Monday, January 30, 2023

Impoverished Polemics: "Tridentines" Website


As a Traditionalist Catholic, I'm used to receiving sharp criticism, and oftentimes boorish remarks. I'm sure many of you can relate, as Our Lord said, "Blessed are thou when they shall revile thee, and persecute thee, and speak all that is evil against thee, untruly, for My sake" (St. Matthew 5:11). I felt especially blessed when reading a scathing attack on the Faith by the owner of the website "" I have read critiques of Traditionalism that are both intelligent and charitable (e.g., Vatican II sect apologist "Fr." Brian Harrison); that are charitable but not intelligent (e.g., SSPX); and that are neither charitable nor intelligent (e.g., David L. Gray). The owner of Tridentines (whom I will call by that appellation) falls squarely into the last category. 

The website is a series of rash and appallingly ignorant attacks upon Church teaching, as well as unsubstantiated assertions against some clergy that are clearly calumnious. Last week, when I wrote on the false doctrine of the "Millennial Rule of Christ," he sent my Twitter account a tweet claiming "Traditionalist Catholicism is a millennialist movement. Read more on Marianism and the Fatima Cult:" He links to two articles on his site that are culpably ignorant and blasphemous attacks on the Most Holy Mother of God. Since I will not remain silent when the Immaculate Mother of God's dignity is attacked, this post will expose Tridentines for the falsehoods it disseminates.  (N.B. There are too many falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims for a single post. I have pointed out just some of them---Introibo). 

Preliminary Considerations
The Owner
Tridentines chooses to remain anonymous, like me, which is fine. A brief look at the site will show a person who has it out for the CMRI. He also does not like Traditionalist Catholicism, and expresses his disbelief in Christianity thus:
Scholarship since the 1990s has undermined much of Christianity in general (e.g. forgeries, 4th century imperial connections, powers of the clergy, oppression of women/heretics/natives), and this has led me to questioning Christianity entirely. Leaving the CMRI to join another group is misguided. (See; Emphasis mine). Ostensibly, we are dealing with someone who had a bad experience with the CMRI, and has now rejected (or willingly called into doubt) belief in Christ Himself. He also buys into the "Christianity has oppressed women, natives, etc," when in fact, the Church liberated them to the greatest extent. That can be a post in itself another time. Suffice it to say, we are dealing with a bitter person with an axe to grind. 

It's True Because I Said So
There are a number of serious and gratuitous assertions backed up only by the owner's ipse dixit. Here are some examples:
  • Traditionalist Catholicism attracts a high number of men with personality disorders (NIMH page). Most of the abuse happens within marriages and is hidden behind closed doors. The priests enable this abuse by using concepts such as, "husband is head of the household", "marital debt", and "daily duties." According to whom do a high number of Traditionalist men have personality disorders? The link to the National Institute of Mental Health merely defines what personality disorders are and makes no mention of Traditionalists. If most of the alleged "abuse" happens behind closed doors, how would Tridentines know about it? Anecdotal evidence? How many anecdotes? Priests "enable abuse" by teaching Church doctrine? Pathetic. 
  • They cherry pick papal teachings of the past and only present evidence that fits their conclusions. The church has changed core beliefs prior to Vatican II, for example: condemning lending money at interest (usury) as mortal sin, condemning heliocentrism as heresy in the 17th century, creating "seven sacraments no more no less" at the University of Paris in the 12th century, & removing the Epiclesis from the Latin Mass in earlier centuries. This has been covered by the concept of "development of doctrine" which is no more than an excuse to make changes at will. These are recycled standard Protestant objections disproven many times over. Usury was (and is) a sin when money was/is an exchange for articles of consumption. With the rise of capitalism, money is not a mere fungible; it is a commodity necessary for the production of wealth and thereby acquires a new function, not susceptible to being free of interest. (See theologian Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], 1:321-326). Heliocentrism was never condemned. For a full explanation see my post: Seven sacraments were created in the 12th century? Can someone explain why the Eastern Schismatics who broke off in 1054 held the exact same dogma of seven sacraments, not more or less? The epiclesis is a non-issue as it does not affect validity, and the pope can change the Mass; but the Novus Bogus is not a "mass" at all.  
  • Rather than being appointed or elected, sedevacantist bishops appoint themselves and hand pick their successors. There is no outside influence on their power. Who picks the Vatican II sect bishops? What "outside influence" is there on Bergoglio? 
  • Traditionalist Catholicism is based on an intentionally selective reading of history in order to create a church that fits their political & religious preferences. According to what source? What facts prove this (once more) gratuitous assertion? 
There is someone cherry-picking sources to fit his hatred of Traditionalists; and he is Tridentines. 

