Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Just as St. Alphonsus Liguori understood Session 6, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent as teaching baptism of desire, so did St. Robert Bellarmine  who taught in his De Controversiis: De Sacramento Baptismi. Lib. I, cap. 6., 1596 A.D. See Footnote:

First proposition: Martyrdom is rightly called, and is a kind of Baptism. 

Second proposition: Perfect Conversion, and Penance is rightly called Baptism of wind, and it supplies for Baptism of water at least in cases of necessity. Note that not just any conversion is called Baptism of wind, but perfect conversion, which includes true contrition, and charity, and also desire, or will to receive Baptism.

Secondly, note that this proposition was not as certain with the ancients, as was the above. For as regards Martyrdom none of the ancients, as far as I know, denied that it could supply for Baptism of water: but as regards conversion and penance there were some who denied it. Indeed the book written on the dogmas of the Church, which is falsely attributed to Augustine, chap. 74. openly teaches that a Catechumen is not saved, although he should have lived in good works, unless he be purified by the baptism of water or of blood. Also it is clear from epistle 77 of St. Bernard, that some in his time believed the same.

But without doubt it is to be believed, that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water, when not through contempt but through necessity someone dies without Baptism of water. For this is expressly held by Ezech. 18: If the impious shall do penance for his sins, I will no more remember his iniquity. Ambrose openly teaches the same in his oration on the death of Valentinian the younger: “He whom I was to regenerate, I lost; but that grace, for which he hoped, he did not lose.” Likewise Augustine book 4 on Baptism, chap. 22. and Bernard epist. 77. and after them Innocent III. chap. Apostolicam, of an unbaptized priest. Thus also the Council of Trent, sess. 6. chap. 4. says that Baptism is necessary in reality or in desire. Finally, true conversion is associated with Martyrdom, and with Baptism of water, in the name of Baptism and in two effects; therefore it is credible that it also be associated in another effect, which is to forgive guilt, and to justify man, and in this way to supply for Baptism of water.

Feeneyites think St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori were both dummies that didn’t understand Latin or the Catholic Faith on salvation. They think these two saints and theologians didn’t understand the Council of Trent and actually taught the very opposite to its true meaning.

 

 

Footnote:

https://books.google.com/books?id=GIs31FMKgooC&pg=PA119#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=Chg-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA229#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WGacU16zNqBjadJ3SqNeN8A6WOMbRLBc/view?usp=sharing

After my podcast on Feeneyism, the Feeneyites have come out of the cracks to attack Baptism of Desire.

One of their fundamental errors is failing to make the distinction between making an error over an opinion and actually teaching heresy.

Popes, saints, and theologians most certainly can err over theological opinions, but they can’t err against a dogma and remain Catholic. Feeneyites will say St. Alphonsus was a material heretic and/or erred innocently. They won’t apply that same courtesy to the Vatican 2 popes (if sedes.) When the Vatican 2 popes error against the faith, it’s malicious, but when great popes and saints do the exact same thing, it’s not malicious. 

St. Alphonsus Liguori taught two things that Feeneyites call heresy. I dealt with one of those issues over 4 years ago here.

The second issue concerns the faith and what is needed to be saved. Feeneyites profess that it’s dogmatic that those who are of the age of reason absolutely must have explicit faith in the essential mysteries of faith to be saved. 

However, Catholicism is clear that it’s not dogmatic. It’s a theological opinion. This opinion is broken down into different classes of necessity.  

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains: In relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

According to Feeneyites, the above teaching from the Catholic Encyclopedia is heretical for denying that the Sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of means for salvation.

The faith that’s a necessity of means can be broken down even further. St. Alphonsus taught that it’s “sufficiently probable – that by necessity of precept all are bound to believe these Mysteries explicitly; but by necessity of means, it suffices if they be believed implicitly.” 

Those same Feeneyites must call St. Alphonsus a formal heretic, since he’s contradicting their believed “dogma” that explicit faith is a necessity of means. 

St. Alphonsus Liguori taught in Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, tract. 1, cap. 1 

1.  Which mysteries must be believed by a necessity of means?

Of those things which the faithful are bound to believe explicitly, some must be believed by a necessity of means, or end; without which, even if inculpably unknown, no one can obtain the ultimate end; others, by a necessity of precept, without which, if they be inculpably omitted, the ultimate end may be obtained. — Sanchez, Azor, Valentia. By a necessity of means these two things are necessary: (1) To believe explicitly that God is, and is a rewarder of the good; according to that of the Apostle to the Hebrews, xi. 6: One must believe. Council of Trent. (2) After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, to believe explicitly, as says Molina; or at least implicitly, as some teach as probable with Coninck and Laymann, in Christ and the Most Holy Trinity.  See Escobar, where from Vasquez he teaches that culpable ignorance of these mysteries, or negligence in learning them, is a grave sin, distinct from that which is its cause.  See Diana. It is a theological virtue, infused by God, inclining us to firmly assent, on account of the divine veracity, to all that God has revealed, and by the Church has proposed to our belief.  It is said (1) A theological virtue, that is, which has God for its object; for faith, as also hope and charity, is aimed directly at God, and thus differs from the moral virtues, which refer to Him indirectly.  (2) Infused by God; because faith is a supernatural gift of God.  (3) Inclining us to firmly believe; for the assent of faith cannot be joined with fear, as was wrongly said in proposition 21 proscribed by Innocent XI, but must be absolutely firm.  (4) On account of the divine veracity.  For the infallible truth (which is God Himself) is the formal object of faith. (5) To all that God has revealed; for everything revealed by God is the material object of faith.  (6) And by the Church has proposed to our belief; for the divine revelation would not be made known to us, except by the Church, which proposes the things revealed; as it is otherwise evident, on account of the signs of credibility (among which are prophecies, miracles, the constancy of the Martyrs, and such like), that the Church can neither deceive nor be deceived.  Apart from which St. Augustine famously uttered the saying: I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church so moved me.

2.  Whether the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation must be believed explicitly?

It is asked: whether the Mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after the promulgation of the Gospel, must be believed with an explicit faith by necessity of means or of precept?

The first opinion, which is more common and seems more probable, teaches that they are to be believed by a necessity of means. Thus hold Sanchez, Valentia, Molina, Continuator Tournely, Juenin, Antoine, Wigandt, Concina with Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc.; also Salmant., Cuniliati and Roncaglia. But these last three say, that accidentally and in a rare case one may be justified with a faith that is only implicit. — This they prove from the Scriptures, from which they say is clearly proved the necessity of means.  They prove it also from reason: for, granting that before the promulgation of the Gospel an implicit faith in Christ was sufficient, yet after the promulgation, because the state of grace is more perfect, a more perfect knowledge is required, indeed an explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity.

The second opinion, which is also sufficiently probable, says, that by necessity of precept all are bound to believe these Mysteries explicitly; but by necessity of means, it suffices if they be believed implicitly. — Thus Dominicus Soto, where he says: Although the precept of explicit faith (that is, in the Trinity and the Incarnation) is absolutely obligatory upon the whole world, nevertheless many may be excused from this obligation on account of invincible ignorance.  Franciscus Sylvius writes: After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and indeed also (as is probable) by a necessity of means.  And in the conclusion that follows, he says the same about the mystery of the Trinity.  Cardinal Gotti says: I say (1The opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity is so necessary, that without it no one can be justified, or be able to be saved, is very probable.  And he asserts that Scotus holds this opinion.  Eusebius Amort, the recent and most learned writer, defends absolutely the same opinion.  Elbel writes, that today this opinion is held by the illustrious Doctors Castropalao, Viva, Sporer, Laymann, who says this (second opinion) is not less probable than the first, with Richardo, Medina, Vega, Sa, and Turriano. — Cardinal de Lugo calls the first opinion speculatively probable [footnote: Or more correctly: Lugo n. 90, calls the first opinion fairly common], but defends absolutely and in great detail this second one as more probable, with Javello, Zumel, and Suarez; and de Lugo writes, that this same opinion appears to be that of St. Thomas, where the Holy Doctor says: Before Baptism, Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues, through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit.  From which Lugo argues: as Cornelius obtained grace through implicit faith, because the Gospel was not yet perfectly promulgated in that region, likewise he can obtain it who is invincibly ignorant of these mysteries; for likewise to these the Gospel is not sufficiently promulgated.

