudo-clergy have propagated for decades, errors that enslave their followers and obscure the truth. A reader, frustrated with trying to explain these errors, reminded us of Henry Cardinal Manning’s evaluation of the times of Antichrist. Sadly, his explanation fits only too well all of what we see today.

Traditionalists, as a general rule, reject the notion that we are living in the times of Antichrist and that the spiritual destruction wrought in Rome over the past 64 years can be associated with either the person of Antichrist proper or his system. They expect instead a savior on a white horse, be he pope, king or both, to come rushing in to save them and usher in the era of peace promised at La Salette and by Our Lady at Fatima. They do not take into account that both these messages were warnings to which were attached conditions, and that those conditions were not only never met, but both messages were suppressed, perverted and ignored. Just as the Jews in Christ’s time expected a powerful Messiah to come sweep them away and deliver to them earthly power and prosperity, so the Traditionalists expect a restoration of the Church on earth, Her glorious triumph, and a return to all that went before. And yet the prophet Daniel prophesied in Ch. 9, v. 27 that the desolation we see in Rome and abroad “…shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.” Holy Scripture commentators tell us that this applies to Antichrist proper as well as the Jewish antichrist, Antiochus Epiphanes.

This is precisely what Henry Cardinal Manning anticipates in his Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ: “We are fond of imagining triumphs and glories for the Church on earth — that the gospel is to be preached to all nations and the world to be converted and all enemies subdued and I know not what — until some ears are impatient of hearing that there is in store for the Church a time of terrible trial. And so we do as the Jews of old who look for a conqueror, a king, and for prosperity; and when their Messias came in humility and passion they did not know Him. So I am afraid many among us intoxicate their minds with the visions of success and victory and cannot endure the thought that there is a time of persecution yet to come for the Church of God. I will therefore point out as briefly as I can what appears in the events now around us to be leading on to this result.” And here he goes on to relate that the first sign he saw in his day (the late 1800s) was indifference to the truth. He then predicted the second sign or mark was persecution of the truth and finally, he concludes, the third sign leads plainly to the persecutions of the last days. These consist of the abomination which maketh desolate standing in the Holy Place, the cessation of the continual sacrifice and the strength and the stars being cast down (pgs.148, 151,157).

Marks of perdition

It apparently has never occurred to Traditionalists that by failing to recognize the truly dire nature of our situation and the depth and breadth of this apostasy of all the hierarchy — which occurred before our very eyes — that they could actually be part of Antichrist’s system on earth. After going to great lengths to explain that St. Paul’s “He who withholdeth” is most likely the pope who will be “taken out of the way,” in order that Antichrist may reign and return Rome to the paganism of pre-Christian times, Manning writes: “Antichrist and the antichristian movement has these marks: first, schism from the Church of God; second, denial of its Divine and infallible voice; and thirdly, denial of the Incarnation.” On pgs. 85-86, Manning describes schism as “revolt from authority… the one and universal Church.” Denial of infallibility he characterizes as “the rejection of the office and presence of the Holy Ghost… This necessarily involves the heretical principle of human opinion as opposed to Divine faith; of the private spirit as opposed to the infallible voice of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church of God” (p. 166). As for denial of the Incarnation, Manning notes on page 161:

“Rome and the Roman states are the inheritance of the Incarnation. The world is resolved to drive the Incarnation off the earth… This is the true interpretation of the anticatholic movement… The dethronement of the Vicar of Christ is the dethronement of the hierarchy of the universal Church and the public rejection of the Presence and Reign of Jesus…” And on page 91: “If heresy in the individual dissolves the unity of the Incarnation, heresy in the nation dissolves the unity of the Church, which is built on the Incarnation.” So let all of the above sink in very slowly. It has been proven time and again on this website that Traditionalists are in schism, because they accept men as their “pastors” who were not trained and authorized by a certainly valid bishop approved by the Roman Pontiff. These men were never “…rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority,” (Council of Trent, DZ 960, 967; Can. 147) and therefore are hirelings and intruders, as Pope Pius XII and the theologians explain. “The bishop… invested with the episcopal dignity by the clergy or even by a chapter, contrary to the laws of the Church… is an intruder. All who support a priest, bishop, or diocesan administrator who has not lawfully received his mission from the pope, and all who hold intercourse with him in spiritual matters, are, like him whom they support, treated by the Church as schismatics, because by such action they separate themselves from the Church’s unity” (W. Wilmers, S.J., Handbook of the Christian Religion, pgs.112-113, 371).

Secondly, it also has been proven here at length that Traditionalists deny the authority of the Roman Pontiff by accepting the teachings of these “pastors” in direct contradiction to the laws and infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, for every schism eventually leads to heresy, as all theologians agree. And heresy dissolves the Incarnation, as Manning points out above. So then we arrive at Manning’s third point, denial of the Incarnation. This should be something quite obvious to the average Catholic as a logical consequence of Manning’s first two points, but unfortunately it is not. For “rejection of the office and presence of the Holy Ghost” is a denial of the Third person of the Blessed Trinity, and the Trinity is one and undivided; deny one of its Members and you deny all. Christ’s Vicars speak in His name; they are His living voice on earth. Ignore and demean that voice and every bit of the light of sanctifying grace Traditionalists so wrongly prize as issuing from their “sacraments” is extinguished in the soul. Resisting the known truth is not able to be forgiven if one dies in such a state; rather than the Heaven Traditionalists believe they are assured of they will suffer the torments of Hell.

Papal teaching dismissed in favor of human opinion

Note how Manning describes those rejecting the papacy; he speaks of their reliance on human opinion and the “private” spirit” rather than the clear teachings of Christ’s Vicars, and this is precisely what Traditionalists engage in. Everyone assumes a “position” which reduces to nothing more than an opinion, when only one voice speaking in Christ’s name can dictate what that “position” must be. Truly this is a denial of the Incarnation, for Christ, who invested St. Peter with pontifical power, need scarcely have come to suffer and die for us if we could use our human reason to decide these things for ourselves! Those theologians most faithful to the papacy have written at length on the binding nature of papal documents, and those writings have been often quoted on this site (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/1-what-constitutes-the-papacy/judging-their-infallible-nature-and-the-assent-they-are-due/). Those considering themselves Catholics may find it hard to swallow, but they are bound even to accept a pope’s opinion on any given matter in preference to their own, because that opinion issues from the person Christ Himself invested with the power to lead us. As Msgr. J. C. Fenton explains: “There is “no such thing as a teaching issued by the Holy Father in his capacity as the spiritual ruler and teacher of all the followers of Jesus Christ which is other than authoritative.” But don’t tell Traditionalists that.

