After Francis, who will be the 7th king to rule in Rome?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 25, 2025 | New Blog

+St. Gabriel Possenti+

Introduction

With Francis near death, many are wondering what will happen next. Readers have often asked about what to expect in the near future and how we can explain this from passages in St. John’s Apocalypse. I have no real answers, only opinions, but I do know what those approved commentators writing before Pope Pius XII’s death have written. Many have been confused about the following passages in the Apocalypse and how they apply to us today. Different commentators offer different solutions, but the ones provided by Rev. Kramer and Rev. Haydock below seem to offer the best explanation of what we are experiencing today, and what may lie ahead. We begin with an analysis of Antichrist’s system, which continues today in Rome with the reign of the usurpers.

Rev. H. Bernard Kramer, The Book of Destiny, p. 395-97

Apocalypse Chap. 17, Verse 10

In verse ten, St. John turns his attention from the beast to the heads; to the whole series of successive world-dynasties. He therefore changes his viewpoint from the future to the present. In explaining the significance of the heads this verse clears up the meaning of verse nine. The seven heads are seven anti-God empires. Five of them have passed away. One of the world-empires exists; this is Rome, the sixth head. The seventh empire has not yet come, and when it appears, it shall exist only a short time. That is the empire of Antichrist.

The beast existed in and through all the ancient world-empires and shall show fullest development and expression in the empire and person of Antichrist. His empire shall embody, promote and propagate much more extensively idolatry, Caesarism or state supremacy, immorality and devil-worship and persecution of God’s people than the ancient empires did. The beast existed unceasingly from the ascendancy of Egypt as a world-empire until the end of the pagan Roman dominion. Each empire grew up in the shadow of its predecessor and attacked, crushed and ended the world-dominion of that predecessor. But the beast has ceased to exist since pagan Rome fell and shall come back to life when Antichrist resurrects it by satanic power. Yet it exists potentially in the ten horns (Dan. VII. 24) into which the sixth, the Roman empire was dissolved. Some of the ten horns seen by Daniel may be existing in our times.

Apocalypse Chap. 17, Verse 11

In this verse St. John returns to the time in which the beast does not exist. This verse is complicated in English; in Greek it is clear. The clause, “the same is also the eighth”, refers to the person of Antichrist. The rest of the verse points to his empire. The English translation, “is itself the eighth” is misleading, because the pronoun “itself” modifies “beast”. In Greek “ “the beast”, is neuter gender, while the pronoun is masculine, showing that not the “beast” is the “eighth”, but Antichrist considered as a person apart from his empire is the EIGHTH. His power, which is of satanic origin, is personal and is the means by which he establishes the seventh empire. This power is independent of the empire, is not conferred by it, because it is from the throne of Satan. Therefore he is something above and distinct from his empire as a ruling power. This chapter treats of Antichrist only in relation to his empire. Chapter XIII treats directly of his person and indirectly of his empire. In Greek the clause clearly refers to Antichrist, while in some English translations it cannot be discerned unless it be translated, as some have it, “he himself is also the eighth”.

Antichrist himself, as a human being endowed with satanic might and authority, is the Beast and the EIGHTH something, because he is the culmination and personification, the head and most complete expression of all evil that shall ever exist on earth. He has thus another reason and mode of existence in being the embodiment of sin fully developed in a human being, as Christ was the embodiment of virtue and perfection. Thus the text does not say that he is the eighth head, but his empire is one of the seven heads. He is himself something distinct from those empires, pre-existed, as it were, in the great sin of emperor-worship throughout the whole series of empires, which altogether constituted the empire of Satan, and whereof his own shall be the highest development. Likewise his authority being of satanic origin and personal is something above and distinct from his empire and constitutes an EIGHTH or spiritual empire direct­ing all military and civil resources in his empire and that of Babylon. That the Beast is foredoomed to a speedy end and complete annihilation is repeated for a purpose. It shall come out of the abyss to fulfill its destiny and then be annihilated. The faithful need not fear the beast exceedingly. (End of Rev. Kramer quotes)

“But the beast has ceased to exist since pagan Rome fell and shall come back to life when Antichrist resurrects it by satanic power,” Kramer wrote above.  We daily have sites such as Novus Ordo Watch and a few others screaming that Francis is a heretic and Rome is pagan, when the Catholic Church taught at the 1869 Vatican Council that no TRUE pope could ever fall into heresy while teaching the faithful. Kramer only confirms what Henry Cardinal Manning noted in his sermons — that pagan Rome could exist once again only if Antichrist had appeared on the scene to resurrect it. And Card. Manning was convinced, even in the late 1800s, that the paganization of Rome had already begun. There is no attempt whatsoever by LibTrads to discover or explain how and why, from solid Catholic sources, the Church could be without a true pope for nearly 67 years, or what this really means for Catholics. No mention of Antichrist and only sneers if this topic is even broached. My, how pleased he must be! But we will continue to try and make sense of things despite our critics, even if our speculations prove to be somewhat off course. Because Christ told us to read the signs of the times, and to try and understand what we read. We do our best, then, to obey Him.

What follows is only the personal opinion of this author. But it could be a secondary or minor interpretation of the scriptural verses on the seven hills in an allusive sense, with the one given by Rev. Kramer being the primary meaning. For as we read from the Douay-Rheims commentary on Apoc. 22:10: “We have no certainty when we apply these predictions to particular events. For as St. Jerome takes notice, the Apocalypse has as many mysteries as words, or rather mysteries in every word” (https://www.drbo.org/chapter/73022.htm).

Another observation: the seven hills

If there are seven heads of the beast throughout history, this symbolism could continue into the beast’s actual governance, giving further clues as to where he will reign and who will be his minions. In the 12^th century, the popes granted the Italian Cardinals jurisdiction as Local Ordinaries over seven dioceses (“hills” or “mountains”) of Rome. Later in the 12^th century, two of the dioceses were combined (Santa Rufina with Porto) reducing this number to six. But a seventh “hill,” one of the suburbicarian dioceses, was added back in the 1980s, and this addition seems to be a definite sign. The “seven heads” spoken of in Apoc. 13:1 are the seven empires. But then we go to Apoc. 17: v. 9, which tells us that, “The seven heads are seven mountains and they are seven kings upon which the woman sitteth.” This could also refer to seven dioceses, not mountains, ruled by seven Novus Ordo kings — the “cardinals,” and later “bishops” appointed by the usurpers who were the “heads” of these dioceses.

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that one of the meanings of Antichrist could be “a king who reigns during an interregnum.” These Novus Ordo lackeys are not truly cardinals and bishops, but lesser “kings” under the universal king, Pontifex Maximus, Antichrist’s successor. (The Catholic Encyclopedia ranks cardinals alongside kings and emperors in dignity.) The first usurper-king in this series would have been Angelo Roncalli (John 23), identified as the false prophet in my 1990 work, Will the Catholic Church Survive… Rev. Kramer says of the false prophet: “This false prophet, possibly at the behest of Antichrist usurps the papal supremacy… His assumed spiritual authority and supremacy over the Church would make him resemble the Bishop of Rome… He would be Pontifex Maximus, a title of pagan emperors, having spiritual and temporal authority.” This king reigns over the “whore of Babylon,” the prostituted version of Christ’s Church, a false church presenting as the true Church of Christ.

In 1962, Roncalli transferred the cardinal’s jurisdiction over the six dioceses surrounding the Vatican to the residential bishops, suggesting further reform. These “bishops” were answerable directly to Roncalli. The “cardinals” then became titular bishops only, possessing no ordinary jurisdiction over these dioceses. Initially the six traditional dioceses were Albano (1), Frascati (Tusculum) (2), Palestrina (3), Sabina (4), Ostia (5), and Velletri, Porto and S. Rufina (6) (https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/suburbicarian-dioceses). Today the dioceses are reorganized and listed as Ostia 1), Velletri-Segni (2) Porto-Santa Rufina (3), Frascati (4), Palestrina (5), Albano (6) and Sabina-(Poggio Mirteto) (7). John Paul 2 joined Segni to Velletri and Sabina to Poggio Mirteto in 1986. “According to ancient Roman sources, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh king of Rome, established a Roman colony at the town, then known as Signia” or Segni (Wikipedia, Segni).

It is hard to believe there is no significance to the addition of Segni and the reorganization of the dioceses to create seven versus the traditional six dioceses. Segni, joined to Velletri and Poggio Mirteto, joined to Sabina are two entirely new additions. For from the 1100s to 1910 and from 1915 on, the cardinals, not the residential bishops, were assigned certain dioceses. Adding Segni appears to have fulfilled the prophecy of Apoc. 17:9, tying this prophecy in Apocalypse directly to the newly organized pagan Rome of the usurpers. Therefore, this biblical description could never have applied previously because only the usurpers could have ridden the beast seated on the seven mountains described in Apoc.17:4.

The identity of the ruler of the seven kings and the lesser kings is laid out in Apoc. 17:11. The beast (Paul 6) was a cardinal by all appearances, created by Roncalli. Yet in reality he was not a cardinal, because Roncalli was never pope. Becoming the second of the seven kings, he also was the eighth king, a bogus pope heading the entire system as the Man of Sin — Satan’s vicar, as Kramer explains. The lesser kings are kings by each succeeding Pontifex Maximus, but the ultimate exercise of their power rests with the eighth king (Satan joined to Montini and his successors) who lends them power to direct their activities. As antipope, Roncalli was the first universal king, playing his role as False Prophet. The inevitable result was the advent of that great harlot, the Novus Ordo church, sprawled in serpentine fashion across the seven dioceses and ruled from across the Tiber River by the eighth head — the system of Antichrist. The creation of the seventh diocese may only have been a sort of territorial marking, a sign that all of the former sees united to Rome were now in enemy control.

The scarlet whore atop the beast is “Babylon, the great” (Apoc. 17:5), the early Christians’ code name for Rome. In the hand of the scarlet whore is a golden cup, “…full of the abominations and filthiness of her fornication” (Apoc. 17:4). This cup is reminiscent of a golden chalice. Rev. Leo Haydock calls this verse “…common scriptural expressions for the abominations of idolatry.” She is “drunk with the wine of her prostitution” (Apoc. 17:2),  and this is no coincidence considering the corruption of the consecration formula for the wine in the Holy Sacrifice, replacing “for many” with “for all.” The worship of bread and wine idols is frequently mentioned in Holy Scripture in connection with types of false Christs, (and these usurpers ARE false Christs): “wine of iniquity”(Ps. 4,17: “the wine of the condemned” (Amos 2,8); “the two iniquities (bread and wine)” (Osee 10, 10); “bread idols” (Jer. 7, 18); “the bread of deceit” (Prov. 23, 3); “idols without life” (Ps. 105, 28). This we find in Rev. Kenelm Vaughn’s Divine Armory of Holy Scripture, (pgs. 754-55).  Emperor-worship also is involved here, as Rev. Kramer notes. For these usurpers, so fond of their followers’ rapt attention, are not popes, but emperor-kings.

Who will be the seventh king?

Bergoglio is dying, and the new king in this line once he passes would be the seventh usurper reigning since Pope Pius XII’s death. Seven is a number that we find numerous times in the Apocalypse; among other things, it signifies completion. In Chap. 1, seven candlesticks represent the seven churches throughout the ages and their bishops are symbolized by seven stars or angels (Rev. Berry). This is mentioned again in the first verse of Chap. 2. Seven spirits of God and the seven stars are mentioned in the first verse of Chap. 3. Seven lamps and seven spirits of God in Chap. 4, verse 5; five mentions of seven in Chap. 5; 1 in chapter six, several in Chap. 8, and so on throughout the entire book. This number may not seem important to us mortals, but it means something to God. The seventh hill was created by Roncalli and could indicate that this has some special significance. It could be that these agents of Antichrist believed that the seventh king is the one who will deliver the kingdom into the hands of Satan, head of the one-world church of all religions.

We do not know his identity, but as stated in our last blog, it is likely he will make it appear that the Novus Ordo church is rejecting the changes and returning to its previous pre-Vatican 2 position, similar to what Pres. Trump is doing with this country. It will be a seduction so convincing, so diabolically clever that many LibTrads will “return” to this church, believing as they have been falsely led to believe, through private revelation and their pseudo-clergy, that this is the promised restoration of the true Church. Those who refuse to buy into it will be persecuted. The Latin Mass of St. Pius V may appear to return, and all the sacramental rites could be “restored” to their previous forms. What can it hurt? They can never be valid again without a canonically elected pope, so it will cost the usurpers nothing. This is the only way that it can appear, when political antichrist comes, that he is the true antichrist, not Paul 6. Political antichrist will then be seen as the one who abolishes the mass and destroys Rome, when it was long ago destroyed spiritually. And this will be the greatest and final deception.

