+Our Lady of Guadalupe+

Introduction

Most Traditionalists assume the Great Monarch prophecies are of Catholic origin, since approved authors writing before 1958 seem to endorse these prophecies as genuine. But doctrine, not prophecy is the bedrock of belief; prophecy and private revelations are proposed for belief on human, not Catholic faith. In fact, Catholics need not even profess belief in revelations of this nature, even when they come from the mouths of saints, and in doing so they commit no sin. Even though a number of saints foresaw the advent of a Great Monarch, many alternate explanations can be offered for their various predictions. Some can be categorized as affected by political interpolations of the various time periods in which these saints lived. Others may easily apply to some other personage not accounted for by the one commenting on the prophecy. Theologians teach that a seer or “prophet” can incorrectly interpret a revelation from God or unintentionally misapply it. Mistakes can be made relaying the message and existing prejudices can affect the transmission of the message, interfering with its accuracy. Mistranslation and misquotation are not uncommon. And errors of the time may be reflected in the prophecy.

Anytime the specific interpretation of a prophecy of any kind interferes with the Church’s ordinary teaching, that prophecy is not to be trusted, Pope Benedict XIV says. To properly evaluate the Great Monarch prophecies, we must keep these exceptions foremost in our minds. The Protestant philosopher John Locke relates that the legend concerning the great monarch-holy pope alliance first began to circulate during the late Middle Ages both in France and Germany, independent of any then-existing “private prophecies.” (Later the visionary Michel Nostradamus popularized the Great Pope/Great King prophecies, possibly owing to his clandestine relations with Satanic members of the royal de Medici family.) Bonnie Prince Charlie’s efforts to regain the English throne and the periodic appearance of pretenders to the throne of France explain the popularity of the Great Monarch predictions.

The Teutonic knights, a German order modeled on the Templars is said to have secretly continued that order in conjunction with their English and French counterparts, the Knights Hospitaller. The Teutonic Knights admitted only racially pure Germans of noble ancestry and cultivated the Great Monarch legend to promote the belief that a long-awaited emperor from imperial Germany was destined to rule Europe. In a similar manner, a French secret society today known as the Priory of Sion was carefully guarding the ancient bloodlines of England and France with the help and approval of certain French prelates. The Priory used the romantic legends of King Arthur’s Court and the Holy Grail to conceal their work in wrappings appealing to the common man. It was these pseudo-Catholic prelates embroiled in the work of the Priory that Our Lady came to La Salette to warn us against.

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 Israelites 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. The Chosen People of Christ’s time were a carnal people who had little use for suffering; they believed they already had suffered enough. They 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.

The Priory and La Salette

In mentioning the Secret of La Salette above, some will point out that the seer Maximin gave a lengthy testimony regarding the Great Monarch. Maximin’s secret,  that a Great Monarch will rule in the end times, was never published; he released it only to Pope Pius IX, and now it seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. Easily influenced by others but always a fierce supporter of the apparition, Maximin obviously confided some details to an acquaintance with Monarchist convictions, who then published an unofficial version of the boy’s secret. Although Maximin strongly renounced this publication and forced its retraction, the secret was published as his own by many different commentators.  Melanie’s secret was likewise embellished and misrepresented by her own confessor.

It is interesting that there appear to be connections between those who wrongfully published Maxmin’s secret and one of the key figures of the Priory of Sion, Abbe Berengar Sauniere of Rennes le-Chateau in the Pyrenees. Author Philip Coppens says that Sauniere and the founder of the Mariavite schism, the excommunicate Abbe Boullan, both Monarchists, were in contact with each other. Like Sauniere, Boullan had accumulated wealth that no one could quite account for. He was a follower of the Theosophist Madame Blavatsky and also frequented Rosicrucian circles according to Mgr. Cristiani. Boullan lived with a woman, Adele Chevalier, who was a former friend of Melanie Calvat’s.