Rev. Leo Haydock comments on Matt. 16:18-19: “All the apostles and their successors partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to [the] one head invested with supreme power….Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. Chrysostom; nor is the sentence of life or death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed; but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees a decree of God Himself. He that heareth you, heareth me…” And this reverence for the papacy is what we find in nearly every work written by approved theologians up to the 20^th century, with few exceptions, (those being mainly the works of authors tending to Modernism).

But reverence for the papacy began to wane considerably in the 1900s and following the false Vatican 2 council, those heading Traditional movements made certain that any remaining respect for papal authority was eradicated. The popes were suspect, to be judged, not to be trusted. After all, look at what had happened and the men that continued to be “elected” to fill what everyone still considers, more or less, to be the “Holy See.” In order to bolster their own authority, Traditional pseudo-clergy first had to make certain it would not be challenged by either true popes past or those presenting as such since 1958. Papal teaching was mentioned only when it served their purposes; no one actually taught that it must be accepted and obeyed. If a papal document was used to challenge their ministry, it was immediately labeled as a disciplinary decree, or not applicable in times of emergency. And thus the Incarnation sank with Peter’s Barque to the bottom of the sea, symbolized by the teeming mass of humanity found in Apocalypse 13:1 from which Antichrist and his system would rise.

Sin and ignorance

How has this scourge of Traditionalism, this rejection of papal authority come to be? Manning tells us: “‘Some of the learned shall fall’ (Dan. 11:35) from their fidelity to God. And how shall this come to pass? Partly by fear, partly by deception, partly by cowardice; partly because they cannot stand for unpopular truth in the face of popular falsehood; partly because the overruling contemptuous public opinion, subdues and frightens Catholics…” (p. 163). And here I must add, partly from spiritual sloth. For so many individuals who are capable of reading and understanding have failed to truly study their faith from trustworthy sources, or have allowed these dratted Traditionalist “clergy” to guide them and interpret the fruits of their studies. In the end, perhaps this can be laid up to fear — fear of discovering the truth and being obligated to finally do something about it. But that they have such an obligation cannot be denied. Canon 1322 reads: “Christ our Lord confided to the Church the deposit of faith in order that She, with the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost, might faithfully preserve and expound the revealed doctrine. Independently of any civil power whatsoever, the Church has the right and duty to teach all nations the evangelical doctrine and all are bound by the DIVINE LAW to acquire a proper knowledge of this doctrine and to embrace the true Church of God.”

Two things are at work here: Sin and ignorance and much of the latter can be classified as willful or affected ignorance, which the Church will not readily excuse. The prophet Daniel relates that the Holy Sacrifice will be taken away “because of sins, and truth shall be cast down onto the ground” (Ch. 8:12). We have seen this happen; we should know why it happened. That we don’t is because no one obeys Canon 1322 and the command of the popes to defend the faith by engaging in Catholic Action. Who studies doctrine? Where are the schools erected that Catholics might study their faith in the absence of the clergy? If these Traditional pseudo-clerics really were pastors of the flock, they would have set up commissions to study the laws and teachings of the Church and catechetical classes for adults as well as children, not Mass centers. For the one thing that was lacking was the necessary knowledge of faith, far superior to the comforts of external religion. If Traditionalist clergy were true successors of the Apostles, they would have heeded the words of St. Pius X in Acerbo Nimis concerning the ignorance of the laity:

“Now we must inquire who has the duty to safeguard minds from this pernicious ignorance and impart to them the necessary knowledge. On this point, Venerable Brothers, there can be no doubt this very grave obligation is incumbent on all those who are pastors of souls. They are certainly obliged by the precept of Christ to know and to nourish the sheep confided to them. Now to nourish is first of all to teach. “I will give you,” God promises by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, “pastors according to my own heart and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine.” And so the apostle said: “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel,” indicating that thus the first office of those who are set up in any way for the government of the church is to instruct the faithful in sacred doctrine,” (and this is labeled in the Monks of Solesmes Papal Teaching book as a doctrinal teaching, binding on the faithful). Pope St. Pius X then goes on to describe the plight of the faithful in his day as follows:

“It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. And when we mention Christians, We refer not only to the masses or to those in the lower walks of life – for these find some excuse for their ignorance in the fact that the demands of their harsh employers hardly leave them time to take care of themselves or of their dear ones – but We refer to those especially who do not lack culture or talents and, indeed, are possessed of abundant knowledge regarding things of the world but live rashly and imprudently with regard to religion. It is hard to find words to describe how profound is the darkness in which they are engulfed and, what is most deplorable of all, how tranquilly they repose there. They rarely give thought to God, the Supreme Author and Ruler of all things, or to the teachings of the faith of Christ. They know nothing of the Incarnation of the Word of God, nothing of the perfect restoration of the human race which He accomplished.

“….They have no conception of the malice and baseness of sin; hence they show no anxiety to avoid sin or to renounce it. And so they arrive at life’s end in such a condition that, lest all hope of salvation be lost, the priest is obliged to give in the last few moments of life a summary teaching of religion, a time which should be devoted to stimulating the soul to greater love for God. And even this as too often happens only when the dying man is not so sinfully ignorant as to look upon the ministration of the priest as useless, and then calmly faces the fearful passage to eternity without making his peace with God. And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: “We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.”

And this is where those following the false shepherds of Traditionalism find themselves today.

Impugning the Deposit of Faith

The divine Deposit was given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles to safeguard inviolate. Rev. Peter Finlay S.J.,professor at the National University of Ireland, explains the Deposit in his 1917 work Divine Faith: “God from the beginning, has made revelations to mankind… And this whole body of revelation is spoken of as the Deposit of Faith… All the truths contained in it are to be accepted and believed by members of the Church… (p. 1-2). Every truth set forth distinctly, in Holy Scripture, every article of the Catholic Creeds, every solemn, dogmatic definition of a pope or a General Council, is included in the Deposit of Faith (p. 51).” Embracing the truths of both Scripture and Tradition as well as the dogmas of faith, Christian morals, the Sacraments and the hierarchical constitution of the Church (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Revs. Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolanti and Salvatore Garofalo, 1951), this term is explained by the Vatican Council as follows: “And the doctrine of faith which God revealed is proposed not as a mere philosophical discovery to be elaborated by human minds but as the divine Deposit delivered by Christ to His spouse to be by Her faithfully guarded and infallibly declared” (Sess. 3, Ch. 4).”

In explaining the docility with which papal teaching is to be received by the faithful, the Monks of Solesmes, in their work Papal Teachings: The Church (1962) write: “Even when the question does not concern a revealed truth that has its object some truth of the natural order, this docility will make him prefer out of deference the teaching of the master who speaks in the name of God to opinions which are purely human. Finally, this docility will subject him to the guidance of the Church for the work of clarification which is the ordinary line of progress and doctrinal development. For the magisterium of the church is not simply, like Scripture and Tradition a locus theologicus or theological source where is to be found the Deposit of revealed truth; it is a living teacher charged with safeguarding this Deposit, with revealing it and interpreting it as the needs and the crises of each epoch demand.”