But they say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence, to damn adults who are invincibly ignorant, who live honestly according to the light of nature, against which there is: In every nation, he who fears Him, and works justice, is acceptable to Him? (Acts x. 35) — Indeed they respond that all Scriptures, and testimonies of the Holy Fathers that are opposed to this view, can easily be explained as of necessity of precept: either because ordinarily almost no one can be saved without explicit faith in these Mysteries, because after the promulgation of the Gospel almost no one labors under invincible ignorance of them; or because, says Lugo, they may be explained as referring to implicit faith, or explicit in desire. — Furthermore, says Laymann, an adult, if mute and deaf from birth, though he be baptized, could not receive the other Sacraments, although he so desired; indeed he could not be saved, because it is unbelievable that such a man could rightly apprehend and explicitly believe the mystery of the Incarnation, and especially of the Trinity.

It is noted by Tannerus, Silvius, Azor and Valentia, with Gulielmo Parisiensi according to Sanchez, that if one were so very untaught, that he could not grasp these mysteries, then he would be excused on account of inability, and compared to infants, and dunces. — But Sanchez says, that it is one thing to believe, another to know the mysteries, and to give an explanation of them.  Thus he thinks that all adults are bound by a necessity of means, to eventually believe such mysteries, but by a necessity of precept to know them; from which precept to know the slow of mind are excused; and he says that the authors cited are to be understood in this way.  And he concludes with Gabriele, who says: It is sufficient … for them (that is, the untaught), that … they explicitly believe individual [articles] when proposed to them.

However, propositions 64 and 65 condemned by Innocent XI, say: A man is capable of being absolved, however ignorant he may be of the mysteries of faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ — It suffices that he should have believed them once; but Viva says with Marchant, that it is probably not necessary to repeat Confessions made in ignorance of the aforesaid Mysteries; since by the aforementioned opinion it is quite probable that they were valid, if the ignorance was inculpable.  For it is certain, that such ignorance, if it be vincible, is a mortal sin.  But the aforesaid proposition was justly condemned, because it said that even he is capable of being absolved, who at the time of confession suffers from ignorance of the aforesaid mysteries. — But the opinion of Father Viva is not sufficiently probable in my view.  For although the penitent probably made a valid confession, so that afterwards he appears exempt from repeating his confession, because he confessed in good faith before; yet out of respect for him who certainly sinned gravely, it should always be urged that above all one is obliged to make a confession, not only probably, but certainly valid.  On which account, when one becomes aware that his confession was possibly valid, but also possibly null, because of ignorance of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity or the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, he is obliged, after he has been instructed in these Mysteries, to repeat his confession.

Moreover, he is said to believe implicitly, who believes something explicitly, in which another thing is implicit; for example, if you believe what the Church believes.  See the Scholastics and Laymann. [1]

 

Footnote

[1] https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis01ligu_0/page/212/mode/2up

 

 

 

 

The Gospel reading is taken from John:

“Jesus therefore, six days before the pasch, came to Bethania, where Lazarus had been dead, whom Jesus raised to life. And they made him a supper there: and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that were at table with him. Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein. Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always. A great multitude therefore of the Jews knew that he was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead” (John 12:1-9).

Cornelius À Lapide writes in his biblical commentary:

Ver. 1.—Then Jesus six days before the Passover, &c. He came from Ephraim, as the Passover was drawing on when He was to die. And He came to Bethany to prepare Himself for it; nay more, to offer Himself for death, and furnish an opportunity for it through the covetousness of Judas. This explains why He first went to Bethany. For the chief priests had ordered that He should be seized. And He, knowing this by divine inspiration, came to Bethany, where He had many well-wishers, among whom He could remain in security, and might thence shortly afterwards enter Jerusalem in solemn pomp on Palm Sunday, as the Paschal Lamb who was to be offered for the sins of the world.

Bethany, which is close to Mount Olivet, signifies in Hebrew the house of obedience. From this place He wished to go to His Cross. For as the Gloss says, By being obedient even as far as to the death of the Cross, He taught His Church obedience, on the Mount of Oil, i.e., the Mount of Mercy, which cannot be hid, and by which He raises up those who are buried in grievous sins. A supper is there made by the faith and devotion of the righteous. Martha ministers, when each of the faithful offers to the Lord works of devotion, and Lazarus, i.e., those who have been raised up (from sin), with those who have remained stedfast in their righteousness, joyfully feast on the Lord’s presence.

Six days before the Passover. It was on the Friday evening that He came from Ephraim. On the following Sabbath they made Him a feast, and on the next day (Palm Sunday) He in solemn manner entered Jerusalem. For the Passover that year fell on the Thursday of that week. He came to Bethany on the Friday, because it was not lawful to journey on the Sabbath.

Symbolically, The Gloss says, “God made all things in six days. On the sixth He made man; in the sixth age of the world He willed to redeem him. He suffered on the sixth day of the week, and died at the sixth hour.”

Whom Jesus raised from the dead. That by His presence He might revive the memory of this miracle, and arouse the people to attend Him on His solemn entry into Jerusalem, and shout Hosanna.

Ver. 2.—There they made Him a supper, &c. To show that He had really risen; as S. Augustine says (in loc.). “He lived, He talked, He partook of the meal: the truth was set forth, the unbelief of the Jews was confounded.”

Ver. 3.—Mary (Magdalene) therefore (that she might not be wanting on her part, and in order specially to honour Christ, and to surpass all others in her services, as she surpassed them in love) look a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly. Ointment of nard was composed of several sweet scents (see Pliny H. N. xiii. 2), and was thick. But this was liquid, as S. Matt. (xxvi. 7) says that it was poured on His head. Liquids are very often weighed in vessels, or anyhow the nard itself from which the ointment was made. Or this pound was rather a measure of quantity, not of weight.

Mystically. S. Augustine says, “The ointment was righteousness. Therefore it was of due weight” (libra). The Gloss says, “Mary before anointed His feet as a penitent; but now, when the righteousness of the perfect, and not the mere rudiments of penitence, are designated, she anoints His head and His feet. The pound of ointment is the perfection of righteousness. He anoints the head, who preaches high doctrines respecting Christ; He anoints the feet who respects the least commandments.”

But what is “pistic nard”? (1.) The Commentary on S. Matthew (in S. Jerome) says “mystic,” which is absurd. (2.) S. Augustine says it is so called from the place whence it was brought. But the place itself is uncertain. (3.) Maldonatus derives it α̉πὸ του̃ πίνειν, meaning that it was liquid, and so could be drunk, other ointments being thick and clotted. (4.) Others derive it from πιέξω, squeezed or pressed out. (5.) As if from πίστις, pure, unadulterated, as nard frequently was. (See Pliny H. N. xii. 13.) So Euthymius, Theophylact, on Mark xii., Baronius, Ribera, Jansenius, Toletus and others. (6.) Pistici is the same as spicati by a change of letters. This was the best kind of ointment. (This point treated at very great length.)