Sauniere, Coppens relates, was very interested in the Secret of La Salette, as was Boullan. It is even rumored that Sauniere had an affair with a distant actor relative of Melanie Calvat’s. During this same time period another Monarchist, the alleged convert Leon Bloy (championed by Maritain, Montini’s close friend) also was a patron of these same circles. Bloy was obsessed with La Salette throughout his lifetime. Sauniere, Boullan and Bloy all frequented the (Priory) Chapel of San Sulpice; it is impossible to believe that they never connected with each other. Bloy’s curious fascination with La Salette is confirmed by the 1908 publication of his book, She Who Weeps, an anthology of his writings on the apparition. Despite the defense of his friends who swore to his orthodoxy, Mgr. Cristiani calls Bloy nothing less than a Satanist: for his writings reveal that he believed the Holy Ghost and Lucifer were one and the same. That no Great Monarch of a truly Catholic heritage has ever appeared can be explained by what the female La Salette seer Melanie said: that many things would come about only if morals improved and the people did penance. The same message was delivered at Fatima. Needless to say, no penance was done and morals only disintegrated.

Another item worth noting is that all those predicting a Great Monarch place him as ruling prior to the reign of Antichrist. This is evidenced in Rev. Holzhauser’s comments: “The Sixth Age of the Spirit commences with the powerful Monarch and the Holy Pontiff as previously mentioned and will last until the appearance of the Antichrist… Antichrist and his army will conquer Rome, kill the Pope and take the throne. He will restore the Turkish regime destroyed by the Great Monarch.  The Jews, knowing from the Bible that Jerusalem will be the seat of the Messiah, will come from everywhere and accept Antichrist as the Messiah.”

Antichrist’s armies did conquer Rome and usurp the papacy, but it was a quiet and totally clandestine takeover. It was known however amongst the secret societies, who broadcast their triumph by popularizing Nero’s Cross, the well-known universal “peace” symbol. According to ancientsymbols.org, “Though the Cross of Nero became known as a peace symbol in the 1960s, it began as a mockery of the Christian Cross and a symbol of Christianity’s failure. [The Saracens in the early centuries A.D. emblazoned it on their shields.] The sign depicts a circle containing an inverted Cross with its anchor shattered, denoting Nero’s idea that world peace might be achieved without Christianity. The Dead Man’s Rune is another name for the emblem.” And of course, since St. Perter was crucified upside down, this also translates to the death of the papacy itself. The peace symbol was first advanced as such for the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1958.

All this was done to prepare the world for the usurpation of the Holy See and the final war to banish Christianity. By setting up a throne for Charles III in the Vatican, the Roman usurpers are preparing the way for the eventual reign of their version of Antichrist. But as has been stated here before, how could any version of the Man of Sin correspond to Scriptural prophecies today? Paul 6 undoubtedly accomplished all that Holy Scripture attributed to Antichrist. How destroy the Church and Catholic culture now? How dethrone a true pope and take away the true Latin Mass, not the ones falsely celebrated by LibTrad pseudo-clergy and some Novus Ordo outlets? By presenting as the high priest of an apostate religion, as will be seen below.

Should we assume, given the above, that the seers who predicted a Great Monarch were not reliable or that their message was deliberately corrupted? Not necessarily. We have said that the Great Monarch’s arrival was conditional, provided that Catholics performed sufficient prayer and penance, which was not the case. It also is possible that in seeing things as in a vision, some seers saw what appeared to be priests and bishops dressed in clerical garb functioning after the arrival of Antichrist, but who were not actually what they appeared to be. And the enemy used their prophecies to redirect Catholics into the “Traditionalist” sects and other channels. Meanwhile, Paul 6 reigned in Rome as the high priest of Zionism.