But docility is not found in the Traditionalists’ vocabulary, unless it is the slavish “obedience” so many feel they owe these pseudo-clerics. And this even though such obedience is rarely related in any way to the binding teachings of the Deposit of Faith. Who today is guarding and declaring this Deposit which can never perish from the face of the earth? As Parente et al. explain in their work, “The Deposit of Faith has come from God and is entrusted to those to whom a special assistance of the Holy Ghost is assured (2 Tim. 1:14), i.e., to those who succeed the Apostles in their magisterium and in their ministry. Christ has transmitted the deposit whose content cannot be subjected to alterations.” But this cannot apply to Traditionalists, who possess not one iota of apostolicity. And is it not an alteration of the hierarchical structure of the Church to defy this Deposit by pretending the Church can exist outside that hierarchical structure minus Her Supreme Head?! So once again, as Cardinal Manning demonstrates, the Incarnation is denied in denying and demeaning the Deposit. Who are these charlatans who have done this? They are nothing more than confirmed Modernists, whose attitude toward dogma Parente describes as follows in his Dictionary… under dogma:

“The Modernists, having reduced dogma to a symbolic expression of religious sentiment in continual development (see symbolism), or to a practical rule or norm of religious consciousness (see pragmatism) have admitted an intrinsic evolution of dogma which must correspond to the indefinite phases of that sentiment and of that consciousness. These errors were condemned by Pope St Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili (DZ 2022, 2026 and 2079). According to Catholic doctrine, a dogma cannot undergo intrinsic and substantial changes; [but] there is an evolution… on the part of the faithful as to understanding and expressing a dogma.” Please explain how what Traditionalists teach regarding their now headless Church, and their authority to act as ministers of that Church, (which they cannot and do not possess), is not exactly what is described above? For pragmatism is the heresy of action based not on belief and religious conviction, but on human opinion. Traditionalists tell their followers they have a “duty” under Divine law to administer the Sacraments, and are acting in their best interests. But this is merely an opinion on their part, condemned by the Church  numerous times during the course of Her history. This we have demonstrated repeatedly here.

Symbolism, Parente explains, “…depreciates and eliminates the entire doctrine of faith determined by the Church in its dogmatic formulas… Every dogma expresses primarily a truth to be believed and, as a consequence, a rule of action.” In other words, dogma does not bind the Modernist; it is only a guideline they are free to interpret and/or disregard. Exterior acts that can be seen and are visible to satisfy the senses alone are the expression of faith and this also was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his Pascendi: “For them the Sacraments are a resultant of a double need, for as we have seen: everything in their system is explained by impulses and necessities. The first need is that of giving some manifestation to religion; the second is that of propagating it, which could not be done without some sensible form and consecrating acts, and these are called Sacraments.”

Here Pope St. Pius X has just described how Modernists set up a false church to honor their beliefs. They first ignore dogma and Canon Law, since necessity knows no law; the obligation to be validly trained, ordained and consecrated, since acting like bishops and priests is more important than actually being validly ordained or consecrated. This is a perversion of St. Thomas Aquinas’ principle that in order to act, one first must “be” (the intellect must first determine by reasoned consideration that such an action is good and is not prohibited by the natural, divine or positive law; this also refutes the error of pragmatism). These men next appeal to the needs of followers asking for their services by providing what appears to be the Sacraments. They also foster and encourage their followers’ impulses to champion the Mass and fight to keep it available and to accept the heresy that bishops can constitute Christ’s Church on earth without being in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Anything rather than adhere to and defend the Deposit of Faith and its guardian, the Roman Pontiff, which would mean separating themselves from Traditionalism.

Traditionalists went to wage a war and fought on the wrong side. Had these men been real priests they would have been careful to educate them regarding the Church’s true status quo, not rush to provide Mass and Sacraments. They especially should have advised them of their precarious position regarding jurisdiction, which expired shortly after the death of Pope Pius XII. Canon 200 clearly states that anyone claiming to possess jurisdiction has the burden of proving it. Catholics exiting Vatican 2 had no understanding of Canon Law, and to be honest, even priests ordained in the 1940s-1950s were woefully ignorant both of Canon law and the true nature of infallibility. But Traditionalists are not interested in Canon Law or magisterial teaching because they are not Catholic.

He who hears you hears Me

Christ’s words as the author of the Divine Deposit and the Man of Sorrows who opposeth those antichrists standing in the temple of God, showing themselves as if they were God, are sufficient for us. The gods Traditionalists worship now standing in the place of Christ’s vicar, whether it be the false pope Francis or the numerous Traditionalist mini-popes, usurp the place of Christ. They are the abomination standing in what should be the holy place, for the Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. 1) reports that this term can be taken in a concrete form as well, “…referring to a person, a ‘ravager,’ or even as a participal noun, (he) ‘that maketh desolate.’” Both the Old and New Testament treat of this great dishonor to God, applying the word abomination to several different types of serious sin. Proud, deceitful men; wicked shepherds, liars, detractors, idolaters; and those engaging in forbidden sexual relations are referred to as abominations. Especially intended as abominable in the Scripture texts is any unclean or unworthy sacrifice, or an acceptable sacrifice offered before idols. And Traditionalist pseudo-clergy have all the above. They have set up in the name of the true Church the very evil those following them thought they were escaping in exiting the Novus Ordo.

It should be remembered, as another reader reminded me recently, that Moses, who led his people into the desert from captivity, was long delayed while receiving the Ten Commandments. His people thought he would not return. They became bored and wanted to worship something, anything really. So gathering against Aaron, selected for the priesthood by God, they prevailed upon him to fashion the golden calf for them. When Moses returned with the Ten Commandments, he found them paying tribute to the calf, dancing and carrying on, and he ground it to powder. He then summoned all those who wished to remain faithful to God and ordered them to slay the others, some 23,000.

Some believe Aaron only meant for the people to worship the calf as a symbol of God, but that did not satisfy Moses, or God for that matter. Moses had to plead with God to spare even the few who remained (Exodus 32: 7-35). How similar this is to Traditionalists who, after leaving the Novus Ordo, first prevailed upon (then validly ordained) priests to offer the Mass for them when they had no power or permission to do so, simply to satisfy their perceived needs. The bread and priestly idols sacrilegiously worshipped in these so-called masses were no different than the adoration of the golden calf in Moses’ time. And sadly the fate of those who refuse to educate themselves in matters of faith will be no different than that of the Chosen People before them.

That the precious body of the Deposit should be cast aside by those calling themselves Catholics and bread idols and pseudo-priests worshipped in its stead is a sacrilege. It is a denial of the Incarnation, a denial of Christ’s establishment on earth of a hierarchical Church, a denial of all He came to earth to suffer and die for. Traditionalists are not just members of a false church — they are deniers of the very Christ they believe they receive from the hands of their antichrists. The words of the Apocalypse call out to them, the angels of the Lord entreating them in pathetic tones, crying: “Fear the Lord and give Him honor, because the hour of His judgment has come” (Ch. 14:7). “Go out from [Babylon] my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities” (Ch. 18: 4-5).

