by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 29, 2023 | New Blog
+Feast of Christ the King+
The Month of November, the Poor Souls in Purgatory
Prayer Society Intention
“O blessed souls, pray for us poor miserable sinners who are in danger of being damned and losing God forever!”
When I first began to explore the traditionalist or LibTrad movement, I started out with studying prophecy and quickly realized that it gave me many possible scenarios but no concrete answers. And while I was in that phase of my development I spoke and corresponded with many starry-eyed LibTrad-type men and women who spoke as though it was almost a given that despite the chaos that had engulfed the Church, in the end everything would be fine: Christ would come to destroy his enemies and we would return to the late Middle Ages. What I couldn’t understand and was puzzled about even then was how was the Church going to go on without a true Pope?
The belief that prevailed then and still prevails runs like this: after the coming of Antichrist a great monarch would pair with a holy Pope and between the two of them they would battle to recapture the Vatican and restore the Church. But unfortunately this is now impossible because we have no pope, and no cardinals OR bishops to elect a pope. LibTrads accuse those praying at home of denying the Church’s indefectibility and making the restoration of the Church impossible. But they fail to appreciate the fact that the only individual truly indefectible and capable of guaranteeing that indefectibility was the last canonically elected Roman Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, and that the clock has now run out on electing his successor. And if that vacant and unopposed See in Rome can never be filled, and Pope Pius XII and Canon Law says it cannot, then we are on the brink of the final events in world history.
The Israeli war
U.S. support for Israel in undertaking this recent war is justified by government officials as necessary because they’re one of our primary allies. And of course this is true. But I would like to see what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a Catholic king somehow associated with the United States who needed the same type of assistance. Of course long ago secret societies made certain that there were no longer any Catholic monarchies left, or if left, that such individuals were only impotent figureheads lacking any real power. Protestants support Israel’s right to establish or defend their country in anticipation of what they believe will be the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, which a good number of Protestants teach will happen in the latter days, and perhaps even now.
While these Protestants believe that the sacrifice that will be taken away is the Jewish sacrifice, Catholics know, of course, that it was the Continual Sacrifice of the Mass that would cease, not the Jewish sacrifice. So what these Protestants anticipate according to online reports is basically: the Rapture, the coming of the Jewish Messiah/Antichrist who will reign for 3 1/2 years and halt the sacrifices, the destruction of Antichrist by Christ, the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and the restoration of Israel during a 1,000-year peace. The basis for these prophecies is found primarily in the Old Testament. But if they would only listen to and obey their Bible, teaching them about their “Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,” to whom they pretend such devotion, they would understand that:
“For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things; by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers there unto perfect: For then they would have ceased to be offered: because the worshippers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer: But in them there is made a commemoration of sins every year. For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me: Holocausts for sin did not please thee. Then said I: Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me: that I should do thy will, O God. In saying before, Sacrifices, and oblations, and holocausts for sin thou wouldest not, neither are they pleasing to thee, which are offered according to the law. Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth. In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.
“And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, forever sitteth on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool. For by one oblation he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. And the Holy Ghost also doth testify this to us. For after that he said: And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts, and on their minds will I write them: And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more. Now where there is a remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin. Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ; A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh, And a high priest over the house of God” (Hebrews, Ch. 10: v. 1-21). And it is the renewal of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross alone in His one and only true Church which from that time on satisfied for sins.
Thoughts on Christ’s Kingship
In his work, The Kingship pf Christ, Father Denis Fahey quotes as follows from the Communist Lenin: “The United states (of the world) and not only of Europe: that is the state formula of the union until the day when the complete victory of communism will bring about the definite disappearance of every state, even purely democratic.” That pretty much explains where we are today. Fahey goes on to comment, quoting from Pere Lavaud O.P., who was summarizing Thomistic principles:
“Two extreme errors are to be avoided in this question of national relations. The first is imperialism, according to which a particular nation would have the right, if it were strong enough, to lord it over the others and to realize absolute unity of temporal power on earth. From this excessive pretension there necessarily follows the ambition to dominate and enslave the spiritual power of the Church which opposes and condemns these excesses. The second extreme is internationalism which denies nations the right to distinct national life within their own frontiers and proclaims the necessity of setting up an immense world Republic. This idea is just as absurd as that of the Communists… According to the Communist doctrine, everything in the bosom of the nation must be in common amongst individuals; the family must cease to be. According to internationalism, everything in the world must be in common amongst men; nations must disappear. Communism and internationalism complete one another. That the temporal plane of a world Republic… can exist only on the spiritual plane is not less hostile to the Church than imperialism.”
Pope Benedict XV also taught: “The advent of the universal Republic which is longed for by all the worst elements of disorder and confidently expected by them is an idea which is now ripe for execution. From this Republic, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and common community of possessions, would be banished all natural distinctions nor in it would the authority of the father over his children or of the public power over the citizens or of God over human society be any longer acknowledged. If these ideas are put into practice there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard of terror” (Motu proprio Bonum sane, July 25th 1920).
Fahey explains that Christ has direct spiritual power over the faithful and indirect power over the temporal sphere. Quoting St. Thomas he writes: “Now St. Thomas distinguishes a twofold function of the grace of headship analogous to the double role exercised by the head with regard to the members of the body. ‘The head ,’ St. Thomas says, ‘has a twofold influence upon the members: an interior influence because the head transmits to the other members the power of moving and feeling; and an exterior influence of government, because by the sense of sight and the other senses which reside in it the head directs a man in his exterior actions’ (Summa III, question 8 answer 6). We must distinguish between the spiritual and the temporal kingship of Christ or between His primacy and the supernatural order and His primacy in the natural order. That this Kingdom is in a special manner spiritual and concerned with things spiritual is quite plain from the extracts from Scripture… and Christ’s own line of action confirms this view.
“To Jesus Christ then as King, Spiritual Ruler, appertains to set before the faithful the common end that they should attain and to point out to them the means of attaining it, thus guiding the exterior and visible movement of the whole Mystical Body to eternal happiness. To Jesus Christ, King, it belongs also to determine the proper sanctification for the precepts He imposes to reward and punish His subjects according to their desserts. Finally it is for Jesus Christ as King, in virtue of the work of redemption which He must accomplish to conquer His Kingdom and defend His faithful subjects against the enemies who strive to overthrow his reign here below. Christ’s spiritual Kingship is militant and the struggle against moral evil must go on as long as men remain here below exposed to suffering and death to corruption and sin. Only in eternity shall the triumph be complete by the victory of the good and the defeat of the wicked.” And Rev. Leo Haydock says the same: Christ will truly reign as King only in heaven.
Of course we know what happened that led to everything we’re seeing today regarding the dissolution of nations and the destruction of the monarchies in the past. We know from whence it came and that this was always the aim of the secret societies and has been for centuries. Not only that, but there are other forces that join themselves with the secret societies to make sure that this is accomplished; forces that have always hated the Church and will hate Her until the very last day the earth exists. And when it comes to governments, it is that fatal error that there must be this toleration of all religions which is nothing more that Liberal creed of religious indifference. In his encyclical Tametsi, Pope Leo XIII said on Nov. 1, 1900 concerning Christ our Redeemer:
“About the rights of man as they are called, the people have heard enough. It is time they should hear of the rights of God… There is no one who does not see it. Liberty as it is now understood is to say a liberty granted indiscriminately to truth and error, to good and to evil and it ends only in destroying all that is noble, generous and holy, opening the gate still wider to crime, suicide and to a multitude of the most degrading passions. When an organism perishes and corrupts it is because it had ceased to be under this action of the causes which had given it its form and constitution. To make it healthy and flourishing again it is necessary to restore it to the beautifying action of those same causes.”
And this from his encyclical letter on Human Liberty: “As to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called Liberalism. For in allowing that boundless license on which We have spoken they exceed all limits and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty.” It is necessary to point out here as we have in recent blogs the ravages of this liberalism and how it began just like Modernism began: in the heart of the Church herself. Because there were actually people who called themselves Catholic liberals and they did even more damage than Protestant liberals could ever have thought of doing. They struck from within and they continue to strike from within, which is why we now have assigned them the name LibTrads. It should never be forgotten that the ultimate goal of tolerance was to make certain that the entire playing field was leveled in this country and loyal members of the clergy fought against this for decades.
Most important in this fight were Rev. Francis J Connell and Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton who opposed all of the attempts to have religious liberty installed within the documents of the false Vatican 2 council. But they failed to move “innocent” cardinals and bishops who were promoting this even at the first session of the council, and in the end the teaching of John Courtney Murray on religious tolerance was incorporated into official council documents, complementing the promulgation of ecumenism. This meant that in America as well as other countries, no one had the right to stand up and oppose anyone who condemned Catholic teaching. It also affected the right to evangelize others and to bring them into the Catholic fold. Certain LibTrads continue this tradition by trying to inject it into the spiritual sphere by challenging the apostasy of the bishops which they say occurred in 1965 instead of on Pope Pius XII’s death in 1958. That they could find it in themselves to tolerate the very errors that led millions of people astray can be explained only by the long-entrenched error of “Catholic” liberalism.
Establishment of the Feast of Christ the King
Excerpts from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quas Primas, 1922, fixing the Feast of Christ the King for the last Sunday in October, condemns the same errors noted above.
“It has long been a common custom to give to Christ the metaphorical title of “King,” because of the high degree of perfection whereby He excels all creatures. So He is said to reign “in the hearts of men,” both by reason of the keenness of His intellect and the extent of His knowledge, and also because He is very truth, and it is from Him that truth must be obediently received by all mankind. He reigns, too, in the wills of men, for in Him the human will was perfectly and entirely obedient to the Holy Will of God, and further by his grace and inspiration He so subjects our free-will as to incite us to the most noble endeavors. He is King of hearts, too, by reason of His “charity which exceedeth all knowledge.” And His mercy and kindness which draw all men to Him, for never has it been known, nor will it ever be, that man be loved so much and so universally as Jesus Christ.
“But if we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that He may be said to have received from the Father “power and glory and a kingdom,” since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with Him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created.
“Do we not read throughout the Scriptures that Christ is the King? He it is that shall come out of Jacob to rule, who has been set by the Father as king over Sion, His holy mount, and shall have the Gentiles for His inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for His possession. In the nuptial hymn, where the future King of Israel is hailed as a most rich and powerful monarch, we read: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of Thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness.”
“There are many similar passages, but there is one in which Christ is even more clearly indicated. Here it is foretold that His kingdom will have no limits, and will be enriched with justice and peace: “In His days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace… And He shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.”
“It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute Her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings… Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a law-giver, to whom obedience is due. Not only do the gospels tell us that He made laws, but they present Him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and He promises that they shall remain in His love… All must obey His commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions He has imposed.
“On many occasions, when the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, He repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around Him in admiration and would have acclaimed Him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate He declared that His kingdom was not of this world…
“What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” We said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”
“Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the Last Judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for His kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.
“He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God.” (End of Quas Primas quotes)
***************************
“Christ … has been set by the Father as King over Sion, His holy mount… All must obey His commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions He has imposed… Also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. [The establishment of this feast] will call to their minds the thought of the Last Judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults… When the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, He repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around Him in admiration and would have acclaimed Him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate HE DECLARED THAT HIS KINGDOM WAS NOT OF THIS WORLD…”
Protestants and others ignorant of their faith would make a mockery of Christ’s very mission to suffer and die for sinners and open the gates of heaven. They would make of Him once again a worldly king, by presuming that a peace following the death of Antichrist could see a restored papacy and more or less Catholic world government. That Christ will reign as king only in heaven is something that should be apparent simply from what He Himself said. Catholic Bible commentators have opined that the destruction of the Temple described in Dan. Ch. 10:27 indicates the temple shall never be rebuilt. And the two attempts that have been made to rebuild it have resulted in the deaths of construction workers, voices sounding from heaven and all sorts of other portents indicating that it was never intended to be rebuilt. In an address to Belgian pilgrims on Sept. 6, 1938, Pius XI said: “Abraham is called our patriarch, our ancestor. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham… No, it is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism… [For] spiritually, we are Semites.”
Yes, WE are heirs to the promise made to the Jews who forfeited it in denying the true Messiah. WE are the obedient and loyal subjects of Christ, the King over Sion, and will ever profess the right to His Kingship. “Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth. In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once… The selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers there unto perfect… For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away.” Our Christ, King; Our Holy Sacrifice — this is what they have attempted to take away from us. But He shall reign forever and ever, and in the end He will come as a thief, sword in hand and crowned by His Father, to claim His earthly throne, deliver the faithful and avenge the blood of the saints and martyrs. Please join us in the consecration today to the Sacred Heart, blessed with a plenary indulgence.
Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart
(Taken from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Annum sacrum, 1899)
Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thine altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy most Sacred Heart. Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy most Sacred Heart.
Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to their Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.
Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof and call them back to the harbour of truth and unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one shepherd.
Be Thou King of all those who even now sit in the shadow of idolatry or Islam, and refuse not Thou to bring them into the light of Thy kingdom. Look, finally, with eyes of pity upon the children of that race, which was for so long a time Thy chosen people; and let Thy Blood, which was once invoked upon them in vengeance, now descend upon them also in a cleansing flood of redemption and eternal life.
Viva Cristo Rey!
