No approval needed for prayer society; and the Church’s passion begins in earnest on March 25

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 24, 2022 | New Blog

+ St. Gabriel, Archangel +

Some have asked if the Church allows lay people to participate in and establish prayer societies. I originally and mistakenly quoted Can. 686 on this subject years ago, but this canon does not refer to the type of society we recently invited people to join, for several reasons enumerated below. The Society for Reparation to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

1. is not a community that lives in common, such as religious do;
2. does not collect dues or participate in any sort of fundraising activities;
3. is not offering anyone any special indulgences granted to it as a society;
4. has no set minimum requirements for membership, only suggestions and
5. has no governing body.

Therefore, it does not even exist as defined by the Church itself and is strictly a lay organization. The distinction between lay and religious societies in law is explained under Canon 1489, which discusses the St. Vincent de Paul Society, founded by lay people, not religious. This society is discussed by the canonists Woywod-Smith under Canon 686, where they comment that such lay societies are not included in those canons which refer to associations which are strictly ecclesiastical, and a lay society only is what we intended to establish and are able to establish.

Lay persons have a right to demand spiritual goods, and prayer in common is definitely a spiritual good. They have the obligation to do all they can to work for the salvation of souls, and this society is a society of reparation, to appease God’s anger and make reparation to Our Lady for the sorrows caused by her straying and confused children; also to pray for the conversion of sinners, the dying and the souls in Purgatory. Those belonging to lay societies are not required to organize under their diocesan bishop, only be subject to him in matters of faith and morals. This is according to a decision of the Holy Office on the lay status of the St. Vincent de Paul Society in 1920 (AAS 13-1335). But such obedience is demanded from all Catholics, not just members of lay and religious associations.

Troubling issues behind the questions

Catholics questioning the founding of this society have every right to do so. And no one is being compelled to join; it was merely established to provide a prayer link between like-minded Catholics praying for things in common. But what is disturbing about the motives prompting the questions are the (sometimes scrupulous) reasons they were posed in the first place, reasons tied to erroneous thinking that has been perpetrated by Traditionalists since they first arrived on the scene. The sources of this erroneous thinking are the three reasons most often cited by Traditionalists to justify their operations — epikeia, necessity and impossibility. Epikeia has been discussed at length on this site and in a more recent blog its Gallicanist origins were revealed. While Traditionalists adamantly defend their right to invoke it in the present circumstances, all modern theologians agree it cannot be used whenever the validity of the Sacraments is in question.

Rev. Lawrence Joseph Riley, A.B., S.T.L., in his The History, Nature and Use of EPIKEIA in Moral Theology, 1948), basically explains that for the use of epikeia to be considered lawful, the law in question must be assumed to be: a) deficient by reason of its universality; b) in need of correction or amendment; c) is challenged by one who goes against the clear rules of the law d) using a probable presumption that the legislator did not intend to include this particular case when fashioning the law. It cannot be said that legislators were ignorant of the possibility of extended interregnums. Or that they had never encountered cases where Catholics were without Sacraments for long periods of time such as during the Arian heresy, the Japanese in the 1600s and those behind the Iron Curtain, all of whom refused to allow schismatics to minister to them. Specifically regarding episcopal consecrations without the papal mandate, it has been seen that the mind of the legislator definitely DOES anticipate such cases, since these are implicated in the very context of the constitution Ad Apostolorum Principis as well as Pope Pius XII’s papal election law governing interregnums, The mind of the legislator also is demonstrated in papal decrees such as Charitas, not to mention numerous decisions of the Sacred Congregations barring reception of the Sacraments from schismatics. Regarding the use of epikeia in the reception of the Sacraments, Fr. Riley states the following:

“The inquiry is made as to whether in reference to them [the sacraments] epikeia may ever be lawfully used. This question should not be confused with what would at first glance appear to be a somewhat kindred point, namely whether it is ever lawful to employ doubtful matter in confecting a sacrament, but this is not the precisely the question which concerns us now. Our interest turns rather to the problem of whether a sacrament can ever be given validly with matter or form that is certainly substantially different from that prescribed… It would be difficult to find any theologian who would ever allow epikeia under such circumstances. As the council of Florence declared, a sacrament is constituted by its matter, its form and ‘by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does; if any of these is lacking, the Sacrament is not fulfilled’ (DZ 695). In the words of Suarez: These are the quasi-foundations of the visible Church of Christ. If they be altered then in that Church there would result a substantial mutation contrary to the manifest intention of its founder.” Those elements which are necessary for the validity of a sacrament remain so even in the face of extreme difficulty or impossibility … The sacraments exist according to the institution of Christ or they do not exist at all. In short, it may be concluded that in regard to matters which touch the essence of the sacraments the use of epikeia is always excluded.”