As prophesied, the reign of this seventh king, if indeed he is the final usurper and this opinion holds, may well last for only 42 months, or three and a half years. But again, it could be longer, since that number may only symbolize an indefinite period as some commentators believe. Will Enoch and Elias physically appear during this time? Perhaps, if they have not already appeared in other manifestations as again, some commentators teach. All this of course is only speculation, and only time will tell whether or not it comes to pass. There will be twists, turns, contradictions and surprises. The subjects of this seventh king will be those Christ threatens to vomit from His mouth — the final, pitiful remnant of the last church of Apoc. Chap. 3, the Laodicea church. This is the seventh and final church before the end.

As Francis Panakal, author of The Man of Sin first observed, “In Pope Pius XI’s Summi Pontificatus, after describing his generation as one “’tormented … by spiritual emptiness and deep-felt interior poverty,” the pope applied to it this passage of the Apocalypse as follows: ‘Thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked’ (Apoc. 3:17). This particular passage is a description of the church of Laodicea which, in the opinion of Catholic interpreters, is a representation of the Church as a whole during the time of the Antichrist. Thus Pius XI’s application of this passage of the Apocalypse to his time would, in effect, be an indication that the age of the Antichrist had in some way already begun.” And indeed it had.

The seventh church — Laodicea

In his first address as pope, Pope St. Pius X warned Catholics that Antichrist had already been born. At that point in time, Giovanni Battista Montini (Paul 6) was six years old. The exorcist Rev. Theophilus Riesinger, O.P.Cap., revealed in 1940 what he had learned in his exorcisms — that Antichrist was already alive and would begin his persecutions in 1952, the very year Pope Pius XII first fell ill from chromic acid poisoning. Montini was then his acting pro-secretary. Pope Paul IV, in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, prophesied how he would come to power as the abomination of desolation — through an invalid papal election. Shortly before his death in 1939, Pope Pius XI warned that the world already had entered that deadly phase that would see the fulfillment of prophesy, the end of the age of the Church and the rule of Antichrist. It is important to weigh carefully the words of Christ through St. John to the angel of this Laodicea church, the last church, for in these words we see all that has happened to us today. We read from Apoc. Chap. 3: 14-22:

“And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:

“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore and do penance. Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne: as I also have overcome and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”

Here we need the wisdom of Rev. Leo Haydock to make the most sense we can out of these verses. Reverend Haydock calls being hot nor cold a “dreadful reprehension,” one few recognize as such. Being cold means being “guilty of great sins.” Being hot means being zealous and fervent in piety. Being lukewarm indicates that one is “slothful, negligent and indolent” in seeking Christian piety and perfection and in “all things regarding the service of God.” For this they are guilty before God of great sins and “forfeit his favour and grace.” They fancy themselves as being safe and good because they live as others do and “are not guilty of scandalous and shameful crimes to which others are addicted.” The lukewarm are further from true conversion than the cold; “they live and die with a heart divided between God and the world,” where greater and more shameful sinners are at least cognizant of the abhorrence of the vices that they commit. “Stupidity is more dangerous than absolute wickedness”  — the cold still have a conscience. Christ, beginning to vomit the lukewarm from His mouth, means that they will be lost if they fail to reform.

The “eye salve” mentioned in Apoc. 3:18 is necessary for them to see their plight and indicates their willful ignorance. Being naked when they think they already possess the white garment of salvation describes to a “T” both those complacent in their Novus Ordo beliefs as well as those LibTrads who are certain they have the graces they need through the sacraments when they have nothing; they know not their blindness and nakedness. It also can refer to any of us who pridefully believe that we are guaranteed salvation because we no longer belong to any of these sects; we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Those who continue in their ignorance and blindness can only be described as having entered into the operation of error to believe lies described by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2. Christ warns us the Church will be rebuked, chastised and required to do penance to become zealous. But how can this possibly fit in with a restoration of the Church, when Laodicea is the last of the seven churches?! Those who overcome with Christ will share a throne in Heaven with Him, for He too has overcome. Is this not a subtle reference to the passion of the Church? In Apoc. 13:7 it is said that Antichrist will “overcome the saints” but in verse 10 of this chapter we find that the faith and patience of the saints will save them in the end.

Conclusion

For decades, many have rejected the idea, first advanced by Francis Panakal and Rev. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga, that Paul 6 was the Antichrist. It is the proposition I presented in my first book, released in 1990. There I expanded on the topic, introducing additional evidence in subsequent e-books and articles. Those objecting to this belief falsely maintain: “There must always be bishops” and/or cite the necessary restoration of the Church before the end, but only a pope canonically elected can claim to be the successor of St. Peter. As discussed in our last blog, we have never been promised a restoration of the Church in Holy Scripture, and private revelations cannot be made the equivalent of Church doctrine; they have been known to be manipulated and falsified. All that follows once Antichrist appears is the battle of Armageddon, the destruction of Babylon, the Final Judgment and the consummation.

Some also have objected that because Christ will throw Antichrist and the False Prophet into the lake of fire alive, as recorded in Apoc. 19: 20, this means he has not yet come: “And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet, who wrought signs before him, wherewith he seduced them who received the character of the beast, and who adored his image. These two were cast alive into the pool of fire, burning with brimstone.” They hold that this verse proves that Antichrist will not appear until later, at the very end, following the restoration. I have countered that for the empire of Antichrist to exist today in Rome and worldwide, which it does, there first had to exist the Man of Sin, THE Antichrist, to establish this empire, a truth we are bound to believe. And this is what Rev. Kramer refers to above.

If one looks at all that Montini accomplished during his reign and before, no one can deny that he was the primary architect in the destruction of the Church. Nor can they possibly contest the fact that nearly half of faithful Catholics abandoned the Vatican 2 church once the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced. The cardinals and bishops betrayed the Church by invalidly electing Roncalli, and the once-faithful laity failed to reject the false Church — this was the Great Apostasy. The Continual Sacrifice had ceased, true Catholics knew this, and only Antichrist could have caused its cessation. To be the perfect mirror of Christ, Satan also had to have his vicar, and this could not be accomplished with a Protestant idea of a political figure persecuting. The Apocalypse must be taken spiritually, and Pope Paul IV himself told us who the abomination of desolation would be in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

There is another explanation of Antichrist perishing alive in the pool of fire, however, that no one has considered. Because this event seems to immediately precede the Final Judgment, the meaning of “alive” could refer to the resurrected bodies of the beast and false prophet, (John 23 and Paul 6), being among the first to be so resurrected and judged, so that all the faithful may see them destroyed. Various commentators, Rev. Kramer among them, have opined that at the Last Judgment the faithful who have escaped the wiles of Antichrist will sit with Christ in judgment on those who destroyed His Church. This seems to be what Christ Himself suggests in Apoc. 3:21. Christ stands at the door and knocks (Apoc. 3:20); His arrival is imminent, Kramer warns. He invites us to the marriage feast. But those who refuse to apply the eye salve and repent, who fail to open the door, shall be cast out into the exterior darkness.

1955 Fr. Cronin work upholds VAS on Trad invalidity

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 2, 2025 | New Blog

†Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary†

Light a candle, purge the darkness from your souls

Prayer Society Intention for February, month of the Holy Family and the Blessed Trinity

“O Most Holy Trinity , who art dwelling by Thy grace within my soul, make me love Thee more and more.” (Raccolta)

(Please pray for a reader’s mother’s swift recovery from her stroke and for the repose of the soul of Timothy Hunt, requiescat in pace.)

Introduction

A post last week on the Novus Ordo Watch site (definitely not recommended, but which sometimes publishes accurate articles on matters of faith), has provided a thought-provoking sequel of sorts to the article on the rehash of Robert Robbins’ objections posted here last week. Since it will be quoted and discussed at length below, the article can be viewed HERE. I do, however, possess an original edition of Rev. John F. Cronin’s work, the author cited in the article, and have verified all the quotes from his work. Not that there was any question that the quotes were accurate, but firsthand quotes are always preferable to those relied upon secondhand.

The article opens with comments on the confusion regarding the extent of the binding nature of papal documents, both before and after Vatican 2, a confusion that could easily have been dispelled by drawing a firm dividing line at the moment of Pope Pius XII’s death Oct. 9, 1958. When such chaos as occurred at Vatican 2 exists, the safer course demands that all which is doubtful be rejected, and only that which is certainly orthodox be trusted. There were means to determine this and these means were available via seminary libraries, local libraries by inter-library loan, from Catholic booksellers and later the Internet. I know this because I began purchasing books from seminary libraries and these other venues in the early 1980s. At that time there was no Internet, so everything was done the hard way. I assumed others were doing the same, and a select few were so doing; but not for the same reasons.

The Novus Ordo Watch article seemingly states that it was not generally understood, following Vatican 2, that irrevocable assent was required not only to infallible papal documents but also to those things taught in the ordinary magisterium. As explained in an article posted several years ago HERE, the confusion was generated by those opposing Henry Cardinal Manning and strict interpretation of the Vatican Council decrees. Pope Pius XII ended this confusion with Humani generis by teaching that: 1) What is taught in official papal documents is not binding, para. 20; 2) Ex cathedra pronouncements are rare, para. 21, 3) Restrictions can be placed by theologians on what constitutes an ex cathedra pronouncement, and theologians may dictate a formula for the actual wording of the pronouncement, para. 21.

For over three decades, we have quoted Bellarmine, Manning, Berry, Tanquerey, Billot, Garrigou-Lagrange, Fenton, Connell, Herve, Van Noort and others who in many cases taught what was contained in Humani generis long before it was written. Cronin now joins this list of theologians. But when papal documents written by Pope Pius XII and his predecessors were readily available in the 1960s and 1970s, as were the explanations by these theologians, why was no one citing their binding nature then? Why were the revered “Traditionalists,” such as Saenz-Arriaga, Lefebvre, Oswald Baker, Vezelis, Kelly, et al insisting that these teachings were not strictly binding, that Canon Law was to be interpreted liberally or dismissed, that they did not strictly apply in an “emergency” when Pope Pius VI himself, in the letter Charitas, taught that they most certainly did?

If these sites are going to now insist that their readers accept the binding mature of papal documents, then let there be no exceptions to this rule. But we know they are making exceptions — and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law governing interregnums, also obedience to Canon Law, are primary among them. The entire debacle that became Traditionalism and later Sedevacantism could have been avoided if those who presented themselves to the faithful as orthodox clergy and established Traditionalist groups had carefully studied papal teaching and Canon Law before embarking on their (lucrative) careers. But that was not consistent with their motives. The papacy was not the focus of their attention, only the Mass and Sacraments, as if the latter could validly exist without the former. And this is why they had to find a way around the jurisdiction issue, which tells us they knew there was a problem. So they pretended epikeia could fill the gap, excluding Canon Law and binding papal teaching.

Where the problem began

Below we will comment on some of Cronin’s remarks as they relate to the above, but first we will address the objections noted in the article made by Pope Pius XI denouncing the prideful assumption by Catholics that papal decrees not issued ex cathedra were not binding.

“For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104).

And to this we add, from Pope Pius XII’s Humani generis, (nos. 29-31): “It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason for it falls to reason (to demonstrate God’s very existence and the truths of faith)… But reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly trained, that is when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by early Christian ages and which moreover possesses an authority of even higher notes, since the teaching authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets…” (and here of course he is speaking of Scholasticism).

“Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, in which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. The Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor, since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light. His doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping safely and usefully the fruits of sound progress.”

If we seek an answer to why the doctrine on papal obedience has been so perverted, it is found in the tenets of the Modernists, whose hatred of authority, magisterial teaching and Scholasticism is well-known. And, (with the exception of des Lauriers, Carmona, Zamora, McKenna and Vezelis), where did all of those who later served as Traditionalist “bishops” receive their training? In Novus Ordo seminaries and secular universities and then the Society of St. Pius X, which at least nine of them later exited. Does anyone really believe that these men could possibly have received Catholic training in these institutions, saturated in Modernism and Rationalism? For there they were taught by men never approved by the Church, in seminaries never erected by a canonically elected pope and admitted as candidates to the priesthood by those who had no right or power to call them. And we wonder why people are confused and have not obeyed the popes…

(The quotes below are taken from Rev. John F. Cronin, Catholic Social Principles: The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church Applied to American Economic Life [Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1955], pp. 55-61; 685. Imprimatur, 1950. Rev. Cronin’s ecclesiastical career is summarized HERE.) 

On minimalism

Fr. Cronin —“In the first place, the teaching mission of the Church is not confined to infallible pronouncements by the pope or ecumenical councils. Christ’s injunction to teach all nations was not limited by any qualifications… The Church has been commissioned by God to teach with authority on matters of faith and morals. It has been promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In rare cases, the fullness of this guidance is invoked in a solemn definition of an article of faith. But the great bulk of Church teaching is had through the normal channels of pronouncements by the popes, bishops, and theologians… A “minimist” attitude of accepting only infallible pronouncements is simply un-Catholic.”