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 8, 2023 | New Blog
+Feast of Corpus Christi+
For those who like to keep an eye on what passes as “news” on television and on the internet, I have a question: What among all these reports of secular madness (literally) will help us attain salvation? While some documentaries and essays are perhaps useful to help especially the younger generation understand what has happened to the world and more importantly to the Church, the majority of them are actually chockful of error, and even those that are helpful are often incomplete and/or must be mentally purged of certain things not in conformity with Catholic truth. While an eye must be kept to a certain extent on world affairs, devoting too much time to these pursuits has pulled many into error.
Even some among those praying at home routinely visit Traditionalist sites, read Traditionalist literature and even consider certain Traditionalist views as worthy of credence. We have explained before how the Church considers this a grave danger to the faith. Some Catholic truths can be found on these sites, yes; but that makes them all the more dangerous, because it is much easier to lure others into error when it is mixed with truth. Especially those articles and documentaries that profess a scientific basis have no way to be evaluated properly by Catholics, since the Church is the sole judge of what can be believed in the scientific realm.
This also applies to those chasing down endless sensationalistic conspiracy theories, both political and religious, a type of voyeurism. This unfortunate hobby often preoccupies these people to such an extent that they become discontented with simply praying at home and tending to daily duties. These are the ones, spoken of in Holy Scripture, who possess itching ears, and who, always seeking novelties, even go so far as to flirt with new alternatives to practicing their faith. Because of their carelessness and unbridled curiosity, they often succumb to those outside the Church who maintain they are justified in questioning, even denying, the Scriptural and magisterial proofs pointed out here and elsewhere.
Those preying on the weaker members among pray-at-home Catholics neglect to offer credible, verifiable proofs for what they profess, often relying on hearsay, third-hand reports and blatant misinterpretations and misrepresentations of Canon Law and Church teaching, or their own private opinions on these, which are not certainties. This despite the words of St. Paul: “But prove all things; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:2).
If true Catholics would only limit themselves to those things presented in accordance with Catholic teaching, then searching no further, they would be far better informed and far less likely to be led astray. Since politics and world affairs seem to be such a draw for many of them and have become a national pastime, also since a crucial election is looming in this country next year, it is important that (relatively recent) sources be mentioned here that are based on Catholic truth.
Democracy defined and a bold new definition of government
Australian Yves Dupont’s 1962 work The Popes and Democracy is a good primer on democracy and its development over the centuries. Unfortunately, he quotes works by John 23 and Paul 6 and recommends (in the 1976 Tenet Books edition) works by Marcel Lefebvre. On a more serious note, Dupont recklessly states that there have been several heretical popes throughout history, an opinion also voiced by Traditionalist writer Hutton Gibson. This, of course, is heretical in itself, as the Vatican Council teaches. Before reading Dupont, Catholics must FIRST read Pope St. Pius X’s entire encyclical on the Sillon, Our Apostolic Mandate, and then the ENTIRETY of those documents mentioned in Dupont’s work. Only then will the mind of the Church on democracy be sufficiently known. So those reading Dupont’s work should ever keep in mind the cautions and suggestions above, in reading this essay. But f these things are discounted, and their bearing on the topic dismissed, this work presents a good overall view of the origins of democracy and its many dangers. Yet its conclusion is deficient, for reasons seen below.
In his other works, Dupont promotes the discredited “Great Monarch” theory, shown by several sources as Protestant, even pagan in origin. He also believes the peace promised at Fatima will occur during this “monarch’s” reign, prior to the coming of Antichrist. This alone, knowing Paul 6 was Antichrist proper and the Fatima predictions are questionable, shoots down his assumptions. And so his work, while definitely worth the read (given the necessary cautions), leaves the reader with unanswered questions. Those questions are laid to rest in Prof. Disandro’s work, written at about the same time, (1966). Disandro had a much clearer picture of the end result, and he knew that what America and other countries call democracy was no such thing. To give the readers a taste of what is contained in these essays, excerpts of their content will be provided below.
Dupont on democracy
“…The basic principle of democracy, the designation of rulers from the people and by the people, is good and reasonable. But even then, its use is limited. Moreover, it is within a hierarchical and monarchical structure that it works best. The designation of rulers cannot be equated with the granting of authority; this is the error of the agnostic philosophers of the 18th century, and which is now widely accepted even among Christians… Modern Democracy is inseparable from other evils; it inevitably evolves into tyranny. These two main points have been acknowledged by countless thinkers all over the world. When numbers count more than individuals, when the community counts more than persons, when society is considered as an end for which man exists, when it is regarded as a living thing whose interests have precedence over individual interests, tyranny is sure to follow sooner or later… It does not matter whether the tyranny to which some of these evils give rise is called Bureaucracy, Plutocracy, Sociocracy, Technocracy, Fascism, Socialism or Communism, it is still the same tyranny and the only difference is a difference of emphasis. It is all rooted in Liberalism and Humanism [democracy included].”
“Like Communism, though to a lesser extent and to a lower degree, Democracy has most of the anti-Christic characteristics: craving for unlimited material power (Antichrist will want to create things), rejection of God (Secularism), and, last but not least, modern Democracy has such a wide appeal as to deceive a large number of the elect themselves. This craving for power and deceptive appearance were noted by Pius XII: ‘ … a social order which, beneath a deceptive appearance, or mask of conventional formulas, conceals a fatal weakness and an unbridled lust for profit and power’ (Christmas address,1952)… St. Thomas Aquinas, who had studied both authors, did not advocate absolute democracy, but only democratic institutions within a monarchical social structure (it being understood that the monarch should have real authority, and not be a mere figurehead). In more recent times, St. Pius X made a similar remark about tyranny – ‘Yes, truly, one can say that the Sillon (i.e. Democracy) brings in its train Socialism’ (St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate).”
Dupont duly notes that the popes were opposed to the two-party system, which can only lead to endless disputes and factional rivalries. In essence the two-party system is only a tool in the arsenal of Hegelianism, the Communist tactic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Example: Trump moves the country to the far right. Biden takes over and moves it far left. Far right is certainly where it once was from an historical standpoint, but never mind. The goal is to spread the poles so far apart than when the next man takes office, the middle will actually look more like the far right when it actually is much closer to the far left by contrast. This is true because unbeknownst to the public, their perception of it has been readjusted. Even among those who realize this, compromise seems preferable and less wearing than to continue the fight for truth and justice, And because this is really psychological warfare, the powers that be know this! We continue with quotes from Dupont:
“Being the triumph of private individual judgment as against the judgment of an elite, Modern Democracy is in politics what the Reformation was in religion. It has a complete faith in public opinion and claims that public opinion is expressed by the press and the party, or parties… Pius XI noted that representative regimes were dangerous. “It is patent that these led themselves more readily than any others to factional intrigues.” (Pius XI “Urbi Arcano Dei”). Once a party is in power, the State becomes only a means to further its ambitions and the masses become the instrument: “The masses … can be used by the State to impose its whims on the better part of the real people.” (Pius XII – Christmas 1944) Cardinal Pie noted that the first attempt at universal suffrage (in the Christian era), resulted in the release of Barabbas and the condemnation of Christ, a very striking observation which fully justifies the warning given 19 centuries later by Leo XIII, namely, not to confuse “the deceptive wishes of the multitude with truth and justice.”
“As long as we do not recognise our errors we will not be prepared to introduce any changes. Whilst the fatalism of history is a myth, the free choice of an error has fatal historic consequences. When things come to a show-down, it is probable that the western democracies will crack from within. Faced with agonising alternatives and harrowing dilemmas, the wavering middle-of-the-course leaders will gradually give way to more resolute and more extremist Leftist politicians. Then, the transition from Socialism to Communism will be a speedy process. A global war is unlikely, but that does not mean that there will be no fighting at all. Nor does it mean that the struggle will be over, but only that our social order, as such, will collapse… If Communism is to be a divine punishment, (we have seen that it is, and the Fatima message, among others, gives an implicit confirmation), it is logical to expect that it should score a temporary victory…” (End of Dupont quotes)
And here we quote something from Pope St. Pius X that Dupont does not quote, something that is yet another example of the ability of this great saint to foresee the future: “Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train. We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men who become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”… [For they say]: “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.” (St. Pius X, “Our Apostolic Mandate”).
What Dupont envisioned above was not to be. No Great Monarch, no Fatima peace, even temporary, because the faithful failed to sufficiently practice prayer and penance prior to World War II. What happened instead is exactly what Pope St. Pius X predicted. One thing Dupont states that must especially be taken to heart is the fact that we might still expect a miracle to save us, but only if we prove to Our Lord we are willing to fight; and to this I add make sacrifices, especially in avoiding all non-Catholic sects and their services. But this is not what happened following Vatican 2.
Catholics allowed themselves to be lured into a state of complacency and a distrust, bordering on contempt, of the papacy. And since the papacy has been taken away and cannot be restored by the hierarchy, something those claiming to be “valid” priests and bishops allowed, with the concurrence of the “educated” laity, it is certainly apparent that God will not count this as a willingness to fight for the Church. The game, however, was already over when Pope Pius XII died. And although Dr. Disandro laid out a very fine plan for reviving Catholic rule in Argentina, using democratic principles, this did not transpire either because there were then no Catholics left to fight for it and put it into practice and/or because the rot was already beyond rooting out. Yet he left us with a much better description of government today, something Dupont with his Lefebvrist-Traditionalist mindset did not anticipate and therefore could not describe. Disandro defined it as synarchy.
What is Synarchy?
Wikipedia defines this noun as “…rule by a secret elite. The word synarchy is used, especially among French and Spanish speakers, to describe a shadow government or deep state, a form of government where political power effectively rests with a secret elite, in contrast to an oligarchy where the elite is or could be known by the public.” And so America is in the grips of this sinister form of government, a fact even openly admitted by certain politicians, and cannot and must not be referred to any longer as a democracy. Regarding Disandro’s understanding of it specifically, the authors below explain:
“Synarchy is a belief in the existence of a global network sustained by forces as diverse as capitalism, communism, Freemasonry and Zionism, claimed to be working together to undermine the spiritual, material and territorial integrity of a country. Our analysis reconstructs the projection and impact of such conspiracy theories in Argentina during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. While we distinguish between anti-Semitic trends and the broader hold of Conspirationism in Argentina, we show that narratives about a conspiring Synarchy, with roots in early 20th-century radical nationalist and right-wing Catholic circles, were adopted – albeit without anti-Semitic purposes – by Juan Domingo Perón following the coup that toppled him from power in 1955… While not necessarily anti-Semitic, the suspicion of an underground affected the imaginary of society, spilling at times and under certain circumstances into explicit anti-Semitism.
“Perón relied on others, among them the Catholic nationalist philologist Carlos Disandro, a central figure in a group of far-right Peronist university instructors and students… Disandro had impressed General Perón with an essay on the Synarchy that he delivered in person in Madrid in 1966. In a letter thanking Disandro, the leader expressed his admiration: “Your excellent work deepens analysis and profoundly depicts the problem of Argentina, as it [the country] became submissive to the strategy of Synarchy power … ” (Perón 1966)… For Disandro, Synarchy was demarcated by a sort of agreement between the “pseudo- empires” of the United States and the Soviet Union, which, even if appearing as strongly opposed, would subjugate the “spiritual essence” of the other nations of the world. To this kind of plot, Disandro added post-Vatican II Catholicism and Judaism, through what he called “the myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition” (Piglia 2007; Graf, Fathi, and Paul 2011; Conspirationism_Synarchism_and_the_long_shadow_of_Perón_in_Argentina (Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 2018).
And in another work we find:
“For Disandro, as he writes in his essay, the power of the United States constitutes a pseudo-empire, whose capitalist plot seeks technocratic rulership over the old and crumbling works of liberalism. The Soviet power, in turn, is another pseudo-empire, whose socialist-communist framework has been built on the disastrous results of iniquitous wars and sinister plans. The Soviet Union and the United States are veiled invaders that threaten the Nation. That is why he cries out…: ‘Total war against the invader, consolidation of the entitative Justice of the Nation, establishment of a foundational State, forged by Argentines, with the joyful consecration of the Argentine land.’
“The enemies it faced were powerful: not only the Soviet Union and the United States, but also Zionism and a Catholic Church ruled from the Vatican by a communist infiltrator known as John XXIII. To encompass all these enemies, Disandro lumped them together in a blurry category – ‘the agents of the international synarchy’” [blurry because they remain incapable of being identified! – Ed.]. “In his essay The Synarchic Conspiracy and the Argentine State, he writes that “Synarchy, according to its etymological background, means the radical convergence of principles of power at work in the world since the origins of mankind. This convergence of opposed principles of power is what indicates that we are in a new moment in the process of world government, because this has until now not occurred, neither in the Illuminist lodges of the 17th and 18th centuries, nor in the revolutions of the 19th century; it occurs instead in the 20th century, after the process of liquidation of the world wars.” By Eduardo Anguita and Daniel Cecchini (https://ormulus.substack.com/p/carlos-disandro-the-quiet-classics?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2)
In a later essay, Disandro would describe the actual foundational state, based on Catholic principles. He excoriates the writings of Paul 6 confidante Jacques Maritain on integral humanism and the “Christian Democracy” tenets promoted by Giorgio Montini, father of Paul 6. He also writes a very telling description of traditionalism, one that should be remembered by all. He explains that genuine traditionalism, the type mentioned by Pope St. Pius X in his Our Apostolic Mandate, is the kind that recognizes God as its source and the Catholic Church acting as the representative of God’s Son on earth. The second type of Traditionalism “…has to do with the men, institutions, events, etc., that constitute the logical surface phenomenon but whose validity depends on the correct relation with their sources. That is why it has been said above that this aspect tends toward frequent errors.”