The papal mandate is required both for the validity of ordinations and episcopal consecrations. To validly ordain, one must have been assigned to a diocese by competent ecclesiastical authority, and this was not the case with either Lefebvre or Thuc. No such mandates were issued to Lefebvre or to Thuc for their consecration of bishops. Without these mandates, Pope Pius XII teaches, the acts of anyone attempting to consecrate are null and void, i.e., they never create priests or bishops. Canon 147 states: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be VALIDLY obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.” In the case of bishops, this authority is the Roman Pontiff; in the case of priests, bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff, possessing an office assigned to them by the Roman Pontiff.

None of those ordained or consecrated by Lefebvre or Thuc can claim to have received an office from competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons. At one time both Lefebvre and Thuc possessed offices under Pope Pius XII, but they resigned those offices to accept offices under John 23 and Paul 6. So they cannot claim, either, to have received offices from the competent ecclesiastical authority, valid ordination and consecration or not. Canon 147 is not concerned with the validity of orders received, it speaks only of offices, which have to do with jurisdiction, not orders.  This is explained in Can. 109, which states that all those degrees of jurisdiction outside those of the Roman Pontiff are received “…by canonical appointment.” This canon’s authentic interpretation by the Holy See, (AAS 42-601), reminds the hierarchy that Can. 147 proceeds from Divine law and the infallible decrees of the Council of Trent (DZ 960, 967), so that none can proceed against Can. 147 with impunity. It furthermore declares an excommunication reserved especially to the Holy See against those who violate this canon, and that includes any among the laity who cooperate in any way in these crimes. Under Can. 147 in the Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, The Sacred Congregation of the Council declared:

“The Catholic Church is, in virtue of its institution by Christ Himself, a perfect society hierarchically established, whose full and supreme power of government and jurisdiction rests with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter in the primacy. Hence no one can presume to intrude himself or others into ecclesiastical offices or benefices without a legitimate canonical investiture or provision… The Council of Trent declared that, “those who undertake to exercise these offices merely at the behest of and upon the appointment by the people or the secular power and authority, AND THOSE WHO ASSUME THE SAME ON THEIR OWN AUTHORITY, are all to be regarded not as ministers of the Church but as thieves and robbers who have entered not by the door,” (Cap. IV, Session XXIII, de reform). Both orders AND jurisdiction are required for apostolicity as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

“Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For ‘How can they preach,’ asks the Apostle, ‘unless they be sent?’” (Rom. 10:15). And from Rev. E. S. Berry’s The Church of Christ: “…Jurisdiction in the Church can neither be obtained nor held against the will of her supreme authority; its transmission depends entirely upon legitimate succession. It is not sufficient, therefore, that a church have valid Orders; it must also have a legitimate succession of ministers, reaching back in an unbroken line to the Apostles, upon whom our Lord conferred all authority to rule His Church… There can be no legitimate successor in the Church of Christ who has not received jurisdiction either directly or indirectly from her supreme authority.” And without a true pope there is no one to even indirectly supply such jurisdiction, despite Traditionalist claims to possess supplied jurisdiction.

Who has given these Traditionalists the jurisdiction necessary to apostolicity to minister to the faithful as a lawfulminister, which can only be obtained by possessing a canonically appointed office? As Rev. Berry also points out in his work and Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII teach: “There is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or tradition that Christ ever promised to confer authority directly upon the ministers of the Church; consequently, it can only be obtained by lawful succession from those upon whom Christ personally and directly conferred it, i. e., from the Apostles.” Whatever the Traditionalist argument is regarding offices, those who do not receive them cannot be considered as lawful ministers of the Church, but only thieves and hirelings. We must follow the laws and teachings of the Church, not claims against these teachings made by Traditionalists. Pope Pius XII’s Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis leaves no doubt regarding the true status of those usurping papal jurisdiction and acting outside papal laws during an interregnum: all their acts are null and void.

Necessity and impossibility

Necessity is a term often credited to the Decrutum of Gratian but it is not something that in practice was ever used for the type of situation we find ourselves in today. It was mainly cited in marriage cases and sometimes in cases of justifiable homicide. In his Summary of Scholastic Principles, (1956) Rev. Bernard Wuellner says this about necessity: “Necessity knows no law… No law can bind a subject to do the impossible or anything morally evil… No one ever has a right to do a wrong,” (nos. 333, 337, 484). But how does this definition of necessity correspond to what is being done by Traditionalists? Moral evil is committing idolatry or gravely risking its commission by attending the masses and receiving the sacraments from those doubtfully ordained and consecrated. This can definitely be classified as “a wrong.” Traditionalists have no right to do this wrong, either on their own account but especially concerning others. And it is not impossible to keep the faith without resorting to doubtful sacraments. So how they manage to use this principle in any meaningful way is baffling in light of its definition.