T. Benns — We have addressed this before. As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton wrote: “Ultimately theological minimalism was a device employed BY LIBERAL CATHOLICS to make the rejection of authoritative papal teaching on any point appear to be good Catholic practice.Sometimes it took the crass form of a claim that Catholics are obligated to accept and to holdonly those things which had been defined by the explicit decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Holy See. This attitude… was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his letter Tuas Libenter (DZ 1683). Another crass form of minimalism was the opposition to the Vatican Council definition of papal infallibility. The men who expressed that opposition sometimes claimed to hold the doctrine of papal infallibility as a theological opinion but they showed a furious hostility to the definition which proposed that doctrine as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith” (“The Components of Liberal Catholicism,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, July 1958).

We see that this heretical attitude was condemned long ago. So how and why has it been allowed to fulminate among those who pretend to lead and direct those believing themselves to be “Traditional” Catholics today?

Acta Apostolica Sedis

Fr. Cronin — “As a second point, the form of teaching is relatively unimportant. Rather it is the solemnity and definiteness as determined by the text itself. It is true that the very nature of an encyclical, addressed to the entire world, implies a certain solemnity. But a broadcast, a papal letter, an allocution, or even an address to a particular group may, under certain circumstances, involve important and binding teachings on some matters.

T. Benns — We must remember that Cronin wrote just before the release of Humani generis, which taught that even papal letters, allocutions or addresses can be binding if entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. According to Msgr. Fenton: “Those allocutions and other papal instructions, which, though primarily directed to some individual or group of individuals, are then printed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis are directives valid for all of the Church militant. We must not lose sight of the fact that, in the encyclical Human generis, the Holy Father made it clear that any doctrinal decision printed in the pontifical Acta must be accepted as normative by all theologians. I This would apply to all decisions made in the course of the Sovereign Pontiff’s ordinary magisterium” (“Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” American Ecclesiastical Review).

Infallibility of two papal teachings spurned

Fr. Cronin — “The obligatory nature of such assent is particularly serious when the pope declares that he has, not only the right, but the duty to pronounce with supreme authority the… teaching of the Church. ‘Respectful silence, which consists in neither rejecting nor criticizing the given teaching,’ is inadmissible in this matter…“The… encyclicals and addresses contain various levels of teaching. At the highest level are the references to revealed teaching as embodied in the Scriptures.”

T. Benns — And yet we have those still insisting today that Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, is not infallible. This when Pope Paul IV wrote:

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio

“Whereas We consider such a matter to be so grave and fraught with peril that the Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and. kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by no one in this world — (even he) may be corrected if he is apprehended straying from the Faith. Also, it behooves us to give fuller and more diligent thought where the peril is greatest, lest false prophets (or even others possessing secular jurisdiction) wretchedly ensnare simple souls and drag down with themselves to perdition and the ruin of damnation the countless peoples entrusted to their care and government in matters spiritual or temporal. And lest it befall Us to see in the holy place the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, We wish, as much as possible with God’s help, in line with our pastoral duty, to trap the foxes that are busily ravaging the Lord’s vineyard and to drive the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be silent watchdogs, unable to bark, or lest We come to an evil end like the evil husbandmen or be likened to a hireling… (para. 2)

“We approve and renew, by Our Apostolic authority, each and every sentence, censure or penalty of excommunication, suspension and interdict, and removal, and any others whatever in any way given and promulgated against heretics and schismatics by any Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors… Upon advice and consent concerning such as these, through this Our Constitution, which is to remain forever effective, in hatred of such a crime the greatest and deadliest that can exist in God’s Church, We sanction, establish, decree and define, through the fullness of Our Apostolic power, that although the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties keep their force and efficacy and obtain their effect (bishops archbishops and Cardinals committing heresy, apostasy or schism) are forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank” (para. 3; end of Cum ex… quotes).

And then of course there is Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, specifically written to determine what is to be done during an interregnum and the rules and regulations for the canonical election of a true pope. Pope Pius XII wrote, in the preamble to his constitution: 

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis

“Continually in the course of the centuries, Our Predecessors solemnly determined to order and define the procedures of governance of the vacant Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff, for which they were supposed to provide; and in the same manner they endeavored to apply themselves with watchful care and to devote their energies to useful rules in the weighty business divinely entrusted to the Church, to wit, electing the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, who on this earth is the Vicar of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and as supreme Pastor and Head feeds and rules all the Lord’s flock. However, since there was already a desire to have collected into one place these laws about electing the Roman Pontiff, enlarged in number in preceding ages, and since some of them, less accommodated to special circumstances, had become outdated on account of changed conditions, the great man Pius X, our Predecessor, with judicious advice decided forty years ago to reduce them (appropriately selected) to a summary, having published the well-known Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica on the twenty-fifth of December of the year 1904.

“Wherefore, having seasonably considered the matter, with sure knowledge and the plenitude of Our Apostolic power, We have undertaken to publish and promulgate this Constitution, which is the same as that given by Pius X, of holy memory, but reformed throughout…”

As Cronin notes above: when a pope quotes from the writings of other popes in his own works, showing their great authority, “…these writings are considered binding upon the faithful.” And, “The form of teaching is relatively unimportant. Rather it is the solemnity and definiteness as determined by the text itself. The obligatory nature of such assent is particularly serious when the pope declares that he has, not only the right, but the duty to pronounce, WITH SUPREME AUTHORITY, the… teaching of the Church.”

The Sedevacantists who first published these excerpts from Rev. Cronin surely cannot applaud Cronin for his championing of the papacy and at the same time read the preamble to Pius XII’s constitution above and claim it does not irrevocably bind them! For the constitution is all Cronin says it must be: (a) a serious document, treating in its first three paragraphs the dogmatic scope of papal jurisdiction during an interregnum, (b) with grave import given to Pius XII’s words and commands, which (c) he backs with centuries of papal teaching contained in Pope St. Pius X’s original constitution. Anyone who could ignore his stated intent of issuing it, “with sure knowledge and the plenitude of Our Apostolic power” is definitely not Catholic or is incapable of all rational thought. Pius XII’s intent to invalidate any election not conducted exactly as the constitution commands; any acts usurping papal jurisdiction or anything contrary to papal or Canon Law is likewise secured in. para. 3 by his “Supreme Authority.” And paragraph 108 strengthens what is said in the preamble.

Conclusion

“God established an eternal chair in Rome… The primacy of Peter will endure forever through the special assistance promised it when Jesus charged him to strengthen his brethren in the faith” (Pope Pius XII, Address Vi è a Roma, Jan. 17, 1940). The etymology of eternal is from “…the late 14c., from Old French eternel “eternal,” or directly from Late Latinaeternalis, from Latin aeternus “of an age, lasting for an age, enduring, permanent, everlasting, endless,” contraction of aeviternus “of great age,” from aevum “age” (from PIE root *aiw- “vital force, life; long life, eternity”). And forever can mean: “…an indefinitely long period of time; without end” (Internet and other sources). We know that in the sense that Christ binds in Heaven whatever is bound on earth, the papacy is eternal; that binding will exist always, since God Himself has no beginning and no end. The primacy will endure likewise, for Christ is the invisible Head of His Mystical Body, the Church.

But we also know that the Church on earth will have its end. Henry Cardinal Manning writes: “Some of the greatest writers of the Church tell us that in all probability, in the last overthrow of the enemies of God, the city of Rome itself will be destroyed; it will be a second time punished by Almighty God, as it was in the beginning… The writers of the Church tell us that in the latter days the city of Rome will probably become apostate from the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ; and that Rome will again be punished, for he will depart from it; and the judgment of God will fall on the place from which he once reigned over the nations of the world…The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist, and of these prophecies of Daniel, without a single exception, as far as I know, and they are the Fathers both of the East and of the West, the Greek and the Latin Church — 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.” (The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy, 1861).

What was the first sign that all these things were about to befall us? The gradual dismembering, then finally the abolition of the Latin Mass. Some 40-50 percent of Catholics exited the Church in the late 1960s, early 1970s following the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae, so they indeed recognized this sign. Cardinal Manning’s warning regarding the Mass was first published in 1970, one year after the cessation of the Mass, when Robert Bergin issued his first edition of These Apocalyptic Times (printed by Fatima International). The book sold so many copies it quickly ran to many additional printings. But what Catholics didn’t know is that the unanimous opinions of the Fathers must be taken as a rule of faith, and that this is binding on Catholics for belief per the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council (DZ 1788, 1809). NO ONE may interpret Scripture otherwise, and yet this failure to acknowledge the significance of this event as taught by the Church Herself is precisely what spawned Traditionalism. This successfully prevented the faithful from realizing that the cessation of the Mass meant that Antichrist was among us.

Once the Novus Ordo Missae was instituted, who among aspiring Traditionalists read the binding pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs for the answers, or humbly and with a right intention consulted Canon Law? Oh no, they sought out “bishops” who had tacitly resigned their offices and were yet affiliated with apostate Rome, instead, and allowed themselves to be convinced that papal teaching was not binding unless issued ex cathedra. They did not bother to translate the one constitution that governed our situation and would have answered their questions. That constitution would not be fully translated from the Latin until 2012, when it was posted on this site! Early Traditionalists located and had translated Cum ex Apostolatus Officio on the 1970s, but the Society of St. Pius X and other LibTrad factions dismissed this obviously infallible bull as a disciplinary document, despite the fact that it clearly taught who would be considered the Antichrist if a heretic or schismatic was elected and “accepted” as pope. And this by providing a Scripture reference. Rev. Cronin rates such papal teaching as follows: “At the highest level are the references to revealed teaching as embodied in the Scriptures.“

Then of course there is Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis itself, fully complying with all of Rev. Cronin’s prerequisites for a binding papal document but dismissed as “an ecclesiastical law.” It erases the “papacy” of Roncalli, nullifiying his election on several counts. It also invalidates the acts of all those attempting to be ordained without valid tonsure or dimmissorial letters or attempting consecration without the papal mandate. In short, VAS stopped the Traditionalist movement dead in its tracks, before it ever began. NOW concludes its excerpts from Rev. Cronin with this statement: “Catholics must assent to what the Pope teaches because he teaches it.” Firm and irrevocable assent must be given to anything entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and decrees which mention previous infallible pronouncements and/or declare a person excommunicated.

But what they don’t mention is the inevitable penalty for multiple, repeated failures to assent to these papal acts — forfeiture of Church membership. That occurs just by enrolling oneself in a Traditionalist sect and remaining there, denying the papacy by pretending the juridical Church could ever exist without a canonically elected pope; attending “Mass” and receiving the “Sacraments” from laymen who never became priests or bishops; believing and accepting teaching from these same laymen as though it was authoritative. This explains how followers of LibTrad pseudo-clergy became “confused” regarding the binding nature of papal teachings.

(Please join us for next week’s blog and a surprising look at how Catholics in Communist countries coped when their faith was sorely tried.)

Clarification on the points about Antichrist that are certain

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 15, 2024 | New Blog

+St. Paul the First Hermit+

(URGENT REQUEST: In light of the continuing attempts to infiltrate and divide those praying at home by various entities both known to us as well as others yet to be identified, we beg our readers to please join us in the Unity Octave novena beginning on January 18, Feast of St. Peter’s Chair in Rome. To recite these prayers, please scroll to the bottom of the blog HERE.)

The unanimous teachings of the Fathers on Antichrist

There has been much (unnecessary) confusion arising from the assertion on this site that Paul 6 was Antichrist. Some are suggesting that this belief is not in conformity with the unanimous opinion of the early Fathers and does not take into consideration Catholic prophecy regarding the reign of Antichrist. First, we will address the topic of the unanimous opinion of the Fathers.

The Council of Trent as well as the Vatican Council teach that whatever the early Fathers agree on unanimously regarding faith and morals must be accepted as coming from the Church Herself. Yet Pope Leo XIII wrote in Providentissimus Deus, (Nov. 1893): “Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for ‘in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,’ according to the opinion of St. Thomas.”

In other words, only the Holy See may determine when the unanimous opinion of the Fathers has rightly been stated or understood, and the only exception to this general rule is when a highly esteemed Church official has declared that something contained in Holy Scripture is indeed the unanimous opinion of the Fathers. The one issue that so many of these so-called Catholic writers on Antichrist consistently fail to address is the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice as the very act that will allow the correct identification of the Man of Sin. So many refer to the institution of the Novus Ordo as the “abomination of desolation” but neglect to identify the one instituting it as Antichrist! Henry Cardinal Manning succinctly states in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See that: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” This statement we can trust, but not the statement of those attempting to prove the unanimous opinions of the Fathers support their claims without even demonstrating that such an opinion is truly a) unanimous, as demonstrated by approved authors and b) to be believed as a matter of faith.