This description refers not only to the Church, making those not properly related to their Apostolic sources and guarantors invalid, but to the State, when in violation of its own laws and founding documents. In the second instance, Disandro writes, “This relationship is not guaranteed, and the Nation is not obliged to safeguard something which would mean its suicide.” In other words, Godless men do not come from the proper source, even if according to the popular understanding — no matter how false it may be — that this country was founded as “one nation under God.” Because that relationship is not guaranteed and we cannot know what the people who govern us truly believe or think, this country has ceased to exist as a democracy and can now be defined as a synarchy.
And in that synarchy, Disandro states: “…there are religious powers at play, embodied in the vast manoeuvring of Judeo-Christianity, whose visible manifestation is ecumenism, contrary to the best religious and patriotic traditions. These synarchical powers are… opposed to national sovereignty… The Nation is independent of global centralizing tendencies, and its destiny should not be submitted for any reason to the dictates of destructive international powers: money, banks, propaganda, military-political technology, esoteric sects, etc. Each of these factors should be studied in order to overcome its attacks and ambushes, because they seek to CRUSH THE NATION” (emph. his). So here we see the denunciation of globalization with its many evils and the very complaints that are being voiced by those categorized as “the radical right.” But that faction makes three fatal mistakes:
1) They fail to insist that no country can be successfully ruled without acknowledging God as the ultimate source of any power held by its leaders and without obedience to His laws.
2) If they demand God be recognized as the founder of this nation, as some do, they recognize Him only in way of a God who considers all religions on an equal footing, a heresy.
3) None of them proclaim that unless the spiritual situation is addressed and resolved first, then no possible hope of “draining the swamp” can ever be realized. Swamp creatures or those secretly aligned with them cannot police themselves.
Pope Pius XII on the duty of voting
God alone can deliver us from the rule of overlords empowered by Satan; man is helpless to do this himself. This brings us to the question: How must Catholics view this since they are commanded by Pope Pius XII to vote in elections, as pointed out by our Spanish readers? The pope teaches: “IT IS A STRICT DUTY FOR ALL WHO HAVE THE RIGHT, MEN OR WOMEN, TO PARTICIPATE IN ELECTIONS. WHOEVER ABSTAINS, ESPECIALLY OUT OF COWARDICE, COMMITS A GRAVE SIN, A MORTAL FAULT. Everyone has to vote according to the dictates of his own conscience. Now, it is evident that the voice of this conscience imposes on every sincere Catholic the duty to give his vote to those candidates, or to those lists of candidates, WHO REALLY OFFER SUFFICIENT GUARANTEES TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF GOD AND OF THE SOULS OF MEN, for the real good of individuals, families and society, ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF GOD AND CHRISTIAN MORAL DOCTRINE” (Address to the Delegates of the International Conference on Emigration, 17 October 1951).
When Pius XII made this statement there was still some hope that things could be reversed, and that voting for moral, God-fearing candidates could effect this reversal. That is not the case today, as Dr. Disandro explains, especially given the demise of the Church. So can ANY of the candidates in the running in this country today truthfully be said to offer these guarantees?! Or are they all members of this synarchy whose intent is well-expressed above, and who, despite their rhetoric, cannot be trusted to even honor the promises they make to the public? The answer to this question is anything but clear. But we cannot proceed to make such a decision based on agenda-driven documentaries and videos, conflicting reports from the media or assumptions, either, since truth has become an almost unobtainable commodity these days.
We can judge only by the good fruits we see as attributable to such people, by external actions, as Canon Law teaches regarding such situations. All we can do is follow what Pope Pius XII teaches and vote for the person who seems most sincerely committed to upholding the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, guaranteeing our right to at least practice the Catholic faith. We cannot be faulted if somehow we should err, but did so only to follow what the pope has taught. Yes, we have the ironclad responsibility to vote even for the lesser of two evils, as long as we can be relatively certain that the candidates(s) for whom we vote at least appear to be sincere about protecting the right of freedom of religion. As St. Robert Bellarmine has observed: “For men are not bound, or able to read hearts;” but must be judged by their external works. There is no guarantee of course that our candidate will win, but there could always be a defector buried in the bowels of the synarchy.
May the Holy Ghost enlighten and guide us in these evil times
(See recent additions to Mr. Javier Morell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Handbook here.)
by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 14, 2023 | New Blog
+St. Justin, Martyr+
As seen in our last blog, Manuel Lacunza y Diaz , S.J. was the individual specifically mentioned in the condemnation issued by the Holy Office in 1944 against Millenarianism and entered itno the Acta Apostolica Sedis. It is important to completely understand the implications of this renewed condemnation from the Holy Office, the original being issued in 1824, because it has not been generally discussed nor explained. From what we can learn about Lacunza without access to a Catholic interpretation of his work, he falsely taught that:
–The Apocalypse should be interpreted literally, not mystically or spiritually.
– Antichrist will be more akin to a moral system, not just an individual man.
– During the worst of Antichrist’s persecution, Christ will gather the elect up into the clouds to escape – the basis for the Protestant rapture theory.
– Christ will come to destroy Antichrist and his system, ending that age.
– The “end of the age” and “end of the world” refer to two different times.
– One age will end and a new age of peace lasting 1,000 years or more will begin, with Christ visibly reigning on earth with His resurrected saints.
– The hierarchy (at least the bishops) and some faithful Catholics will reign with Christ.
– Following the 1,000 plus years of peace, “the dragon will once again be loosed… to deceive the whole world,” THENthe world will end.
– But the world will not be destroyed by fire, even after the “reign of peace.”
Defining Millenarianism
The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia tells us: “Millenarianism, as understood by Christian writers, may be set forth as follows: At the end of time Christ will return in all His splendour to gather together the just, to annihilate hostile powers, and to found a glorious kingdom on earth for the enjoyment of the highest spiritual and material blessings… The duration of this glorious reign of Christ and His saints on earth, is frequently given as one thousand years. Hence it is commonly known as the “millennium”, while the belief in the future realization of the kingdom is called “millenarianism” (or “chiliasm”, from the Greek chilia, scil. ete)… The roots of the belief in a glorious kingdom, partly natural, partly supernatural, are found in the hopes of the Jews for a temporal Messiah and in the Jewish apocalyptic.”
Leo J. Trese in The Faith Explained, (Fides Publishers, 1959), speaking of those who take Apoc. 20:6 literally, writes: “St. John, describing a prophetic vision (Apoc. 20:1-6), says that the devil will be bound and imprisoned for a thousand years, during which the dead will come to life and reign with Christ; at the end of the thousand years the devil will be released and finally vanquished forever, and then will come the second resurrection… Those who do take this passage literally and believe that Jesus will come to reign upon earth for a thousand years before the end of the world are called millenarists… This view, however, does not agree with Christ’s own prophecies and millenarianism is rejected by the Catholic Church as a heresy” (p. 182). Compare the above definitions to Lacunza’s idea of the 1,000 years and the conversion of the Jews during that time: “If the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse is to be literally understood, Jesus Christ himself with all his saints now risen, ought actually to reign in Jerusalem over the whole orb of the earth, and that for a thousand years…”
No spiritual period of peace
Given these definitions of Millenarianism, it is difficult to see how Lacunza’s teaching is “moderated” in any way. For the Holy Office decision begins by describing Lacunza’s system as already moderated or mitigated, then states that “It is not possible to teach systematic Millenarianism, even if moderated…” So how was it moderated given the Catholic Encyclopedia definition, written three decades earlier? St. Augustine of Hippo answers this difficulty in his The City of God, where he describes the beliefs of the early (Jewish-influenced) Chiliasts:
“Those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity…. They who believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may reproduce by the name of Millenarians…” Yet St. Augustine also noted that a period of peace or “sabbath rest” is indeed a valid interpretation of Apocalypse, Ch. 20 as long as the Millenarinist interpretation is not intended.” He explains:
“…As if it were a fitting thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period [of a “thousand years”], a holy leisure after the labors of six thousand years since man was created… [and] there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years… And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints, in that Sabbath, shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God… (Bk.10, Ch. 7, The City of God).
After explaining that many Catholics anticipate a triumph of Christ’s Church on earth prior to the Second Coming, a “happy era of human sanctity” where Christ the King would predominate spiritually, not physically, Rev. Anscar Vonier, O.S.B. comments: “Such an occurrence is not excluded, is not impossible, it is not at all certain that there will not be a prolonged period of triumphant Christianity before the end… If before that final end there is to be a period, more or less prolonged, of triumphant sanctity, such a result will be brought about not by the apparition of the person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church” (The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, MacMillan Co., 1959, p. 1140, from the Theological Commission of 1952, which is a Magisterial document).
All this would be just fine if all these powers of sanctification remained in place as they were instituted by Christ, with a pope and hierarchy to oversee them. But how is any of this supposed to come about if the structure of the Church no longer exists, and only a scant few Catholics remain faithful to Her teachings? If we believe this is possible it seems that we fall into another error condemned by the Church, also described in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Millenarianism:
“The fantastic views of the apocalyptic writers (Joachim of Floris, the Franciscan-Spirituals, the Apostolici), referred only to a particular form of spiritual renovation of the Church, but did not include a second advent of Christ. The “emperor myths,” which prophesied the establishment of a happy, universal kingdom by the great emperor of the future, contain indeed descriptions that remind one of the ancient Sybilline and millenarian writings…” According to Joachim of Fiore, an age of the Holy Ghost would succeed the Old Testament age of the Father and the New Testament age of the Son, another reference to the different “ages.” Instead of the Second Coming, Joachim taught that a new age of peace and brotherhood would begin, and a newly spiritualized version of man would emerge. In his writings, this “age of the laity,” so to speak, would make the hierarchy almost unnecessary. He also taught that Babylon in Apocalypse meant Rome and a pope would become the Antichrist. Rome condemned his writings (DZ 431-433), but not him by name.
Here we even see a pagan version of the Great Monarch, which shows the true origin of this fable. And since Joachim of Fiore’s idea of a lay spiritual revival is also condemned, there can be scarcely any hope of even a brief period of a peace following the death of Antichrist, as mentioned in Part 1, since we have no pope and no hierarchy, nor any means to re-establish the papacy. Those expecting such a peace point to Fatima of course, but as stated earlier, that peace was NOT unconditional, as Fatima promoters claim. It was entirely dependent on the consecration of Russia (IF this was indeed what Our Lady requested) prior to World War II by Pope Pius XI, and a sufficient number of Catholics praying the Rosary and performing works of penance.
This obviously did not happen, and the third secret, which was never officially revealed to us, came to pass: the destruction of the Church. Mary’s Immaculate Heart will triumph at the end of the world at the death of Antichrist, when all heresies are destroyed. It is beyond me how anyone could think that after the earth has been soiled by so many sacrileges and blasphemies, horrid, heart-rending crimes against children, Satan worship, all manner of impurity, the blood of countless martyrs and so many other evils, anyone would want to remain here to enjoy some kind of “peace.” Please count me out. I want only to be taken away to Heaven — please God may it be possible — with Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, to enjoy that “peace of God… which surpasseth all understanding” (Phil. 4:4).That is the peace we should all be longing for and praying for.
Antichrist will be a specific individual
Had the Jesuits Ribera, St. Robert Bellarmine and other commentators been less focused on defending the papacy against the attacks of the Protestants ad infinitum, and more intent on presenting a clearer picture of what could realistically be expected in the end times based on the teachings of Pope Paul IV and Holy Scripture, we might have been better able to sort out what to expect today. But obviously God wished to keep it hidden until the very end. And the Jesuits had their mission directly from the popes, so could never have deviated from it. They could not have afforded to use Pope Paul IV’s teaching in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio to defend the papal Antichrist theory for this would only have confirmed the possibility of identifying the papacy with Antichrist, and this would have placed the Reformers’ focus on every papal election, looking for the appearance of the Beast. This is probably why the bull was downplayed and deep-sixed so to speak, until our own times. It is humbling to think it may have been written specifically for us, to help identify the true Antichrist when he arrived.
And that Antichrist proper would be a certain, identifiable individual, as Pope Paul IV indicated, and not just a system, as Lacunza falsely taught, cannot be dismissed as a matter of speculation, or an uncertainty. This is brought out by Michael Gruenthaner, S. J., in a 1942 article for the Homiletic and Pastoral Review. He writes:
“Modern theologians base their definition of Antichrist on the passages of St. John’s epistles and all the words of St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2: 1-12. On the authority of these texts they regard it as certain that Antichrist will be an individual human being endowed with the qualities outlined in these texts who will appear at the end of time and will be destroyed by Christ at his second coming. It is apparent that this explanation of the texts in question does not belong to the deposit of faith and is not necessarily connected with this deposit, for the theologians do not declare that it must be accepted as such; they merely pronounce it as certain… In view, however, of the unanimous consent of the fathers and the theologians it would be imprudent to deny that the doctrine of an individual Antichrist is contained either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures unless we have cogent arguments to the contrary.”