Whacky Criticism of Traditionalist Sites
  • Novus Ordo Watch—(Mario Derksen). Massive CMRI propaganda outlet. Walls of text published daily with an incredible amount of cherry picking & misinformation. His website is an echo chamber. NOW is the greatest Traditionalist website in existence. It's been demonstrated Tridentines knows nothing of the matters on which he pontificates. With his claims about usury, heliocentrism, alleged "mental illness" of most Traditionalist men, etc., he wouldn't know misinformation if it bit him on his buttocks. 
  • Daily Catholic— (terrible looking website) original creators are dead, it's now maintained by an elderly woman. What does a website's appearance (subjective) have to do with its truth and accuracy which are objective? Mr. and Mrs. Michael Cain (Michael was one of the nicest men I had ever known) worked very hard on that site, full of wonderful and edifying content. Not that it matters, but Tridentines will not be getting any awards for "Best Looking Website of 2023." 
  • Catholic Family Podcast—(YouTube) run by the Davis family (Fr. Philip was listed as CMRI priest at City of Mary until Aug/Sept 2022). One of the top CMRI contemporary propaganda outlets. Mr. Kevin Davis and his family are wonderful people doing God's work in spreading the truth of the Faith. There is no "propaganda" here.
Tridentines has a lack of charity, scholarship, integrity, and even common sense. These attributes should now be apparent. I will move on to the main issue of this post.

The Attack on the Immaculate Mother of God
Tridentines exhibits one of the hallmarks of yellow journalism posing as "scholarship:" first, find something that agrees with your point of view; then publish it without checking for veracity and getting multiple lines of evidence to back it up. The two articles on his website to which he sent me the direct links, come from a single source: Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements [2000]. Not exactly the "gold standard of research." The articles taken from these books are rife with factual and theological errors. Each will be listed and examined below.

The Fatima Cult by Victor Balaban
The word "cult" can have a good meaning, as in the "cult of veneration" due to saints and the "cult of worship" due to God alone. It comes from the Latin cultus, meaning care or adoration. Here, it is used in the pejorative sense of a particular religious group centered around some unusual belief, generally transient in duration, and frequently featuring some exotic leader and rituals. This article is the least offensive of the two. I will take just a couple of quotes to show some glaring errors.
  • In the 1950s the belief arose that the Third Secret was going to be made public in 1960. When this did not happen, a variety of scenarios were proposed as to why Pope Paul VI was unable to make the secret known. In 1960, it was Roncalli (John XXIII) who read the secret and refused to let it be made public. There is even speculation he destroyed the written secret, so Montini (Paul VI) perhaps didn't have anything to make known in 1963. 
  • The 1960s and 1970s saw a drop in the number of reported apparitions and in the popularity of lay devotions to Fatima. There are many reasons for this, but a major part was changing views within the church. During the Second Vatican Council in 1961-63, it was clear that many church officials and theologians felt that popular devotions to Mary were being overemphasized. Pope John XXIII, who called the council, even said “the Madonna is not pleased when she is placed up above her son.” There were no credible reports of apparitions at Fatima in the 1960s and 1970s. The Second Vatican Council took place from October 11, 1962 to December 8, 1965, not 1961-63. I wouldn't doubt Roncalli would say something like what is quoted, but there is no source cited. 
It should also be noted that the author used quotes around Our Lady, thereby questioning if she appeared, or if anything like this could happen at all.