And Pope Pius XII writes in his encyclical on Holy Scripture, Divini Afflante Spiritu: “There are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the holy Fathers is unanimous.” We cannot take the word of lay people writing today that such texts are unanimous, for such writers often confuse the common opinion of the Fathers with their unanimous opinion. This is why we may only take the word of approved authors that a certain teaching is truly unanimous. But when a pope has himself taught infallibly on the subject of Antichrist the very fact he has thus taught demands our firm assent and obedience. Such is the case with Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which defines who and what is to be considered the abomination of desolation and how the abomination could enter into the Holy Place through an invalid papal election. (For those who object that Antichrist and the abomination are not the same thing, please see the article HERE.)  We also have the testimony of Pope Leo XIII in his long St. Michael’s prayer that: “In the Holy Place itself… they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep will be scattered.”  Popes Pius XI and Pius XII also warned that Antichrist was already within the gates. The Holy Place also is designated as the Church in St. Jerome’s commentary in the Breviary for the 24^th and last Sunday after Pentecost.

The second objection, that Paul 6 as Antichrist does not reflect the predictions contained in private revelations is not a valid accusation. Those evaluating these revelations are nearly always of the LibTrad persuasion, including the Lefebvrist and Monarchist Yves Dupont, whose The Antichrist is provided on one site to “refute” the idea that Paul 6 was the Antichrist. While Dupont’s writings on other topics are not objectionable per se, his estimation of the prophecies cannot be said to amount to anything a Catholic is required or even advised to believe regarding the advent of Antichrist. The theologian Gerson, in his Treatise on the examination of doctrines, relates that Pope Gregory XI, when on the point of death, holding the sacred body of Christ in his hands, protested before all, and warned them to beware both of men and women, “who under the guise of religion, speak visions of their own head” for that he, seduced by such, had neglected the reasonable counsel of his friends, and had dragged himself and the Church to the hazard of imminent schism, if her merciful spouse Jesus had not provided against it.” Pope Benedict XIV said these revelations: “…ought not to, and cannot receive from us any assent of Catholic, but only of human faith, ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PRUDENCE, according to which the aforesaid revelations ARE PROBABLE, and piously to be believed.” Today we cannot even be certain these prophecies are faithfully reproduced. 

Catholics must not consider such revelations equivalent to a papal pronouncement, or the unanimous consent of the Fathers and/or approved theologians. (See the article HERE.) As one theologian has remarked: “Many of these revelations are beyond the needs and the intelligence even of persons already far advanced in the spiritual life and are often clothed in language quite unintelligible. And herein precisely lies a new source of anxiety, BECAUSE A NEW DANGER, NAMELY, THE DANGER OF UNDERSTANDING THE REVELATION IN A WRONG SENSE, WHICH MAY EASILY LEAD TO POSITIVE ERROR AND SIN AGAINST THE “RULE OF FAITH.” And this is what has happened with many of these revelations regarding Antichrist. Also, some of these revelations contain errors later condemned by the Holy See, such as the teaching regarding the Great Monarch and an earthly millennium as taught by Joachim of Fiore, also others (see HERE).

Grades of certainty regarding Antichrist

Given the confusion created by these LibTrad writers, a reader has requested “a more detailed description and analysis” of the points offered on this site and attributed to the work of an approved theologian, Fr. A.  Lemman’s The Antichrist. These points and their commentary can be found in Rev. Denis Fahey’s The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, pgs. 175-190. We intended, in offering reference to this work, that readers study Fahey’s work itself for a better understanding of the topic.  But to avoid any confusion for those not able to access this work, quotes will be taken from it below to better explain the basis for Fr. Lemman’s evaluation of these points.

1. Things that are certain about Antichrist;
2. Things that are probable;
3. Things that are undecided;
4. Things that have not a solid foundation

1. Things that are CERTAIN (that is, those things which must be believed either from Holy Scripture or the unanimous opinion of the Fatherss. These include:

1. He will be a trial for the good (Apoc. XIII, 7), and a chastisement for the impious and the apostates (II Thess., II, 9-11). TSB: This is all that is provided, Holy Scripture being sufficient.
2. He will be a man, a human person. (Lemann: “Antichrist is not a myth or a fiction, as Renan, in his silly fashion, tried to show.1 Neither must he be confused with a sect, a collection of impious men, an atheistic environment, or a period of persecution, as certain pious persons have imagined. Antichrist will be a human person, appearing in an epoch of atheism and of wicked sectaries.”)
3. He will not be Satan in human form but only a man (Suarez, De Antichristo, Sect. 1, n. 4 and 5). (TSB: it could be said, however, that he might be possessed by the devil.)
4. He will have great powers of seduction, owing to certain personal qualities. (“Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish,” II Thess., II, 9, 10).

TSB: Paul 6 undoubtedly charmed the Protestants, the Orthodox and the Jews, who he invited to the false Vatican 2 Council. He won the applause of world figures and the admiration of the “faithful” with his address to the UN. The theological world gloried in his Modernistic teachings, and nearly all accepted and taught them. He gave every appearance of being a true pope and reconciling all world religions, including  Communism and Freemasonry, to Catholicism, when this was a doctrinal impossibility.)

5. His career beginnings will be lowly (“The horn is called small, because it will grow little by little, and because it will arrive at domination, not by hereditary right, but by fraud” Cornelius a Lapide, in Ep. ad Thess., II, II.)

TSB: Montini was sickly and studied for the priesthood at home. He initially rose through the ranks as any other cleric. He did not receive the formal position of Secretary of Vatican State but acted only as a “pro-secretary.” Owing to the deceptions he perpetrated during Pope Pius XII’s reign, he was refused the cardinalate.)

6. He will increase in power and make conquests. (TSB: Over time, Paul 6, as a Vatican official, secretly became involved with the British intelligence agency the OSS during WWII, and after the war ended, the CIA, preparing to align himself later with world governments. As a cardinal under the false prophet Roncalli, he continued this campaign openly until his invalid election as “pope.” See Lemann on no. 7 below.)
7. His rule will be worldwide. (Lemman: “With the help which will be furnished him by the anti-Christian societies, this enemy of Our Lord Jesus Christ will be able to form a gigantic empire in a short time.” Pope Leo XIII warned: “What is aimed at and what is intended is the overthrow of Christian institutions and the reconstruction of States on the basis of Pagan Naturalism” (Letter to the Sacred College of Cardinals, 1901).

TSB: Paul 6 helped prepare the way for the democratization of all Christian states by the U. S. Because he pretended to be the head of what the world perceived as the Catholic Church, his reign was universal.

8.He will wage a terrible war against God and the Church. Fr. Fahey: “Father Lemann indicates some of the measures which, to judge by the experience of past persecutions, Antichrist will enforce more thoroughly and more cruelly than ever before. Two of them are: Proscription of Christian teaching and obligatory teaching of error. We can see them already in force in the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Father Lemann adds that ‘The schools without God or rather against God are a preparation for the second measure.’ In that he is perfectly correct, for the Declaration of the Rights of Man of the French Revolution, in the name of which these schools function in France, signified repudiation of membership of Christ, and was thus a declaration of war on the Divine Plan for Order.”

TSB: Christian teaching was removed from public schools in the U.S. during Paul 6’s reign. Following Vatican 2, the catechisms were all revised and error taught to previously Catholic school children worldwide. Error was officially taught by command of a pretended pope from the Holy Place with the adoption of “for all men,” first in the missalettes distributed to the faithful beginning in 1959, and later formally by the abrogation of the Latin Mass in 1969.)

9. He will claim to be God and will demand exclusive adoration. (Fr. Fahey: In 1903 Pope St. Pius X wrote: “So extreme is the general perversion that there is reason to fear that we are experiencing the foretaste and the beginnings of the evils which are to come at the end of time, and that the Son of Perdition, of whom the Apostle speaks, has already arrived upon the earth.” (Note: Leo Panakal later pointed out that when St. Pius X wrote these ominous lines in 1903, Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Paul VI, was six years old.) “So great are the fury and hatred with which religion is everywhere assailed, that it seems to be a determined effort to destroy every vestige of the relation between God and man. On the other hand — and this is, according to [St. Paul], the special characteristic of Antichrist— with frightful presumption man is attempting to usurp the place of his Creator and is lifting himself above all that is called God. Thus, powerless to extinguish completely in himself the notion of God, he is attempting to shake off the yoke of His Majesty and is dedicating the visible world to himself as a temple, in which he has the pretension to receive the adoration of his fellow men, ‘So that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God.” (II Thess., II, 4 ; Encyclical Letter, E Supremi Apostolatus Cathedra, Oct. 4, 1903).

TSB: Francis teaches: “A spark of the Divine is in each of us; therefore, Man is God.”  Both Paul 6 and John Paul 2 taught the same. Paul 6 taught: “Are you looking for God? You will find Him in man.” (John Clancy, Dialogues: Refelections on God and Man, 1965). Paul 6 placed himself above all that is called God by pretending to speak in His name as pope. As Pope Pius XI taught: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means I am God on the earth” (April 22, 1930).

10. By means of diabolical prodigies, Antichrist will seek to prove that he is God. (Lemman: “The question is often asked,” writes St. Augustine, “whether these expressions ‘signs and lying wonders’ are to be understood in the sense that the prodigies wrought by Antichrist will be only apparent, not real; or as signifying that the really extraordinary feats performed by him will draw on to error and falsehood those who accept them as proofs of a divine mission ?’* The great Doctor replies: ‘This will be known later’ (City of God). This hesitation has given rise to two currents of opinion (Suarez, de Antichristo). Some think that the prodigies wrought by Antichrist will be real prodigies and that they will lead to the acceptance of falsehood, that is, to belief in the divinity of Antichrist. Others hold that all the miracles of Antichrist will be false and unreal and that they will be accepted as true thanks to the action of the demon on the senses of his followers. ‘”He will come, when he comes, with all Satan’s influence to aid him: there will be no lack of power, of counterfeit signs and wonders” (The New Testament, by Mgr. R. A. Knox; also agreeing with these works as entirely false prodigies is 1 Cornelius a Lapide., II Thess., II, 9; Bern, a Piconio, II Ep. ad Thess., c. 11, 9.; also St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis de Sales).
11. Antichrist will cause the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to cease.

TSB: This is not contained in Fr. Fahey’s coverage of Fr. Lemman’s points. Fr. Lemman admits in the introduction to his points that “Space will permit of only a brief outline of what is contained under A, B, and C.” Henry Cardinal Manning clearly states in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See that: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” I dare say that Card. Manning is a greater authority on this topic than Fr. Lemman. And not only is this a unanimous opinion of the Fathers; three notable Doctor of the Church — St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Francis de Sales — also teach this as well. St. Bellarmine is adamant on this matter, stating no one can claim Antichrist has come as long as the Mass of Pope St. Pius V is in place (De Contoversiis: on Antichrist, Ryan Grant translation, p. 67). For, having written his work in 1590, St. Bellarmine was undoubtedly referring to the Mass of Pope Pius V, since Pope St. Pius V promulgated his constitution Quo Primumin 1570.

12. The domination and persecution of Antichrist will be merely temporary. The Man of Sin will be destroyed (Dan., VII, 26; Apoc, XIX, 20; II Thess., II, 8).

TSB: Paul 6 died like any other man, although his system remains. Although he was a Traditionalist, Francis Panakal did support his work with solid proofs regarding Paul 6’s identification as the Man of Sin. In his 1983 work, The Man of Sin, Panakal noted that Montini died on the feast of the Transfiguration, Aug. 6, 1978, relating it to 2 Thess. 2: 9-10: “And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”

During the Transfiguration, Christ’s countenance and entire Body became dazzlingly bright, signifying his identity as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The spirit of his mouth Panakal associates with Christ actually addressing Paul 6 as he did St. Paul, asking, “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecuteth me?” He opines that Paul 6 did not know he was the Antichrist until the moment of his death, and that after he learned his true identity he was destroyed by this revelation. Panakal points to one unconfirmed report in a Catholic publication which related that Paul 6 cried out and his face became contorted shortly before he breathed his last, and the putrefaction of his body began immediately after his death.

Things that are PROBABLE

First Probability: The Jews will acclaim Antichrist as the Messias and will help to set up his kingdom.

Lemman: “I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive ” (St. John, V, 43).” It is upon” this reproach addressed by Our Lord Jesus Christ to the Jews, his contemporaries and adversaries, that this belief is based, and it can be said that it is the common opinion of the Fathers of the Church, for example, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Ephraim, St. John Chrysostom, etc., etc.. . . . When we see the enormous financial power of the Jews increasing daily, when we consider their intrigues, their successful occupancy of the chief places in the principal States, their mutual understanding from one end of the world to the other, then in presence of such a preponderance, we have no difficulty in realizing that they will be able to contribute to the establishment of the formidable empire of Antichrist.”