Is the Abomination of Desolation the same thing as Antichrist?

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

+Our Lady of Ransom+

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

St. Jerome

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

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

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

St. Bernard

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

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

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

The Council of Florence

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

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

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

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

Pope Leo XIII

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

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

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

Paul IV’s usage of the abomination of desolation

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

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

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

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

The exception would be that a pope [erring in his private capacity] could be corrected, as the pope says above, (but not removed unless he refused to accept correction). But one who publicly spoke or otherwise disseminated heresy is a different matter. Paul IV distinguishes as follows: “Further, if ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, even one conducting himself as an Archbishop, Patriarch, or primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, even as mentioned, a Legate; or likewise any Roman Pontiff before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void.”

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

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

When in doubt, consult Can. 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

The Fatima Peace and Antichrist’s Reign

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 6, 2020 | New Blog

+St. Maria Goretti+

While many insist we cannot be living in the times of Antichrist, there are few infallible indicators of what that time would look like. Unfortunately, what has been left to us by those who had no real idea of what Antichrist’s reign and the Latter Days would look like is little more than a welter of opinions and speculation. And most of these come from the predictions and visions of holy people which is not equivalent whatsoever to the teachings of the Church. One thing these seers seemed to miss entirely was the age of technology and the effect it would have on the faithful. Only a few of the lesser-known seers mention this.

As noted before, very little is certain about the coming of Antichrist, and what is certain doesn’t tell us much at all. Rev. Fahey, quoting Rev. Lehmann’s Le Antichrist, lists the following as certain in his work, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation:

Things that are CERTAIN is that Antichrist will:

– be a trial for the good;

– be a human person;

– not be Satan in human form but only a man;

– have great powers of seduction;

– begin his career in a lowly manner;

– increase in power and make conquests;

– rule the entire world;

– wage a terrible war against God and the Church;

– claim to be God and will demand exclusive adoration (secular humanism);

– seek to prove he is God by false miracles (“canonization” of antipopes)

– reign only temporarily (and this certainly gives the lie to Traditionalists who insist we cannot be living in the times of Antichrist because he could only reign for three and a half years.)

It is only probable, Lemann states, that he will reign for three and a half years.  And while Lemann says it is undecided whether he will reign from the Church or the (restored?) temple in Jerusalem, Pope Paul IV seems to have solved this difficulty by writing in his 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio that the abomination would be a usurper reigning as a true pope. This also was the opinion of Dom Gueranger, who on his commentary on the liturgy for the feast of Sts. Marcellinus, Peter and Erasmus wrote: “Antichrist, with his usurped power and vain prestige, will be but the common product of political lodges and of this sect which proposes to bring back, under a new form, the ancient mysteries of paganism.” And there is little doubt both John 23 and Paul 6 were both advocates for and high-ranking members of Freemasonry.

The outstanding German priest, the Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser wrote a quasi-inspired commentary on the first fifteen chapters of the book of the Apocalypse in about 1640. The following excerpts are taken from his writings and describes almost to the “T” our present circumstances.

“The fifth period is one of affliction, desolation, humiliation, and poverty for the Church. Jesus Christ will purify His people through cruel wars, famines, plagues, epidemics, and other horrible calamities. He will also afflict and weaken the Latin Church with many heresies. It is a period of defections, calamities and exterminations. Those Christians who survive the sword, plague and famines, will be few on earth. Nations will fight against nations and will be desolated by internecine dissensions… During this unhappy period, there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh…

They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification and delimitation by man.”

In summing up 30 years of studies into private prophecies, Australian Yves Dupont summarized them as follows:

1. Civil wars, revolutions, breakdown of authority everywhere.
2. Military coups even in Western Countries.
3. An anti-pope in Rome; the developing apostasy becomes universal.
4. Persecution of the Church by Communist governments, abetted at first by many of the hierarchy and Clergy.
5. Complete destruction of the Church’s structures at the hands of the Communists and even those who collaborated with them.
6. Natural disasters, earthquakes, floods, drought, famines, epidemics.
7. Cosmic phenomenon, three days of darkness, collapse of Communism.
8. More military coups (followed by the rise of the Great Monarch).
9. Rebirth of the Catholic Church. New Ecumenic Council, restoration of former disciplines in the Church. A Holy Pope occupies the Chair of Peter.
10. Period of peace, faith, plenty.”

(In Rev. R. Gerald Culleton’s The Prophets and Our Times, Venerable Madeline Porzat (died 1850) announces seven crises in 168c. that seem to tally with the La Salette message and Dupont’s predictions:

1. inclemencies of seasons and inundations;
2. diseases to animals and plants;
3. cholera over men;
4. revolutions;
5. wars;
6. a universal bankruptcy and
7. confusion.)

Dupont comments on the prophecies he mentions above:

“The Empire of the Mohammedans will be broken up (by him).”

(Ven. Holzhauser, 17th Century)

“Greece he will invade and be made King thereof. He will conquer England.”

(Cataldus, 5th Century)

“Invade Greece” and “conquer England” must not be understood with the modern and unpleasant connotation that these terms now have.  This Emperor will be anything but “imperialist”.  It means, in effect, that he will go to England to help the English people out of their Communist enslavement, and he will land in Greece to expel the Mohammedans.  All this will be made clear later in this article… At this stage, may I caution against dismissing the idea of a Mohammedan invasion in Europe as extravagant.  I discussed this point in my first book: the Mohammedan invasion is mentioned in an exceedingly large number of prophecies, and the prophecies are true.  The invasion will be made possible because,

“(a) Soviet Russia, the Beast of the Earth, will give Mohammed, the Beast of the Sea, all the military support she can, hoping thereby to avoid a direct involvement of herself in Western Europe;

“(b) because Western Europe will be in a state of utter chaos at the close of murderous civil wars.

“It was just as “extravagant” to speak of the “Revolt of the Algerians in 1938 when Algeria was regarded as being an extension of metropolitan France, but the revolt did come to pass in the sixties, and Algeria is now independent.)

“This Prince shall extend his dominion over the whole world.”

(St. Caesar, 6th Century)

“Is this the One World government which is currently advocated by Leftist elements?  Most definitely not.  The One World government will not come about until the revelation of the Man of Sin who, with the Jewish nation fawning at his feet, will impose his tyranny upon the whole world.  The “dominion” in question here will not take the form of a centralized autocratic government. Centralization is the very opposite of the principle of subsidiarity which the Church and every genuine Catholic monarch has always supported. Subsidiarity, to be sure, does not exclude supreme authority, or arbitration, but it is undoubtedly the antithesis of autocratism.  The word itself is comparatively new but the principle has always been upheld by the Church” (end of Dupont quotes.)