Paul 6: True champion of Zionism and false claims of antisemitism

 It seems enough to point to the fact that Paul 6 publicly wore the Jewish High Priest’s Ephod or rationale (hanging between each side of Paul 6’s stole in this photo at left), to prove that he indeed was at least an agent or a secret son of some sort to those Jews working in concert with Freemasonry. Was he their Messiah? No one pretends to know Freemasonry’s secrets, but their pyramid boasts Antichrist as its pinnacle. That they considered him a sort of Jewish savior is clear from these links:

https://legallegacy.wordpress.com/2020/10/28/october-28-1965-pope-paul-vi-absolves-jews-of-collective-guilt-for-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-christ/; https://www.ajc.org/news/from-regret-to-acclaim-a-jewish-reaction-to-nostra-aetate;  https://mysteriuminiquitatis-2thessalonians2.blogspot.com/2023/08/paul-vi-wearing-jewish-freemasonic.html

What is the significance of the ephod? The Biblehub site relates: “The ephod was a sacred vestment worn by the high priest… serving as a symbol of the high priest’s role as a mediator between God and the people. The ephod was fastened with a skillfully woven waistband and had two shoulder pieces, each set with an onyx stone engraved with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. This design signified the high priest’s representation of the entire nation before God, bearing their names on his shoulders as he performed his duties (Exodus 28:12)… As the high priest wore the ephod, he acted as an intermediary between God and the Israelites, offering sacrifices and prayers on their behalf… In addition to its role in mediation, the ephod was also associated with divine guidance. The high priest used the ephod in conjunction with the Urim and Thummim, mysterious objects placed in the breastpiece of judgment, to discern God’s will in important matters (Exodus 28:30)… Beyond its immediate function, the ephod also appears in other biblical contexts, sometimes associated with idolatry or improper worship. For example, Gideon made an ephod that became a snare to him and his family (Judges 8:27). This misuse of the ephod serves as a cautionary tale about the potential for sacred symbols to be corrupted when removed from their intended purpose and divine instruction.

Paul 6, then, in wearing the ephod, officially announced to the Jews and those among the public who recognized its significance, the Judaization of what once was the Church and the direction of all its corrupted ceremonies and prayers to the benefit of the Jewish people.  That it also signified the idolatrous nature of the Novus Ordo Missae at the same time indicates the extent of Montini’s wickedness and that of his fellow conspirators. Jewish officials flocked to Rome to consult with Roncalli and Montini during their time there. As Vicomte Leon de Poncins and many others have fully documented, John 23 and Paul 6 openly schemed with the Jews to so arrange and conduct Vatican 2 that the resulting remodeled “church” could in no way offend their beliefs. The oft-quoted 1966 article in Look magazine, How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking offers clear testimony to this. The Jews demanded and received the removal of any reference to their guilt in Christ’s death, openly stated during Good Friday services. And it is no coincidence that they were assisted in their quest by none other than Pro Deo University’s Felix Morlion, arch-conspirator and champion of religious liberty.

As a result, the false Vatican 2 council taught that the Jews of yesterday and today, as a whole, cannot be blamed for Christ’s death and are not to be reviled or persecuted by Catholics — they intimated that this was only a reiteration of the teachings of Mit brenunder sorge and other papal documents. It is Paul 6’s insistence that the Jews not be considered as reprobate, i.e., incapable of salvation that compromised the faith. Already John 23 had removed reference to the “perfidious” (unbelieving) Jews in the Good Friday liturgy. Paul 6 strengthened this decision of his predecessor by further revisions, calling for the removal of any references to the “conversion of the Jews,” the existence of a “veil over their hearts” and the need for deliverance “from their darkness.” And this contrary to the commonly accepted interpretation of these Scriptural passages as indicative, at least, of the complicity of the Jewish elders in Christ’s crucifixion.