Morally. Here learn that the good works, with which we anoint Christ, ought to be quite free from fault, and of the very best kind. Compare the offerings of Cain and Abel. (See Ps. lxvi., xx. 4, and Dan. iii. 40 (Vulg.), Lev. iii. 16, Num. xviii. 17, 29, and Lev. xxiii. 19.)

And anointed the feet of Jesus. S. Matt. adds “and the head.” Alcuin explains mystically, “The Head is the loftiness of the Godhead, the feet the humility of the Incarnation. Or the Head is Christ, the feet the poor who are His members. We anoint them when we give them alms.”

And wiped His feet with her hair. A hysteron proteron. For first she wiped, and then anointed His feet. For had she anointed His feet first, and then wiped them with her hair, she would have anointed her own hair, (which she did not wish to do,) and which indeed she counted unworthy of such anointing, and not His feet. Moreover, this sweet-scented and precious ointment was not to be wiped off, but left on His feet, to give them ease.

Her hair. To soil those hairs, of which she used to be vain, with the dust of His feet, and also that she might with the deepest reverence and humility place her whole head beneath His feet. For S. Chrysostom says, she placed the noblest part of her body beneath His feet, and she approached Him not as man but as God.

And the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.  S. Augustine says, mystically, the whole world was filled with the good fame of her piety and virtue. As S. Paul says, “We are a sweet savour of Christ” (2 Cor. ii. 14)—to the good, of life unto life; to the wicked, of death unto death—as was here the case. Whence it follows:

Ver. 4.—Then said one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, (5.) why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? SS. Matt. and Mark add, “Why was this waste of the ointment made?” Bede replies, “It was no waste, but for the rite of burial; nor is it wonderful that she offered Me the sweet savour of Faith, when I am about to shed my blood for her.”

Ver. 6.—This he said, &c. Nay worse, sacrilegious, “for he seized for his own use, that which was given for a sacred purpose,” says Theophylact. “He carried the money by his office, he carried it off by theft,” says S. Augustine. He wished the ointment to be sold, and the price of it given to him; and since he knew that Christ did not wish so large a sum to be kept in his purse, but rather to be distributed amongst the poor, he would have distributed some of it to the poor, and have purloined the rest for himself. See here how opportunity makes the thief, and how dangerous it is for holy men in “religion” to handle moneys, those especially which belong to the whole community. For if covetousness suggests it, a portion is easily diverted to the use of themselves or their families.

But why did Jesus entrust to him the bag, knowing him to be a thief? I answer, Because Judas was more qualified than the other Apostles to make purchases. And He allowed the theft, because an opportunity was furnished thereby for the betrayal and death which He courted. Again S. Augustine, “Because the Church would afterwards have its coffers, He admitted thieves, in order that His Church might tolerate powerful thieves, even when suffering from them, to teach us that the wicked must be tolerated, for fear of dividing the body of Christ. Do thou, the good, bear with the evil, that thou mayest attain to the reward of the good.” S. Chrysostom adds, “The Lord committed the bags to a thief, in order to cut off any excuse for betraying Him, and that it might not seem as if he betrayed Him from want of money.” But Theophylact says, “Some maintain that as the least of the Apostles he undertook the management of the money.”

Lastly, S. Bernard (de Consid. iv. 6) teaches us “that Christ wished in ‘this’ way to teach Prelates readily to entrust the management of temporal affairs to any one, but to reserve the ordering of spiritual matters to themselves: though many do exactly the contrary.” Again, Christ acted thus, to keep us from being surprised, if in the assemblies, monasteries, and congregations of holy men, there be occasionally found some vicious and scandalous persons; and accordingly S. Augustine (Epist. 137, nunc 75), when one of his monks had caused scandal, at which the people cried out against him, prudently replied, “However vigilant may be the discipline of my house, I am but a man, I am living among men: nor do I dare to claim for myself, that my house should be better than Noah’s ark, where among eight men one was found reprobate, or better than the house of Abraham, when it was said, Cast out the bond-woman and her son; or better than the house of Isaac, to whom it was said respecting the twin children, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated: or better than the house of Jacob, when his son defiled his father’s bed; or better than the house of David, whose son lay with his sister, and where another son rebelled against his holy and gentle father; or better than they who were associated with the Lord Christ Himself, where eleven righteous men tolerated Judas, that perfidious thief; or, lastly, better than heaven from which the angels fell.”

Doubtless God permits it in His wise providence, in order that by the wickedness of one or two the goodness and sanctity of others may shine out the more by way of contrast, as light amid darkness, gold amongst lead, the sun between the clouds, a wise man among fools, shines forth only the more resplendently. For contraries opposed to each other are the more marked. (See. Ecclus. xxxiii. 15, and notes in loc.)

And had the bag, &c. From this Jansen and others rightly gather that it is lawful for the Church to have coffers and wealth, and that it does not derogate from perfection to have a common purse, for reasonable and moderate expenses. For Jesus did nothing which implied imperfection, being the teacher of all perfection.

In order to understand this thoroughly, observe that though Christ, by reason of His Hypostatic Union with the Word, had a pre-eminent and (as it were) Divine dominion over all creatures, yet professed poverty, that is, an abandonment of ownership, special ownership, in order to be the teacher and example of a more perfect life. See Matt. viii. 20, xix. 21, 27.

Observe, secondly, that Christ had absolute control of the offerings made to Him by the faithful, for the common good, and not for His special use. They belonged to the whole College of the Apostles. He held them not as though He were their sole owner. See John iv. 8, vi. 5.

It follows therefore that it does not in any way detract from their perfection for Religious orders to have goods in common. (See John xxii. Extravag. Ad Conditorem.) In some cases this is the most perfect way, in others not. But Christ at one time seemed to have lost all claim even to a share of the common property. (See Luke viii. 3.) This seems to be all that Nicholas IV. means. (Can. Exiit qui seminat. De Verb. Signif. in vi., though he apparently contradicts John xxii.)

S. Thomas (see Secund. Quæst. clxxxviii.Art. 7) proves àpriori that the possession of goods in common does not hinder perfection. Poverty, he says, is only an instrument of perfection, as taking away anxiety in acquiring and preserving riches, the love of them, and our priding ourselves in them. But to have goods in common does not give rise to any of these evils; and so far from hindering charity, it even promotes it. “For it is manifest,” says S. Thomas, “that to store up things which are necessary to man, and purchased at a fitting time, causes the least possible anxiety.”

All founders of Religious Orders have sanctioned this. And hence resulted the Constitution of Justinian, that the goods of those who became monks should belong as a matter of course to their monasteries. For the whole meaning of poverty turns on not having anything belonging especially to one’s own self, though there may be some common fund, from which, according to the Apostolic Rule, distribution should be made to each, as need may require. (See Acts ii. 44-45; iv. 35, and the Notes thereon.) This is just what S. Jerome says to the “Religious” of his own day (Epist. xxii.) “No one has any right so say, I have not a tunic, or a coat, or a bed of plaited bulrushes. For the head of the Community so divides the common stock, that every one has what he asks for. And if any begins to fall ill, he is transferred to a larger cell, and is so carefully attended by the older monks, that he longs not for the delights of cities, or the tenderness of a mother.”

The fathers and schoolmen teach everywhere the same thing. (See Suarez par. iii. Quæst. xl. disp. xxviii. § 2, Bellarm. de Summo Pont. iv. 14, Soto de Just. iv. Quæst. i. art. 1.)