Marianism by Victor Balaban
  • The Marian worldview is fundamentally a millenarian one, believing in the Millennium of Christian prophecy and the coming of an ideal society through a radical change. What has developed is a transnational, transhistorical apocalyptic ideology, meaning that the Virgin’s messages at apparition sites all over the world are believed by devotees to provide a single extended warning, given in different times and different places, of how the apocalypse will happen. Where does Balaban get such ideas? There are no decrees by the One True Church, or the Vatican II sect, which teaches "the Millennium of Christian Prophesy" (whatever that means), nor do apparitions provide a "single warning" on "how the apocalypse will happen."  
  • Thus the Virgin’s famous “Third Secret” from Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, her prediction of a permanent sign in the sky from Garabandal, Spain, in 1961, and the warnings from Medjugorje, Yugoslavia, in the 1980s are all considered to be part of the same ongoing warning. The message is simple. God and Jesus are angry because mankind is so sinful, and Mary, in her infinite mercy is interceding, holding back her son’s arm, to give humanity one last chance. Here, the author mixes LaSalette, Fatima, and the decidedly FALSE apparitions of  Garabandal, and Medjugorje. Interestingly, Tridentines published this even though he should know that Garabandal and Medjugorje both took place after 1958 and cannot have Church approval, if you are a sede, whom he attacks. 
(For more on Garabandal: See; for more on Medjugorje: See 
As to implicitly citing LaSalette (when he mentions an "Antipope" at one point), this "well-researched" article fails to omit the censuring of its secret by the Vatican: 


It has come to the attention of this Supreme Congregation that certain ones are not lacking, even from among the ecclesiastic assemblage who, responses and decisions of this Holy Congregation itself having been disregarded, do proceed to discuss and examine through books, small works and articles edited in periodicals, whether signed or without a name, concerning the so-called Secret of La Salette, its diverse forms and its relevance to present and future times; and, this not only without permission of the Ordinaries, but, also against their ban. So that these abuses which oppose true piety and greatly wound ecclesiastical authority might be curbed, the same Sacred Congregation orders all the faithful of any region not to discuss or investigate under any pretext, neither through books, or little works or articles, whether signed or unsigned, or in any other way of any kind, about the mentioned subject. Whoever, indeed, violates this precept of the Holy Office, if they are priests, are deprived of all dignity and suspended by the local ordinary from hearing sacramental confessions and from offering Mass: and, if they are lay people, they are not permitted to the sacraments until they repent. Moreover, let people be subject to the sanctions given both by Pope Leo XIII through the Constitution of the offices and responsibilities against those who publish books dealing with religious things without legitimate permission of superiors and by Urban VIII through the decree "Sanctissimus Dominus Noster" given on 13th March 1625 against those who publish asserted revelations without the permission of ordinaries. However, this decree does not forbid devotion towards the Blessed Virgin under the title of Reconciliatrix commonly of La Salette. 

Given at Rome on 21st December, 1915. 

Aloisius Castellano, S. R. and U. I. Notary." (Emphasis mine).

Finally, the article ends with this mish-mosh:
It is usually presumed that the beginning of the End of Times will be preceded by chastisements to mankind; and various world events, such as earthquakes, violence, AIDS, and legalized abortion are often cited as examples of these chastisements. This period of chastisement is often the focus of elaborate conspiracy theories involving an evil Antipope as well as the rise of the Antichrist. Then there will be a permanent sign in the sky, which will herald the next stage, the Warning. The Warning, sometimes called a “correction of conscience” is a time when all human activity will stop, and people will be forced to see all their sins, and the impacts of all their sins on others. This judgment will allow people one last chance to repent and be baptized. Sometime after this there will be Three Days of Darkness, followed by disasters where those who do not believe will be taken to hell, while a Remnant will be saved. This is followed by the Second Coming of Christ, which will usher in the Millennium, with its attendant thousand years of peace.