While Gruenthaner may believe that to deny this teaching is only “imprudent,” the Vatican Council teaches it is more than that. In DZ 1788 we read: “In order to restrain impetuous minds… We, renewing the decree [of the Council of Trent], declare that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. And for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”
This is an order to hold the teaching of the Fathers and theologians both as the TRUE sense of Sacred Scripture, and if someone were to claim that it was permitted to do otherwise they would be denying the authority of the Vatican Council. Therefore we must believe that Antichrist IS an individual man. And at least one theologian, Rev. Jean Allo, a well-respected French scripture scholar, has opined that Antichrist is also a “collective personality, the entire series of those working in behalf of Satan to the end of time” as Gruenthaner notes; “a malevolent power” exercised by a series of antichrists “culminating in” (or emanating from) a particular man. This avoids Lacunza’s error and defines our own situation.
St. Bernard and Pope Paul IV define Antichrist
To be clear, this system of Antichrist both culminates in Paul 6 and emanates from him. The Church has repeatedly referred to antipopes throughout Her history as antichrists. St. Bernard of Clairvaux openly called the antipope Anacletus II Antichrist. Championing Pope Innocent II, St. Bernard wrote: “Behold Innocent the Christ, the anointed of the Lord… They that are of God willingly adhere to him whilst opposed to him stand Antichrist and his followers. We have seen the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place to attain which the antipope burned with fire the sanctuary of God. He persecutes Innocent and with him all innocence… [He is] that beast of the Apocalypse, to whom has been given a mouth speaking blasphemy and power to wage war against the saints (Apoc. 13:5-7) …He has seated himself in the Chair of Peter. The holy place he covets, not for its holiness, but for its height. He has, I say, got possession of the holy place [but] not through the merit of his life. The election whereof he boasts is but a cloak for his malice. To call it an election at all is an impudent lie.”
Is not this the absolute confirmation of what Pope Paul IV would teach 400 years later? Who is this antipope but the ‘Son of Perdition (2 Thess. 2:3), who has tried to seduce the Church throughout the ages? How can it NOT fit Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Baptiste Montini? Include Pope Paul IV’s definition of the abomination of desolation as a heretic, apsotate or schismatic, invalidly elected, followed by a series of successors including the Man of Sin, and we have the complete picture. And it is in perfect agreement with what is described in the Book of Daniel and in the Apocalypse. Roncalli and Montini were collaborators, even before their “elections.” They had worked out the details of their system over an extended period of time in the star chambers of the Illuminati. As Pope Pius XII’s pro-secretary of state, Montini had established a worldwide network of clerical spies during World War II to keep a close eye on world events and bring about both the success of his father’s Christian Democrat party and his own election.
The three years-and-a-half came and went
The three years and a half (1,260 days) all assume to be the brief duration of Antichrist’s reign is described by many commentators as only the heighth or pinnacle of his reign of terror. This might be counted from Paul 6’s address to the United Nations Oct. 4, 1965 to the official promulgation of the Novus Ordo on April 3, 1969 — exactly three years and a half. He appeared at the United Nations only two weeks after the passage of the schema on religious liberty by the council fathers –1,997 to 224 — the schema endorsing the teachings of John Courtney Murray S.J., so fiercely opposed by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. His address to the UN was a victory speech, a celebration of the destruction of the Church initially set in motion by the U.S. government itself as declassified CIA documents prove. There he proclaimed: “Behold the day we have awaited for centuries.” He thereby surrendered the Church’s supremacy in teaching and belief before the world and Her undeniable requirement for membership in Her ranks in order to secure eternal salvation.
And then of course there was the horrendous revision of all the sacramental rites in 1968, a year many have pointed to as a chaotic watershed year for both the nation and the anti-Church. The Sacraments instituted by Christ, which Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII taught could never be touched in their essentials, were reduced to the mere symbols prescribed by the Modernists. And this necessarily coincided with the liturgical changes, already in full swing, since the heighth of Antichrist’s reign could not have been complete without the abolition of the Continual Sacrifice.
Cessation of the Continual Sacrifice
Of course the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae was only the abrogation of what the public believed to be the true “Latin” Mass but was really the corrupted John 23 missal. The true abrogation of the Mass of Pope St. Pius V occurred with the promulgation of John 23rd’s missal. But the corruption of the Consecration of the Wine (translating “for many” from the Latin into English as “for all men”) appeared with the issuance of dialogue Mass booklets for the laity in January 1959. Here we see gradualism at its finest, a gradualism Xavier Rynne, in his Vatican Council IIascribes to Montini as follows: “Pope Paul was firmly committed to gradualism as a policy of action and to middle-of-the road solutions as a goal” (p. 447). And gradualism has long been a Communist tool, but then Saul Alinksy and Montini were great friends, so…
This cessation of the Continual Sacrifice is yet another biblical prophecy that is confirmed by the unanimous opinion of the Fathers. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning tells us, in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy:“The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” And yet so very few among the commentators note this necessary identifying mark of the Sea Beast, the Man of Sin, even though it was the completion of the Great Revolt. All know and readily admit it was the final straw following the false Vatican 2 council that led to nearly half of all those then identifying as Catholic to leave the anti-Church. By departing, they fulfilled Christ’s prophecy in Matt. 26:31: that the sheep would scatter once God Himself struck the shepherd, implicitly acknowledging the fact that the Man of Sin was then reigning.
Conclusion
So there are three truths which we cannot doubt: the two which rest on the unanimous opinion of the Fathers regarding the Man of Sin and the Continual Sacrifice; and the third being the definition of the abomination of desolation by first St. Bernard and then finally and infallibly, Pope Paul IV in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. For Paul IV explained the mystery of 2 Thess. 2 regarding “he who withholdeth” as the papacy and the Church, and how they could be taken out of the way, something Henry Cardinal Manning explains in his work, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ. Although Manning does not refer to Paul IV’s Bull, because even then he could not do so without raising Protestant speculation, it is clear that he believed Antichrist could reign only in the absence of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff and the Apostolic College. And so he did.
Could the three and a half years also apply to the time Satan is loosed, when the papacy is renounced and Satan himself unleashed as the world’s religious leader proceeds to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple? Some commentators believe there will be two three and a half year periods, but they are very few. The mention of this in Chapter 20 of Apocalypse indicates Satan himself will descend on the “camp of the saints” and inspire what Rev. Haydock describes as “the last persecution of Antichrist” by Gog and Magog, which some believe is Russia and its leader in league with China and other nations. If we live in the time after antichrist described by St. Thomas Aquinas, which I believe that we do, the three and a half years are past. Satan and his hordes will come quickly and the battle of Armageddon will be waged as described in Chap. 16 of Apocalypse. This I have detailed at some length here and here.
The Church has never endorsed the literal interpretation of Apocalypse. And yet all the horrors of Antichrist perpetrated on the faithful are presented as physical events, not spiritual ones. Christ warned us: “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10: 28). The intellect is the seat of the soul, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “The intellectual soul is sometimes called intellect, as from its chief power; and thus we read (De Anima i, 4), that the “intellect is a substance.” And in this sense also Augustine says that the mind is spirit and essence (De Trin. ix, 2; xiv, 16)… Wherefore it follows not that the intellect is the substance of the soul, but that it is its virtue and power.”
Antichrist has conducted a relentless war of fraud and deceit, lying illusions, and false miracles on the intellect that has robbed nearly all who were once Catholic of their faith. His war is not primarily a physical one, although certainly it has had its physical aspects. And certainly Satan’s onslaught as the last antichrist may end in unimaginable carnage. These are things we cannot know; everything written here and all that was written by the commentators is speculation. While it may be much easier to see into the future as we witness prophecy being fulfilled, only the event itself will reveal the truth.
“Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops” (Matt. 10: 26-27). We hear you, dear Lord.
Mr. Javier Morell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide, Pt. 6
(Sorry for misspelling your name in past blogs!)
- Fable that the Magisterium should not be interpreted literally.
The false prophets accuse those who rely on the Magisterium of being rigorous zealots for wanting to expose them, since they allege that it is barbaric and unfair to want to interpret everything to the letter, but that is a blatant lie, as well as blasphemy. Because belief and adherence to the Magisterium is a matter of Catholic faith, which tells us that “the See of Peter always remains free from all error.” Basically, the great problem of these sophists who are expert in misrepresenting everything is they have convinced themselves that the infallible Magisterium of the Vicars of Christ was a matter of purely human faith, like private revelations, when in reality it is a question of Catholic faith. Therefore, whoever does not respectfully believe and yield obedience to the Magisterium divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost for the edification and government of the souls that make up the Mystical Body, whoever does not believe this, commits a sin against the Holy Ghost, make no mistake about it. There is no excuse whatsoever for those professional charlatans posing as Catholic clergy.
- Fable that we ought to recognize antipope Bergoglio, alias “Francis”, along with the other usurpers of the Papacy starting from masonic agent Angelo Roncalli, since the laity would have no authority to determine whether or not they are heretics, so we would be somehow forced to submit to these enemies of God, resisting them when they make mistakes, because absolute obedience is not due to the “popes” (?), alleging sophistically that “we must obey God before men.” [Acts 5, 29]
The answer to this absurd fallacy is very simple, since it is not we, simple laymen, who determine that the See is Vacant, but it is heresy itself that determines it, since a public and notorious heretic [from Roncalli to Bergoglio] cannot be Pope, since the Magisterium of the Catholic Church establishes very clearly that a person who departs from the Catholic Faith and commits heresy cannot be Pope, without the need for a subsequent express declaration to that effect, as decreed by Pope Paul IV in his Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio promulgated in perpetuity. This admonition of the first Vicar of Christ and the rest of the Apostles in Acts 5:29 has been maliciously distorted to try and turn it into carte blanche to disobey the Supreme Pontiff, but the “luminary” who came up with such an impious interpretation completely forgot about Luke 10:16. There we read that whoever hears blessed Saint Peter and his Apostles, hears Our Lord, and whoever despises them, despises Christ and His heavenly Father that sent Him. For the Pope is sweet Christ on earth, so he that hears the Pope, hears Christ and His Eternal Father. Quoting his Holiness Pope Pius XII: “By mysterious designs of the Providence, WE HAVE BEEN CALLED TO BE here below the Vicar and representative of Jesus Christ, THE LIVING IMAGE OF GOD INCARNATE” (September 30, 1939.)
Basically, it is about the same perverse fallacy held by hypocritical heretic Marcel Lefebvre and his unfortunate spiritual offspring of the SSPX sect, thus showing their null catholicity by recognizing and resisting on multiple occasions those whom they considered as “popes”, that is, antichrists Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and now Bergoglio, “ignoring” that the Pope is the Successor of Saint Peter, and that the Episcopal Body, which is the Catholic Bishops in communion with the Pope. The Bishops validly and licitly consecrated, with a mission received from the Pope, are the successors of the Apostles. Hence, if anyone dares to disobey the Pope, he is disobeying God. It is of Catholic and Divine faith that the Holy Church is exempt from all error, and furthermore Christ and his vicar constitute a single Head [cf Unam sanctam, Mystici Corporis Christi]. Therefore, to maintain that the passage from Acts 5:29 would enable anyone to disobey the Pope is blatant blasphemy typical of charlatans like hypocritical heretic Lefebvre.
The malice of this sophistry is enormous, since to dare claim that the Pope, the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the most holy head in the entire world, who is also the Head of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, the most holy and immaculate Body that ever existed; to even venture that such a Head can fail or err is intolerable impiety and gross blasphemy. In another age, the Holy Office would never have allowed such a degree of audacity and irreverence, which constitutes a very grave sin against the Holy Ghost as it maliciously suggests that the Paraclete would be wrong when speaking through the mouth of the Pontiffs.
- Fable of appealing for adherence to a “future Pope” who, according to the “Traditionalist” impostors, would confirm and legalize (!?) the multiple irregularities and transgressions committed by those wretches, who insolently pretend to be nothing less than “successors of the Apostles.” (!?)
Based on this false logic, many of these hirelings and soul thieves have impiously dared to erect “religious foundations” and to profess “solemn vows”, carrying out according to them the “apostolic mission” for which they have been called (!?), trusting in a future “Pope” who will give his approval to such desecrations, which is utter madness. The answer to such arrogance is simple, and it is provided by Pope Pius II: “Who will not find it ridiculous, when the appeals are made for what does not exist and for the time of whose future existence no one knows?”
Pope Pius II, Execrabilis, 1460.
From which it automatically follows that without Jurisdiction provided by the Pope there is no Apostolicity, and without the Pope there is no Jurisdiction [cf Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentem, Apostolorum Principis Sepulcrum), all those pretentious charlatans being only intruders, that is, non-Catholics.“Legitimate mission is that which comes from the one who has the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven or of the Church, who is the Pope. Thus, the intruding bishops or those who separate from obedience to the Roman Pontiff, ARE NOT SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES, BUT THIEVES, as Jesus Christ calls them, and we must flee from them as sheep flee from wolves.” (Saint Anthony Mary Claret, 1849, The Fourth Mark of the Church: Apostolic)
“To become a successor of the Apostles, it is necessary to be received into the body of the Apostles, into that body that Christ gave power to govern His Church. Thus, even at the time of the Apostles, their successors were appointed… Jurisdiction is possessed only by those in communion with and under the obedience of the supreme head of the Church… The Roman Catholic Church is apostolic because the body of their teachers and rulers legitimately succeed the Apostles. The apostolicity of the teaching body of the Church is for us a guarantee for the apostolicity of the doctrine and the sacraments of the Church, and of all its permanent institutions. Being the successors of the Apostles, the bishops cannot carry out their office independently of the Pope, their supreme head, because the apostles recognized Saint Peter as their supreme head…
“The dependence of the bishops on the Pope is even greater than that of the Apostles on Peter; because the Apostles, having received the extraordinary mission of preaching the Gospel… also received an extraordinary power from Our Lord they did not transmit to their successors… Individual bishops do not inherit this extraordinary power… The bishop… invested with the episcopal dignity by the clergy or even by a chapter, contrary to the laws of the Church… is an intruder. All those who support a priest, bishop or diocesan administrator who has not legitimately received his mission from the Pope, and all who relate to him in spiritual matters, are, like the one they support, treated by the Church as schismatics, because by such action they separate themselves from the unity of the Church.” (Rev. Wilhelm Wilmers, Handbook of the Christian Religion, 1891).