The reason that this one world government is not more noticeable is because it is entirely secret. Its effects are now being felt everywhere, and yet most people believe that their own leaders in their own nations are in control. The puppet masters select the music and the puppets dance to their tunes. Just as the true status of the rulers of the church in Rome are hidden from the eyes of all, so it is also with their civil leaders. What happened to the Church in the 1950s is now being played out all across the world, but particularly in the United States. We are on the eve of everything predicted above and more, and most especially we seem to be on the brink of civil war and possibly martial law and a military coup. Some have even speculated that Trump could be the last of the truly patriotic presidents.

The true version (or interpretation) of the La Salette Secret places Antichrist’s coming (in all its many phases) prior to the chastisement and the promised Fatima peace following the chastisement. (This is assuming we have not forfeited that peace by our wickedness; it seems both the Fatima and La Salette promises were conditional, depending on whether Catholics amended their lives and did penance. Clearly they did not.) This chastisement could well be all we have experienced in a spiritual manner since Pope Pius XII’s death in 1958, although the seers explain it is a spiritual chastisement first, followed by a physical chastisement along the lines of an asteroid/meteor strike or possibly an EMP event. La Salette seer Melanie Calvat said the ensuing peace after the physical chastisement would last only 35 years, just long enough for the Church to triumph over her enemies before the final assault launched by Satan.

But again, this and the others quoted above are only private prophecies. We can rely only on Scripture to anticipate what lies ahead, and once Antichrist has come, and the withholding power, also the Continual Sacrifice, has been taken away, then all that remains is the end of Antichrist’s reign and that perpetuated by his system and “successors.” (This is why it is absurd, on so many different levels, for those seeking to “unite the clans” to be able to do this while evil reigns on this earth, for what possible foundation could they find on which to re-establish their “Church”?!) While some commentators allow for the period of peace and restoration of the Church, others do not. So who are we to believe and how should we conduct ourselves if we do not know for certain that there will ever be such a peace? Reverend E. S. Berry tells us in his The Apocalypse of St. John that there will be such a peace and restoration, and he wrote before the message of Fatima was received. Several others tend also in this direction, including Holshauzer, also writing before Fatima. The bulk of Catholic prophecies seem to suggest it. But Holy Scripture does not specifically mention any such event.

Ancient history is filled with examples of the anticipation of savior kings allied with holy priests, both in pagan and pre-Christian literature. But it was the Jews who in Christ’s time looked for a glorious earthly king and therefore rejected Him, even though he was of the Davidic line as Scripture foretold. This is because they preferred the “second Messiah” of their own understanding to the true Messiah sent by God. “For the Jews believed that Zacharias 1:20 foretold two Messiahs, one a suffering Messiah, descended from the tribe of Joseph, Elias and the priest Zadok, and the other a glorious messiah, son of David (How Christ Said the First Mass, Rev. James Meagher). The Jews of Christ’s time were a carnal people who had little use for suffering; they believed they already had suffered enough. The Jewish people longed for a return to the time of the kings of earlier Israelitic centuries — not unlike the medievalism of the German people — and their leaders obliged them by creating a projection of a second Messiah to satisfy this longing. Therefore they denied Christ as Eternal High Priest in favor of this earthly king yet to come.

Christ warned us He would come as a thief in the night. He told us no one would know for certain when the Final Judgment will take place. We must be ever mindful of believing only what we wish to believe and not what may actually be the truth of the matter. True Catholics must prepare for either eventuality — the imminent Second Coming or a terrible physical chastisement followed by a miraculous restoration of the Church and a brief peace. But in insisting on the Church’s rescue and return without also acknowledging that Antichrist has come and only the resounding victory of his destruction will result in this restoration is not supported by Holy Scripture. Reverend Berry places the peace after the death of Antichrist as all those holding this position do, and it is only logical that this is what may well take place. But it is just as logical to believe Christ will come suddenly without warning.

And rather than distress the remnant, they should instead be resigned to His will and reason that if there is no period of peace, it is better by far to be worshipping at the heavenly altar than any restoration of that altar on earth. For although the Holy Sacrifice on earth has inestimable value, no earthly sacrifice could ever compare to the offering of Christ to God His Father at the Eternal Altar in Heaven.

The great king, the Priory of Sion and the mystery of the bees

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 3, 2025 | New Blog

+St. Francis Xavier+

Prayer Society Intentions for December, Month of Christ’s Holy Birth

“Eternal Father, I offer to Thine honor and glory for my eternal salvation and for the salvation of the whole world the sufferings of Jesus in the Manger… the cold He suffered, the tears He shed and His tender infant cries.” — Raccolta

Introduction

A reader recently alerted me to a very interesting article on the Tradition in Action site. While this is definitely not a recommended site, the article should be read given the past information provided here on British Israel and its connections to Zionism and Communism. (See it HERE.) The article relates the establishment of a throne in the Vatican for no less than King Charles III of England, whose ancestors slaughtered tens of thousands of Catholics and defrauded them of their property, not to mention the wholesale destruction of Catholic architecture and culture throughout Great Britain. But the full significance of this cannot be understood without a deep dive into the history of Freemasonry and secret societies in general, particularly that society most responsible for the infiltration of the clergy and the establishment of “traditional Catholicism” — The Priory of Sion.

I first sounded the alarm on this organization in my 1990 book, Will the Catholic Church Survive…? where both Angelo Roncalli and Marcel Lefebvre were pinpointed as high-ranking members of the Priory and collaborators in the destruction of the Church. And while the Priory has since been debunked as a non-entity, a fraud and a deliberately created rabbit hole, current events and additional discoveries only serve to confirm it was very much what it was portrayed to be. In the last several years I have pointed out in this blog the fact that every Traditionalist movement founded in this country can be linked to a Masonic sect known as St. John Knights of Jerusalem, and this included Marcel Lefebvre’s St. Pius X Society. As noted in the 1990 book, Lefebvre’s various branches of his Society were called “priories,” as were those of Schuckhardt, Wathen and others. Lefebvre’s seminary was located in the diocese of Sion, Switzerland. He was ordained and consecrated by the Freemason Lienart. The Holy Blood, Holy Grail authors identify him as a Priory member.

Not so well known is Angelo Roncalli’s probable affiliation with the Priory. But certainly his pre-election history — his friendship with French Masonic characters such as Marsaudon, Herriot, Auriol — and his pandering to Freemasons as “pope” was a dead giveaway. Below are excerpts from Will the Catholic Church Survive…? that explain the nature of the Priory, its relation to what we see unfolding today and Roncalli’s role as a member.