Neither the Church nor the Vatican II sect teach this nonsense. Could some misguided individuals believe something like this? Absolutely. That doesn't make it Church teaching or indicative of Marian devotion. Most of this scenario comes from phony Garabandal; the Millennial Rule of Christ was never taught, since it is heresy; and the Three Days of Darkness was from a private revelation totally separate from any Marian apparition. The primary error is exalting private revelations (or conflating them) with Church teaching. The next section will deal with this problem, and examine the alleged Three Days of Darkness which has no place in Marian apparitions, nor does it even make sense. I will repeat things I've written prior on my blog that deserve repeating. 

The Teaching of the Church
 In this age of the Great Apostasy, many Traditionalists will (unfortunately) abandon the approved theologians of the Church for private revelations. It is imperative that we learn the Faith, and not what passes for the "Faith" in some quarters. Certain people don't even understand basic terminology. "Public" and "private" revelation do not refer to how many people the revelation was given, but rather whether or not it is part of the Deposit of Faith to which we must assent. The Deposit of Faith, given by Jesus Christ to His One True Church, ended with the death of the last Apostle (St. John) in 100 A.D. That marks the end of public revelation. The Church has authority to make solemn pronouncements on what is contained in this revelation, and the faithful must give assent under pain of mortal sin and expulsion from the Mystical Body by heresy (e.g. It is part of the Deposit of Faith that Christ gave exactly seven (7) sacraments to His Church).

Private revelation is given by God after the close of public revelation to certain individuals (usually saints or people considered to be such). If a private revelation is approved by the Church, it means that it does not contradict matters of Faith and/or morals. It is worthy of belief, but you can deny it outright and not be a heretic. You also commit no sin of disbelief, provided your lack of faith in a particular approved revelation does not stem from disdain of ecclesiastical authority (See theologian Nicolau, Summa Theologiae Sacrae IA, [1955], pgs. 91-92).

While non-approved revelations should be avoided like the plague, even those which are approved can be misunderstood or have the message corrupted since Church approval does not entail any kind of infallible (or even authoritative) teaching. An example is the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima mentioned above. The late "Fr" Gruner made a business out of peddling dire predictions for the world. I have material of his dating back to the late 1980s claiming "we only have a couple of years left" unless the "pope" (John Paul II) consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That never happened and more than 25 years have passed without any calamity. Of course this never prevented Mr. Gruner from asking for the largest donation you could give as he shamelessly continued to predict the sky would fall "very shortly."

 According to another prediction of Fatima, "Portugal will never lose the Faith." One need only take a look at the present day European country to see that it has rejected the Faith for Vatican II, and has promulgated many evil "laws" such as murdering babies by abortion. There are no more Traditionalists there (in sheer number or proportionately) than in any other neo-pagan State. I do believe Our Lady appeared in Fatima to three children, but I refuse to try and discern "true" from "false" messages, or listen to all the conspiracy theories involved. Holding on to the Faith will save us, not private revelations--especially ones laced with fearful consequences for those who refuse to propagate those messages.

One of the most fearful private revelations involves what is commonly referred to the "Three Days of Darkness" (hereinafter TDD).  It is used by "mystical" sedevacantists as the answer to the Great Apostasy. God will use these TDD as a world-wide chastisement and then will bring back a true pope. There are so many versions of TDD it's hard to know how to describe it. I will use the version utilized by

The website states: "The Church does not oblige us to believe in any particular prophecy as a matter of faith [de fide], but we are indeed obliged to believe that prophecies may be made even in our own times, for this is in the Gospel [Evangelium]: the Holy Ghost will speak to many in the Latter Days.

Moreover, when an identical prophecy has been made by widely separated people in time and space, when this particular prophecy was accompanied by other predictions which have already come to pass, and when the holiness of the mystics in question has been recognized by the Church, we would be foolish indeed not to believe that the prophecy must come to pass. Such is the case concerning the Three Days of Darkness. How else could we explain that an illiterate peasant woman of Brittany is describing the very thing that another mystic in, say, Germany or Italy is also describing?"