“Apostolicity of mission means the Church is a moral body, that it possesses the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and that it is transmitted through them and their legitimate successors in an uninterrupted chain of the current representatives of Christ on earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes apostolic succession. This apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consists of the royal succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the apostolic age to the present; the formal adds the element of authority in the transmission of power; It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ on his Apostles. No one can give a power he does not possess. Therefore, in tracing the location of the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no gap can be allowed, no new mission can emerge; rather, the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through legal and uninterrupted succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those rightfully appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry.
“Any interruption in this succession destroys apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series that is not Apostolic. “How will they preach if they are not sent?” (Rom. 10, 15). An authoritative teaching mission is absolutely necessary, a mission entrusted by a man is not authoritative. Hence any concept of apostolicity that excludes the authoritative union of the apostolic mission robs the ministry of its divine character. Apostolicity, or apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus on the Apostles must pass from them to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world/consummation of the age. This notion of apostolicity is derived from the words of Christ himself, the practice of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians of the Church.
“Apostolicity is not found in any other Church. This is a necessary consequence of the unity of the Church. If there is only one true Church, and if the Catholic Church, as just pointed out, is Apostolic, it follows that no other Church is Apostolic. All the sects that reject the episcopate, by the very fact make the apostolic succession impossible, since they destroy the channel through which the apostolic mission is transmitted. Historically, the beginnings of all of these churches date back to a period of time after the time of Christ and the Apostles. As for the Greek Church, it is enough to point out that it lost the apostolic succession by withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the legitimate successors of Saint Peter in the See of Rome. The same is true of Anglican claims to continuity (MacLaughlin, “Divine Plan of the Church”, 213; and, Newman, “Diff. Of Angl.”, Lecture 12), for the very fact of separation destroys their jurisdiction. They have based their claims on the validity of Anglican orders. However, these have been declared invalid. But even if they were valid, the Anglican Church would not be apostolic, for jurisdiction is essential to the apostolicity of mission. A study of the organization of the Anglican Church shows that it is completely different from the Church established by Jesus Christ.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907).
- Fable that the Montinian, Novus Ordo or conciliar sect is our only enemy, cunningly seeking to exempt their “traditionalist” franchises from any responsibility. It is a reiteration of the “Non Una Cum” fable, used as a perverse mantra by the false prophets of the Thucist schism and the ex-Lefebvrist false wandering clergy.
Resolution of this fable:
If you and your followers state day in day out that the Conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, but a non-Catholic sect that has broken with Catholicism, then absolutely all the Catholic Bishops, whether validly and licitly consecrated by His Holiness Saint Pius X, His Holiness Benedict XV, His Holiness Pius XI or His Holiness Pius XII who defected to the Conciliar sect, ipso facto ceased to be Catholic Bishops [cf Canon 188.4, Cum ex Apostolatus officio] by their public abandonment of the Catholic Faith, ipso facto losing their ecclesiastical offices and their jurisdiction, not the character of the order, which is indelible, that is, indelible as long as the order has been received, of course.
On the other hand, if you state actively and passively that His Holiness Pius XII is the last true Pope, who bound in heaven that the power of Jurisdiction only reaches the Bishop through the Pope [cf Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentem, Apostolorum Principis Sepulcrum], who made it clear that the current discipline for the consecration of Catholic Bishops is reserved exclusively to the Pope, and that no Bishop can proceed to it without a certain apostolic mandate (Canon 953), and whoever consecrates without permission from the Pope ends up being excommunicated (Acta Apostolica Sedis 43 (1951) pp 217-218) and suspended ipso facto (Canon 2370), and who also taught that in periods of interregnum (Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis [Acta Apostolica Sedis 38 ( 1946), n. 3, pp. 65-99]).
Under His Supreme Authority, which is that of Our Lord Jesus Christ, all power and jurisdiction of the Pope in life cannot be used or exercised, otherwise it will be null and void , that is invalid, as His Holiness Pope Leo XIII declared in his infallible Bull Apostolicae Curae of September 13, 1896, and the current discipline on episcopal consecrations is reserved exclusively to the Pope while he is alive (Canon 953). And in interregnums it is prohibited not under illegality, but under nullity, that is invalidity. His Holiness Pope Innocent IV said in his Apparatus Super Quinque Libros Decretali, that the Pope can, by means of a Constitution, prohibit a Bishop from christening, ordaining, and even validly baptizing , so if it affirms that the sacraments conferred by such persons are invalid, then they are effectively invalid (sic).
“Et quidem satis bene videntur dicere in eo, quod dicunt, quod possunt facere constitutiones summi Pontifices super praemissis, et eis factis, si constituatur quod non valeant sacramenta a talibus collata, non valebunt”.
Therefore, could you explain to us how would it possible that there can be a valid “Bishop”, who would have received jurisdiction directly from the Pope, that is, which is an essential requirement for him to be licit and Catholic, in your “chapel”-sect created in 1981 by the hands of the “Archbishop” of Bulla Regia [Thuc], an “Archbishopric” that Montini-Paul 6 gave him in 1968, and that by sleight of hand Canon 188.4 and Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex apostolatus officiowould not be applied to him, nor the discipline of episcopal consecrations (canon 953 (Acta Apostolica Sedis 43 (1951) pp. 217-218) and that of interregnums (Acta Apostolica Sedis 38 (1946), n. 3, pp. 65-99), not to mention more illegalities than have already been quoted hundreds of times. And we also leave out what His Holiness Pope Leo XIII said in his infallible bull Apostolicae Curae: “Since obtaining nullliter orders means the same thing as a null and void act, that is, invalid, as the same word and common speech require”; would you please explain all of that?… “Nulliter enim obtinuisse ordines idem est atque irrito actu nulloque effectu, videlicet invalide, ut ipsa monet eius vocis notatio et consuetudo sermonis; praesertim quum idem pari modo affirmetur de ordinibus quod de beneficiis ecclesiasticis…”And the same goes for Lefebvre, of course.
Can you tell us, if you would be so kind, how is it possible that in your sect-garage-private “chapel” there is a valid Bishop, with jurisdiction, and who is Catholic, i.e., licit?…
Because, as far as we know, priests cannot consecrate bishops, and it is prohibited sub poena nullitatis to usurp the powers and jurisdiction of the Pope in interregnums since 1945, the current discipline of episcopal consecrations being exclusively reserved to the Pope. Therefore, the leader of your sect could never have been consecrated Bishop sub poena nullitatis, much less as a Catholic, so we will have to conclude that he is nothing more than a priest who lost his office in 1965, and who believed in 1981 that an ultramodernist Montinian Archbishop [Thuc], who had previously “consecrated” five “Bishops” to the Vetero-Catholic schism, and five countrymen of Palmar de Troya (Spain), an Archbishop who lost his office in 1965. This just like the Roncallian Titular Archbishop of Sinnada of Phrygia [Lefebvre], who “made” him a Catholic Bishop 23 years after the death of His Holiness Pope Pius XII, and 16 years after the Great Biblical Apostasy. And you dare say that 65 years after the death of Pope Pius XII, and 42 years after the infamy of your garage, you affirm that laymen disguised with mitres can “consecrate” Catholic Bishops and “ordain” Catholic Priests? You carry on with the chimerical tale that these men would be valid, licit, and would have jurisdiction to absolve sins, and they would represent the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church, but nothing could be further from the truth.
From which it can be easily gathered that not only did these men not receive the power of jurisdiction, for we have not had a Pope since October 9, 1958 [cf “Mystici Corporis Christi”, “Ad Sinarum gentem”, “Ad Apostolorum principis”], but nor did they receive the power of order sub poena nullitatis in an interregnum, that is invalidity. (Vacantis apostolicae Sedis, Apostolicae Curae, canon 953, AAS 43 (1951) pp 217-218).
Therefore, at the very least, their episcopal ordinations would be dubious (to some, to others it is obvious that they are invalid), and in conferring the sacraments it is never permissible to adopt a probable course of action as regards validity, abandoning the safest course; the opposite was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI in the Decree of the Holy Office of March 2, 1679.
As a result, they are not only illicit, in other words, intruders, which they know, and for this reason they always emphasize that they are valid in order to deceive the simple, since they lack all jurisdiction to govern the flock of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but they are also invalid because the leader of their sect or garage was never consecrated Bishop in 1981 sub poena nullitatis during the interregnum in which they say we are, so we must necessarily conclude that they have been simulating episcopal consecrations and ordinations, as well as simulating the adminitration of sacraments, for more than 40 years.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 10, 2023 | New Blog
A belated Blessed Easter to All!
Resurrezione; affresco nel Coro delle Monache; Brescia, complesso di Santa Giulia
+EASTER WEEK+
The condemnation of Millenarianism, mentioned in our last blog, will be discussed here at greater length in order to shine a much-needed light on why we find Matt. 28:20 in Holy Scripture translated in two or three different ways into English. As Mr. Javier Morrell-Ibarra noted in last week’s blog, all versions of the Bible he consulted did not read “consummation of the world,” as did all the 10 or more 19th and 20th century Bibles consulted here, but “consummation of the ages/centuries.” There may be a good explanation for this, which is what we intend to explore here. This will be part on of a two-part series.
Below readers will see the actual condemnation of Millenarianism issued by the Holy Office in 1944, in both Latin and English. There is an explanatory paragraph and history of the error provided here, however, which is omitted in Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1957 edition, (and this edition has been proven deficient regarding other teachings as well). It attributes this condemnation to one Manuel de Lacunza-Diaz S.J., whose work, we learn, had already been condemned by the Holy Office in 1824. What is most notable in this explanation of the condemnation is that “It is not possible to teach systematic Millenarianism, even if moderated” as Catholic revelation. And yet such a form of moderated Millenarianism has been taught, at least as a possible outcome, even after this second condemnation was issued. It is usually shored up with Catholic prophecies and Marian apparitions, some not approved, to make it appear more believable.
Extracts from Lacunza’s work and other sources will be examined below to explain how widespread his teachings have become among Catholics and Protestants alike.
Manuel Lacunza y Diaz on the Millennium and Antichrist
The following excerpts are taken from Wikipedia. Lacunza’s quotes will appear in blue. “The first of Lacunza’s “new discoveries” was that: ‘I am not of the opinion that the world – that is, the material bodies or celestial globes that God has created (among which is the one on which we live) – has to have an end, or return to chaos or nothingness from which it came forth.’ He protested against the common teaching that at the end of the world, the earth would be consumed by fire… Secondly, Lacunza concluded that the Biblical expressions “end of the age” and “end of the world” refer to two different times. He understood the “end of the age” or “day of the Lord” as merely the end of a phase of human history that would be closed by the coming of Christ and the beginning of His kingdom on Earth. At this time the living would be judged and the Jews converted, after which a new society would be established for a thousand-year reign of justice and peace.”
Lacunza wrote: “El Terino (a very learned author) … His words are these: ‘But it shall be fully accomplished towards the end of the world, in the general conversion of all the Jews unto Christ,’ the same which I say, with this only difference: that I place after the end of the age, the same event which he… pretends to place ‘towards the end of the world.’ … Along with this great event announced in almost all the scriptures, you shall likewise find at the end of this present earth, or which is the same, the end of the day of men, which the Lord so frequently called the consummation of this age; and immediately after this day, you shall find that of the Lord, the age to come, the kingdom of God, the new earth and the new heavens, wherein dwelleth righteousness, peace, love, and uniformity in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same laws and customs, a uniformity of language among all the peoples, tribes, and families of the whole earth”.
“If the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse is to be literally understood, Jesus Christ himself with all his saints now risen, ought actually to reign in Jerusalem over the whole orb of the earth, and that for a thousand years… The dragon will once again be loosed, and will return to deceive the whole world… The resurrection of all the individuals of Adam’s race, the last judgment, the ultimate sentence, and the execution of this ultimate sentence, cannot take place immediately upon and in the very natural day of the coming in glory and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ….” But Lacunza is wrong.
“Lacunza’s interpretation of Biblical prophecy led him to believe that during the period before the “day of the Lord” there would be an apostasy within the Catholic Church which would make it part of a general system which he labelled Antichrist, in the sense that there would be a general “falling away” in doctrine among the churches, resulting in moral apostasy. In this sense the Antichrist would be composed of “a moral antichristian body, composed of many individuals … animated by the same spirit”, which would consist of “seven false religions [that] should unite to make war against the body of Christ, and against Christ himself ” – which was in accordance with his personal interpretation of Revelation 13:1. In The Coming of the Messiah in Majesty and Glory, Lacunza compared his views on the Antichrist – that Antichrist was a general moral apostasy within the churches – with what he declared to be the “universally recognized” view of his day:
“This Antichrist is universally recognized as a king, or most potent monarch … It is commonly said, that he will take his origin from the Jews, and from the tribe of Dan … shall feign himself Messiah, and begin to perform so many and such stupendous works, that the fame thereof being soon spread abroad, the Jews shall fly from all parts of the world, and from all the tribes, to join themselves to him, and offer him their services … After Antichrist shall have conquered Jerusalem, he shall, with great ease, conquer the rest of the earth … The ambition of this miserable and vilest Jew, shall not rest satisfied, by becoming the universal king of the whole earth … but he shall immediately enter into the impious and sacrilegious thought of making himself God, and the only God of the whole earth … Whereupon shall arise the most terrible, the most cruel, perilous persecution against the church of Jesus Christ; and it shall last for three years and a half … Upon his death the Church, and the whole world, shall begin to breathe again, everything reverting to a perfect calm, and a universal joy. The Bishops, who had concealed themselves in mountains, shall return and resume their sees, accompanied by their clergy and some other Christian families, who had followed them in their voluntary exile. At this time shall come to pass, the conversion of the Jews, according to the universal spirit of the converters” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Lacunza).