TSB: To be accepted as the Messias, Antichrist would need to be of the Jewish race. That Paul 6 presented as a Jew and was of Jewish heritage was pointed out by Fr. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga in the 1970s. (See the proofs HERE.) It is also a matter of established fact that both he and Angelo Roncalli, the false prophet, pandered to the Jews and absolved them of all guilt in Christ’s Passion and death on the Cross. In his de Controversiis on Antichrist, St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that it is a certainty that Antichrist will be of the Jewish race and will be received by them as the Messiah. P. Huchede teaches the same in his History of Antichrist,

Second Probability 

The persecution of Antichrist will last three years and a half.

Lemman: ”And they [the Saints] shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time” (Dan., VII, 25). “And power was given him to do two and forty months ” (Apoc. XIII, 5). It has been pointed out previously (eleventh point that is certain), that the power and the persecution of Antichrist will be only temporary. That is certain. Is it possible to determine their exact duration? One can give only a probable, not a certain, answer, according to the two texts quoted.” (See HERE for proofs showing that belief in the literal three years and a half are not a matter of faith and Catholics should adopt an opposite view whenever reason or obvious facts would dictate otherwise.)

What constitutes true probability? The scholastic theologian Rev. A.C. Cotter, S.J., in his work, The ABC of Scholastic Philosophy defines a probable opinion as follows: “Probability admits degrees; for one motive may be better and more solid than another. Thus if ten scientists testified to the truth of the atomic theory the layman has a stronger motive for assenting than if only one scientist proposed it. Hence:

1. a) One opinion may be more probable than another, as happens when better arguments are had for the one than for its opposite.
2. b) An opinion is said to be highly probable if there are excellent reasons for it and hardly any against it.
3. c) An opinion is most probable if there are excellent reasons for it, hardly any for contrary opinions on the same matter.
4. d) An opinion is the only probable one if there are solid though not infallible reasons for it and if all other opinions concerning the same matter are certainly wrong or devoid of any solid foundation.
5. e) Two contradictory propositions may be probable at the same time. This happens when the motives for them are disparate so that they do not destroy each other.

Things that are UNDECIDED

(These are four points that are not based upon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or upon precise texts of Holy Writ.)

1) His name; 2) his nationality; 3) the seat of his empire.

TSB: Given that Montini corresponds to all the points that are listed above as certain, and even settles those that are probable, it can then be deduced that he does fit the description of Antichrist. The final undecided point is 4)The temple in which he will present himself. Once it is proven that a) Montini b) was of Jewish heritage and c) pretended to reign in the Church itself, from d) Rome, all four undecided points are then settled.

Things that have not a solid foundation

— The date for Antichrist’s coming (The Church forbids anyone to set a future date for his coming, but neither can anyone deny clear signs he has come. All the commentators writing on Apocalypse and the end times assume that those living in these times will be able to “read the signs of the times.”)

Conclusion

This is not intended to be an exhaustive evaluation of the Antichrist question. This study of Antichrist’s appearance has been spread out over several decades and is presented in different articles on my website. It also is addressed at length in my 2018 work, The Phantom Church in Rome. What many fail to understand regarding Antichrist is that the prophecies contained in Apocalypse are intended primarily to be taken in a spiritual or mystical sense and only secondarily in a literal sense. As Rev. Huchede points out in his work, some passages are amphibological, that is, capable of more than one interpretation. What also is not appreciated here is that some teachings even of the early Fathers were later condemned, such as that of millenarianism. The Great Monarch prophecies first taught by Joachim of Fiore were an instrumental part of this false millenarianism, and the Church later condemned his teachings. Pope Pius XII then determined that millenarianism cannot be safely taught. (See HERE).

According to Holy Scripture, Antichrist’s coming will be preceded by the Great Revolt, most often referred to by Scripture commentators as a general falling away of both the Catholic hierarchy and faithful. Henry Cardinal Manning says this began with the Reformation. This Man of Sin will be revealed only after “he who witholdeth” is taken out of the way,” most likely meaning the Pope. Pope Paul IV tells us in his 1559 bull that the abomination will be revealed following an invalid papal election. The early Fathers teach unanimously he will cause the Holy Sacrifice to cease, and will pretend to speak for God, as if he were God. Please tell me this: If Antichrist has yet to come, WHO will revolt from the Church (hardly any Catholics left anywhere), WHAT sacrifice will cease (no valid sacrifices are now being offered), and HOW would anyone ever believe such a person could speak for God in wreaking all the havoc that was Vatican 2 (since this is a privilege reserved only to a validly elected Pope?!) I have explained in the work HERE that Antichrist’s system could possibly produce a final physical and literal manifestation of Antichrist who would attempt to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. But this person would not himself be the Man of Sin in a spiritual sense.

No one has all the answers on this topic, but if they attempt to address it, they must follow all the rules in place. I have tried to do this to the best of my ability. The saints and Scriptural scholars writing on Antichrist left his final identification to those living at the time of his appearance on the world stage. St. Bellarmine writes: “All prophecies when they are fulfilled are made evident” (Ibid). Rev. Huchede agrees, writing: “The events connected with the end of the world will alone remove the mystery in which the sacred text is at present enveloped… What is mysterious [can only] be explained by the event.” For a better understanding of the situation today, in light of what was already occurring in the 19^th century, please read the works of Henry Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ and The Present Crisis of the Holy See. Both are available for free download at archive.org.

St. Thomas Aquinas refutes the errors of Joachim of Fiore

by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 18, 2023 | New Blog

+ Dedication of the Basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul +

As mentioned in last week’s blog, St. Vincent Ferrer seems to have had some sympathy for the teachings of Joachim of Fiore, even though St. Thomas Aquinas, who St. Vincent quotes often and follows in other writings, had already condemned those who held Abbot Joachim’s and similar teachings. (The teachings of St. Vincent will be discussed in greater detail next week.) This week, we wish to address the teachings of St. Thomas, of whom one modern-day philosophy professor notes, “There comes a point, however, where Ferrer breaks with Aquinas over a central topic: the possibility of having knowledge of the end times –– those of the coming of the antichrist and the end of the world. Aquinas had written a series of rebuttals of William of Saint‐Amour and other authors who upheld the possibility of such knowledge. For Aquinas, the end times could not be known about, either through reasoning or through a revelation. Jesus of Nazareth himself appears to have denied this possibility: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” (Acts 1:7).

“He tells how a hermit has assured him that two of his companions had had a revelation that “the antichrist was already born”. Ferrer replies with the same words from the Bible (Acts 1:7) used by Aquinas to counter William of Saint-Amour, although, according to the hermit, Jesus’s words applied only to those he was addressing (the Apostles), not to those destined to undergo the tribulations brought by the antichrist. Then, in a sermon on 8 July 1411 and a letter dated 27 July 1412, Ferrer adopts the hermit’s interpretation as his own…”

So what St. Vincent was doing was basing his mission on the revelation of the hermit (and a vison he possibly attributes to himself)  — in other words, on private revelation. Or, as St. Thomas refers to it, “Human reason or conjecture.” And yet St. Vincent does make some distinctions in what he teaches regarding Antichrist. And although St. Vincent may have relied on human reason, it is clear he proved that his mission was from God by the miracles he performed during his lifetime.

St. Vincent Ferrer

“The death of Antichrist and the end of the world will occur at the same time. The shortness of the duration of the world after the death of Antichrist has led me to this conclusion, for nowhere in the whole Bible or in the writings of the Doctors can I find a longer period assigned by God for the repentance of those whom Antichrist has seduced than forty-five days after his death.

“The second conclusion I draw is that until Antichrist is actually born, the time of his birth will be hidden from mankind.

“So, even though there were the most illuminating revelations of the divine Wisdom concerning these matters, it was not necessary for the Apostles and Doctors of the first ages of the Church to know the time of the coming of Antichrist and the end of the world; but after his birth it is expedient for men, even though they be sinners, or so ignorant as to know nothing of the Apostles and Doctors, to know of this birth, so that they may be forewarned and prepared.This is in accordance with the wisdom, mercy and knowledge of God, who from the beginning of the world was accustomed to send messengers to warn men of any great tribulation about to come to pass. Noah was warned before the deluge, Moses before the liberation of Israel, Amos before the destruction of Egypt, and so on.” Before treating these predictions in light of St. Thomas’ teachings, a note is in order on what has been said previously in this blog and in site articles on Antichrist and the Second Coming.

(Clarification of these statements will be provided under the Conclusion heading.)

 Antichrist and the Second Coming

I have speculated at length on the relevance of recent events and their possible relation to the Second Coming. Prior to that, I had already written for decades on the identity of Antichrist  — the usurper Paul 6. But what I wrote took place AFTER Antichrist had already appeared, and could be credibly identified as such, not BEFORE. And while St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine definitely do teach that no one could actually predict the date of Antichrist’s appearance or that of the Second Coming, once he has actually been credibly predicted to appear and has come and gone it would seem remiss to not warn others that surely the Second Coming is not far off, particularly if signs seem to point to this.

St. Thomas could scarcely have discounted Pope Paul IV’s warning about HOW the abomination of desolation would attempt to insinuate himself into the papacy, while not predicting at exactly what time this would occur. Nor could he dare find fault with Christ’s own  Vicar, Pope St. Pius X, who warned in 1903 that Antichrist already had been born. It was common knowledge that Pope St. Pius X was gifted with precognition, and certainly this sainted pope was no mere hermit who was said to have had a vison, since his teachings were assisted by the Holy Ghost. It has been based on these two predictions, also on Pope Pius XII’s laws regarding papal election, that the identification of Antichrist’s reign became clear and was later able to be determined.

St. Thomas Aquinas: Contra Impugnantes, on the Inability to Determine the Arrival of Antichrist and the Last Judgment

Chapters 3 and 4 (These are random extracts form a very long discourse by St. Thomas)

“Hence religious, because they exercise the office of preaching in a learned manner, are regarded as the forerunners of Antichrist.

3. “I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb” (Rev. xiii. 11). On these words of the Apocalypse the Gloss remarks: “The description of the tribulation which will be caused by Antichrist and his princes is followed by a narrative of the evils which will befall the Church, by means of the apostles of Antichrist, who will travel throughout the entire world.” Again, “coming up out of the earth” signifies “ going forth to preach” (Gloss). On the words “it had two horns” the Gloss remarks: “These preachers are said to have two horns, because they will profess to imitate the innocent and spotless life of our Lord, to work miracles resembling His, and to preach His doctrine; or else because they will usurp to themselves the two Testaments.” Hence it would appear that they who go forth to preach, with the knowledge of the two Testaments, and with an appearance of sanctity, are the apostles of Antichrist. (Comment: Which is exactly what Novus Ordo and LibTrad pseudo-clergy do.)

“Julian the Apostate was the first to conceive this idea. He, as we are told in ecclesiastical history, forcibly prevented Christians from acquiring knowledge. Those therefore who imitate him, by forbidding religious to study, act in a manner opposed to the precepts of Scripture. We read, for instance, in Isaiah (v. 13): “Therefore is my people led away captive, because they had not knowledge.” “Because,” remarks the Gloss, “they would not have knowledge.” Now voluntary ignorance could not deserve punishment, were not knowledge praiseworthy.

“2. In the Prophet Hosea (iv. 5) we read: “In the night I have made your mother to be silent. My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge; because you rejected knowledge, I will reject you that you shall not do the office of priesthood to me.” This text clearly shows how severely ignorance will be punished.

“3. In Ps. cxviii. 66, we read: “Teach me goodness and discipline and knowledge.” On these words, the Gloss says: “Teach me goodness, i.e. inspire me, with charity; teach me discipline, i.e. give me patience; teach me knowledge, i.e. enlighten my mind. For that knowledge is useful, whereby a man becomes known to himself.”

“4. St. Jerome writes to the monk Rusticus: “Let a book be never absent from your eyes or hand.” Hence the learning of the saints is preferable to the holiness of the unlearned. In the same epistle, after enumerating the books of holy Scripture, St. Jerome continues: “I beseech you, brother, let these books be the companions of your life and the subject of your meditation. I know nothing but these, and seek no other thing. Don’t you see that in this way you may on earth enjoy the Kingdom of heaven?” A heavenly life then consists in the constant study of Holy Scripture.

“5. St. Paul points out that knowledge of the Scriptures is essential to preachers. For, he says (1 Tim. iv. 13), “Till I come attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine.” It is evident from this that a knowledge of what they are to teach, is necessary for those whose duty it is to preach and to exhort.