With the defection of the hierarchy we must be very careful about who speaks for the Holy Ghost. "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (See St. Matt. 24:24). We are foolish to believe anything that is illogical, damaging to the Faith, and not approved by the Church--regardless of whomsoever allegedly said something. Many holy people claimed TDD, especially Blessed Anna- Maria Taigi. It is not unknown, because there was such a plague sent by God upon the Egyptians through Moses.  Therefore, say TDD proponents, we must accept it as the truth. The website claims:

"After the three days of darkness, St. Peter and St. Paul, having come down from Heaven, will preach in the whole world and designate a new Pope. A great light will flash from their bodies and will settle upon the cardinal who is to become Pope. Christianity, then, will spread throughout the world. He is the Holy Pontiff, chosen by God to withstand the storm. At the end, he will have the gift of miracles, and his name shall be praised over the whole earth. Whole nations will come back to the Church and the face of the earth will be renewed. Russia, England, and China will come into the Church." (Prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi [1769-1837 A.D.] who was Beatified by Bendedict XV in 1920.) 

There will be "proximate signs": Here are the proximate signs in their probable order of occurrence. This, to be sure, is only my own opinion, and I may be wrong for I am no prophet myself; but, after studying a large number of prophecies, this order appears to me to be the most likely:

1. Flouting of church laws, irreverence and immodesty in church, fall in attendance at church. (These trends were observed in the 1950's, before the true Church was criminally usurped at the Oct 26, 1958 papal conclave.-ED)

2. Lack of charity towards others, heartlessness, indifference, divisions, contentions, godlessness, pride in human knowledge.

3. Breakdown of family life: immorality, adultery, perversion of youth via the media (e.g. homosexuals giving lectures in schools), immodest fashions, people concerned only with eating, drinking, dancing and other pleasures.

4. Civil commotions, contempt for authority, downfall of governments, confusion in high places, corruption, coups d'etat, civil war, revolution. (The first four proximate signs have already come to pass, at least partly; for we are yet to see civil war and revolution in the West. But the sequence of events is not strictly chronological; there is room for some overlapping. Thus, the 5th proximate sign seems to have begun also.)

5. Floods and droughts, crop failures, unusual weather, tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, famines, epidemics, unknown diseases (e.g. new strains of viruses)."

Do you see the problem here? We have someone interpreting private messages with no Magisterial authority. Why should we believe this interpretations of alleged sayings based on alleged revelations? The beatification of Anna-Maria Taigi in no way guarantees any truth in private messages. The "proximate signs" are so broad as to be seen in any era. Note that # 1 goes back to the 1950s; at least 64 years ago. How is that "proximate"? Moreover, this does seem like false Garabandal, but no approved Marian apparition ever stated such. 

Next comes "The Warning": "This will take place between the proximate and the immediate signs. It will be a supernatural occurrence.
During the Warning, many will be scared to their wits end, and many will wish to die, but the Warning itself will be completely harmless.

The Warning must be viewed as the last act of mercy from God, a final appeal to mankind to do penance before the three days of darkness and the destruction of three-quarters of the human race. At a time when the murder of unborn babies and the sin of Sodom and Lesbos have become acceptable and "legal", we should not wonder why God is going to punish mankind.

By that time, war and revolution will have already caused a high death-toll, and Communism will be victorious, but all this will be as nothing compared with the death-toll caused by the Three Days."

Next, "The Immediate Sign":
The wind will howl and roar. Lightning and thunderbolts of an unprecedented magnitude will strike the earth. The whole earth will shake, heavenly bodies will be disturbed (this will be the beginning of the Three Days). Every Demon, every evil spirit will be released from hell and allowed to roam the earth. Terrifying apparitions will take place. Many will die from sheer fright. Fire will rain forth from the sky, all large cities will be destroyed, poisonous gases will fill the air, cries and lamentations everywhere. The unbelievers will burn in the open like withered grass. The entire earth will be afflicted; it will look like a huge graveyard.