Nicolas IV. (ut supr.) says that to have common purses is to detract from perfection, for Christ in this matter adapted Himself to the weaker brethren, that He might be an example to all. Suarez replies, that Nicolas only asserted that in the matter of poverty that was the least rigid rule which allowed them to have common purses, but that it must not be concluded from this that the other rule was absolutely the most perfect. For though less perfect, as common poverty, it may be more perfect in charity, or some other virtue. For Nicolas is speaking of the Franciscans (of whom he was one), whose Order had for its scope and end the extremest poverty, in order to be conformed to S. Francis. But other orders have other pious and holy ends, for which it is more convenient to have goods in common. And therefore this is more fitting and perfect in their case. Carthusians observe silence and solitude. Others practise great austerity. But those who are employed in preaching and missions to unbelievers, need great strength to endure the great labours of their order, and make up for austerity of living by charity towards their neighbours. Both act in a manner suited to their order, and the end they propose to themselves. Different ends require different means. The Council of Trent allows all “Religious,” except the Franciscans, to own Real Property (bona immobilia).

Ver. 7.—Then said Jesus, Suffer her to keep this for the day of my burial. In the Greek it is “for the day of my burial hath she kept this,” and also in the Syriac (see notes on Matt. xxvi. 12, &c.) Hear S. Augustine, “He saith not to him, It is on account of thy thefts that thou speakest thus. He knew he was a thief, but was unwilling to expose him. He chose rather to bear with him, and to set us an example of patience in tolerating evil men in the Church.”

Ver. 9.—Much people of the Jews, &c. “Curiosity led them,” says S. Augustine, “not charity,” to see and hear Lazarus, and to ask him where he had been after death, what he had seen, what he had done? So Cyril, Theophylact, Leontius.

 

State Street in Chicago in 1903. Picture taken from McMahan Photo Art Gallery & Archive Website. 

The year is 1903. Horse and buggy is the main way of travel. The airplane was just invented in December and could barely fly 15 seconds over a distance of 200 feet. There are no televisions or radios. Electricity and indoor plumbing are extremely rare. Homes won’t have refrigeration for another 10 years. The city of Las Vegas won’t be established for another 2 years and Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma are only territories. The world has not seen the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Communism. It has not yet seen the two great World Wars. It has not seen the bomb. The rivers, lakes, and oceans are pristine, because there are no plastics and other modern contaminates to pollute the waters. Lastly, the Catholic Church is flourishing around the world and Pope St. Pius X was just elected Pope.

One would think times were pretty innocent and good, all things considering. Not so according to the newly elected pope and saint. He thought the world was going to hell in a hand-basket. He even suggested that we were entering the end of days.

Read carefully these words of Pope St. Pius X:

“We were terrified beyond all else by the disastrous state of human society today. For who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deep-rooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is – apostasy from God, than which in truth nothing is more allied with ruin, according to the word of the Prophet: ‘For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish’ (Ps. 1xxii., 17). We saw therefore that, in virtue of the ministry of the Pontificate, which was to be entrusted to Us, We must hasten to find a remedy for this great evil, considering as addressed to Us that Divine command: ‘Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations and over kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant’ (Jerem. i., 10). But, cognizant of Our weakness, We recoiled in terror from a task as urgent as it is arduous…

When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the ‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God’ (II. Thess. ii., 2).

Verily no one of sound mind can doubt the issue of this contest between man and the Most High. Man, abusing his liberty, can violate the right and the majesty of the Creator of the Universe; but the victory will ever be with God – nay, defeat is at hand at the moment when man, under the delusion of his triumph, rises up with most audacity. Of this we are assured in the holy books by God Himself…we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time – the substitution of man for God” (E Supremi).

We should ponder carefully the words of this holy pope and realize that if he saw how bad things were in 1903, what would he say today?

We’ve not seen a true pope in 64 years. We have a hard time figuring out how to explain the difficulty of the Church being virtually wiped off the face of the earth with all the offices vacant and no end in sight. What everybody thinks is the Catholic Church is nothing more than the greatest hypocritical organization of all time, which has been completely united to the world and its standards.

Abominations are viewed as ordinary and praiseworthy aspects of human life. Homosexuality is found as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. “Transgenderism” is everywhere. The Pentagon has recently estimated that over 14,000 military personal identify as transgender. [1] A highly decorated retired US Navy Seal has been identifying as a woman for the past 10 years and is praised for his transition by his fellow Seals. I believe these abominations have feminism as its root.

In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights.” [2] This biblical and Catholic teaching is utterly rejected by practically everyone, including traditional Catholics, who will defend voting “conservative” women into high public offices. Who condemns women working in Congress, as prime ministers, judges, police and military officers, etc.? This is one the greatest evils ever and it’s considered good and righteous by virtually everyone.

“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20).

Catholics are in complete denial of the gravity of our situation. Some Catholics have a delusional belief that we’re actually coming out of this mess as we spiral faster and faster to hell. These people don’t think the great falling away really exists except on paper. It’s something that will always exist in the future. According to Pope Pius XI, the heresies of Protestantism was the beginning of the great apostasy of mankind from the Church. 

Most of us are numb to the immorality in our society and deny they are immoralities at all. Catholics are as immodest as the rest of the world as they participate in the very evils the Church has always condemned. The Church is to be counter-cultural, yet you couldn’t distinguish a Catholic from the common heathen.

We all live and eat in luxury. Not even King Henry VIII lived as good as the average citizen. We complain about everything as we fill our belly’s in a climate controlled environment on nice furniture and in the softest clothing.

We have become so soft and pathetic. Never do we take up the Cross of Christ and accept suffering. Very few Catholics truly dispose themselves to imitate Jesus. We cast suffering aside and labor to be comfortable in all things. We care little for eternal truths, but ardently seek continual indulgence of its honors, riches, and pleasures of every kind. We contemn poverty, mortification, and the Cross of Christ. Most of us think we’re following Jesus although we exert much energy in self-love and no virtues.

How many of us “glory in tribulation knowing that tribulation worketh patience” (Rom. 5:3)?

“Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). Can we say that we truly do, when we can’t even go one night without having a nice supper?

St. Paul wrote to the Romans, “And they who are in the flesh, cannot please God…For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live…For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him” (Roman 8:8,13,16-17).

How many of us suffer with Him by imitating His life of meekness, humility, mortification, and submission to God’s Will in order that we may go to heaven?

Not even the scariest prophecies are as scary as the state of our world today. The great falling away is more devastating than any pope or prophet could have imaged.

I don’t know if the following prophecy by St. Antony of the Desert is authentic, but the accuracy is close.

“Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our day, Faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day’s problems. When the Church and the world are one, then those days are at hand because our Divine Master placed a barrier between His things and the things of the world. A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, ‘You are mad, you are not like us”. [3]

My own Catholic brethren think I’m mad for posting “extremist” and unpopular ideas. Yet, they were commonplace when the world was Catholic. The false prophets of the world have steered Catholics away from Catholic thinking.

We’re more concerned about who’s conservative or liberal, democrat or republican. We care more about the latest ballgame winner or what celebrity is sleeping with who than with the four last things; death, judgment, hell, and heaven. The devil’s bread and circuses keep man aloof. His greatest lies are that most people go to heaven, sin is not that bad, and God is not that severe. 

“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” (Matt. 24:11-13).

We’re in a living nightmare. It’s frightening to think just how many will perish for all eternity. Man is oblivious to his path of destruction. Catholics aren’t far from the rest of mankind.  

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Apoc. 3:16).