Comments on the above
That the world will not be destroyed by fire then renewed contradicts Holy Scripture and is one of the specific errors condemned by the Holy Office. This is Millenarianism pure and simple, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this topic, and is likewise condemned. The earth will be consumed by fire, consume meaning to “take up, redeem,” to “1. Do away with completely; DESTROY” (Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary). The destruction of the world by fire IS Catholic revelation. God will then renew the earth and when souls are united with their bodies, many commentators believe they will live on earth as an extension of Paradise, and this will be the New Jerusalem. We read in Matt. 24:14-15: “And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come [consummatio]. When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.” Surely this is clear enough for everyone, coming from Our Lord Himself. When he pronounced from the Cross “It is consummated…” his life was done; finished, just as the Church was and the world shall be. Pope Paul IV told us who that abomination would be, and everyone has discredited his bull.
Lacunza taught there was a 1,000 year or more period of peace and a restoration of the Church between the death of Antichrist and the actual coming of Satan to surround “…the camp of the saints” (Apoc. 20:8). The Apocalypse is a very difficult book to understand and rightly interpret, and I am no Scripture scholar. But if we place the chaining of Satan at the beginning of the fifth century — when the persecution of the early Christians was at an end — until the time of the beginning of the great apostasy, when he was loosed — first the Gallicanist heresy, in the late 1300s-early 1400s, then the Protestant Reformation, (because Gallicanism is what fed Luther’s revolt and King Henry VIII’s establishment of the Anglican church) — we have roughly 1,000 years. Some Scripture commentators have advanced this opinion. Even though the Orthodox schism happened in 1054, the schismatics seem to have retained jurisdiction and delivered valid Sacraments for their own people (by implicit permission of the popes), although Catholics were strictly forbidden to participate in these ceremonies and Sacraments without incurring the censure for communicatio in sacris and schism/heresy.
St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of a period where Antichrist will die, and life will go on as before, just as we have seen: “Although men be terrified by the signs appearing about the judgement day, yet before those signs begin to appear the wicked will think themselves to be in peace and security after the death of Antichrist and before the coming of Christ, seeing that the world is not at once destroyed as they thought hitherto.” (Supplement to the Summa Theologica, 73:1). This could account for the fact that the death of Antichrist (Paul 6) did not immediately result in the consummation, or his being hurled into the lake of fire. And it may be that this interlude vaguely referred to in Scripture confused Lacunza and prompted him to think it signified a lengthy period of peace. I have speculated that what we are seeing is the survival of Antichrist’s system of papal usurpation, its perpetuation and the reign of Afinal satanic antichrist, not THE antichrist, although it will be short-lived. This, I think, could be the final assault launched by Satan on the remnant referred to in Apoc. 20:8. Am I correct? Who knows; only time will tell.
No 1,000 years of earthly peace
Lacunza believed the “end of the age” and “end of the world” refer to two different times. He understood the “end of the age” or “day of the Lord” as merely the end of a phase of human history.” But the end of the “ages/centuries” seems to refer to the end of the Church’s time on earth which we have already witnessed; for then Christ says He will be with us “even to the consummation.” This is what B. E. Strauss notes in his piece quoted in my last blog. “The consummation of the ages denotes the last of all ages of the world, the age of the Church. This last age consummates the ages that came before, and it is itself consummated by the consummatio saeculi, by the consummation of the (last) age” or actual consummation by fire/end of the world. Strauss points out that the most common interpretation is not consummation of the ages or centuries, but consummation of the world. In order to avoid even mitigated Millenarianism, it is important to not associate any reversion to the “end of the age/centuries” translation with the meaning intended by Lacunza (and the many others today who follow him): the belief in a 1,000-year period of peace.
I believe it is very likely that the phrase “the consummation of the world” was translated into English versions of the Bible in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Great Britain precisely because it is there that this Millenarianist belief fulminated among the Protestants and certain Catholic circles, especially in the U.S. and Great Britain. Until the actual event, it appears the Church felt it was too dangerous to make any distinction between end of the “age of the Church” and the age of Antichrist, because this would only have aided Her enemies and caused Her premature dissolution. It also would have created panic and confusion among the faithful. There are many signs that even theologians such as Henry Cardinal Manning, who predicted the taking away of the papacy (St. Paul’s “he who withholdeth”) doubted there would be a restoration of the Church. For while Manning has much to say about the time of Antichrist and what leads up to it, he also mentions the Church’s final triumph but fails to explain when/how it will occur.
The Church’s final triumph, according to most of the commentators writing even before the Holy Office decree, is Christ’s Second Coming and the destruction of Antichrist’s system. In the end we win, but not without paying a terrible price. The Holy Office decree tells us that the idea of even a mitigated Millenarianism, which some would describe as a spiritual restoration minus Christ’s physical reign on earth and the resurrection of some of the dead – cannot be safely taught. And yet this idea of a glorious, peaceful period of restoration is the very hinge on which the Traditionalist door swings — Lacunza’s mitigated Millenarianism, condemned by the Holy Office. The Great Monarch and Holy Pope prophecies, Our Lady’s message at Quito, Ecuador, the La Salette message, the Fatima peace, the Catholic Restoration – rah, rah, sis-boom-bah, rally around the Traddie flagpole. Yes, we quote La Salette, although selectively. And yes, we also quote Fatima, but as all know who are reading this, we backed off that message considerably last year when it was revealed that Pope Pius XII had serious doubts about it.
It is now known that Our Lady told Sr. Lucia the pope would consecrate Russia to her but it would be TOO LATE. Traditionalist and Novus Ordo Fatima promoters say the Fatima promise of peace was “unconditional” but that was based on the conversion of Russia, which never happened and now can never happen, since we have no Pope and therefore no Church.
Private prophecy cannot trump divine revelation. There can be no restoration of the Church, no “peace” other than the absence of another actual world war and no monarch charging in on a white horse to save us. We have no validly ordained and consecrated bishops and the line of succession cannot be restored. The lost ten tribes have already converted, so the majority of the Jews have already entered the Catholic fold centuries ago at the beginning of the Great Apostasy (see the article documenting this here). It is time for those calling themselves Catholic to grow up, accept God’s will signified in the decisions of the Roman Pontiffs and prepare for the coming of Our Lord.
Protestants base their teachings on Lacunza
Lacunza’s teachings are what the Protestants later used to concoct their false teachings on Dispensationalism, an outgrowth of Masonic British Israelism, because his was the first theological treatise to propose the idea of the rapture. This has already been discussed in our previous article, The Final Chapter… Dispensationalists believe that:
- Believers will be raptured several years before the Second Coming.
- That before the Second Coming, the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt.
- The Jerusalem temple, not the Church, is where Antichrist will show himself as God.
- Following the Second Coming and an earthly peace, this same temple will exist in Jerusalem, or possibly a new or reconsecrated one.
- During an earthly millennium, animal sacrifices offered at this temple will commemorate Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.
This is a Jewish restoration versus the idea of a “Catholic restoration,” both of which are absurd. The Jewish restoration idea was even advanced by at least one Catholic Scripture scholar in the 1950s! So much for the condemnation of Millenarianism by the Holy Office. If a verifiable canonically elected pope and at least a few of the hierarchy had survived the Great Apostasy, such a restoration might have been possible, but no more. In order to prevent those not familiar with the many extravagant interpretations by the commentators on the Apocalypse form becoming completely lost in the apocalyptic maze, we say this about Mr. Morrell-Ibarra’s series continued below.
Summary of consummatio saeculi
His observation that “the end of the world is a period of time encompassing different events” means this: It is intended as an overview of the world’s end, from the very beginning of the Great Apostasy (at the time of the Protestant Reformation and the issuance of Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio predicting the abomination of desolation) all the way up to Christ’s actual Second Coming, and the progression of events in between. This period begins with the apostasy of Catholic rulers and their people foretold by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2 (“for lest there come a revolt first”), and finally ends in the apostasy of the cardinals and bishops (the stars falling from Heaven, Apoc. 6:13, according to Rev. Berry), with the subsequent scattering of the faithful. This in turn causes the papal see to be left vacant owing to an invalid election of a heretic by heretics and fulfills the prophesy of “he who withholdeth” (the Church, but primarily the Pope) being taken out of the way.
Then begins the reign of the False Prophet, as predicted in Apocalypse Chapter 13, who prepares the way for the installment of the Sea Beast, or Antichrist proper, who changes all times and laws, desolates the Church and causes the Continual Sacrifice to officially cease. This then becomes the creation of the system of Antichrist, a succession of false popes, which predominates until the papacy is handed over to the New World Order religious leader. This man will be Satan incarnate who will REPLACE God in the minds of worldlings, Satan encompassing the camp of the saints at the very end. All of this is predicted by various commentators and can be carefully chosen as puzzle pieces to combine what we see with what Holy Scripture and the Church teaches. This then assists us in completing the final tapestry of the Second Coming, which will be discussed in our next blog.
Mr. Morrell Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide, Pt. 5
- Fable of the supposed validity of the spurious orders of the sedevacantist “traditionalist” imposters and hirelings.
All these false christs hide behind the supposed validity of their fraudulent titles and dignities, although inwardly they know they are illicit, which is why these charlatans avoid, like vampires avoid light and holy water, naming the word “illicit”, because according to them, what really matters is if they are “valid”, since that would make everything they touch “holy”, and thus they deceive many unwary souls with little or no knowledge of the Magisterium and the 1917 CIC, who grant them a credit and a competence none of those disobedient hypocrites possess. The improvised pseudo-theology of the Thucist and Lefebvrist sectarians has wreaked havoc, as they have created a kind of “new” magisterium to justify themselves and their sacrilege, despising and minimizing the one true Magisterium that every creature is obliged to obey if they want to save their souls, hence chaos and confusion are rampant.
In reality, none of them has really understood the difference between validity and liceity, which is why they manage to deceive the simple so easily, so an urgent explanation of both key concepts is required.
To be licit, permission from the Pope is required, also a canonical mission so as to be consecrated Catholic Bishop (Can. 953), and so that he can ordain Catholic priests; this canonical mission is fundamental, since it is what would make the minister Catholic, have Apostolic Succession, be part of the Hierarchy of the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church, have an ecclesiastical position or office (Can. 147) and, consequently, have the power to rule the flock of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a power that only the Pope can transmit to the Catholic Bishops, a power that the Pope receives immediately from Christ Our Lord [cf Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentem, Apostolorum Principis Sepulcrum]. Therefore, liceity is an ESSENTIAL requirement to function as a cleric, since lacking this, one is NOT a Catholic but a schismatic.
On the other hand, to be valid, permission from the Pope is not required, therefore one is not a Catholic, one does not have an ecclesiastical office, one does not have jurisdictional power, hence one is an intruder since he has not entered through the gate of the sheepfold, so he does not have the power to rule the flock of Christ; to be valid, it is only required that the ordaining minister be a validly consecrated bishop (matter, form, intention), that is, without the permission of the Pope, but evidently all these consecrations and ordinations will be illicit, desecration, gravely sinful, all of them being excommunicated both the ordaining bishop and his ordinands, since they are outside the Mystical Body of the Church, lack mission and power to rule, and are intruders who would only perform invalid acts, which, if carried out, would be gravely sacrilegious. This is the case of the Greek and Russian Orthodox schismatics, who were valid clergy, but completely illicit, non-Catholic.
Pope Pius XII, 1951
ACTAS S. CONGREGATIONUM SUPREMA SACRA CONGREGATIO S. OFFICII II DECRETUM DE CONSECRATIONE EPISCOPI SINE CANONICA PROVISIONE
“The bishop of any rite and dignity, who confers episcopal consecration on someone without having received the appointment of the Apostolic See or without it having been expressly confirmed, and also the one who receives said consecration, even if both do so coerced by grave fear (canon 2229 § 3, 3°), they incur ipso facto excommunication reserved in a very special way to the Apostolic See.” (AAS 43 1951, 9th April, pp. 217-218)
“All those who support a priest, bishop or diocesan administrator who has not legitimately received his mission from the Pope, and all those who maintain relations with him in spiritual matters, are, like the one they support, treated by the Church as schismatics, because with such an action they separate themselves from the unity of the Church.”
Manual of the Christian Religion, 1891, p. 371 by Wilmers Wilhelm, 1817-1901.
Summarizing:
Valid = ordained without the permission of the Pope, non-Catholic, without power of government, all his acts are sacrilegious, sinful, null and void.
Licit = ordained with the permission of the Pope, Catholic, with power of government, his acts are sacred.
His Holiness Pope Pius VI tells us in this regard:
“… ministers without a mission and pastors without jurisdiction, and consequently intrusive parish priests, would only do null acts, and all the functions they exercised would be equally desecration.”