The Priory of Sion: a history

“Roncalli’s behavior was consistent with that of a man who had received a mission. Knowing the extent of masonic influ­ence and infiltration in the Vatican, it has undoubtedly crossed the minds of many good Catholics that Brother Angelo was carrying out the orders of the Satanic Pontiff, the equivalent of Pope of all Masonry. Piers Compton, in his book The Broken Cross, relates the alleged initiation of Roncalli into the Masonic lodge of the Rose Croix. Pier Carpi’s book The Prophecies of John XXIII, divulges that Roncalli took the name “Johannes” at his initiation, which apparently took place while he served as Apostolic Delegate to Istanbul, Turkey, in 1935. The connection of Roncalli with the Rosicrucians could per­haps be put aside if it were not for the fact that many of Roncalli’s subsequent actions can be seen to confirm such an affiliation. His remark concerning the unimportance of bap­tism and conversion in the case of the Jews he helped to escape during World War II certainly is in keeping with Masonic doctrine. And his later appointment as Nuncio to France, combined with his anti-Catholic behavior there, pro­vides us with a clue to the source of his Masonic affiliations.

“In his work Satan in the Modern World, Monsignor L. Cristiani quotes the heretic and satanist Giovanni Papini as having written: “…the promised land of Satanism is France.”(!) (p. 164.) How can it be that the eldest daughter of the Church should become the promised land of Satanism? The answer lies in the history of France and the pervasive influ­ence of Albigensianism or Catharism, which took much deeper root there than was ever realized by the Church. That Albigensianism became the basis for Freemasonry is documented in the book Holy Blood. Holy Grail. (Delacourte Press; 1982.) This book presents no less than a believable collection of heretical horrors that is far and away the best exposition and condemnation of the secret societies ever written, although it is presented as a vindication of that particular ruling force of all the secret societies: the Priory of Sion.

“It will be sufficient here to offer a brief synopsis of this organization, its history and its aims, since a detailed analysis of it is beyond the scope of this book. The Priory first came into existence with the creation of the Knights Templar in 1090, by one Godfroi deBoullion. Its official headquarters was Notre Dame du Mont de Sion in Jerusalem. This occurred nine years before the founding of the Knights Templar by Hugues de Payon, a vassal of the count of Champagne. In 1188, the Templar Knights separated from deBouillion’s Order of Zion which then officially changed its name to the Priory of Zion. Its first Grand Master, Jean de Gisor, founded the Rosicrucians (Holy Blood, Holy Grail). The Priory remained a vital and moving force, which operated underground once the Templars were condemned and disbanded, and has grown phe­nomenally in power and influence over the centuries.

“In order to properly understand the premises on which the Priory bases its operation, it is necessary to delve somewhat into the history behind their devilish beliefs. Holy Blood, Holy Grail, relates that the Templars and the Priory were created to protect and reestablish on the throne of France an ancient bloodline. This hideous bloodline is said to be that of Christ and Mary Magdalene. The Priory legend has it that Mary Magdalene escaped to France with Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus, who did not die on the cross, but falsified his entire death and resurrection. (It is reluctantly, and with great sorrow, that we relate such blasphemy and vile heresy, even in way of proof.) This “bloodline” then, supposedly, was continued through the line of Merovingian kings, who ruled from the fifth to seventh century in an area known as the Languedoc.

This area is said to have been the site of a Jewish colony even prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and subsequent exodus of many of the Jews from the Holy Land to other areas of the world. The Merovingian kings were surrounded by mystery. They were never crowned or anointed, but were considered kings as if by divine right, on the advent of their twelfth birthday. They were known as the sorcerer or thaumatergic kings. They were “…occult adepts, initiates in arcane sciences, and practitioners of the esoteric arts …they were said to be capable of clairvoyant or telepathic communication …miraculous curative powers …and bore a distinctive birthmark which distinguished them from all other men, and …which attested to their semi-divine or sacred blood.” (Holy Blood, Holy Grail, p. 210.)

“Although this book keeps the reader in suspense forever, it is not long before it becomes apparent that this “bloodline” the Templars and the Priory protect to this day is heretically presented as that of Christ and Mary Magdalene. Eventually, the Merovingians intermarried with nearly all the royal bloodlines of Europe, which makes their descendants “divine” as well. This inheritance is said to be especially centered in the British, French and German thrones. In fact, British Israelism, currently known as the Aryan Nations or “Identity” movement, can be seen to allude to this fact, since it suggests that the ancient bloodline of David is continued in the succession to Britain’s throne.

“It has been speculated that Hitler was linked to the Priory in some way, and may even have attempted to secede from it, thus bringing the wrath of Europe on his head. But if he attempted to secede, it was not owing to his moral sense, but rather to his burning desire to rule all and be subject to none. The upper echelon Nazis were immersed in the Grail legends and pre-Christian religious practices. (The “Search for the Holy Grail” is a veiled allegory imitative of the Gospel parables. It is used by the degrees of masonry to symbolize the search for man who became God; i.e., the bloodline. This is the mirror reverse of God’s Son, who as God, assumed a human body.) In her book The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, Constance Cumbey relates that Hitler was influenced early in his school years by the abbot of a Benedictine monastery school he attended near his home. The abbot “…was fascinated by the lore of the Albigensians or Cathars, who could probably be accurately classified as early New Agers, in that they believed man could gain the powers of a god.” It was here, Cumbey notes, that Hitler “…was initiated into the finer mysteries of the occult.” (p. 100.) Cumbey further instructs us, on page 102, as to the origin of the “Aryan” nations obsession of Hitler. She writes: “…one of the seven Atlantean races was that of the Aryans …the Aryans were the master race, or supermen of the Atlantean races.”

“As we have already learned, the Jewish settlement to which Mary Magdalene and Jesus “fled,” produced the Merovingian kings and the “bloodline” eventually. The founding of this line of kings has behind it a myth. Sup­posedly, a queen pregnant by her husband went swimming in the ocean and was impregnated a second time by some sort of sea creature. When the child Merovie (founder of the Merovingian dynasty) was born, the blood of both fathers ran in his veins. This could allude to an intermingling of Atlantean blood, for as Cumbey notes, the Atlanteans were known to have “…magical powers over …nature and psychic development.” (p. 100.) This would then account for the psy­chic and healing powers attributed to the Merovingians, who like Samson, wore their hair long and credited it as the secret of their power. (The sea creature might also have been Leviathon, the “sea serpent,” spoken of in Isaias 27:1 and elsewhere, and identified in the Douay-Rheims’s footnote to this text as the Devil.) However it is interpreted, it necessarily implies a link between the New Age and the Priory; Masonry and the New Age, and the Albigenses or Cathars as the progenitors of all the above.