Fr. Leo Haydock explains this Apocalypse verse in his biblical commentary, “A dreadful reprehension, whatever exposition we follow. According to the common interpretation, by the cold are meant those who are guilty of great sins; by the hot, such as are zealous and fervent in piety and the service of God; by the lukewarm or tepid, they who are slothful, negligent, indolent, as to what regards Christian perfection, the practice of virtue, and an exact observance of what regards the service of God. On this account they are many times guilty in the sight of God of great sins, they forfeit the favour and grace of God, fancying themselves good enough and safe, because they live as others commonly do, and are not guilty of many scandalous and shameful crimes, to which they see others addicted. 

The Church and world are one, because lukewarmness is universal.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] 14700-Transgender-Troops-.pdf (palmcenter.org)

[2] NYT April 22, 1909

[3] [Disquisition CXIV] Quoted in Voice of Fatima, 23 January 1968

An ancient coin with the image of Antiochus IV Epiphanes adorned with a fiery diadem.  The Greek inscription reads ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ / ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ (King Antiochus, God Manifest, Bearer of Victory). This Old Testament tyrant was an archetype of Antichrist. 

 

Those who follow my website know that I don’t go along to get along. I’ve taken a lot of heat criticizing well-respected bishops and priests for rejecting the 1955 Missal of Pope Pius XII. I take the very unpopular position that women are not permitted by God to hold public office. I don’t agree with St. Robert Bellarmine and most theologians that occult heretics are members of the Body of the Church. [1] I don’t believe a true pope can fall into heresy ever and I don’t hold the common opinion that universal and peaceful acceptance guarantees a true pope.

I reject the Three Days of Darkness prophecy and I’m generally skeptical of apparitions and so-called miracles, exceptions would be Lourdes and Fatima. 

Truth is what matters. It brought me out of the Vatican 2 religion and keeps in the Catholic Church. 

With that being said, the following study on Antichrist is a position that I’ve held for many years. It is my own personal belief only and I’m offering it as an argument against the common opinion of almost every saint and theologian.

When we talk about Antichrist, we generally think of the last days. When and how the end of time will occur is a fascinating question. Even the Apostles’ asked Jesus, “Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the world” (Matt. 24:3)?

The Holy Scriptures and the Roman Catechism describe what must take place before the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Gospel will first be preached throughout the whole world (Matt. 24:14, Mark 13:10) followed by a great apostasy and the rise of Antichrist (II Thess. 2:3).

St. John warns: 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour.

Notice the last hour begins with Christ, not at the end of the world. St. John continues:

22 Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also” (I John 2:18-23)….

“And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. 4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them” (I John 4:3-5).

St. John seems to speak about Antichrist as a singular person and as a collective of men by saying it’s every spirit that makes Antichrist.

The Church has spoken very little of Antichrist. I could only find a few references. None of them say that Antichrist is one person. Most saints and theologians have concluded that Antichrist is one final individual, who stands apart from all the antichrists of history. Fr. Denis Fahey says that it is “certain” that Antichrist will be one man. Cardinal Manning also spoke of the forerunners of Antichrist. He explains how Antichrist reigns as a king and leader of the world.

Cornelius À Lapide explains in his commentary: And now already he [Antichrist] is in the world, not in person, but in spirit; that is to say, in his forerunners. This is what Paul says, “The mystery of iniquity doth already work.” (2 Thess. ii. 7.)

Lapide also explains First John 4:5 that “they” who are of the world are heretics. [2] However, St. John doesn’t refer to just heretics but everyone that desolveth Jesus. Therefore, when Antichrist speaks, the world heareth them.

Cornelius À Lapide says Antichrist is not already in the world “in person, but in spirit.” Haydock’s biblical commentary says the same, “Not in his person, but in his spirit and in his precursors.”

Perhaps, it’s more accurate to say Antichrist had not come in his fullness in St. John’s time. Why can’t all the false christs make up Antichrist? This meaning actually fits what St. John says, “every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.” 

Antichrist is coming and he’s here already. In this understanding, Antichrist in St. John’s day didn’t have all the power given to him by Satan. According to St. John in the Apocalypse, this happens when Satan is released from hell. [3]

St. Augustine speculated that Antichrist was a “mass of men” or the “Roman Empire,” based on the common opinions of his day. [4]

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. references St. John to demonstrate that every heretic makes up Antichrist. [5]

The belief that Antichrist is one final individual man comes from an interpretation of St. Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians chapter 2. This restrictive interpretation doesn’t square well with St. John and particularly the teaching of Pope St. Pius X. I offer the following alternative interpretation. Here’s what St. Paul wrote:

“3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,

4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

8 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, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders. 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish: Because they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe a lie” (II Thess. 2:3-10).

In verses 3 and 8, St. Paul says “the man of sin,” and “the son of perdition,” is the same as the “wicked one” who shall be revealed.

The son of perdition is Judas (John 17:12). However, Judas is already dead. We don’t believe in reincarnation because St. Paul condemns it in Hebrews 9:27. Therefore, St. Paul must be referring to the spirit of Judas, which is betrayal.

If St. John can mean “in spirit” when referring to Antichrist being in the world in his day, why can’t St. Paul be referring to a spirit of Judas in “son of perdition?”

We see the same types of allusions elsewhere in Scripture. The “woman” in the Apocalypse can be understood as the Blessed Virgin Mary and/or the Church. The “woman” is not necessarily just one person.

Another allusion is with Our Lord speaking about John the Baptist. Jesus says, “But I say to you, that Elias is already come, and they knew him not” (Matt. 17:12). It wasn’t literally but mystically Elias or the spirit of Elias.  The angel Gabriel had foretold to his father Zacharias, in St. Luke: “And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lk 1:17).

The spirit of Judas is the spirit of betrayal because Christ shed his blood for the whole world, but man will betray Christ for what He did for them.

A mass of men as Antichrist is supported by Pope St. Pius X’s pivotal teaching in E Supremi, (On the Restoration of All Things in Christ), Oct. 4, 1903:

5. When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. Ii., 2).

Pope St. Pius X declared that man does what the son of perdition (Antichrist) does in the verse that has been widely interpreted as a single person. If man does what Antichrist does, why look to Antichrist as their god if they have already made themselves as God? What’s the purpose of Antichrist? It only makes sense if Antichrist is a mass of men.

There are other reasons to believe that Antichrist is not one individual.

Consider the fact that most people don’t worship God. Yet, we are to believe the whole world (except the elect) will worship one person as their Savior and God. This is extremely far-fetched.

It’s well-known that Christians hold the belief in a final Antichrist. There are plenty of movies and books out there on the subject. If one man were to come on the scene and do super wonders and claim to be Christ, everyone will know that this is the guy to avoid. Don’t worship him, he’s bad news.

People aren’t that stupid. They’re not going to fall for one man being the Savior and God of the world. However, the world of men worshipping themselves as God is more plausible. In fact, it’s already happening and Pope St. Pius X was seeing it in his day.

Every person who makes himself the final arbiter of truth has made himself god. When men decide over and against the Word of God and the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, they have made themselves the final arbiter of truth. The Christ they claim is not the Christ that is.

Not only is this played out in every non-Catholic religion, but it’s found in the world in general. God has given us the power to share in His creation, but man has taken it upon himself how he will apply and use it. The Natural Law is rejected and replaced for man’s wishes and desires. Artificial contraception is used in order that man can have only the pleasure of the procreative act without God’s intention for it. When the procreative act is procreative, man destroys the life. He has been waging a massive war against the unborn in order that he may be free to live as he wants. Hundreds of millions of babies have been murdered in the name of the rights of man. Now man decides his gender and attempts to change it through chemicals and medical procedures. Man looks to himself and worships.