It is abundantly clear that the supposed validity these intruders claim is of no use to them at all, because it does not make them Catholic since they never received permission or Jurisdiction from the Pope. Therefore, it is absurd and even suicidal for them to cling to this very dubious validity to justify their sacrilege and desecration in the eyes of their misled followers. Furthermore, they are not even valid (!), as they are nothing more than simple laymen in disguise, since the Magisterium denounces and proves them guilty, as we will have the opportunity to demonstrate throughout this essay.
- Fable of the supposed “ignorance” about the Magisterium and Canon Law on the part of those who sought the Holy Orders when it was forbidden to do so.
This is probably the most “humane”, subtle fable those hypocritical impostors can appeal to in order to gain the sympathy and trust of the extremely disoriented faithful. Its false logic would be formulated as follows:
“You dare state that we are invalid and illicit for seeking the Holy Orders from people [Lefebvre & Thuc] who, according to you, were not worthy and could not confer any Orders on us, having lost Jurisdiction after apostatizing along with the rest of Catholic Bishops on December 8, 1965… BUT WE DIDN’T KNOW IT BACK THEN (!?) We were completely IGNORANT of Canon Law and the Magisterium (!?), and WE JUST WANTED TO BE ORDAINED PRIESTS (AND BISHOPS) FOR THE HONOR AND GLORY OF GOD, AND FOR THE GOOD FOR SOULS, AND TO SAVE THE CHURCH (!?) We didn’t know anything, we just wanted to help prevent the disappearance of the Priesthood and the true Catholic Mass (!?) Therefore, HOW DARE YOU JUDGE US, AND JUDGE OUR HOLY INTENTIONS?… HOW DARE YOU IMPUTE THESE SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS OF BEING SCHIMATIC AND HERETICAL INTRUDERS TO US?”
To which we will respond with complete serenity and firmness in the following manner:
“If the offender making this claim is a cleric, his petition for mitigation must be dismissed, either as false or as indicating ignorance that is affected, or at least gross or supine. His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, ecclesiastical history, not to mention canon law, ensure that the attitude of the Church towards heresy was imparted to him… Thereafter, his professional associations and his contacts with Church affairs offer another guarantee that he must have known about heresy. Therefore, his present ignorance is unreal; or if it is real, it can only be explained as either deliberately fostered – affected ignorance – or else as the result of a total failure to do even a modicum of work regarding fundamental ecclesiastical theory and practice – gross and supine ignorance.”
Eric Francis Mackenzie, The Delict Of Heresy, 1932, p. 48
In this simple way, we will silence and hopefully put to shame those conceited schismatics. As a matter of fact, what annoys them all is when someone dares speak to them based on the unquestionable authority of the Magisterium, making them see they are hopelessly wrong. They cannot stand this and react like Pharisees, tearing their hair out, yet another evident sign that they are not in the truth but in error, since they only seek the acclaim of the simple and spiritually ignorant to feed their ego. This should come as no surprise, because looking back in the history of the Church, we will discover that the Supreme Pontiffs of Our Lord Jesus Christ have always spoken with divine authority because their word was sacred and infallible, yet many bad Christians and false brothers refused to believe in this dogma of faith, and for this reason they rebelled against the Papacy and its Magisterium, being the origin of fatal schisms and heresies. Here is the origin of evil: pride, the reluctance to accept that God had chosen certain specific men to entrust them with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose, and to teach, guard and govern the Flock of Christ Our Lord. And how could it be otherwise, behind this spirit of pride and rebellion we always find the father of lies, who was the first rebel who dared utter his impious “Non Serviam” in front of the Holy Trinity, which earned him the most lightning expulsion from Heaven and being hurled into the depths of Hell.
- Fable of “Non Una Cum” the antipopes of the conciliar sect, in this case, Bergoglio, aka “Francis”, according to which the grave sacrilege and desecrations of the sedevacantist intruders arising from Msgr. Thuc’s line would be “legitimized”, as well as of those performed by Lefebvrist pseudo “clerics” who later became sedevacantists.
According to this absurd logic, the only thing that counts would be to remain “Non Una Cum” Bergoglio, alias “Francis”, no matter if the Minister be heretical and schismatic, illicit, invalid, null and sacrilegious; all that would be secondary, the important thing is to be “Non Una Cum”, that is, to not be in communion with, even if those who tell us so have been excommunicated for disobedience to the Magisterium and for their adherence to schism and heresy, no problem, let us all repeat the wicked mantra of “Non Una Cum”, as if that were the magic wand that could turn their sacrilegious simulations into something acceptable to God Almighty, which is ridiculous and false.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 6, 2023 | New Blog
Please Join Us in the Tre Ore
Traditionally, from Noon to 3 p.m., on Good Friday, Catholics have observed the Tre Ore, which consists in three hours of meditation on each of the seven words of Christ as He hung on the Cross. Each “word” is a source of contemplation, as the Scripture is read in which Jesus utters the phrase. Each meditation was generally followed by a sermon, hymns by the choir, intercessions and prayer. Booklets to observe this devotion are still available from p
re-1959 and one of them is offered here as a free download. (The actual devotions in this book begin on p. 45).
+Holy Thursday +
In presenting the pages of Mr. Javier Morell-Ibarra’s book as an introduction to the full read of his work, it was not my intention to create controversy or re-examine issues already settled, only to demonstrate that others have a full appreciation of what has happened to the Church and why we need to pray at home. However, several readers have already raised questions regarding the issues addressed by Mr. Morrell-Ibarra, some of which I answered in my last blog and others which have been discussed in the comments from readers. Additional comments received this past week will be addressed below.
Judging others
One reader has objected to Mr. Morell-Ibarra’s condemnation of those following the leaders of various Traditionalist and “independent“ sects as harsh, unCatholic and uncharitable, and this topic needs to be better understood. When I first created this website, I was more inclined to condemn only the leaders of these sects as formal heretics, which they most certainly are, being public and notorious, not to mention acting fraudulently under Can. 104. I later began to include those among the laity who were (or should have been) better educated in the faith, based on the words of Henry Cardinal Manning below:
“Whensoever the light comes within the reach of our sight, or the voice within the reach of our ear, we are bound to follow it, to inquire and to learn… The Church of God… lays all men under responsibility; and woe to that man who says, ‘I will not read; I will not hear; I will not listen; I will not learn;’ and woe to those teachers who shall say, ‘Don’t listen, don’t read, don’t hear; and therefore, don’t learn.’” This rightly condemns both Traditionalist leaders and their followers, whenever they have access to the truth yet do not avail themselves of it. This amounts to the sin of resisting the known truth, which St. Thomas Aquinas treats below in his Summa Theologica.
“Augustine [Fulgentius] (De Fide ad Petrum iii) says that “those who despair of pardon for their sins, or who without merits presume on God’s mercy, sin against the Holy Ghost,” and (Enchiridion lxxxiii) that “he who dies in a state of obstinacy is guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost,” and (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) that “impenitence is a sin against the Holy Ghost,” and (De Serm. Dom. in Monte xxii), that “to resist fraternal goodness with the brands of envy is to sin against the Holy Ghost.” And in his book De unico Baptismo (De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 35) he says that “a man who spurns the truth, is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the Church is taught,” and therefore, seemingly, sins against the Holy Ghost….” He further comments:
“I answer that: According to the various interpretations of the sin against the Holy Ghost, there are various ways in which it may be said that it cannot be forgiven. For if by the sin against the Holy Ghost we understand final impenitence, it is said to be unpardonable, since in no way is it pardoned: because the mortal sin wherein a man perseveres until death will not be forgiven in the life to come, since it was not remitted by repentance in this life… According to the other two interpretations, it is said to be unpardonable, not as though it is nowise forgiven, but because, considered in itself, it deserves not to be pardoned… Reply to Objection 1, Art. 3: We should despair of no man in this life, considering God’s omnipotence and mercy. But if we consider the circumstances of sin, some are called (Ephesians 2:2) “children of despair” [‘Filios diffidentiae,’ which the Douay version renders ‘children of unbelief.’”
Several times in the Apocalypse we are told that these children of whom St. Thomas speaks will not repent, despite many chastisements and punishments from God. Mr. Morell-Ibarra speaks of the Katejon, or operation of error, and in St. Paul’s 2 Thess. 2: 10-11 we read: “God will send them the operation of error to believe lying; That all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity.” The Douay-Rheims commentary states: “God will suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders and false miracles in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.” This punishment is something that cannot be loosed except by prayer that God work a miracle of grace for these people, and this is totally up to God, not us. We can berate them all we like and beg them to “Come out of her my people,” but their exit is not dependent on us, but on God alone. In last week’s blog it was pointed out that the Church, under Can. 2200 holds these people accountable and considers them outside the Church (until they publicly retract their errors and devote three years to penitential works). And based on this canon and what has been said above, so must we also believe.
Mr. Morrell-Ibarra is correct in describing the condition of those who seem unable to break away from Traditionalism as existing in an obsessive/compulsive state, for it is a stubborn and perverse form of scrupulosity that enmeshes these people in Traditionalist errors, and even secular psychologists link scrupulosity to obsessive/compulsive disorders (https://iocdf.org/faith-ocd/what-is-ocd-scrupulosity/ — this link is provided only for corroboration purposes; no endorsement is implied). It also can be linked to hypnotism, which is reinforced by the repetitive attendance at the “Latin mass” and the belief that Traditionalist “sacraments” convey “magical” graces. Of course the true Latin Mass and prayers of the Church could never be said to effect such things, but we are talking here of services provided by those who are NOT Catholics, far less priests or bishops, and whose performances constitute an horrific sacrilege before God.
What we believe that Mr. Morrell-Ibarra is trying to convey in his work is the horror of these sins and the immediate need to desist from them, based on the terrible price to be paid if one dies in impenitence. As Rev. Felix Sarda Salvany states, we can love our neighbor even when injuring him if we are defending the rights of God and His Church. No to do so is to embrace the liberal idea of charity. But flogging a dead horse is not productive, either. Many have criticized this author for the repeated harsh treatment of Traditionalists, but as time continues to run out for them, it is difficult not to become more vociferous in condemning their errors. At this point, however, prayer and sacrifice, which we also have repeatedly requested, is probably our best and only option.
A further note on hypnotism here is in order. In their book Snapping (1979), written on the methods used by cults to seduce the vulnerable, Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman explain that:
“The previously held notion that an individual must be put to sleep in order to be hypnotized has been categorically disproved… Practitioners of hypnosis… admit that through lies and carefully contrived suggestions a hypnotist could prompt his subject to commit any action, even a crime, in the firm belief that he was performing the act to accomplish some greater good. In these latest findings about hypnosis and the power of suggestion there are important clues through the destructive effects of many cult and group techniques but — like brainwashing, ego destruction and coercive persuasion — the term hypnosis tells nothing about the dramatic alterations of awareness and personality and the lasting disruptions of thought and feeling we learn about from participants in cults and mass therapies. The techniques employed by cult and group leaders bear no resemblance to the classical induction of hypnosis, nor are the effects confined to simple trance states or feats of memory and imagination. Their attack is comprehensive and profound, not simply altering belief and behavior as in brainwashing but producing lasting changes in the fundamental workings of the mind. And their tools are those of everyday communication, ordinary skills and natural abilities that have been honed to the sharpness of precision instruments” (p. 103).
“By far the most widespread and frightening threat to personality posed by America’s cults and mass therapies is the impairment of an individual’s most fundamental capacity of mind: quite simply his ability to think, not just to think for himself, but to think at all — to make sense out of the information he receives from experience and to use that information in a way that will best serve his survival and personal growth. Almost every major cult and group teaches some form of not thinking; mind control, or as it is often called self-hypnosis as part of its regular program of activity. This process may take the form of prayer, chanting, speaking in tongues or simple meditation. Initially this quiescent state may provide physical and emotional benefits, feelings of inner peace and relaxation, or a calming of nervous tension. After a while, continued practice of the technique may even bring on various forms of euphoria and emotional high, a feeling of bliss or lightness of mind or body.
“In this state an individual may have sensations of being in intangible realms or alternate realities. He may see divine visions receive spiritual communications, or experience breakthrough moments of revelation or enlightenment with the extended cessation of thought. However the cumulative effects of inactivity may wear upon the brain until the point is reached when it readjusts itself to its new condition, suddenly and sharply. When that happens, as we have discovered, its information processing capacities may enter a state of disruption or complete suspensionproducing individual states of mind that incorporate all the other forms of information disease: disorientation, detachment, withdrawal delusion and the trancelike, altered state visible in the cults” (p. 172).
Sadly, the rituals used by these Traditionalist pseudo-clergy to simulate Holy Mass and the Sacraments is what often serves as the means of this hypnosis. Some are so obsessed with these sacrilegious acts that they would be unable to function without them, literally, believing they would lose their souls. These are the “lies and carefully contrived suggestions… to commit any action, even a crime, in the firm belief that [one] was performing the act to accomplish some greater good” mentioned in the quotes above.
As the authors explain, hypnosis is fused with many other techniques, resulting in a profoundly complicated process that only highly trained professionals could hope to reverse. We are not those professionals, which is why we must resort to prayer for these poor tormented souls, especially praying the exorcism prayers for them. Having warned them twice, once privately ourselves and then with one or two others, as Our Lord teaches, we are no longer required by the Church to reproach them, but only to pray for them. We are, however, when the need arises, required to warn others to avoid them.