Impossibility is discussed as follows by Revs. McHugh and Callan in their work, Moral Theology, A Complete Course:

“317. …though the law itself remains, there are cases in which non-observance of it is excused from guilt. These cases can be reduced to physical and moral impossibility.

(a) In cases of physical impossibility (i.e., when the powers requisite for observance are wanting), one is manifestly excused; for law is reasonable, and it is not reasonable to require impossibilities.

(b) In cases of moral impossibility (i.e., when a law cannot be kept without the infringement of a higher law or the loss of a higher good), one is also excused; for it is unreasonable to prefer the less to the more important.

“489. (b) Impossibility excuses from both obligation and guilt.

“492. Absolute or physical impossibility (i.e., the want of the power or of the means of complying with a law), of course, excuses from its observance; for no one is bound to what is impossible. This applies to divine law, and hence much more to human law. Example: He who is unable to leave the house is not obliged to go to Mass.

“494. Moral impossibility excuses from the observance of a human law in the following cases:

(a) One is excused when a considerable loss in health, reputation, SPIRITUAL ADVANTAGE, property, etc., or a grave inconvenience will result from observing a law which is not a prohibition of nature in the sense of the previous paragraph; for the legislator cannot impose obligations that are needlessly heavy, and hence positive law does not oblige in case of such moral impossibility. Example: OUR LORD REPROVED THE INHUMAN RIGOR OF THE PHARISEES, WHO INSISTED THAT THEIR REGULATIONS MUST BE OBSERVED, WHATEVER THE DIFFICULTY OR COST.

(b) One is excused when a lower or less urgent law is in conflict with a law that is higher or more urgent. In such a case the greater obligation prevails, and the lesser obligation disappears.”

Conclusions from the above

In invoking all the above, Traditionalists have created a prejudice among Catholics regarding the proper use of these principles. It is not wrong to appeal to epikeia in certain cases if one does so only in grave need, with great caution, and on rare occasions. But it was never meant to be used as a long-term solution for an ongoing emergency. And it cannot be used where there is any doubt regarding sacramental validity. Necessity does not apply because it seems to forbid the very things Traditionalists claim it allows them to do. They interpret laws forbidding them to act as an evil against the common good when such laws were made precisely to protect the faithful against the ministrations of hirelings and the sin of idolatry. There were other things that could have been done that would have greatly benefited the faithful but they failed to take the safer course and employ those means. Ironically, necessity could be used to support those choosing to pray at home.

“Impossibility excuses from both obligation and guilt,” meaning we cannot be blamed for not resorting to a bishop who does not exist. Physical impossibility is clearly at work here when we consider that it is impossible today to find a true priest or bishop to validly convey the Sacraments, far less consult to found a prayer society. And when the ecclesiastical superiors are lacking whom the law tells us we must approach in the usual order of things, then we can do what we need to do to provide for our spiritual needs without consulting them, within limits. This because moral impossibility excuses us from suffering a loss of a spiritual advantage, and not being able to pray together is definitely a disadvantage. Hence moral theology would allow us to pray together as long as we are willing to subject ourselves to a true pope and hierarchy should they ever be restored. McHugh and Callan note it was the Pharisees who insisted on a strict adherence to the law with no exceptions whatsoever. It is hoped this will satisfy those who may have doubts about praying together.

What in the World…

We have been viewing the virtual circus regarding what began as the consecration of Russia and Ukraine, “bishops” invited (not ordered) to join in, Ratzinger tacked on as a backup “pope” for conservative NO’s and some Trads, and now the news that humanity will be consecrated with especial mention of Russia and Ukraine. This amid cries from those watching the show that “this won’t work.” Well of course it won’t work – Francis is no pope. Who knows what comes next, but it is interesting to note that double agent Malachi Martin told one interviewer in 1996 that according to John Paul 2, Russia would move on the Ukraine and attempt to take Kiev. This would occur before 2017, and it would have something to do with Russia’s conversion, the “final solution.” (See the interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sosatXEV9JU. The whole event was preplanned over 25 years ago. Martin should know as one of the conspirators working both sides. Did Trump interrupt their timeline, precipitating his 2020 defeat? Possibly.

A clue to what is really about to happen may be found here: https://www.marysway.net/icon-consecration-of-russia-final-marian-dogma/ On Nov. 27, 2001, Josyp Terelya, patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church’s conservative branch, consecrated Russia and its peoples to the Immaculate Heart of Mary along with the Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. The image used for the consecration is called the Miraculous Icon, portraying the “final Marian dogma.” The patriarch presented Putin with a large, framed portrait of the Icon. This is interesting only because it provides a backdrop for what will likely evolve from the consecration event March 25. This event is a cleverly staged drama that will begin with the consecration by Francis and B16 which then will appear to halt the war. The culmination of the consecration could consist in the “return” of Russia to Rome as part of some pledge of peace, probably introducing Putin as the head of some new European/Asian alliance based on Russian orthodoxy — making him the “great monarch” and Francis “the great pope.” Francis would then help Putin negotiate peace for all and the two would rule the newly re-ordered world; scary and sobering stuff here. This would mark the realization of the great reset already in progress. And it will be based on what appears to be devotion to Our Lady, but instead is a frightening New Age perversion of that devotion.