Jesus didn’t get the whole world to worship Him with all of His signs and miracles but Antichrist does? Men today have seen the great illusionists as Harry Houdini and others. Fantastic wonders would be written off as great illusions. But man has generated fantastic and lying wonders through technology and medicine.  

Men generally hate powerful individuals. They don’t worship them, they despise them. Who’s going to make everybody wonder and be happy when everybody is so diverse in thinking?

Men today are more likely to attribute some powerful fantastic miracle worker as an alien from outer space, but not god to be worshipped.

A single individual Antichrist would be a far more likely scenario in every century before the 20th century. Man depended on God to make it through life. But man is so technologically advanced today, that he only relies on himself to make it through life.

It would also seem that one man can’t do what Christ couldn’t, especially in a time where people today are more skeptical than ever. Therefore, it must be a collective or unit of men that makes Antichrist. Jesus taught, “He that is not with me, is against me” (Matt. 12:30). We either accept the works of Christ or we take the Mark of the Beast.

Therefore, I think the coming of Antichrist is reference to his fullness thereof. Antichrist has always been in the world to some extent, but his full power doesn’t come until Satan is released to give him that power for the final epic battle of time.

Antichrist in his fullness will be revealed by “power, and signs, and lying wonders.”

Look what man has done in the last 100 years. Man has gone from electricity and the industrial revolution to things he absolutely has no business messing with. He has harnessed nuclear power that can destroy the world a dozen times over. He can manipulate the weather.

Christ once made a great storm cease at the sound of His Voice. Now, man can create the storm.

Man has reached the highest heavens to the lowest depths. He has developed special effects technology such as 3-dimentional holograms and computer generated imagery. Both are so life-like, that it’s difficult to tell what’s real and what’s not. These holograms can even be transmitted from space.

He can do heart transplants and heal many sicknesses. He has cloned animals, plants and himself. He uses Petri dishes and test tubes to help make babies. He has genetically modified most of the foods we eat, and has even genetically modified himself. He uses animals to harvest human organs for transplants. If he’s not already been successful, he’s trying to mix humans with animals to make hybrid creatures. 

Lastly, he puts out false miracles as the Pharaoh’s magicians who were able to replicate the first four of Moses’ miracles. These false miracles were used to keep Pharaoh in his false religion and doubt God. False miracles today, keep people bound in their false religion. The false miracles of Antichrist will be preeminent to those of Pharaoh’s time. If Pharaoh’s magicians could change water into blood, fake priests could make “Eucharistic” hosts bleed.

What greater “power, and signs, and lying wonders,” can there be that man is doing now?

There’s also the power of numbers. A powerful navy in the 1500’s was one of many warships and sailors. Today, one person doesn’t rule the world but rather organizations of powerful people with all the money.

We are at point where we can’t tell who’s telling the truth about anything. Governments and their propaganda media tell you what they want you to know. Medical doctors are diametrically opposed with one another on basic medicine and medical procedures. Lawyers and judges are unjust as hell. Police will oppress the people on the order of their bosses. The military will wage war and kill innocent people out of obedience to senile, ignorant, power hungry, narcissistic, and evil politicians. The bankers always win in the end.

St. John tells us several times that Antichrist will wage a war against the Faithful and overcome them.

“7 And it [the Beast] was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. 8 And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world” (Apoc. 13:7-8). See also Apoc. 11:7, 12:17, and 19:19.

Antichrist has already overcome. There are no more Christian nations left on earth. [6] The forest of false religions has hidden the true Church making religion look ridiculous. We are at the mercy of the godless rulers who control the government, currency, food, military, law enforcement, and even religion. There’s no where to take refuge but the Hearts of Our Lord Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Christ never said anything about one individual being Antichrist at the end of time. Rather, Jesus tells us, “many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many” (Matt. 24:11). “For there shall arise false christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand” (Matt. 24:24-25).

Why not mention this great individual Antichrist if he were to come? It would seem that one of the great deceptions of Antichrist is that he is unrecognizable. Perhaps everybody will be looking for one man and not see that he’s many.

On the one hand, Our Lord tells us, “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor will be” (Matthew 24:21, Mark 13:19).

We have seen the last Catholic nations dissolved after having great power and glory. We have seen the Church practically wiped off the face of the earth after having the Real Presence of Our Lord on every altar around the world. The fear of the Lord is practically absent in every man except the elect reduced down to a remnant. The loss of grace is immense. Jesus tells us, “But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13). He was only speaking to those who have the Faith and to maintain it through the tribulation.

On the other hand, Our Lord tells us, “38 For, as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, 39 And they did not understand until the flood came and swept them all away; even so will be the coming of the Son of Man”(Matthew 24:38-39).

“26 And as it came to pass in the days of Noe, even so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noe entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, as it came to pass in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, they were buying and selling, they were planting and building; 29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 In the same wise will it be on the day that the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17: 26-30).

It appears that the tribulation will only be felt by the faithful Catholics. The rest of the world won’t notice a thing. It will continue down the path of destruction to the fire of hell.

If it’s true that Antichrist is a collective of men, then the world won’t see him, and he will be missed.

Two of the last three things have come to pass, the gospel has been preached to every nation and the great falling away from the Faith is now. Who and where is Antichrist?

St. Paul warned, “That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed” (II Thess. 2:2-3). Does this mean when the revolt and Antichrist is revealed, we should be terrified as if the day of the Lord were at hand? Should we even know when such a time comes?

Jesus told us, 29. And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light and the stars shall fall from heaven and the powers of heaven shall be moved. 30. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven. And then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty” (Matt. 24:29-30). “But when these things begin to come to pass, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand” (Luke 21:28).

According to the previous verses, the tribulation contains the great apostasy and Antichrist’s deception of the world. If we aren’t living during this tribulation now, then how much worse can it be in light of Matt. 24:38-39 and Luke 17:26-30 and what difference would some future Antichrist really make?

For further reading on the subject which includes the identity of the false prophet, the two witnesses, the abomination of desolation, etc., see my book: The Key to the Apocalypse (lulu.com).

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] When defining the Immaculate Conception, Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus declared: Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

Pope Pius IX makes the distinction of thinking and publicly expressing what he thinks. Thinking otherwise is occult until manifesting his thinking outwardly. Notice that thinking otherwise and he has separated from the unity of the Church. This is clearly talking about occult heresy, because he goes on with penalties for those who manifest their thinking.

Several respected theologians held that occult heretics are not members of the Church.  

[2] 5. They are of the world, &c. For heretics are not of God but of the world, because they love the riches, honours, and pleasures of the world. Whence worldly people, who care only for what is of the world, gladly hear them. “A heretic,” says S. Augustine (de util. credendi), “is he who for the sake of some temporal advantage, but especially of glory, and the pre-eminence which it gives, either brings forth or follows new and false opinions.” “All heretics,” says Tertullian, “are puffed up, all make profession of science.” “What heretic,” says S. Jerome, “does not swell with pride?” And again, S. Augustine says, “One mother, pride, hath brought forth all heresies, even as our own mother, the Catholic Church, all faithful Christians dispersed throughout the world.” Cornelius À Lapide – The Great Biblical Commentary – I John 4:5

[3] Satan, Antichrist, and ST. MICHAEL | Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell (wordpress.com)

[4] Augustine speculated that Antichrist was a mass of men or the Roman Empire by stating, “some think” and “others think.” CHURCH FATHERS: City of God, Book XX (St. Augustine) (newadvent.org)

[5] “This Eutyches must be judged to be extremely destitute of this mystery of the faith. Neither the humility of the mortal life nor the glory of the resurrection has made him recognise our nature in the only-begotten of God. Nor has even the statement of the blessed apostle and evangelist John put fear into him: Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is from God, and every spirit which puts Jesus asunder is not from God, and this is Antichrist.” The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D. – Papal Encyclicals

[6] Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican 2 declared: “The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.” This religious freedom included, “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.” (DH #4) Vatican 2 is clear that religious liberty is a human right that not even the Church can prohibit. It declared that this “right” be made into constitutional law. The results were dissolving the last Catholic Nations and Catholic Constitutions around the world. The Catholic State is being declared by the Second Vatican Council as a violation of the rights of man. Countries, such as Spain and Colombia, were forced to give up their Catholic constitutions and follow this document.