The papacy and the Priory

“Can all this somehow be traced to Roncalli and/or Montini? Cumbey, an evangelical Protestant lawyer, fingered Roncalli in 1983 (Hidden Dancers of the Rainbow), when she wrote: “If there has been a single Catholic Pope who permitted the New Ager’s plan to take root within the Roman Catholic Church, it was Pope John XXIII, who is spoken of reverentially by New Agers and ‘Catholic’ modernists.” (p. 160.) This mammoth conspiracy has obviously covered all bases. Today, it is headquartered somewhere in France, probably the Languedoc region. Its surname indicates that it may have successfully penetrated all of the Catholic sects and factions, for it is given as Chivalry of Catholic Rules and Institutions of the Independent and Traditionalist Union or CIRCUIT, from a Priory publication of the same name. It is also called “The Rose-Croix Veritas.”

“Its meetings and method of operation are shrouded in secrecy, but since 1956, the Priory has been said to have experienced phenomenal growth. It has also been connected with the society known as “Hieron du Val d’Or,” characterized by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail as being “…more Catholic than the Pope…,” but which, in fact, attempted to fuse Catholicism and Masonic principles. Action Francais, condemned by Pius XI, who placed all books pub­lished by its proponents on the Index, was no less than an attempt to place a Merovingian king on the throne of France. Today’s attempt to consolidate Europe politically and economically into a “United States of Europe,” is but a studied effort to create a modern empire to be ruled by “the descendants of Jesus.”(!)

“From Holy Blood, Holy Grail, we read: “This dynasty could not only occupy a throne of political power, but quite conceivably, the throne of St. Peter,” (p. 385.) Could the occupant of any such throne really be a pope, or would he rule a kingdom other than Christ’s? For those who loudly proclaim that Roncalli was a dear, sweet man and is being libeled; or sneeringly state that “no one can prove” he was a freemason, we would like to observe that masonry operates secretly for a reason. That reason is obvious: no one will then be able to determine who is on the up and up. For our purposes, we must content ourselves with the fact that Roncalli is a heretic, but the following infor­mation should prove he was, without a doubt, more.

1. Since the Priory’s inception, according to Holy Blood, Holy Grail, “…every grand master, on assuming his position, has adapted the name Jean (French for John) …This succession was clearly intended to imply an Hermetic papacy based on John, in contrast (and perhaps, opposition) to the esoteric one based on Peter …Roncalli caused considerable consternation when he chose the name John XXIII, anathematized since it was last used … by an anti-pope … In 1958 (Jean) Cocteau held the grand mastership …(when) Pope Pius XII died …and the assembled cardinals elected Roncalli. …Cocteau did not die until 1963.” (pp. 132-133.) Roncalli was only a transitional Pope, [as arranged by no less than the CIA] and his death coincided with that of Cocteau. If both “thrones” fell vacant at the same time, did Montini alone fall heir to the “throne?” Was the “transition” Roncalli was designated to make the deliverance of the papacy into the hands of the “Satanic Pontiff?” …
2. Roncalli has been said to be obsessed with John the Baptist. Thus, he gave us the reason for selecting the name John as his love for Christ’s cousin. (See “Urbi et Orbi,” Oct. 1958.) Actually, John the Baptist and John the Evangelist are held in high esteem by Freemasons, who Piers Compton reports, make a point of meeting on their feast days (Dec. 27 and June 24). It is said by some that both John the Baptist and John the Divine were Essenes, although the Catholic Church denies this. (See Essenes; Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 ed.) Since the Essenes were a Jewish sect, the Church sees no need to bother with them. …Holy Blood, Holy Grail, however, gives us the real reasons behind Roncalli’s use of the name John on page 55: “…the Templars were infected with the Johannite or Mandian heresy, which denounced Jesus as a false prophet and acknow­ledged John as the true Messiah.”
3. “So Roncalli was honoring Masonic tradition. And Roncalli’s “mission,” mentioned earlier, was to act in a capacity which coincided with the role of his idol, John the Baptist. For Roncalli was the precursor; the voice crying in the modernist wilderness; the one who would prepare the way for the “Rex Mundi.” Further reason for Roncalli’s choice of name as Pope is given by Jean Bardet in his Les Clefs De La Recherche Fondamentale. On page 72, he writes: “…Roncalli…was elected the 28th of October [and] took the name of John XXIII, in honor of France, for John XXIII was the last Pope of Avignon.” According to authors Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent, in their work Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Hieron du Val d’Or admitted the existence of a hidden pope and his entourage, which of course would include bishops, waiting in the wings to act either as a replacement for or an alternative to the current church in Rome:
4. “’The Hiéron’s agenda was the creation of a new Habsburg and Catholic Holy Roman Empire with a French temporal and spiritual head in the manner of the Grand Monarch, an association of Europeans bound by common law and dedicated to advancing the mission of Christ the King.” (Here they cite sources linked to the “Catholic” secret society Marcel Lefebvre reportedly belonged to, the Priory of Sion.) “They [the Hieron] claim the existence of a secret parallel Catholic tradition called l’Eglise d’Avignon (Church of Avignon), which they trace to the medieval Papacy installed in Avignon from 1309 to 1378. The claim is that it continued in secret with a Pope who represents the esoteric aspects of the Catholic Church. L’Eglise d’Avignon is said to serve as an intermediary between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox tradition.’
5. This is an interesting comment when we consider that the first John XXIII was elected at Pisa (a council never considered ecumenical by the Church) and was later deposed at Constance. It seems that the plan to unite the papacy and the monarchy was conceived long ago, but was dealt a setback once Martin V was elected at Constance and the papacy permanently established in Rome, once again. Roncalli’s contribution to the “bloodline,” as “pope” was to insert the “precious blood” into the divine Praises that the God-man might become a man-God, as surely it did when Montini (Paul VI) embarked on his campaign to deify man.
6. In St. Malachy’s prophecies, John XXIII is designated as “Pasteur et Nautionner” (Shepherd and Navigator). The official title of the Priory’s Grand Master is “Nautionnier. Whether these prophecies are truly genuine, or clever forgeries as some have suggested, they accurately identified Roncalli’s dual personality while “pope.” And, the objection cannot be made that Roncalli’s identification with Malachy’s “motto” affords him legitimacy, for Malachy’s list contains mottoes for several anti-popes.
7. Roncalli was the first “pope” to contradict the excom­munication of his predecessors for membership in a Masonic sect. His relaxation of this application of Canon Law came with “Pacem in Terris,” which extolled the United Nations and granted a general relaxation of discipline begun at the start of Roncalli’s reign. In her Son of Perdition, C. Lereux relates: “John XXIII …allowed a revision of Canon Law to be expected. While awaiting these ‘new laws,’ everyone proceeded to do and say whatever they wished.” (p. 36.)
8. In June of 1960, Roncalli issued an apostolic letter on the “Precious Blood.” The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grailclaim that he attached “…a hitherto unprecedented significance to that blood. It emphasized Jesus’ suffering as a human being and maintained that the redemption of mankind had been effected by the shedding of His blood … If man’s redemption was achieved by the shedding of Jesus’ blood, his death and resurrection become incidental.” (p. 135.) How strange that Roncalli would attach such significance to the very reason for the Priory’s existence if he was not a member. One would need to be very blind, indeed, to fail to make the connection between Roncalli and Freemasonry in the face of such damning evidence.