Or, something unexpected could happen to throw everything off course. These people only THINK they are in control and can escape the wrath of God indefinitely. But that wrath will come upon them when they least expect it. We can only pray that in the aftermath we remain steadfast and save our own souls. O Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Spiritual solace and remedies for perilous times

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 27, 2021 | New Blog

+St. Peter Nolasco+

“Our Lady of Mercy, ransom the captives, deliver us from all sin and from the bondage of the evil one!”

In these present times, it is difficult to know what exactly to say or do and especially, what to believe regarding the legitimacy of the rulers of this country. There are many false portrayals of events circulating, many individuals and groups who are beginning to reveal, by the scenarios they are promoting, exactly who they are and where they are trying to lead even sincere Catholics. It is a time of diabolical confusion and a prelude to the great dangers now being introduced as this country slides further and further into the Socialist/Communist abyss. Yet Socialism and Communism are only the outer layer of the onion peel, for closer to the core is found the true source of these evils as we were warned by the Roman Pontiffs long ago. These twin evils are the engines of the Secret Societies, used to enslave the masses by those operating at the highest levels of the Illuminati. This can be seen by studying the Masonic pyramid (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/papal-teaching-on-church-and-state/the-amazing-secret-behind-freemasonrys-triumph/) and thoughtfully considering all the organizations that lead to Masonry’s triumph.

Many of those among the Traditionalists believe they will see the victory of a holy king and holy pope at this time, but this would be possible only through the working of miracles. Yet the reign of such a king may have been forfeited, and with it the reign of the Holy Pope he was intended to defend. Karl von Habsburg became the emperor of Austria following the assassination of his uncle, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who cast the imperial veto during Pope St. Pius X’s election to prevent the election of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla. JP 2 created Habsburg a beatus, but this is no black mark on his holy life and his efforts to save Christendom. Was he working in league with the Angelic Pastor, the last Pope to be declared a Saint? Pope St. Pius X died in 1914 and Habsburg in 1922 at the age of 31. Both fought the forces of Modernism. Before his death, Pope St. Pius X supposedly told a Habsburg family member that Karl Habsburg, not his uncle Archduke Ferdinand, would be the next emperor, a man “sent from Heaven.” He may have made this statement after being informed by the Belgium seeress, Berthe Petit, that the Archduke would be assassinated. But neither this sainted pontiff nor Emperor Karl would live to fulfill the prophecy so many saintly seers predicted.

Perhaps, had von Habsburg lived into his later years, he would have been the Great Monarch who preserved Hungary from Communism (Karl also was Emperor of Hungary), rescued Cardinal Mindszenty and blew the whistle on the 1958 election as his uncle had done before him in 1903. But it was not to be. Our Lady appeared at Fatima in 1917, just five years before his death. Already the die had been cast and the world was entering the final phase of its downward spiral into Godlessness.

Certain biblical commentators agree that what has come to be known as “the peace of Fatima” will be granted to the Church. Long before Fatima occurred, saints, holy people, and theologians predicted a period of peace as well; and the popes have assured us of Our Lady’s victory, which implies peace. But one question remains unanswered: Our Lady predicated her promise on whether enough Catholics offered sacrifices, prayed the Rosary, and did penance. Can we trust the opinion of those writers who pretend that this promise was absolute rather than contingent upon the devotion manifested by the faithful? Not given what we know today regarding their orthodoxy. So this being the case, could Our Lord simply come suddenly to judge the world without first granting it peace? Given the extent of evil today, the world does not deserve to see the Church restored. While it does seem contrary to all the popes have taught concerning Mary’s triumph and the future of the Church to expect the Second Coming minus this peace, we cannot speculate upon God’s plans for His Church or think we completely understand what private prophecy is telling us.

It is true that we may have forfeited such a restoration by our wickedness. But as Rev. E. S. Berry said in his The Apocalypse of St. John: “Can we admit that a world steeped in paganism and torn with schism and heresy is the only result of Christ’s death on the Cross?” Berry then concludes it better reflects Christ’s glory and the perpetuity of His Church that She be restored rather than have it appear that the Church no longer existed when the world came to an end. As true as this may seem, the Church teaches nothing on this matter; in fact She is notably silent. This is because the secret of the Latter Days is contained in the little sealed book described in Apoc. 10; this could well be the Fatima secret never revealed.  We were not meant to know God’s plans regarding us in these times until they slowly unfold. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways. What seems reasonable to us in way of an outcome may not be God’s intention at all. We search the Scriptures and private prophecies, some by the Saints, for answers because nothing, or at least very little, is certain about these times.