As soon as you notice (these signs), go indoors, lock all doors and windows, pull down the blinds, stick adhesive paper on vents and around windows and doors. Do not answer calls from outside, do not look at the windows, or you will die on the spot: keep your eyes down to make sure you do not see the windows; the Wrath of God is mighty and no one should attempt to behold it. Light blessed wax candles; nothing else will burn, but the candles will not be extinguished once lit. Nothing will put them out in the houses of the faithful, but they will not burn in the houses of the godless. Sprinkle holy water about the house and especially in the vicinity of doors and windows: the devils fear holy water. Bless yourself with it and anoint your five senses with it: eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, feet, and forehead. Keep on hand a sufficient supply of drinking water and, if possible, food also (but you can live without food for three days.) Kneel down and pray incessantly with outstretched arms, or prostrate on the floor. Make acts of contrition, faith, hope, and charity. Above all say the Rosary and meditate on the Sorrowful mysteries.

Some people, especially children, will be taken up to Heaven beforehand to spare them the horror of these days. People caught outdoors will die instantly. Three-quarters of the human race will be exterminated, more men than women. No one will escape the terror of these days.

And the  aftermath:
But, when all seems lost and hopeless, then, in the twinkling of an eye, the ordeal will be over: the sun will rise and shine again as in springtime over a purified earth.

Some nations will disappear entirely, and the face of the earth will be changed. There will be no more "Big Business" and huge factories which sap men's souls. Craftsmanship will revive, and assembly lines will give way to the working bench.

People will return to the land, but food will be scarce for about three years. Married women will bear many children, for it will be regarded as a disgrace not to have children, no more "career women" addicted to the "pill". Unmarried females, there will be many, will enter the religious orders and form large congregations of Nuns within the reborn Church. Disease will decrease dramatically, and mental illnesses will be rare, for man will have retrieved his natural environment. It will be an age of faith, true brotherhood between neighbors, civil harmony, peace, and prosperity. The land will yield crops as never before. Police will have little work to do: crime will disappear almost entirely. Mutual trust and honesty will be universal. There will be little work for lawyers, either. All the manpower which is currently taken up by the wickedness of the modern world will be released and available for the production of useful commodities. Thus, prosperity will be very great. This wonderful period will probably last 30 years approximately.

As soon as you see the sun rise again at the end of the Three Days, drop to your knees and give thanks to God.

And of course, "believe it or else":
Be warned, SPREAD THE MESSAGE, but do not fear: it would be an offense to God to show lack of confidence in His protection. Those who spread the message will be protected, but the scoffers, the skeptics, and those who dismiss the message because they are frightened, will not escape the chastisement.

This is the gobbledygook that author Balaban thinks the Blessed Mother revealed, and whom Tridentines cites approvingly. I will never "spread the message" of TDD because (1) no private revelation ever needs to be believed, nor is it ever part of Church teaching, (2) this TDD contradicts Church teaching. Here are the problems:

  • Why does Catholicism need to spread if everyone who survives is already Catholic and under a newly crowned pope? The number of Traditionalists is quite few; certainly not 25% of the world's population that will survive. 
  • Since only blessed candles of wax can be lit, how do you light your candle when the TDD arrive? You would need to keep one lit in your house 24/7 like some ecclesiastical version of militia "preppers." Does God really want us storing food, water and blessed candles? 
  • It contradicts Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Bible verses used to support TDD have all been understood by the Church as outside the genre of apocalyptic language. There is nothing in Tradition that speaks of TDD. If the Great Apostasy ends this way (and proponents claim we are definitely in the Great Apostasy of the Book of Revelation), that displaces the Antichrist, False Prophet, and Second Coming of Christ; all matters of public revelation.  
Tridentines has been exposed as a sad, bitter person using faux "scholarship" to draw people away from the One True Church. He was probably hurt by some cleric. We should all pray for him that he may return to the True Church. Remember that Christ Himself chose Judas Iscariot, the evil traitor, as one of the Apostles. He showed us evil men will always be in the Church, but the Church will survive as She is Indefectible. The Blessed Virgin Mary never predicted the nonsense attributed to her by Balaban and promoted by Tridentines. It is blasphemous to suggest Mary could predict something contrary to dogma. May her prayers convert her detractors. 

Monday, January 23, 2023

Chiliasm: Will Christ Rule 1,000 Years On Earth?