The primary author of Nostra Aetate, Gregory Baum, was a convert to Catholicism. His father was a Jewish professor, his mother a Protestant. He was ordained to the priesthood sometime in the 1950s and served as an advisor at the false Vatican 2 council. He later left the priesthood and married an ex-nun, all the while proclaiming his bi-sexuality. He was an early proponent of gay rights, (Wikipedia). In promulgating Nostra Aetate, Paul 6 inferred, contrary to the clear teaching of Holy Scripture and the Church for 2,000 years, THAT THE JEWS COULD ANTICIPATE SALVATION WITHOUT BENEFIT OF CONVERSION. This is a clear denial of Scriptural truth. Was he not then their Messiah, by “saving” them from their previous fate?! And certainly John Paul 2 strengthened this notion beyond the Jews’ fondest dreams.

All this is contrary to the truths of faith prescribed by Pope St. Pius X in his Oath Against Modernism which reads, in part: “With a firm faith I believe that the Church, guardian and mistress of the revealed word, was instituted proximately and directly by the true and historical Christ Himself, while He sojourned among us, and that the same was built upon Peter, the chief of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors till the end of time… I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the orthodox fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us…” And from the Council of Trent: “…No one who distorts the Sacred Scripture, according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scriptures contrary to the sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers…,” (DZ  786).

So not only did Paul 6 deny the clear words of Holy Scripture in his pronouncement on the Jews, he also broke with the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and the common and constant teaching of his predecessors, violating that “same sense and interpretation” ever maintained by the continual magisterium. He obliterated Tradition by altering the liturgy and its condemnation of the Jews, but then that paled in comparison to his abrogation of the Latin Mass. But we need not insist that Paul 6 be formally identified as the Jewish Messiah for the prophecies on Antichrist to be fulfilled. Rev. Denis Fahey in his The Kingship of Christ and Conversion of the Jewish Nation identifies this point as only probable, not certain. At least part of this point is fulfilled, however, for Fahey says the Jews will assist Antichrist in setting up his kingdom and certainly this was the case. A probable opinion is not binding on anyone. One, it is only an opinion; two, probability is measured in degrees. Acclamation as their actual Messiah would mean little, Fahey explains, since some 25 men have enjoyed this same distinction over the course of Jewish history. It seems then that even without an actual affirmation, Montini served them well in this role.

Conclusion

The Great Monarch prophecy certainly cannot be fulfilled by King Charles III. It was a conditional prophecy, a grace to be earned only by prayer, reformed morals and penance. But the Zionist goal of seizing the papacy for their own definitely was fulfilled in Montini, the restored high priest of Judaism. Those decrying Bibbi Netanyahu and Zionism, especially members of the Novus Ordo sect, are deluded if they believe the real enemy is any ruler of present-day Israel. The spiritual leader of Israel, the power behind the throne, continues to reign through his successors in Rome. He clearly told us who he was. Anyone seeing this who remains in the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects and oppose the aims of Zionism are complicit in the takeover of the Church for not speaking out. Anytime an apostate openly reveals himself as such and the source of his apostasy is not investigated and fully revealed, silence and a lack of due diligence imply consent. The first photo of Paul 6 above has been in existence since the late 1970s. It triggered all of our own research and conclusions.

So those condemning Zionism who present as Catholic, even though they may rightly link it to a worldwide conspiracy — to Freemasonry and the Illuminati — are guilty of obscuring the truth. They may not be fully aware of it or know it at all; they may know it and dismiss it as impossible or capable of a rational explanation. Most likely, if they dismiss it, they do so because they have bought the lie that the Church can never lose her hierarchy, even though the Church Herself has never taught this and Holy Scripture contradicts this false assumption. And that includes those who are exposing the conspiracy behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk and what has developed since his death in September.

The one thing about Kirk that has been missed altogether is the comments he made about Francis and Leo 14 before he died. He styled them as Marxists and unworthy pastors and suggested Catholics should find someone else to lead them. He then joined this observation with a condemnation of Israel’s conduct in the war with Gaza. And that, my friends, is why he was executed. If the significance of these comments is not properly appreciated, the real reason for his death will never be fully explored and exposed. Those advocating for Kirk re-echo his cry “Go max.” It’s time that all of those who really wish to stand for truth not just mouth those words, but actually put them into action. Viva Cristo Rey!