One seer out of all the many, however, seems to have given us a better idea of what would happen to the Church, although her predictions sometimes seem to contradict each other. That seer is Marie-Julie Jahenny, the Breton (Nantes, France) mystic and victim soul who was imprinted with an impressive array of the various stigmatas. She was born in 1850 and died in 1941. A survey of the bulk of her prognostications regarding the Church in these times shows that she correctly predicted the two World Wars, Kulturkampf in Germany, and many other events. In 1881 she correctly described in detail the death of Melanie Calvat, the La Salette seeress, who died some 23 years later. Marie-Julie took the clergy to task for failing to spread La Salette, accusing them of actually prohibiting the Secret’s distribution and undermining its urgent warnings, especially where the clergy was concerned. She announced that “a distinct justice” is reserved for those obstructing Our Lady’s messages.

I choose to quote from her works here because in retrospect her prophecies have not received the attention in Traditionalist circles that, for example, those of Anna Catherine Emmerich or other holy people have received. And yet she is closest to our times and has been clearer and more accurate in her predictions than many others. Certainly divine revelation and papal teaching must always override anything in way of private revelations, and private revelations must always be taken with a grain of salt. Other writers may prefer not to quote Marie-Julie because she details at length the three days’ darkness which many now question as an actual event, some believing it refers only spiritually and not actually to the eclipse of the Church in these times. There also is the problem of conflicting revelations, but these may be explained by the fact, as one commentator points out, that Marie-Julie’s ecstasies were written down by several different people, at different times.

Therefore, the discrepancies can be attributed to incorrect transmission due to inadvertence, improper understanding of what was said or intended, actual misrendering of the message in places where it seemed to be too harsh, or did not agree with the understanding of the one recording the ecstasy, or other human errors. And certainly there is always the possibility that one or more of these transcribers were secret “send ins” who deliberately created doubt by their accounts, although this seems unlikely in this particular case. Such may have been the case, however, with one of those recording Anna Catherine Emmerich’s ecstasies, and this fact is even documented by an article in the American Ecclesiastical Review. Another issue is Marie-Julie’s predominant references in her ecstasies to the Great Monarch, which may have been prompted by a purely political (Monarchist) bias, one blemished by its own dangerous ties to secret societies, (unknown to the seer). All this remains to be seen, however, and only time can tell if it is simply a political preference embellished with other medieval era prophecies or has some basis in fact.

A caution here: a more recent “interpretation” of Marie Julie’s prophecies rules out any possibility the Papal See could currently be vacant, or has been vacant for many years, by referring to specific predictions and their timeline. This is to ignore the dogmatic teaching of the Church and give credence instead to a private revelation. These revelations can only confirm what is already known as truths taught by the Church; they cannot be used as a tool to gauge what will happen in the future or what has happened in the past. It is the duty of those studying the faith to first determine what the Church teaches regarding any given subject before taking statements made in any private revelation as valid. This is why we are free to believe them or not believe them, because Catholics must believe only what can be demonstrated as those things we are bound by the Church to believe.

We can take those things predicted by Marie-Julie that we now know to be true as proof of her credibility, and leave other things, such as the three days darkness and Great Monarch, aside for the time being. One thing we do know: nothing in our current time period can be ruled out as too fantastical or too radical, given what we already know and have seen. The three days could easily be manipulated by those New Agers plotting to drastically reduce the population on earth, something God may allow to happen. But the results — that the good, not the bad, would survive — would be totally unintended by the planners. And while the revival of a monarchy in this time of nothing but democracies throughout the world may seem like a longshot, it is the model the Church prefers and on which She is built. Listed below is a summary of some of Marie-Julie’s more pertinent prophecies, taken from various sources.

–  More than once, the seer pronounces “You have been warned!”

– “It must be that this reign of sin ends. Never has the earth and the world been in a similar condition. It must end, (sin and evil) or every soul will be lost!”

– Her beloved confessor, Mgr. Fournier, appeared to her after his death and announced: “Sorrow will extinguish the Church for a certain time and that time is written in Heaven.” Marie- Julie says: “There will be a complete and perfect overthrow of everything… All Church work will stop. There will be complete destruction and death.” The Church will exist “only as a structural organization,” but She will “continue in the Catacombs.” Jesus told her He would “carry away the Church with all her walls and ornaments.”

– Regarding the false Vatican 2 church, she prophesied that Church law would be violated by both priests and the people who follow them.  Most priests and bishops will defect from the faith and the number of the faithful will be “very small… Ministers of God will be the first to apostatize.” In the 1880s Jesus told her: “Disciples not of my Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas and under influence of the enemy of souls a mass that contains words odious in my sight… Religion will remain only in “the lone souls of a few who will be harassed and persecuted.” There will be a “new clergy” and “new mass… new preachers of new sacraments, new baptisms new confraternities… There will not remain any vestige of the Holy Sacrifice.” St. Michael told her Satan would have possession of everything and “all goodness, faith and religion will be buried in the tomb. So why have so few read and taken note of these words written so long go?