I’ve always been a believer of the Fatima apparitions. However, in the last 20 years or so, I’ve had to look at the events from another point of view to keep from having to abandon it all together. Things just didn’t add up, but that’s because I didn’t have all the facts.   

I found out that it was not Our Lady who said that the 3rd secret was to be read by the pope in 1960. This is huge considering there was no pope in 1960. I know Catholics who’ve abandoned Fatima over this one point. I gave the best answer I could think of in The Hidden Message of Fatima.

When Lucia fell seriously ill in 1943, the Leiria-Fatima bishop commanded her to write down the third part of the secret. Sister Lucia was with the Dorothean Sisters in Tuy, Spain, when all this happened.

There was an agreement with the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima that the document “would not be opened before 1960, or only after Lucia’s death.” Sister Lucia said recently that it was she and not Our Lady who set that date. [1] She probably set the date because she told Fr. Augustin Feuntes in 1957 that Our Lady had told her that the great chastisement will happen by 1960.

The next hurdle was the collegial consecration of Russia and its conversion.

On July 13th 1917, Our Lady said to the Children, “You see Hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If they do what I will tell you, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace. The war is going to end. But if they do not stop offending God, another and worse one will begin in the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illuminated by an unknown light, know that is the great sign God gives you that He is going to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, of hunger, and of persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this I come to ask the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart and the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays. If they listen to my requests, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not she will scatter her errors through the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer [Jacinta later had more visions concerning a future Pope’s suffering], various nations will be annihilated. In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and it will be converted and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world. In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be kept.”

Many good Catholics have interpreted “Russia will be converted” to mean it will be converted to Catholicism.

I’ve never held to this interpretation. I believe Our Lady meant that it will be saved from Communism. The key words are “and there will be peace.” It would be naïve to think peace in this context meant total and absolute. There will never be that kind of peace on earth.

The context was about Communism and peace from it. Russia wasn’t Catholic before the Bolshevik Revolution and hadn’t been Catholic for a thousand years. Later apparitions and messages prove my point.

Sister Lucia continued to have visions in 1925 and 1929. It was in Tuy, Spain in 1929 where she received another message about Russia and the collegial consecration.

We must pay close attention to the words used by Our Lord, Our Lady, and Lucia.

The 1929 message: The moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart. He promises to save Russia by this means. There are so many souls that the justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask for reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray.

The words of Our Lady were “save Russia” not “convert Russia.” I believe that Our Lady meant save it from Communism, which was the cause for the persecution of Catholics. Many of them were put in gulags and suffered greatly. Churches were destroyed and Catholicism was outlawed. Nations were annihilated into the Soviet Union, such as Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, and ten other nations. See Our Lady’s Fatima Message and the Consecration of Russia

Lucia wrote in 1929, “Later on , through an intimated communication, Our Lord complained: ‘They have not chosen to heed my request … As the King of France, they will regret it and then will do it, but it will be late. Russia will already have spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.’”

According to Lucia, Our Lord was clearly talking about Russia falling into Communism and spreading it around the world. 

In 1935, Lucia wrote, “Our Lord was very displeased because His request had not been attended to and I made this fact known to the Bishop in a letter. Until now, Our Lord has asked nothing more from me than prayers and sacrifices. From an intimated conversation with Him, it seems that He is ready to show mercy towards Russia as He promised five years ago and which He wishes so much to save.”

Of course, Our Lord desires that Russia become Catholic again, but He desires the whole world to be Catholic. Why not consecrate the whole world and make it all Catholic? Why just Russia? This makes no sense and that’s because the message concerns Communism, which is one of the greatest threats to Catholicism. It was never about converting Russia to Catholicism.

In 1936, it was Lucia who said, “He would not convert Russia without the Holy Father making that consecration.” She wrote that Jesus told her: “Pray much for the Holy Father. He will do it, but it will be late. Nevertheless, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will save Russia. It was has been entrusted to her.” [2]

Jesus twice uses the words “save Russia.” Our Lady used the word “converted” twice in 1917, but used the word “save” in 1929. What was truly meant when Our Lady said, “Russia will be converted?” If it’s the Catholic Faith, then I believe it’s a false apparition. I might be going out on a limb here, but it just ain’t happening. Russia will never be a Catholic nation again.   

In 1952 when Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia without all the bishops, Lucia stated, “I am grieved that it has not been carried out as Our Lady had asked. Patience!…Let us hope that Our Lady, as a good Mother, will be pleased to accept it.”

The end result was that Russia converted out of Communism. The nations that were annihilated into the Soviet Union resumed their sovereignty. A certain period of peace came to those Catholics from their once persecution from the Communists. Russia did spread its errors to China where Catholics are persecuted to this very day.

Because the consecration was late and not done correctly, the full effect of peace from Communism was not realized.

To believe in Fatima, it seems this is the only logical interpretation. Nothing else works unless you don’t believe we’re in the great apostasy and Catholicism will resume some of its glory in the future. The problem is the time period. It’s been over a hundred years and it’s getting worse, not better. Belief that Russia will be converted to the Catholic faith is futile.

Our Lady said Russia will convert, but there is no true pope to make the consecration correctly and we’re in the great apostasy. It would be extremely odd that a whole nation would convert to Catholicism while no other Catholic nation exists and when the Church itself goes through its great dark night of betrayal from its own. Not to mention, Russia is staunchly “Russian Orthodox.”

The last hurdle is “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be kept.” I don’t know what dogma that Our Lady is referring to. It would seem that she was referring to the whole Catholic Faith. Perhaps, “always be kept” simply means always kept from the Masonic government (which took over in 1910) trying to wipe it out completely and/or kept free from being outlawed as Communism did to it in Russia. 

 

Footnotes:

[1] The info comes from: https://www.marian.org/marianhelper/issues/issue90/article9067.html

It would seem the fake Lucia made the claim but there’s no verifiable evidence that Our Lady ever said the “pope of 1960” was to read the secret.  

[2] Memoirs and Letters of Sister Lucia

As we approach Judgment Day, we must battle our three greatest enemies, the devil, flesh, and the world. The devil tempts us directly and our flesh is constantly seeking pleasures and delights. However, few of us understand what is meant by the world. It has many meanings [1] but not all have the same connotations. How is the world our enemy?

Our Lord tells us, “18 If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. 19 If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him who sent me. 22 If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. 24. If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin: but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25. But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: they hated me without cause” (John 15:18-25).

In his biblical commentary Cornelius À Lapide explains John 18-25: “Worldly people He calls the world. By them He means 1st, The Jews. 2d, Gentiles addicted to the spirit of the world, and therefore enemies of the doctrine and spirit of Christ.”

In Holy Scripture, St. John expands the meaning of world: “15 Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever” (I John 2:15-17).