Inspirations of the Holy Ghost
As Catholics, we must always follow what we believe to be inspirations of the Holy Ghost; not to do so, especially living in this age of perfidious error, is sinful. However, those of us who try to present what the Church teaches to others must be especially careful not to refer to such inspirations as a sort of motive of our own credibility, for while we may be certain we are meant to drive home some necessary point or truth and exert ourselves to a great degree to do so, we are always liable to error and are only as good as the authenticity of the sources we quote and our level of understanding regarding these sources. Only the Supreme Pontiffs have been granted an infallible charism by the Holy Ghost to perceive and present these truths free of error, and our inspirations cannot possibly compare in any way to this unique grant by Christ.
Henry Cardinal Manning describes this grant as “…a charisma of indefectible faith and truth…. a gratia gratis data, or a grace, the benefit of which is for others.” It is a gift strictly attached to the papal office, and it is not one that is of inspiration, but one where “Peter’s faith was kept from failing, either in the act of believing or in the object of his belief… not the discovery of new truths, but the guardianship of old.” (The True Story of the Vatican Council). It is an unfailing assistance, and this we could never pretend to possess. So we must be careful lest we appear to be ascribing to ourselves those gifts which only the popes can possess. We can quote them and insist that others are bound to obey what they say, but it is by their power, and never any merit or inspiration of our own, that we do so.
Till the consummation of the age
As readers have noted, the consummation of the world/age in Matt. 28:20 has become a controversial issue. While all the older Douay-Rheims Bible versions do state “consummation of the world,” the Latin Vulgate (edited under the auspices of the Pontifical University Salmanticenses, 1959) actually states: “usque ad consummatio saeculi,” translated as “consummation of the age.” An Internet article by one B.S. Strauss, identifying as a Catholic layman, observes that “…The Vatican Council solemnly teaches that the Lord promised shepherds and teachers until the consummation of the age – usque ad consummatio saeculi — which, according to Catholic commentary, begins with the revelation of Antichrist, who is announced to reign before the return of the Lord. Hence, apostolic succession seems to have come to an end already, and we deal with shepherds of vengeance.”
This he then proceeds to prove by numerous quotes from Scripture, the Fathers and the Vatican Council. He notes that while the Vatican Council does not define the consummation of the age, neither does it state that there will be teachers and pastors until that time. In fact, he notes well, false prophets, false christs and hirelings, not to mention antichrists and Antichrist proper, are all that is predicted for this time. Those wishing to read his entire work can request it by emailing answers@betrayedcatholics.com.
HOW Christ will remain always with His Mystical Body unto the consummation and how the truth will be taught to the very end has been explained here and here. It will not be preached to the faithful by these pseudo-bishops and pretend priests, or a canonically elected pope, who has not reigned since the death of Pope Pius XII and is now incapable of being elected. Rather it will be spread by those drug from the byways and ditches to attend the marriage feast. They happen to be us, who have, by the grace of God, recognized the truth and refused to follow these false christs (false popes) and their attendant false shepherds, or Traditionalist hirelings.
Mr. Morell-Ibarra comments on the above as follows:
“I have seen that one of your readers wonders why the Catholic Bible I am using translates the term “consummationem saeculi” as “…even to the consummation of the centuries.” She objects that in the Douay-Rheims Bible, it reads, “…even to the consummation of the world.” Well, let us shed some light on the translation of this verse, which undeniably proves it is the most common interpretation of this biblical passage. The thing is all the books we have in our possession from the 18th and 19th centuries, and we have quite a few of them,all of them translate it as the consummation of the century/centuries in all the kingdoms of Spain.” (He here includes as proofs images showing translations of the verse in question dating from 1671, and others dating from 1793, 1798 and 1786. There are even translations dating from 1611, 1592 (!) and 1589 !!).
“As it can be seen, all of them state very clearly “hasta la consumación del siglo“, that is, “until the end of the century”, NOT “until the end of the world”, which was a much later translation. In addition to that… the Vulgate Bible of Scio (19th century) is clearly translated as “until the consummation of the centuries/century.” Now, you will have to agree with me that this translation of the term “consummationem saeculi” is much more common, because it has been translated like this since the 16th century, as Cefas and I have had the chance to check, which makes this translation more trustworthy. That is a fact that admits no objection.
“Furthermore, there is also this comment which could be helpful: “The “consummation of the world” (ovvreleía toú aióvos) has a more decisive force to signify the end of the world than the term “parousia”. However, the word “aiww” means not the physical world or the universe, but “era”, “epoch” of human history, for the use St. Paul makes of it, (cf. ALLO, Vivre et Penser, Series 1.*, 1941, 179.) Therefore, the “era” here may be that of the old economy. In Matt. 28: 20, where the perspective changes, it is the new messianic era.” (B. ORCHARD, E. F. SUTCLIFFE, R. C. FULLER Y R. RUSSELL, VERBUM DEI. COMENTARIO A LA SAGRADA ESCRlTURA Verbum Dei. Comentario a la Sagrada Escritura. B. ORCHARD, E. F. SUTCLIFFE, C. FULLER Y R. RUSSELL. Editorial HERDER,1957; Imprimatur de 1956, Momor Evangelios). Finally, the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus from the Vatican Council in 1870 also translates it as “hasta la consumación de los siglos“, or “until the end of the centuries.” (End of Mr. Morell-Ibarra’s comments)
So it appears that this later translation “consummation of the world” must be discarded for the interpretation “consummation of the age(s) or century” with one caution: it cannot, as some have attempted to do, be used to indicate that another age will then commence — that of a certain period of peace for a restored Church on earth, headquartered in Jerusalem, following the conversion of the Jews. This notion was condemned by the Holy Office in 1944: “In recent times, on several occasions, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord, before the Final Judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely” (DZ 2296).
As we have explained in recent articles, some have hinted at a possible “papal restoration” facilitated by a “Great Monarch” will be inaugurated in Jerusalem prior to the Second Coming, to last for an unspecified amount of time. Versions of this were suggested by Yves Dupont, Holzhauser and in several private prophecies. But the New Jerusalem will be brought down to a renewed earth only from Heaven, following the Final Judgment; and that is what they confuse this with. Then and only then will there finally be peace on earth.
Mr. Morrell-Ibarra continues his work below, covering some of the topics we have just addressed. Please note that we offered proofs in our last blog that the date he sets for the Great Apostasy cannot apply to Catholic clergy ordained and consecrated prior to 1965, owing to their obligation to know the law, especially invalidating laws such as Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. Canon 2200 PRESUMES even material heretics are outside the Church until proven innocent. And only a future canonically elected pope could determine such innocence.
Mr. Morrell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide, Pt. 4
- Fable of the Episcopalian heretic Berkeley and his fallacy that “esse est percipi”, that is, “to be is to be perceived”, or the absolute empiricism/idealistic empiricism/subjective idealism trap, into which ALL THE FALSE PASTORS AND FALSE CHRISTS OF THE TRADITIONAL PSEUDO CLERGY fall, misapplying the common error only when they have realized the deception, and decreeing that the Great Apostasy begins only when it suits them.
The development of this highly widespread, warped fable goes as follows: Some fake “traditionalist” clergy and their misled followers say that on December 8, 1965, the Great Apostasy did not take place and the Catholic world did not apostatize by accepting the new false religion that synthesized its teaching at the end of the Vatican 2 bogus council and was accepted by the formerly Catholic hierarchy. Instead, they say, it took shape when some were able to perceive it at the end of the 1970s, beginning of the 1980s; others say that this happened with the imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae by Montini-Paul 6; others claim that it occurred in the mid 80s with the Assisi pandemonium organized by Wojtyla-JP2; others hold that it was accomplished when Ratzinger-Benedict16 stepped down as top usurper; others say that the Apostasy was effected with Bergoglio and his pandering to Pachamama, and so on.
Thus there existed some sort of limbo where heresy and apostasy would not exist, simply because they are not perceived by many (!?), so common error would keep them in a virtual state of “non-existence”, where the Code of Canon Law and the Magisterium would remain “stranded”, and it is only when they are perceived that the apostasy would “magically” appear out of the blue. So those who perceive it are capable of choosing the moment that interests them to save their so-called power of order and jurisdiction, for instance, or their membership in the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church. And from hence the common error is cleared and all those who are not in the same position, once this starting line has been drawn, are automatically defined as being in apostasy, heresy and schism, a line that can be moved by sympathy or some other vested interest.
Therefore, the apostasy would not exist until it becomes evident and is perceived by X actors, who would then confirm the end of common error from the moment the apostasy becomes a reality for them and starts to be, which is obviously ridiculous.
This is nothing more than a bunch of chimerical ideas intended to save the members of the particular sects, since they are the ones who arbitrarily determine when the operation of error should begin, which is precisely when, by some remote grace, they discover the deception. But led by their intolerable moral arrogance, they decide instead that it began when it suits them, because if they had the courage to admit that the apostasy began formally and publicly on December 8, 1965, and that there has been no Pope since October 9, 1958, then they would be forced to accept the cold, hard truth, which is they are not what they say they are, that is, Catholic clerics, but they are all in a state of infamy of law for heresy, schism and apostasy and are not willing to accept that they fell into the Operation of error, as the entire Catholic world did, accepting a false religion and adhering to their ranks, consciously or unconsciously.
- Fable of “SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX ESTO”, that is, “let the salvation of souls be the supreme law”, or “necessity knows no law”, which is the battle cry of all schismatics to try and implement their schisms, even if it means disobeying the Papacy and its Infallible Magisterium, which together with the 1917 Code of Canon Law (CIC) completely incapacitate and invalidate these dangerous charlatans, depriving them of any desire to usurp the jurisdiction that only the Pope possesses fully and universally, but whom those prideful individuals are hell-bent on ignoring and belittling over and over again.
- Model fable of “OCD traditionalism” (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).
The “Traditionalist” fake clergy and sects truthfully say: Vatican 2 was a bogus council! The Novus Ordo Missae is a false rite! More than a billion people are deceived! More than four hundred thousand clerics belonging to the conciliar sect are invalid! Bergoglio is not the Pope!
The fake clergy of the conciliar sect reply to them: You, prophets of misfortunes and calamities! Servants of Satan! You lead us to despair and distress! What happened to the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ? You say the gates of hell have prevailed! You say that Jesus lied! Anathema! We also tell them (to the “Traditionalist” fake clergy and sects): Your private chapel or sect is invalid and illicit, gravely sinful and sacrilegious, unlawfully established against Pope Pius XII’s infallible Magisterium and the 1917 CIC.
The “Traditionalist” fake clergy and sects reply to us: You, prophets of misfortunes and calamities! Servants of Satan! You lead us to despair and distress! What happened to the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ? You say the gates of hell have prevailed! You say that Jesus lied! Anathema! Thus, our readers will be able to verify the blindness and hypocrisy with which these dangerous delinquents who violate the Magisterium and the CIC reason and act.
- Recurring fable of the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 28: 20.
The “Traditionalist” intruders and imposters clamor wherever they go:
“We know from Matthew 28:20 that there will be Bishops until the end of the world!”
“We know from Matthew 28:20 that there will always be a Holy Catholic Sacrifice!”
“Therefore, our “chapels” (sects, garages, cellars, etc.) are valid and lawful!”
We answer them:
And what do we do with Saint Peter then?… Wasn’t Saint Peter included in the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ?… And the prophet Daniel, what did he say about the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice?… “And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end” (Dan. 9:27).
And what does the Magisterium say about your schismatic “chapels”?…
Deep down, all those modern pharisees reason like those who were scandalized by Our Lord Jesus Christ when He announced to them the kind of death with which He should die, as we read in John 12: 32-34: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. (Now this he said, signifying what death he should die.) The multitude answered him: We have heard out of the law, that Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest thou: The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?” “et ego si exaltatus fuero a terra omnia traham ad me ipsum hoc autem dicebat significans qua morte esset moriturus respondit ei turba nos audivimus ex lege quia Christus manet in æternum et quomodo tu dicis oportet exaltari Filium hominis quis est iste Filius hominis”.
With the obstinacy those blind individuals exhibit, they are clearly showing us that they do not believe that Saint Peter and his Successors have been placed by Our Lord as the foundation and cornerstone of the mystical edifice of the Church, since they blasphemously imagine that the Church can continue to expand without the fidelity and obedience due to the Rock of the Papacy and its Magisterium. This proves their null catholicity, since whoever denies the dogma of papal infallibility is NOT Catholic, but schismatic and heretical. Furthermore, in their supine ignorance, they refuse to accept that the Holy Sacrifice of the altar must cease at the time of the Antichrist, also called the time of Satan unchained, thus contradicting the divinely inspired Holy Scripture, which constitutes a sin against the Holy Ghost.
Finally, they dig their own grave by ignoring the discipline imposed by Pope Pius XII’s Magisterium and the Code of Canon Law when they dared to seek the Holy Episcopal Orders at a time when it was strictly prohibited to do so, belittling and ignoring the serious warnings of the legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Pius XII, who made it very clear in his Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that during the vacancy of the Holy See NOBODY can usurp the Jurisdiction and prerogatives that only the Pope possesses by divine right; therefore NO ONE can move or confer any Orders until a new Pontiff has been legitimately chosen and confirmed by the Holy Ghost. It will now be understood by all the enormous sin against the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity these arrogant sophists commit every time they dare to question and disobey the Vicar of Christ and his infallible Magisterium.