Next, we include as whole pages her later words to the faithful, taken from the Marquis de la Franquerie’s Marie-Julie Jahenny, the Breton Stigmatist https://archive.org/details/PropheciesOfMarieJulieJahenny/page/n5/mode/2up):

St. John of the Cross told Marie-Julie: “It is a sure sign that God loves us when He makes us suffer on earth. He who does not suffer, is not the true friend of God. The Lord admits us (into) His grace; thank him. Remember that when we feel the pains of life, we experience His grace. When the Lord begins a work in which He wants His glory to break forth, he surrounds it first with persecutions, the cross, neglect, all kinds of penalties. This is the real charm of the Finger of God. It is necessary that one who is in the friendship of the Lord be tested, that everything in his soul is purified.”

“Under the fury of the storm, what will you do? Wait, pray and do what God wants. Love God with all our heart, faithfully serve God, serve him through the obscurities that are in us, serve despite the darkness where God leaves us and where we need to walk, serve Him all the same. Even when the light of your soul is absolutely extinguished, do not lose heart, go through all the dangers, face the dangers and God will fill you with His grace and His comfort. Who can make us happy on earth, except the peace of God that lives within us, working in us, that prays in us? Without this peace, man becomes like one damned, he runs and precipitates himself into the first gulf that he meets, because it is the devastation inflicted within him by his unregulated passions. Yet this is what happens in many hearts.”

Marie-Julie also was told in her ecstasies: “To keep peace, there is one thing to do, it is to say what God wants, it is to obey the Will of God, it is nothing that can be found in the human creature. It is to be found in God, since He is the Treasure of all… Pray for the Church threatened by a conspiracy hatched by a horrible jealousy of perverted minds banded together to overthrow it. The storm is terrible, but the Church will remain infallible and its walls shall not be shaken. But there will be martyrs … Pray for the Church and ask God for the return of a lost family, a people corrupted, a degraded society. All are our brothers in the Lord. They are souls redeemed at the price of His Blood. Prayer is the only remedy.”

To this can be added nothing more. She has said it all, and it seems that now is the time she foretold and her remedies are those that may help us to endure what lies ahead. Catholic prophecy as a whole is insistent that the only one who can save us from this terrible chastisement is Our Lord Himself, working through His Blessed Mother. Man must do God’s will and obey His law, and God will do the rest. As Marie-Julie said, “When everything seems lost, then will be the time of victory.”

The Fatima Peace and Antichrist’s Reign

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

+St. Maria Goretti+

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

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

Things that are CERTAIN is that Antichrist will:

– be a trial for the good;

– be a human person;

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

– have great powers of seduction;

– begin his career in a lowly manner;

– increase in power and make conquests;

– rule the entire world;

– wage a terrible war against God and the Church;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dupont comments on the prophecies he mentions above:

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

(Ven. Holzhauser, 17th Century)

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

(Cataldus, 5th Century)

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

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

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

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

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

(St. Caesar, 6th Century)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The End of Traditional “Catholicism”

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

+The Epiphany+

We hear much these days about political conservatives and their connections to white supremacy ideology, also known as Christian Identity or British Israel (BI). British Israel is the belief that the people of the British Isles, genetically, racially and linguistically are the descendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel. In other words, the people of Great Britain (and by way of descent, the U.S.) have become the “new Israel,” or chosen people and are basically blood descendants also of the Davidic line. Many believe that the rulers of England are blood relations of King David, and that the throne on which the English kings are consecrated sits over the same stone used to consecrate the Israelite kings. Christian Identity beliefs in America later evolved from this theory.

While politicians and Christian clerics deny white supremacy is linked to this belief, it may well be true to an extent few would be willing to believe. Certainly not all Christian Conservatives embrace this belief system. But many of those who do have gone to great lengths to conceal their true beliefs in order to pass as everyday Christians. Sadly, this applies to Traditionalists every bit as much as it does to Protestants. And In fact, the name Traditionalists chose for themselves long ago itself may be a clue to who and what they truly are.

But first, a brief personal history of my experience with white supremacy as a Traditionalist. The very first (and only) Trad group I joined, the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement, had its own branch, so to speak, which promoted these White Supremacist beliefs. I handled mail for a Traditionalist ORCM “priest,” Dan Jones, from 1980 until 1982, and also wrote for his newsletter, Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes. Anyone who subscribed to that newsletter into the 1990s knows Jones was advocating for and posting advertisements from (Protestant) Christian Identity groups and individuals, and he received mail criticizing him for this. He also printed a long series promoting the “Siri” theory, beginning in the late 1980’s. Certain members of the Siri group also promoted British Israel.