Cornelius À Lapide explains St. John as having a threefold sense. [2] It means the wicked and ungodly men in the world, the created world, and worldly life.

The Baltimore Catechism has a beautiful summary that contrasts the Standards of Christ with the Standards of this World. It gives us a clear perspective of the deep meaning of St. John.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, that is, those who love the humble condition of the poor VS Be a successful man, that is, one who makes a lot of money.

Blessed are the meek VS Get things your own way.

Blessed are they who mourn VS We have a right to enjoy life.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice, that is, not after the things of this world, but the grace of God and all that goes with it VS Love the things of this world.

Blessed are the merciful VS Get even with those who hurt you.

Blessed are the clean of heart, that is, those whose hearts are clean of desire for pleasure and desire only God VS Seek pleasures of all kinds.

Blessed are the peacemakers VS Am I my brother’s keeper?

Blessed are they who suffer persecution VS Avoid all suffering, and if it comes, complain about it.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] The word “world” is found in the Holy Scriptures 299 times. The word has several meanings: a.) planets such as earth, b.) The universe, c.) Creation in general, d.) The body of men on earth, e.) The ways of men, f.) A quantity of something as in “a world of difference,” g.) Another place as in “Columbus discovered the new world.”

These meanings can be divided into subcategories: a.) The state after death as in “the next world,” b.) Generations of men as in “the ancient world,” c.) Classes of men or the interests of men as in the “tennis world,” d.) Society as a whole, e.) One’s personal life as in “my world,” or “living in your own world.”

[2]: But I answer, the word world is used in a threefold sense. 1. For men of the world, see John i. 10, xvi. 18; and S. Augustine on Ps. lv., “the wicked and ungodly in the world,” in which sense S. John uses it in his Gospel. 2. It means this created world, in which, as being inanimate, there is not, properly speaking, any concupiscence. But these are provocatives of concupiscence. For everything we see affects our senses and lures us on to love it. 3. It signifies a worldly life, consisting in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. It is the whole body of sin consisting of these several parts or members. As S. Antony of Padua said, “The earth is avarice, water is luxury, the air is inconstancy, fire is pride.” These three kinds of concupiscence are embraced in the general term concupiscence. As is added, “It is not of the Father but of the world.”

The world can be taken in all these senses, and S. John first takes up one and then another.

But the second of these meanings is most to the point. And S. John wishes to withdraw the minds of the faithful from all objects of desire which the world contains (for they are the roots of every evil), and to fix them on God.

Bishops Zamora, Thuc, and Carmona

 

The Congregratio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI) and Bishop Pivarunas published long ago Bishop Carmona’s Defense of his Episcopal Consecration. Bishop Carmona’s letter explains the legitimacy and validity of Episcopal Consecrations without a papal mandate. Bishop Carmona was once a seminary professor who with the help of Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga and Bishop Zamora formed the União Católica Trento. Bishop Carmona founded the major seminary of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico owned by the Sociedad Sacerdotal Trento (the Priestly Society of Trent, which is now headed by Bishop Martin Davila Gandara.

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga was a Mexican theologian, who held doctorates in Sacred Theology, Philosophy, and Canon law. When Mexican Cardinal Miranda declared Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga excommunicated in 1972, Fr. Moisés Carmona wrote, “They excommunicated you for your fidelity to Christ, His teachings and His Church. Blessed excommunication! As long as it is for this reason, may all (such) excommunications come upon me!”

Bishop Moisés Carmona was killed in a car accident on All Saints Day, 1991. He had just Consecrated Mark Pivarunas a Bishop on Sept. 24th of that same year. See video [1] Five years later, Bishop Carmona’s body was transferred to a crypt in a lower chapel below Divina Providencia Church. There are pictures of his body when laid in the crypt. His body showed no signs of decomposition and looked the same as his funeral. [2]

Bishop Carmona’s letter: 

My dear and true friend,

In answering your letter of —, I ought to tell you the following.

It is clear that in normal circumstances, no bishop can consecrate licitly another bishop, but we are presently living in circumstances that are not at all normal, since they constitute a most unusual case for which nothing is clearly legislated. Three things characterize our present situation:
 
Bishop Moyses Carmona align=1) Since the death of Pius XII, we have had but imposters, which means that for over twenty years the Holy See has been vacant.

2) Almost the entire episcopacy has embarked upon a new religion, and has therefore apostasized from the true Faith, renouncing the eternal Church.

3) The true faithful hunger for the word of God that is no longer being preached to them, and they are asking of us the administration of the Catholic sacraments.

At first, we placed our hopes on Archbishop Lefebvre, in whom we saw a true Catholic bishop, a defender of the true Faith, with whom the legitimate apostolic succession would continue; but we have been deceived. Lefebvre has not been unaffected; we have felt betrayed seeing him making deals with the Vatican from where all the blows against the true Church have come.

Although men fail, God cannot fail, nor can He abandon His Church. It is for this reason that, providentially and in its proper time, the very illustrious and humble Archbishop of Hue, Vietnam, with his valiant declarations, has presented to all men the disastrous state in which the Church finds herself in God’s eyes. He declared the vacancy of the Holy See and the invalidity of the “New Mass,” binding himself as a Catholic archbishop to do for the Church all that he can and ought to do.

The episcopacy was offered to me. I had to think much about it before I could decide. In the end, I accepted it for the sole reason of assisting in the rescue and triumph of the Church.

On October 17, Father Zamora and I were consecrated by Archbishop Thuc in a virtual catacomb, with only two distinguished doctors as witnesses. Both of us were conscious of the furious storms of protest that would come, but the words of our Divine Master encouraged us: “You shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; and you shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy” (John 16:20).

On our return to Mexico, the attacks began. Some said, without any foundation, that our consecrations were invalid because we were consecrated with the new rite; others, more serious, said that, based on Canons 953 and 2370, the consecrations were valid but illicit, and that consequently we were suspended. [Ed. note: Archbishop Thuc used the traditional rite of episcopal consecration — not the new rite — when he consecrated Bishop Carmona.]

As can be seen, our detractors were ignoring the axiom Qui cum regula ambulat, tuto ambulat — “He who walks with the rule, walks safely.” They should remember, if they had forgotten, that Pope Gregory IX left eleven rules and Boniface VIII eighty-eight for the true interpretation of the law. These rules, according to Canon 20, can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves. Consequently, the fourth rule of Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum — “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”

The necessity of having Catholic bishops and priests and the lack of true sacraments can easily be seen; therefore, we were validly and licitly consecrated.

Rule 88 of Boniface VIII also expressly states Certum est quod is committit in legem qui legem verbum complectens contra legis nititur — “It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit.” Therefore, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a vacancy of the Holy See by forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests and the administering of the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them.

Therefore, in accepting episcopal consecration from Archbishop Thuc, we have relied on these rules, conscious and certain that, given the circumstances in which we live, the consecrations are both valid and licit. We are also conscious and certain that we would have sinned, if by relying on the letter [of the law] we had rejected the consecrations, there being only one Catholic bishop who can now be found to transmit the episcopal succession.

[Brief paragraph that has little relevance omitted here.]

Please accept my most sincere affection. I beg God to continue to illuminate you so that you may continue in the battle, defending the rights of Christ and of His Church, now so shamelessly offended by those who have the duty of defending them, even if it be at the cost of their lives.

Sincerely yours,
Moises Carmona R.
May 18, 1982

* Archbishop Thuc used the traditional rite of episcopal consecration, not the new rite, when he consecrated Bishop Carmona. 

 

Footnote

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmVSAXyPA7k

[2] The info comes from Adsum October 2016.