Evangelical Protestants are obsessed with the "End Times" according to their interpretation of The Book of the Apocalypse (referred to by them, and most in the Vatican II sect, as The Book of Revelation).Since the heretical doctrines of "justification by faith alone" (sole fide) and "once saved, always saved" (so-called "perseverance of the saints") guarantee them salvation when they die, there's really not much to do, except to try and see how this world concludes. 

Moreover, Protestants have elaborate and systematic tenets regarding the End Times that are as intricate as they are novel.  The two most debated of these doctrines are those of the Rapture and The Millennial Rule of Christ (aka, Chiliasm from the ancient Greek word khiliasmos, meaning a "thousand"). This post will treat of the Rapture briefly, and focus on Chiliasm. I hear many people (including Vatican II sect members) that Christ will come to rule on Earth for a thousand years. This post will explain why no such occurrence will take place.

The "Rapture"

Originating in the 1700s and popularized in the 1800s, various Protestant sects began to teach that Christians will be taken up in the sky by God before the Antichrist rules the world, after which there will be a literal one thousand year rule of Christ on Earth. Even among Evangelical Protestants, they argue over whether the rapture will take place before, in the middle of, or after the Great Tribulation (referred to as pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib, respectively).  The term "rapture" comes from the Latin word rapiemur--"will be caught up." It is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, one of the "proof-texts" for Protestants: "Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." (Emphasis mine). 

Surprisingly, some Traditionalists think the rapture to be true, or at least possible, not realizing it conflicts with Church teaching. Protestants point to Scripture verses such as St. Matthew 24:40-41, "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." And St. Luke 17:34-35, "I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” 

Remember, all of the Bible must be read with Sacred Tradition and the guidance of the Magisterium. Ironically, right after the main "rapture verse" (quoted above in First Thessalonians), in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, we read, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."(Emphasis mine). 

2 Peter 1:20 states, "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." (Emphasis mine). Finally, in  2 Peter 3:16, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Keeping all this in mind, what are we to make of the "rapture" as Traditionalists? Those Biblical "proof- texts" were always taught to be referring to the Second Coming of Christ. For the "rapture Protestants" He comes back, not once "to judge the living and the dead," but twice. This is heresy. The "caught up" refers to the resurrection of the bodies of the just on the Last Day. As for the "one taken, one left," if you read the next chapter in St. Matthew (chapter 25), it speaks of the sheep and the goats being separated on His right and left. The sheep (the Faithful) go body and soul to Heaven, while the goats (the damned) go body and soul to Hell. All pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the Church must endure throughout the Great Tribulation during which the Antichrist comes into power. "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13). 

The "Millennial Rule" of Christ

Before I get into the specifics of the Millennial Rule of Christ (MRC), it will be necessary to explain the competing views as to when it occurs in relation to the Rapture. I found a Protestant source which succinctly and correctly captures the essence of the four views held:

Dispensational Premillennialism:

Dispensational premillennialists hold that Christ will come before a seven-year period of intense tribulation to take His church (living and dead) into heaven. After this period of fulfillment of divine wrath, He shall then return to rule from a holy city (i.e., the New Jerusalem) over the earthly nations for one thousand years. After these thousand years, Satan, who was bound up during Christ's earthly reign, will be loosed to deceive the nations, gather an army of the deceived, and take up to battle against the Lord. This battle will end in both the judgment of the wicked and Satan and the entrance into the eternal state of glory by the righteous. This view is called premillenialism because it places the return of Christ before the millennium and it is called dispensational because it is founded in the doctrines of dispensationalism.

Historical Premillennialism:

Historical premillennialists place the return of Christ just before the millennium and just after a time of great apostasy and tribulation. After the millennium, Satan will be loosed and Gog and Magog will rise against the kingdom of God; this will be immediately followed by the final judgment. While similar in some respects to the dispensational variety (in that they hold to Christ's return being previous the establishment of a thousand-year earthly reign), historical premillennialism differs in significant ways (notably in their method of interpreting Scripture).