“6. St. Jerome writes to the monk Rusticus: “Spend much time in learning what you must later on teach.” Once more he writes to the same, “If you desire to enter the clerical state, study, in order that you may teach.” … (Comment: Catechetical teaching was greatly neglected in favor of promoting the new liturgy, as theologians writing pre-Vatican 2 observed.)

“There shall arise false Christs and false prophets” (Mark xiii. 22), the Gloss says: This verse is to be understood as referring the heretics who attacked the Church, declaring that they were Christs. The first of these impostors was Simon Magus; the last will be Antichrist.” He who preaches without, any commission to do so, or teaches false doctrine, does so inspired by some bad motive, either of covetousness, or pride, or vain glory. Such men are deprived of the grace of God; and consequently commit sins, more or less heinous. But everyone who preaches for the sake of gain or popularity is not, necessarily a false apostle or false prophet; otherwise there would be no distinction between a hireling and a false apostle. They who preach for the sake of anything save of the glory of God and the good of souls are hirelings; let their preaching be true or false, authorised or unauthorised. BUT SUCH MEN CANNOT BE CALLED FALSE PROPHETS, UNLESS THEY EITHER BEAR NO COMMISSION, OR TEACH FALSE DOCTRINE. (Comment:  Here we have a definition of LibTrads from St. Thomas own mouth!) “In the same way, every sinner who administers the sacraments, or preaches the Word of God, is not necessarily a false apostle or a false prophet. For true prelates are true apostles; although at times they may be sinful.

 Chapter 5

“1.St. Augustine says (Epist. ad Hesychium): “You say the Gospel tells us that no man knows that day or hour. I tell you, as far as my understanding will suffice, that no man can know the month nor the year of the coming of the Lord. This seems as if the words had been understood to mean that, though none can say in what year the Lord will come, it is possible to know in what septet or decade of years his coming may be expected.”

“2. Certain men were condemned in the early days of the Church for teaching, as men teach now, that the coming of the Lord was imminent. We have this on the authority of St. Jerome (De illustr. viris), and of Eusebius, (Ecclesiast. Histor.).No period, either long or short, can be determined, in which is to be expected the end of the world, or the coming of Christ or of Antichrist. It is for this reason that we are told that “the day of the Lord shall come as a thief” (1 Thes. v. 2), and that as “in the days of Noah they knew not till the flood came and took them all away, so also shall the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt. xxiv). St. Augustine, in his Epistle to Hesychius, speaks of three classes of men who made assertions respecting the coming of our Lord. One class expects Him soon; another later; and the third declares its ignorance of the time of His coming. This last opinion meets with the approbation of St. Augustine, and he censures the presumption of the others. Then he concludes by saying: “It is thus uncertain by what generations the final period of time, which begins with the coming of our Lord and is to end with the end of the world, is to be counted.” God has chosen, for some wise purpose, to keep this hidden. So it is written in the Gospel. St. Paul also declares that “the day of the Lord is to come like a thief in the night.”

“3. (1) They quote the words of Daniel (vii. 25) concerning Antichrist: “He shall think himself able to change times.” That is to say, according to the Gloss, “ His pride is so excessive that he strives to alter laws and ceremonies.” On account of these words the days of Antichrist are said to be at hand, because certain men try to alter the Gospel of Christ into another gospel, which they call “eternal.” The Gospel of which they speak is a certain Introduction to the books of Joachim, WHICH IS CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH. Or else it is the doctrine of Joachim, whereby they say the Gospel of Christ is altered. But granted that this hypothesis were true, it would be no token of the approach of Antichrist. For even in the days of the Apostles, certain men tried to alter the Gospel of Christ. Thus St. Paul says (Gal. i. 6): “I wonder that you are soon removed from him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another Gospel.”

“(2) The second sign of the coming of Antichrist is supposed to be found in the words of the Psalmist (ix. 21): “Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them.” This the Gloss interprets to mean “the Antichrist, the giver of an evil law.” As the doctrine which we have already mentioned, which they call the law of Antichrist, was promulgated at Paris, it is thought to be a sign that Antichrist is at hand. But it is not true to say that the doctrine of Joachim, or that which is contained in the Introduction to the Gospel of Joachim, however reprehensible it may be, is the doctrine which will be preached by Antichrist.

“(3) The third supposed sign of the coming of Antichrist is found in the Book of Daniel (v) and in Isaiah (xxi). We read there the account of the hand that wrote Mane, Thecel, Phares on the wall of Babylon. Those who believe that Antichrist is at hand, maintain that the same prediction which formerly was written up in Babylon is now written in the Church. Mane was interpreted to mean, “God has numbered your Kingdom and has finished it”; and the Kingdom of Christ is now numbered, for it has been foretold that it is to endure a thousand two hundred and seventy years. Thecel signified, “You art weighed in the balance and found wanting”; and the “Eternal Gospel” is preferred to the Gospel of Christ. Phares meant your Kingdom is divided and is given to the Medes and Persians”; and the Kingdom of the Church is now finished and given to others.” (Comment: It may not have applied in St. Thomas’ time but certainly applies to the Novus Ordo today.)

“Thus, the writing on the wall signified both the destruction of the Church and the ruin of Babylon. (Comment: St. Jerome does say that everything written in the New Testament was foreshadowed in the Old Testament.) “This, however, seems a very foolish idea. St. Augustine tells us (18 de Civ. Dei) that certain men said that Christianity was to last for three hundred and sixty-five years, and that at the end of that time it was to cease to exist. Thus, it is no new thing to assign a limit for the duration of Christianity, since this was done even before the time of Augustine. Hence this is no reason for believing Antichrist to be at hand. St. Augustine says likewise (ibid.) that in his time some men estimated that four hundred years, others that five hundred, were to elapse between the Ascension of Christ and His second coming. Others, again, reckoned that this period was to embrace a thousand years. But the words of our Lord, “It is not yours to know the times or the moments” etc. (Acts i. 7), expose the folly of all such suppositions. St. Augustine, furthermore, blames the kind of arguments.

“(Acts i. 7), (St. Augustine, furthermore, blames the kind of arguments used in such conjectures. He compares them to the hypothesis of some that as there were ten plagues of Egypt, so there were to be ten persecutions of the Church. He says that such opinions are mere human conjectures, established on no foundation of truth. Those who interpret the handwriting on the wall as prophetic of the speedy coming of Antichrist, show their agreement with the Scripture that they reprobate; because, like the Scripture, they say that the beloved Babylon is soon to be destroyed. But there is no real similitude. For the handwriting in Babylon was divinely displayed, and it was therefore a proof of the truth; but the writing, of which these would-be prophets speak, is a figment of error, on which no argument can be founded expose the folly of all such suppositions.” (Comment: Joachim’s writings were a figment of error because he expected the world to end based solely on his own prognostications. The prophecies in Apocalypse are also divinely displayed but were not fulfilled in St. Thomas’ day.)

“6. Many false prophets shall arise and shall seduce many.” We are told that this sign is now manifested, because certain religious appear who are called false prophets. If we compare it with the Gloss on the passage in the Gospel of St. Mark (xiii), where false prophets are understood to mean heretics, or those who, after the Passion of our Lord and before the destruction of Jerusalem, seduced the Jewish nation. We have also already spoken at length on the subject of false prophets.

“7. There have been in all ages men in the Church who appeared perfect, and yet originated heresies. We may mention Pelagius, Nestorius, and Eutyches. There have also been many others of the same description. But they did not, therefore, prove that their charity had grown cold. For, although they did not follow the teaching of the Gospel, they did not persecute it. There is no need of persecution, where there is no defender of the truth. Such a persecution would revive extinct errors; and, under pretext of refuting them, would teach them to the people; and this is the greatest of dangers. Hence St. Gregory says (14 Moral.) that after Eutyches had died leaving no followers, he would not labour to exterminate his errors, lest he should again fan them into flame. (Comment: Modernism, synthesis of all heresies, fanned these flames into a conflagration.)

Chapter 6

“They assert that these seducers will be neither barbarians, nor Jews, nor Gentiles. But this opinion is contrary to the prophecy of the Apocalypse: “Satan… shall seduce the nations which are over the four quarters of the Earth, Gog and Magog” (Rev. xx. 7). On these words, the Gloss says: “Satan will first seduce these two nations; he will then proceed to deceive others.” Or, according to another interpretation, by Magog is understood all persecutors who proceeded, at first by secret, and afterwards, by open persecution. Hence barbarians are not excluded from the persecution of Antichrist, as they would persuade us.

“For St. Paul did not mean that the same men would be guilty of all the vices which he enumerates, but that some of his words would apply to some men, and that other parts of his reproof would be true of other persons. Hence it is not necessary that all those who are likely to endanger the Church should present an appearance of piety. It is merely implied that some of them will do so. In like manner, the early Church suffered persecution from believers and unbelievers alike. “In perils from the Gentiles… in perils from false brethren” (2 Cor. xi. 26).

“The emissaries of Antichrist, we are next told, will not be found among the manifestly wicked. This opinion is, however, clearly opposed to the 82nd Psalm. The Gloss explains that the whole of that Psalm treats of the persecution of Antichrist. It adds that among his other emissaries, the “Philistines” signify those who are drunk with worldly luxury… But, although some of the emissaries of Antichrist may wear an appearance of piety, it is not necessary that they shall all seem godly. Christians of the early Church were persecuted both by the impious and by the apparently pious.” (Comment: Materialism, foundation stone of the Masonic pyramid, paved the way for all other errors.)

“We are further told that the ministers of Satan will be found among those who devote themselves to study… St. Paul was referring not to men who seduce others, but to silly women who suffer themselves to be led astray. Granted, however that the words apply to men who mislead others, they can only refer to those who, in their studies, depart from the way of truth. Hence the text is often interpreted of heretics. Those who hold a contrary opinion, however, quote in support of it the following words of St. Gregory (13 Moral.) on Job xvi.: “My enemy has looked at me with terrible eyes.” “The incarnate Truth,” says St. Gregory, “chose for His preachers poor and simple men. But Antichrist will send as his Apostles men who are cunning and double-tongued and imbued with the wisdom of the world…” Therefore, the true preachers of Antichrist are learned men, who lead worldly lives and attract men to vice. But even if Antichrist were going to ruin the Church by means of learned men, it would not be by their agency alone.

“We are further told that the envoys of Antichrist will be found among those learned men whose opinion is esteemed as peculiarly weighty and valuable… St. Paul says of them, first that they will have an appearance of godliness, and then that they will be “men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim iii. 5). Stress is also laid on the words, “they came forth from us” (1 John ii. 19), which means, as the Gloss says, “they shared with us in the Sacraments.” But this quotation is no argument. For St. Paul does not say of the men to whom he refers that at first they wore an appearance of piety, and that then, laying it aside, they became infidels. What he means is that while these men had a superficial semblance of godliness, they were at the same time infidels at heart.” (Comment: And here we see exactly what happened with the rot that entered into the Church and led to Roncalli’s election: the cardinals and bishops had only “a superficial semblance of godliness, they were at the same time infidels at heart.” They were pretenders who could only elect and support a master pretender.)

Summary

“1. The first error lies in defining the heralds of Antichrist as one race of men, when, as “we know by the Gloss on Ps. lxxxii, Antichrists will spring from all classes of men.

“2. The second error lies in the fact that though diverse authorities may be quoted in support of individual points, no class of men furnishes all the necessary conditions.

“3. Even were some such men found amongst religious, other such might likewise be found among men who are not religious. Hence this argument does not tell more against religious than against seculars.

“4. If some religious are to be emissaries of Antichrist, all religious will not be his adherents. Perhaps very few religious will join Antichrist, as he is to recruit his ranks from all classes of men.

“5. It is praiseworthy to be a Christian, a learned man, a prudent counsellor, and a religious. These attributes, therefore, are no reason for concluding that their possessor is to be a forerunner of Antichrist.” (End of of St. Thomas commentary)

Conclusion

Now of course St. Vincent Ferrer wrote and taught long after the death of St. Thomas Aquinas. And if there had really been anything objectionable in his writings, anything even approaching the condemned doctrines that Abbot Joachim taught, he would never have achieved sainthood. Nor would he have been noted for his miracles. So while Saint Thomas Aquinas’ teachings must definitely be honored here and taken to heart, that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be new developments and new perspectives on the coming of Antichrist and how this would come about. It is clear from what has been written above that we are not predicting Antichrist is going to come as was St. Vincent or naming a date for anything. We are simply observing that it certainly appears that he has already come and that as St. Thomas Aquinas himself says in his own works, we cannot properly estimate the time-period between Antichrist’s death and the end of the world, when so many will believe they have nothing to fear and live “in peace and security.” We must simply pray and watch.