I left Jones’ group in 1982, after a showdown with him over an article he had instructed me to write for his newsletter, sympathetic to Identity beliefs. I pulled the article before it went into print and for this and other disturbing reasons, friends and I left Jones at about the same time. The next group I would become involved with also espoused Identity-related and other Gnostic beliefs, and after nine months I left them as well. I would run into yet another Trad group in the early 2000s that promoted British Israel (synonymous with Christian Identity), and by then I understood this belief was somehow intertwined with the Traditionalist movement, so I quickly rejected the ideas presented in their literature.

This tendency in Traditionalism had been evident from the beginning, following the publication of the book ghostwritten by a fellow Mexican for the Mexican dissident priest Rev. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga in the early 1960s (The Plot Against the Church). It was Saenz who helped establish the ORCM in the U.S. He also was patronized by the publication Veritas, which was notorious for its anti-Semitic bias. This periodical, published every other month, was quite popular among Traditionalists. It seems that for the most part, then, Traditionalists seemed to willingly assimilate Identity teaching — at least insofar as they blamed the Jews for dismantling their Church — into their own brand of Catholic belief.

But that belief contradicts Catholic teaching. In his encyclical Mit Brenunder Sorge, written in 1937 shortly before the beginning of World War II in Europe, Pope Pius XI wrote: “Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the state, or a particular form of state, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the community… above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God… He is far from the true faith in God.” In a later address to Belgian pilgrims on Sept. 6, 1938, Pius XI said: “Abraham is called our patriarch, our ancestor. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham… No, it is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism… [For] Spiritually, we are Semites.”

Let’s then compare the beliefs of “Christian” Identity, defined by Pope Pius XI as a contradiction in terms, with his teaching on this subject. Christian Identity began as British Israel. One source quotes John Henry Cardinal Newman as commenting that he became a Catholic precisely because the BI philosophy had totally taken over the Anglican church! This tells us there is no affinity between Catholic belief and BI/ ”Christian” Identity. The earliest book on BI appeared in England in 1590 and another work was published there in 1649.They hold the white race as the only race chosen by God to rule the nations and by and large have always discriminated against people of color.

The Ku Klux Klan has been associated with Identity beliefs. These proliferated in America in the 20th century, and were promulgated by Henry Ford, Fr. Charles Coughlin and others. Fr. Coughlin was asked by the Vatican to stop preaching BI on the radio in the 1930s by none other than Pius XII, then acting as Pius XI’s cardinal Secretary of State. He personally came to the U.S. to speak to Coughlin. Some claim the deal Pius XII cut with Coughlin was entirely political, but in reality it reflected everything later taught doctrinally by Pius XI in Mit Brenunder Sorge.

Pius XI forbade Catholics to exalt any one race or people over the other. That means Identity groups could not teach that they alone were destined to rule over other races based on their “divine” Davidic bloodline, or any other pagan ideal of racial supremacy (some claim “Atlantean” descent and its superior technological knowledge, reminiscent of Sir Francis Bacon’s work). Pius XI also condemns the idolatry of a particular form of state or government, (National Socialism, or for that matter what we see today as the positive idolatry of democracy as the only acceptable form of government, a concept rejected by the Church). And finally he condemns anti-Semitism outright in his radio address to the Belgians. He then goes on to announce that it is Catholics, (not Protestant Identity groups) who are descended from the Israelites and explains that such a descendance is not in the physical or any other sense but is strictly spiritual. The Jews were the physical descendants and Catholics are the spiritual descendants, encompassing both Old and New Testaments. Christ spiritualized everything, fulfilling all foretold regarding His birth, life and death in the Old Testament. Holy Scripture tells us to “avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings about the law” (Titus 3:9).

It appears there may have been (and most likely still is) a so-called “Catholic” secret society known as the Priory of Sion which Marcel Lefebvre and other clerics belonged to that embraced a philosophy similar to Identity. Lefebvre’s various religious establishments went by the name of “priories.” He is said to have resigned from the Priory in 1981. This society may have promoted the belief that certain members of the Catholic clergy are descended from Christ Himself and Mary Magdalene, reviving the old Gnostic heresy that Christ somehow did not die during His Crucifixion and escaped with Mary Magdalene to France, or some other location, there to father children. Another version of this blasphemous heresy would have the clergy and faithful descended from the family of Our Lady pre-eminent by blood in the Church, a heresy proposed by a faction of the Judaizers which was condemned in the early centuries by Pope St. Sylvester. This heresy also involved the descendants of Jesus’ family, who claimed that Jerusalem, not Rome was the intended center of Christianity.