The false prophet and the Great Monarch

“It is difficult to see, in light of what we know today, how Roncalli could have been anything OTHER than the false prophet spoken of in Apocalypse 13, vs. 11. E.S. Berry, in his Apocalypse of St. John, writes: “The beast arising from the earth is a false prophet, the prophet of Antichrist …the false prophet …will be endowed with the plenitude of satanic powers to deceive the nations, as indicated by his resemblance to the lamb. The prophet will probably set himself up in Rome as a sort of anti-pope,” (p. 135). Reverend P. Huchede, in his little work The History of AntiChrist, tells us: “…this false prophet will be an individual person … he will not be a king, or a general of an army, but a clever apostate fallen from the episcopal dignity… he will become the first preacher of the false messiah,” (p. 24). C.C. Martindale quotes Father Allo on the false prophet in his commentary on the Apocalypse: “…the false prophet represents that vague, solvent ‘toleration,’ which was then going to become Gnosticism…the lazy, flattering notion that all creeds are finally of a muchness is, indeed, as modern as it was prevalent in ancient but decadent days. There could then, be two ‘foci’ of anti-Christianity–the openly persecuting state and the vague, subservient ‘religion,’ which the state could patronize without damage to itself.” (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, p. 1206.) (End of Will the Catholic Church Survive…? quotes)

Tying the British and French monarchies into all this, Tim Cohen writes in his Antichrist and a Cup of Tea (1998): “The Priory of Zion has in fact been more an historical tool of the English monarchy and nobility than of the French. It is of significant interest therefore that the Priory of Zion, the Temple Knights and the Rosicrucians, all of which ultimately derive from the earlier Order of Zion, together gave rise to English and French Freemasonry. Moreover in 1348…the order of the Garter became the major control point from which the English monarchy exercised its global influence… The supposed Protocols of the Elders of Zion appears not to be a Judaic work but a modified work of the Priory of Zion possibly having been altered for public consumption with the complicity of the illuminati. Nevertheless with much contrivance the work was later advanced as proof of a Jewish conspiracy…

“From 1188 to the present day, the Priory of Zion has been the benefactor of a struggle for dominance between English and French royalty and nobility. Originally a French-English oligarchical order and secret society from which came the Knights Templar and the Rosicrucians, its control came to rest largely with the English side even while a number of its grandmasters resided in France… The Merovingians and the Priory of Zion have long-awaited what the false prophet Nostradamus (also the Protestant John Locke and many Catholic prophecies so-called, which cannot always prove to be reliable) referred to as the ‘great monarch,’ the ultimate Prince of Lorraine and priest-king who would work with the Pope to establish a New World Order.” From what has been said in the opening paragraph of this blog, it appears that the identity of this “great monarch” has now been revealed by the Novus Ordo heresiarch and usurper Leo 14, who apparently has provided a throne for Charles III in what was once the Holy Place itself.

Conclusion

So now we can add to the British Israel mix the “French Connection,” something Candace Owens has recently been exploring in her podcasts after reports emerged that she was threatened with assassination by the French government for her exposure of French first lady Brigitte Macron as a biological man. She also has raised the possibility that Charlie Kirk’s assassination can be traced to French and Israeli operatives. She has noted that there seems to be some association with certain underground group symbols, namely bees, and says she has dreamt of bees. Utah’s state symbol is a beehive, as Owens has mentioned, and the state’s population is predominantly Mormon. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

“Nineteenth-century leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consciously created symbols to buttress their community. The most persistent of these pioneer symbols was the beehive.” As Tim Cohen notes, “At the highest degrees and levels Freemasonry and its plethora of cult and occult branches, which include Mormonism, Theosophy, the New Age movement and even Anton Lavey’s Church of Satan not only openly deride Christ and his work but explicitly advocate the worship and adoration of Lucifer (Satan) as a means to achieve individual godhood and World Peace.” And there are those who have labeled the New Apostolic Reformation as a sort of neo-Mormonism.

Owens tells us that the Bolsheviks have infiltrated this country and we soon will be at war. She says she does not expect to see her children grow up. She blames the Masonic founding of this country for its demise, telling us her British “priest” informed her about this. She has so much of it figured out. And yet the bees surrounding her in her dreams are frantic little messengers warning that she is caught in the web of the very thing she is trying to expose.

According to online sources, the official emblem of the Priory of Sion is partly based on the fleur-de-lis, which is found throughout Saint Sulpice (a society associated with the Priory). The emblem represents a bee, and the tradition of long-haired kings of France known as the Merovingian dynasty, including Childeric, who was found with 300 gold bees in his tomb.

Roncalli’s invalid election smoothly segued into the ascent of Paul 6 as the next usurper of the papal throne. Who was the successor of Priory Grand Master Jean Cocteau following his death in 1963? Giovanni Battista Montini, and he brazenly displayed the proofs of his Priory affiliation on his coat of arms below. Note the three fleur-de-lis bees. And what is beneath them? The beehive — even Montini’s tiara resembled a beehive, unlike that of previous true popes. The coat of arms tells us the Priory had finally captured the papacy, but that is not all

Owens’ other observations regarding Zionism and its true driving force are also realized in Paul 6. All the answers she is searching for can be satisfied in the spiritual, not the political or secular realm. But the “priests” handling her today will never reveal this. Civil governments would never have toppled had the Church not been destroyed first. Unless the abomination of desolation had entered in as Pope Paul IV predicted in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio in 1559, we would not be witnessing the wholesale triumph of Freemasonry today.

If it is really truth that Owens thirsts for, as she claims — if that is what really matters, as it should matter to all of us — then all avenues must first be exhausted to find it. She owes her listeners the true explanation for why we are facing war, the loss of our freedoms, the annihilation of our religion and culture. Faith alone will survive, Our Lady told the children at La Salette, not a mad scramble of political conspiracies mixed with what passes for that faith. Removing the linchpin that will unleash on the world the real reason why we find ourselves in this predicament is the only pathway to truth. The papal see has been usurped.  Antichrist has come, the Mass has ended, and without Christ offered on our altars daily, as Dr. Nicholas Gihr wrote in 1897, the world is doomed:

“It is by Christ’s Blood in the Mass that the anger of God is daily placated, the vengeance of the Divine judgment disarmed, that He no more curses the earth on account of man, whose mind and thoughts are prone to evil from his youth (Gen. 8:21). When this “Sacrifice for sins” shall be no longer celebrated, then ‘there remains but a certain dreadful expectation of judgment and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries’ (Heb. 10: 26-27).”