Neither St. Thomas nor St. Vincent Ferrer ever foresaw how everything in the Church would be so utterly destroyed. The death of Antichrist will not be complete until the final perpetrator of his system is annihilated, the last reincarnation of his imposture.  We know Antichrist and the false prophet will be thrown alive into the lake of fire and how could this be? Only if the final judgment began with their bodily resurrection and casting into that lake of fire by Christ during the Battle of Armageddon. That is the beginning of the Final Judgment, and on its heels will most likely follow all the rest.

What St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized in his writings above is the inability of forecasting Antichrist’s future coming and the Second Coming according to insufficient evidence, particularly that based primarily on human conjecture. That is not what has been done in the case of the Great Apostasy, the advent of the Novus Ordo church and the Cessation of the Holy Sacrifice. The consequences of these things St. Thomas never even considered. We are not conjecturing anything in the future here; we have witnessed it with our own eyes. St. Thomas also is denying that certain prophecies in the Old Testament can be used by his opponent William St. Amour, a follower of Abbot Joachim, to justify his case. That does not mean it could not and does not apply to the case at hand today. Basically St. Thomas believed that not much would really be known about the coming of Antichrist until the actual event.

Next week, we will see the virtues St. Vincent Ferrer advises Catholics to practice during Antichrist’s reign, and how he viewed Antichrist’s persecution and Christ’s Second Coming.

Joachim of Fiore’s heresy used to target those praying at home

by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 12, 2023 | New Blog

+24^th Sunday after Pentecost+

It never fails to amaze me how many different ways the enemy can attempt to confuse and defuse those who are trying to defend the faith and obey the laws of God. And this time, while  standing next to an oversized portrait of St. Thomas Aquinas, no less! This attack comes from a Novus Ordo apologist, Taylor Marshall, who, ever so slyly insinuates that those praying at home are adhering to an old heresy that has been defended and advanced by some Novus Ordo theorists, but mainly LibTrads and other schismatic sects, for decades. (His video can be viewed HERE.) Of course he makes his accusations based on the assumption that those praying at home actually have valid and licit sacraments available to them but choose instead to forego them in favor of approaching God directly, when no valid Sacraments save marriage and Baptism are available to us today. And needless to say, he is inviting us to receive the infernal parody of the Sacraments offered by the counter-church. When pigs fly.

The heresy Marshall refers to is that of “Bl.” Joachim of Fiore, a 13^th century Capuchin abbot, but he fails to inform his viewers that Joachim’s status as a beatus is one arbitrarily assigned to him by his admirers, not by a true pope, (see here). He even gives his feast day as May 29, which can be found in none of the beati listed with the saints in Butler’s Lives of the Saints or elsewhere. Marshall never really classifies the abbot’s teachings as heretical, when in reality Pope Alexander IV, in 1256, condemned Joachim for his teachings and those of his followers, (but this was after his death). The Lateran Council and Pope John XXII also condemned his followers for teaching the same errors. But even before this, his teachings had been condemned by St. Thomas Aquinas and other theological schools, although St. Thomas Aquinas was aware that  “…however dangerous the abbot’s doctrines were, the Joachites [his followers] had gone far beyond them” (Bernard McGinn; see Conclusion below for citation). So what was it that Joachim of Fiore taught? We read from the Catholic Encyclopedia, followed by my comments:

“There are three states of the world, corresponding to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In the first age the Father ruled, representing power and inspiring fear, to which the Old Testament dispensation corresponds; then the wisdom hidden through the ages was revealed in the Son, and we have the Catholic Church of the New Testament; a third period will come, the Kingdom of the Holy Spirit, a new dispensation of universal love, which will proceed from the Gospel of Christ, but transcend the letter of it, and in which there will be no need for disciplinary institutions. Joachim held that the second period was drawing to a close, and that the third epoch (already in part anticipated by St. Benedict) would actually begin after some great cataclysm which he tentatively calculated would befall in 1260. After this Latins and Greeks would be united in the new spiritual kingdom, freed alike from the fetters of the letter; the Jews would be converted, and the “Eternal Gospel” abide until the end of the world.”

Comment: No need for disciplinary institutions? Wasn’t this precisely the goal of the Modernists, and wasn’t that goal largely realized in the1983 revision of Canon Law and the rule of LibTrad pseudo-clergy, minus any need for a true pope? Isn’t it indeed the Novus Ordo that has introduced the “Novus Ordo Missae” and the new age of the “Holy Spirit” by sanctioning charismatic “Catholicism”?

“The sect of the “Joachists” or “Joachimists” arose among the “spiritual” party among the Franciscans, many of whom saw Antichrist already in the world in the person of Frederick II, nor was their faith shaken by his death in 1250. One of their number, Fra Gherardo of Borgo San Donnino, wrote a treatise entitled “Introductorium in Evangelium Aeternum”, of which the contents are now known only from the extracts made by the commission of three cardinals who examined it in 1255. From these it is clear that the Joachists went far beyond what the abbot himself had taught. They held that, about the year 1200, the spirit of life had gone out of the two Testaments and that Joachim’s three books themselves constituted this “Eternal Gospel,” which was not simply to transcend but to supersede, the Gospel of Christ. The Catholic priesthood and the whole teaching of the New Testament was to be rendered void in a few years.” 

Comment: Well it may have taken them a little over 700 years but isn’t that exactly what they have accomplished?!

“This work was solemnly condemned by Alexander IV, in 1256, [DZ 458, regarding Abbot Joachim’s follower and champion, William of St. Amour] and the condemnation involved the teaching of Joachim himself. His central doctrine was confuted by St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica (I-II, Q. 106, a. 4), and its Franciscan exponents were sternly repressed by St. Bonaventure. Another blow was given to the movement when the fatal year 1260 came, and nothing happened.” So what exactly does St. Thomas Aquinas have to say about St. Joachim’s teachings? From Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 106, a. 4:

“On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mat. 24:34): “I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all (these) things be done”: which passage Chrysostom (Hom. lxxvii) explains as referring to “the generation of those that believe in Christ.” Therefore the state of those who believe in Christ will last until the consummation of the world…

“I answer that: Therefore no state of the present life can be more perfect than that of the New Law, since the nearer a thing is to the last end, the more perfect it is… We are not to look forward to a state wherein man is to possess the grace of the Holy Ghost more perfectly than he has possessed it hitherto, especially the apostles who “received the first fruits of the Spirit, i.e. sooner and more abundantly than others,” as a gloss expounds on Rom. 8:23… As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), there is a threefold state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second is that of the New Law; THE THIRD WILL TAKE PLACE NOT IN THIS LIFE, BUT IN HEAVEN.

“Reply to Objection 3: “The Old Law corresponded not only to the Father, but also to the Son: because Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Law. Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 5:46): “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of Me.” In like manner the New Law corresponds not only to Christ, but also to the Holy Ghost; according to Rom. 8:2: “The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” etc. Hence we are not to look forward to another law corresponding to the Holy Ghost.”

“Reply to Objection 4: Since Christ said at the very outset of the preaching of the Gospel: “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat. 4:17), it is most absurd to say that the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom. But the preaching of the Gospel of Christ may be understood in two ways. First, as denoting the spreading abroad of the knowledge of Christ: and thus the Gospel was preached throughout the world even at the time of the apostles, as Chrysostom states (Hom. lxxv in Matth.). And in this sense the words that follow—“and then shall the consummation come,” refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, of which He was speaking literally. Secondly, the preaching of the Gospel may be understood as extending throughout the world and producing its full effect, so that, to wit, the Church would be founded in every nation. And in these sense, as Augustine writes to Hesychius (Epist. cxcix), the Gospel is not preached to the whole world yet, but, when it is, the consummation of the world will come.”

According to Rev. R. Gerald Culleton’s The Prophets and Our Times (1941), Abbot Joachim also taught: “After many prolonged sufferings endured by Christians… a remarkable Pope will be seated on the Pontifical throne under the special protection of the angels. Holy and full of gentleness, he shall undo all wrong, recover states of the Church, reunite the exiled temporal powers and shall… recover the Kingdom of Jerusalem. All men will return to the primitive Church and there shall be only one pastor, one law, one master — humble, modest and fearing God (the Pope). The true God of the Jews our Lord Jesus Christ will make everything prosper beyond all human hope because God alone can and will pour down on the wounds of humanity this oily balm of sweetness….

“This angelic Pope will preach the gospel in every country. Through his zeal and solicitude, the Greek church will be forever reunited to the Catholic Church. The dispersed nation of Jews shall also enjoy tranquility… At the beginning, in order to obtain these happy results, having need of a powerful temporal assistance, this holy pontiff will ask the cooperation of the generous monarch of France, the great monarch. At that time a handsome monarch, a scion of King Pepin will come as a pilgrim to witness the splendor of this glorious pontiff whose name shall begin with R…  The temporal throne becoming vacant, the Pope shall place on it this king whose assistance he shall ask.”

And all the above might have been a possibility if the papacy had not been usurped unopposed by a canonically elected pope for 65 years, until a certainly valid election became impossible. (According to the Catholic Encyclopedia under Antichrist, Abbot Joachim foresaw this usurpation but not its consequences.) Below we will read at greater length from the essay Joachim of Fiore and Apocalyptic Immanence, by Paul Ziolo, Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, 2017) regarding the far-reaching implications of Abbot Joachim’s teachings.

“1) Human history is divided into three successive Ages (in Joachimite terms, the Ages or Status (Lat. status (pl.) in the sense of epochs, aeons or psychospiritual ‘conditions’) of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit). Humanity is currently situated in the Second Age – the age of struggle and transition, while the Third will be the ‘New Age’, bringing the resolution of all conflict and an endlessly static ‘spiritualised’ state of human perfection. Sometimes (as in the Marxist interpretation), time and distance bring about a re-evaluation, so that the age of struggle and transition is transposed to the Third – (modes of production based on hunter-gatherer economies, feudal slavery, then Capitalism as an age of struggle and illumination) – which will finally culminate in a Fourth Age of stasis and perfection (the Marxist ‘withering away of the State’).

2) The New Age will heralded by the victorious struggle of the God-anointed ‘World Emperor’ in alliance with the ‘Angelic Pope’ over the ‘Beast of the Apocalypse’ (the evil, secular power) and the Antichrist ( the Antipope or the incarnation of the secularised Papacy).

3) The New Age will be ushered in or ‘catalysed’ by two new monastic orders – one engaged in the active life, the other – the ‘spiritual order’ – in the contemplative. In later interpretations (e.g. by the Jesuits and modern totalitarian philosophies) these two orders became fused into one.”

Ziolo then provides four illustrations representing the Trinity and the three different phases. The final phase actually points to the establishment of the Novus Ordo church, a fact that conveniently escapes Taylor Marshall. Ziolo continues, and the comment on the title of Fig. 4 is entirely his own:

“Fig.4 is entitled DISPOSITIO NOVI ORDINIS – the Configuration of the New Order (note the somewhat sinister implications of this title). This image depicts the social structures of the Third Status, laid out in the form of the human body (representing the ‘Body of Christ’) and, at the same time, the Cross of Jerusalem (the new Civitas Dei or City of God)… The lowest (and largest [social structure]) is that of the Sheep (Ovis) – i.e. the People. Democracy still has a long way to go.

“For romantics and reactionaries of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the medieval ‘Abbot of Calabria’ [Joachim] had become a remote, mysterious, almost legendary figure whose cryptic prophecies, vast systematisation of history and brilliantly illuminated figurae began to exercise that fascination created by distance in time. The passing centuries had seen an increasing extension, generalisation and abstraction of the Joachimite program within the broader context of the traumatic collapse of the Christian group-fantasy…  Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries therefore, the Joachimite visions are found embedded in the writings of a dense network of European literati, feminists, visionaries, reformers and revolutionaries… These fantasies were always latent in European history, given form through the immanence of dynamic trinitarianism and canonical endorsement by the Joachimite prophecies…

“The main vehicle for the diffusion of Joachim’s ideas remained the Eternal Evangel, compiled by Santo Donnino in 1252. Although this work occasionally inspired searches for and scholarly work on, the primary sources, as well as encounters with the hypnotic figurae, it became the main emotional ‘mirror’ through which visionaries sought to re-interpret the present in terms of the past. This European network included such personalities as George Eliot, Pierre Leroux, George Sand, Ernest Renan, Matthew Arnold, John Addington Symonds, Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Pater, Joris-Karl Huysmans, W.B. Yeats, D.H Lawrence, the painter Wassily Kandinsky, the metahistorian Arnold Toynbee and the psychoanalyst, C.G. Jung…” (Marshall explains in his video that a modern psychoanalyst, Jordan Peterson, has stated he is a member of the church of “St.” Joachim of Fiore, so beware — especially given what follows below.)