Regardless of what any of these revolting beliefs might be, we know that no one could possibly adopt them and remain Catholic. But apparently, this has not stopped Traditionalists from joining forces with Identity groups and thus automatically resigning any Church membership they may have once possessed. That this occurred either before, or at the very establishment of Traditionalism is demonstrated by the name ‘Traditionalist’ itself, as we have commented in other places. The name was used to lure dissident Catholics unhappy with Vatican 2, who believed Tradition referred to the preservation of the Latin Mass and the supposed continuation of the Catholic Church.

They were largely ignorant of the earlier error by this same name (Traditionalism) as it was proposed by Lammenais, Bonald and Bonetty. Nor did they understand that it was condemned as a heresy and why it was condemned by the Church, although those “clerics” establishing and heading various sects across the U.S. and internationally were obligated under Canon Law and papal teaching to warn the faithful of such dangers. (See the article on the heresy of Traditionalism at http://catholicencyclopedia.newadvent.com/cathen/15013a.htm. This condemned belief holds that universal agreement is the rule of certitude as well as the rule of faith and must be trusted because man cannot rely on his reason, which totally contradicts the Vatican Council’s teaching on reason. And it is absolutely the principle adopted by supposedly “Catholic” Traditionalists.

In examining the various meanings of Traditionalism in all its varieties, as demonstrated on Wikipedia, we discover that none of them are Catholic and several can be classified as corresponding to some “Traditional Catholic” beliefs. Identity believers actually refer to themselves as Traditionalists supposedly of the political/conservative variety and this comes closest to what is identified as the Traditionalist School. But this is only a revival of the old Traditionalism condemned by the Church, with connections to dangerous far right movements today. There is also Spanish Traditionalism with its attempt to revive the Bourbon monarchy of Spain, referred to on some Siri sites as affiliated with the Great Monarch and “Catholic Restoration.” It is a broad, all-inclusive term that can mean a number of different things, none of them Catholic.

Whatever nonsense they believe, it is not the teaching of the Roman Pontiffs, as demonstrated above. Catholics do not listen to the teachings of men, only the teachings of the Church. No pope in history has ever approved Catholics persecuting Jews or anyone of another race or religious belief. And the Church has always identified Freemasonry, not Jewry, as the primary corrupting force in the Church (see the articles about the Jews at the top of our recent articles page.) One of the most dire consequences of this entire falsification of true Catholic Faith is that all those wishing to obey the Roman Pontiffs and keep the faith at home are now tarred with the same brush as those professing Identity beliefs. If they dare to defend the many contributions made by the Church to civilize the world, with the majority of those making these contributions of the white race, they are branded — even though this is an historical fact. If they object to the current trend of racial intermarriage on grounds that the Church has always supported — that the partner is not Catholic, their families may not be entirely happy about the union as a whole, the general climate of racial tension today deliberately created by the far left — they are branded.

If they strongly uphold the traditions of the Church and her teachings on the family, the rule of civil law, moral and social matters and embrace Catholic culture, they are branded, because those presenting as Catholic profess the same. They are racist if they oppose the unrestrained immigration of those from Mexico, a good number of whom are cartel members, gang members and seasoned criminals. Forget the common good of all who have every right to expect their government to protect them from such dangers. And although the Catholic Church has for centuries repelled the invasion of Muslim infidels (but has never approved the persecution of Muslims by Catholics), it is racist to even express the opinion this is unwise from a religious standpoint. So when they begin to hunt down the White Supremacists, no distinction will be made between Traditionalists and those simply trying to honor the teachings of Divine Revelation as confirmed by the continual magisterium. This even though this author has, since the 1980s, condemned BI/Identity as anti-Catholic, written books explaining this pernicious error, and posted articles to this website denouncing the Traditionalist position.

But maybe that was the plan all along — to get rid of the chaff along with the wheat. God, however, knows His own. In the end the message is the same: Those not obeying the laws and teachings of the Church are not Catholic. Traditionalism has been condemned by the Church, and all that issues from it, whether it calls itself Catholic or not. They are every bit as non-Catholic as any Protestant sect. We are not Traditionalists; and this is one of the primary reasons we long ago abandoned their ranks. Every effort has been made to warn the unwary of falling into this heretical trap, and we are done. The end of Traditionalism has arrived; no longer can it be considered Catholic IN ANY WAY, no more so than the Anglicans — who for decades following the Reformation insisted on calling themselves Catholics — or the Old “Catholics” of Germany who rejected the definition of papal infallibility.

What we see before us is the second Protestant Reformation, engineered by the Modernists and ultimately Freemasonry, gathering everything up that was once Catholic and twisting it into a bigoted, generic sort of “Christianity.” And this to fit their political purposes and the sick emotional needs of those they wish to deceive. We have no intention to continue beating this dead horse, and so the horse is buried here today. The epitaph on this spot reads: “Therefore God shall send them the operation of error to believe lying, that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity” (2 Thess. 2: 10-11).