“Three of these figures deserve special mention in view of their relevance for psychohistory,” [but here we will mention only one of these].  “Joris-Karl Huysmans’ 1891 novel Là-Bas (‘Down There’) is a psychohistorically interesting work — parts of which have actually been transcribed onto psychohistory websites. The novel is a study of Satanism, child abuse and human sacrifice in the form of what is in fact an autobiographical novel (part of a series). Two narratives, displaced in time, are intertwined in the text – the protagonist Durtal’s involvement with Parisian Satanic cults of the late 19th century  (the era of the notorious so-called Mass Priests) and a biography of the early 15th century child rapist, mass murderer and Satanist Gilles de Rais. Through this double narrative Huysmans develops his main thesis – that archaic, infanticidally-based psychoclass structures, ever latent but hidden and held in check during periods of comparative social stability (such as the earlier Middle Ages), may re-emerge during times of pronounced social anomie and disintegration. The novel is threaded with Joachimite ideas.

“[But] The darkest fruits of the Joachimite tree were the archaist and futurist totalitarian systems of the 20th century – in which Joachim’s viri spirituales became transformed into the brutal SS and communist party ‘cadres’. How did this happen? As I have stated, the wandering Fraticelli had played a major role in the dissemination of pseudo-Joachimite ideas… from the 13th-14th centuries, thus preparing the ground for the heretic and reformist movements that were to culminate in the Reformation itself. Lutheran reformers in turn transmitted the revolutionary ideas of Joachimism via Bohemia and Poland to Russia… In Russia, the ancient conception of Moscow as the ‘Third Rome’, dating from the fall of Constantinople in 1453, was a natural product of purely Trinitarian (rather than apocalyptic) thinking. After the increasing ‘self-divinisation’ of the Russian Monarchy, beginning with the assumption in 1547 of the title of Tsar by Ivan IV (‘The Terrible’), and especially after the Nikonian Reforms of 1652, apocalyptic movements began to proliferate and acquire a distinctly Joachimite tinge.

“By the late 19th century, philosophers, writers and visionary historians such as Soloviev, Merezhovsky, Dostoievsky and Danilovsky displayed a thorough acquaintance with the Joachimite program and had incorporated it into their own visions of Russia’s ‘destiny’. The ground was therefore well prepared for the Marxist conception of history as comprising three economic phases: primitive communism, class- structured society and the ‘new communism’ (with the Third International inaugurating the transition to the communist version of the Third Status) as well as the later Leninist-Stalinist formulations of the Party as the ‘vanguard of the Revolution’. The ideological ‘cadres’ were to become Joachim’s ‘contemplative’ order while the GPU-NKVD-KGB were to assume the role of the ‘active’ order.

“In Germany, where the seeds of the Joachimite tree had been planted by reformers and long watered by generations of conservative Lutherans, the Third Status was clearly envisaged in terms of the Third Reich (it should be remembered that it had been the Emperors of the ‘First’ Reich that had served as the original prototypes for Joachim’s ‘Worldly Emperor’). Under Nazism, the two orders at first coalesced into the SA, then later into the SS (neither the SD nor the Gestapo served any specifically ideological function). The most poisonous fruit of the tree came to flower after the division of the SS into the Waffen-SS and the Totenkopfverbände (‘Death’s Head’ Guards) in 1936, with the latter specifically entrusted with the engineering of the Holocaust.

The Joachimite vision continues to influence modern conceptions of the future. One of its most specific ‘translations’ is found in [Isaac] Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy…. This vision continues to colour all political and economic visions and policies that conceive of human destiny as a march towards some form of paradise, as unilinear progress or as the realisation of some ‘Manifest Destiny’… Apocalyptic thought will always be part of any re-envisioning of world culture promulgated by the alliance between the Euroamerican scientific-technological establishment and global corporations. In seeking to establish a New World Order built on global capitalism, such entities still strive to realise Joachim’s Dispositio Novi Ordinis in terms of the present…” (End of Ziolo quotes).

The above is confirmed by no less than Novus Ordo “Cardinal” Henri de Lubac, S.J.:

“Joachimism exerted a significant influence upon the thinking of people, de Lubac maintained, as far apart in their views as the once-liberal then utopian-socialist Henri de Saint-Simon, the Nazi racial theorist Alfred Rosenberg, and, above all, Karl Marx and associated Marxist theorists such as the German philosopher Ernst Bloch. Underpinning all these ideas, de Lubac held, was a type of laicized millenarianism which conveyed the sense that a new age was about to dawn as history inevitably progressed toward some type of this-worldly utopia… In his Mémoires sur l’occasion de mes écrits, de Lubac wrote:

“Under the various forms it has assumed, I consider Joachimism to be a still-present and even pressing danger. I recognize it in the process of secularization, which, betraying the Gospel, transforms the search for that Kingdom of God into social utopias. I see it at work in what was so justly called the “self-destruction of the Church” [after Vatican II]. I believe that it can only aggravate the misery and cause the abasement of our humanity.” (See complete article here). It is no surprise that according to Wikipedia and other works by Novus Ordo authors, the condemned Modernist Ernesto Buonaiuti, declared a vitandus heretic by Pope Pius XI, was one of the first researchers in the modern-day application of Joachinism. Buonaiuti was the Modernist seminary professor Angelo Roncalli befriended, and this friendship was the reason Roncalli himself was labeled by Pope Pius XI as a suspected Modernist.

So finally we know the actual origins of this Great Monarch, Holy Pope business and where it is now headed — Heaven on earth with technocracy as its god. LibTrads embracing it today have no clue that this is actually a neo-Modernistheresy they are committing themselves to, although their pseudo-clergy at the top most likely do know. Even the secular world understands this as the following quote demonstrates: “Joachim has always had a double reputation, as saint and as heretic, for cautious Christian thinkers and leaders have seen his writings as HIGHLY DANGEROUS. The debate as to whether he was orthodox or heretic continues today” (Encyclopedia Britannica). But of course there can be no such debate on the part of Catholics in view of the papal condemnations listed above. And while LibTrads may object that it is a spiritual revival they are anticipating, not a secular one, they need to heed the teaching of the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas and other Church Fathers, as will be explained below.

Conclusion

“The nature of this third age explains why Joachim’s views can be characterized by the term “radical eschatology.” All medieval thinkers were eschatological in the sense that they accepted the Christian understanding of history that looked forward to the definitive event of the return of Christ and the end of time. Joachim’s sense of the imminence of his third age does not of itself make his thought distinctive; from Gregory the Great to Norbert of Xanten, popes and saints had been convinced that all things were fulfilled and they themselves would live to see the end. But Joachim saw the terrors of the time of the Antichrist as presaging an age of completion within history and not outside it; after the persecutions of the man of iniquity, God would initiate the age of the Holy Spirit, the perfection of the divine action within history. Only after the third age would come the final tribulation and the sabbath rest of eternity.” (The Abbot and the Doctors: Scholastic Reactions to the Radical Eschatology of Joachim of Fiore, Bernard McGinn, 1971).

McGinn explains in his work that theologians post-Vatican 2 were divided on the intent of Abbot Joachim, some believing that this age meant nothing more than a restoration of the Church, retaining all its institutions and Sacraments, and yet others — de Lubac among them — who saw the abbot’s intent as a church excluding the papacy, the sacraments and the hierarchical order. Whether this was actively intended by Abbot Joachim or whether his followers were the culprits in advancing this notion is anyone’s guess. But the final results leave no room for doubt. They all too clearly point out the failure of the Novus Ordo and LibTrad sects to reject the notion of a spiritualized version of Abbot Joachim’s “New Age” (such a telling term!) and adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure  and St. Augustine — relying on private prophecy whose works were condemned as heretical versus Church teaching.

If we carefully consider what St. Thomas teaches in the quotes above, several things will become clear.

— “I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all (these) things be done”: which passage Chrysostom (Hom. lxxvii) explains as referring to the generation of those that believe in Christ.” Therefore the state of those who believe in Christ will last until the consummation of the world…” Notice that here St. Thomas says nothing about the ”fact” held by LibTrads that the hierarchy, meaning the cardinals, bishops and priests headed by a canonically elected pope, must be among those who still believe in Christ.  As pointed out in other blogs, 70 years is counted as a generation in the Old Testament. And in 2028, it will be 70 years since the death of Pope Pius XII.

— “There is a threefold state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second is that of the New Law;THE THIRD WILL TAKE PLACE NOT IN THIS LIFE, BUT IN HEAVEN… Hence we are not to look forward to another law corresponding to the Holy Ghost.” This excludes any possibility of an “age of peace,” or of “the Holy Spirit,” as Joachim imagined. Joachim believed in two Antichrists; one before the third age and another at the end of the Third age, Gog and Magog, before the Second Coming. Holy Scripture teaches  that there will be only one, “the MAN of sin, the SON of Perdition” (2 Thess. 2). The very fact that the papal seat is now vacant and that according to the laws and teachings of the Church there is no way competent electors could elect a true pope should convince those anticipating the age of peace. Truly the Great King and Angelic Pastor “revelation” was only a figment of Joachim’s overactive imagination.

— It is St. Augustine who insists in his City of God “That the thousand-year period of a “first resurrection” (Apoc. 20.4-6) cannot be taken to apply to an earthly future, as is well known. For Augustine (City of God 20.7-10), and for all medieval commentators following him until Joachim, the thousand-year kingdom of Revelation was meant to be understood figuratively as the spiritual resurrection of the elect reigning in the Church in the present.” (Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore, Robert E. Lerner Speculum, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul., 1985).

— “The preaching of the Gospel may be understood as extending throughout the world and producing its full effect, so that, to wit, the Church would be founded in every nation… And in this sense, as Augustine writes to Hesychius (Epist. cxcix), the Gospel is not preached to the whole world yet, but, when it is, the consummation of the world will come.” Was not the Church “founded in every nation” before Her demise, then, if only imperfectly? So should we not then expect the consummation?

— As St. Thomas teaches in the Supplement to the Summa (73:1), “Although men be terrified by the signs appearing about the judgment day, yet before these signs begin to appear the wicked will think themselves to be in peace and security after the death of Antichrist and before the coming of Christ, seeing that the world is not at once destroyed as they thought hitherto.”  And these seem to be the times in which we live. As stated in an earlier blog, it is most likely that the first to be judged at the Final Judgement will be Roncalli and Montini, whose resurrected bodes will then be cast into the lake of fire.

The final nail in Abbot Joachim’s coffin is Pope Pius XII’s decision on even mitigated millenarianism. In this decree binding on the faithful the (AAS 36, 1944, 212) Pope Pius taught:

“In recent times on several occasions the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated millenarianism which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is the system of mitigated millenarianism cannot be taught safely” (Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, DZ 2296). Notice that Pope Pius XII uses the word “for example.” This can only mean that there are several other aspects of this teaching. And the teaching referenced can only be that of Manuel Lacunza, who is identified in the official notice of the Holy Office condemnation as the author of this system (see here). So what was it that Lacunza taught?

“Upon his [Antichrist’s] death, the Church, and the whole world, shall begin to breathe again, everything reverting to a perfect calm, and a universal joy. The Bishops, who had concealed themselves in mountains, shall return and resume their sees, accompanied by their clergy and some other Christian families, who had followed them in their voluntary exile. At this time shall come to pass, the conversion of the Jews, according to the universal spirit of the converters”  The source for this information adds: “’End of the age’ and ‘end of the world’ refer to two different times. He understood the ‘end of the age’ or “day of the Lord” as merely the end of a phase of human history… If the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse is to be literally understood, Jesus Christ himself with all his saints now risen, ought actually to reign in Jerusalem over the whole orb of the earth, and that for a thousand years… The dragon will once again be loosed and will return to deceive the whole world… “ (see here). And then shall come the Final Judgement.

So much for the LibTrad’s “return of the bishops,” which is among the many things Lacunza erroneously taught in his writings. Didn’t even de Lubac warn that Joachim would eliminate the need for the hierarchy? Why doesn’t Lacunza mention the pope? Because clearly he is a follower of Abbot Joachim, as the entirety of his works easily show. And as we know, Abbot Joachim’s writings were already condemned by the popes before Lacunza wrote. But most importantly, while in past blogs we have spoken of the end of the Church’s age on earth, or consummation of the age at the death of Pope Pius XII, this is not to be taken to mean there could be another or third age. All it means is that Christ is allowing a lengthy interval to elapse between Antichrist’s actual death and the destruction of his system, followed by the Final Judgment. This is in accord with St. Thomas’ own teaching on this subject, as noted above.

So on this the 24^th Sunday after Pentecost, when the Gospel of St. Matthew announces the arrival of the abomination of desolation, let us not forget that he has already arrived (although his system is still with us). Surely we must exist in that indeterminate time period following the consummation of the age of the Church described by St. Thomas, awaiting the Second Coming. Next week we will see how even a great saint ran afoul of St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching and erroneously taught that Antichrist already had been born by relying too heavily on private revelations.