The postmillennialist believes that the millennium is an era (not a literal thousand years) during which Christ will reign over the earth, not from an literal and earthly throne, but through the gradual increase of the Gospel and its power to change lives. After this gradual Christianization of the world, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. This is called postmillennialism because, by its view, Christ will return after the millennium.


The amillennialist believes that the Kingdom of God was inaugurated at Christ's resurrection (hence the term "inaugurated millennialism") at which point he gained victory over both Satan and the Curse. Christ is even now reigning (hence the term "nunc-millennialism" — nunc means "now") at the right hand of the Father over His church. After this present age has ended, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. The term "amillennialism" is actually a misnomer for it implies that Revelation 20:1-6 is ignored; in fact, the amillennialist's hermeneutic interprets it (and in fact, much of apocalyptic literature) non-literally.


Two considerations: (1) by the term "church" the Protestant heretics mean "all who believe in Christ" and not the One True Church which was founded by Christ as hierarchical and visible; (2) dispensational premillennialism is by far the most prevalent view among Evangelical Protestants today. I will focus on the common view of the MRC. 

The millennium is described as a time when Satan will be bound and, after it is completed, the dead will rise. It is based primarily on Apocalypse 20:1-3, "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time." Pre-millennialists believe the millennium is a literal period of 1,000 years when Christ will rule on Earth after he returns in glory. After this reign, Satan will be released one last time when he, along with death and sin, will be conquered at the end of the world. 

What will Earth be like during this time? One Protestant sect explains it thus: During the Millennium, peace and prosperity will reign. Satan will be bound and can no longer deceive and torment mankind. All of God’s creation will be delivered from the bondage of corruption. Romans 8:22 says, “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” The Millennium will be a time of rest for God’s children. It will be a period of blessedness for all the earth. The fact that the saints will reign with Christ during this time is predicted several times. See Matthew 19:28; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Revelation 3:21; 5:10.  (See Many Protestants talk about the "lion laying down with the lamb" in perfect peace (ironically, the verse they use does not say this, rather in Isaiah 11:6 it states, "And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them;" Emphasis mine).  

For Traditionalists, we believe that Christ will come again in glory to Judge the living and the dead, Whom He will send to Heaven or Hell. The question now remains, "Is it possible to admit that between Christ's return in glory and the Last Judgement, Christ will rule on Earth for a thousand years?" The One True Church answers with a resounding NO! 

All Forms of Chiliasm are Condemned
(The following section is comprised of the teaching of theologians Sagues, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB [1955], pgs. 487-492; and theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, [1929], 12:155-160. To these two theological giants I give full attribution---Introibo). 

Chiliasm exists in two forms, Exaggerated [or Crass] Chiliasm and Moderate [or Mitigated] Chiliasm. Proponents of Exaggerated Chiliasm teach that during the MRC there will be sensual pleasures allowed and all will indulge in them. People will neither age nor get sick. The advocates of Moderate Chiliasm say that the pleasures will be of a spiritual nature. The origin of Chiliasm appears to be in the apocryphal writings of the Jews from before Christ which taught of a future time in which humanity will enjoy material goods of every kind; and often some spiritual goods are said to be added to them. Taught about this by Judaism, and interpreting Apocalypse 20 incorrectly, some early members of the Church began to teach Chiliasm, either in Exaggerated or Moderate form. Whereas The Rapture is of recent origin (19th century), Chiliasm goes back to the early Church.

Exaggerated Chiliasm is condemned by all approved theologians as heretical. It stands condemned by the Natural Law, which excludes intemperance and unchastity from the Kingdom of Heaven. It is blasphemous and an insult to Almighty God to assert that Christ, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, hypostatically united to a human nature, will found an Earthly Kingdom of libertines which violates His All-Holy Attributes. It's no wonder that even those Fathers of the Church who entertained Chiliastic ideas vigorously condemned this hedonistic species of MRC as heretical.  

Moderate Chiliasm is erroneous. It contradicts a truth revealed by God but not certainly proposed as such by the Church. To knowingly hold an erroneous doctrine is a mortal sin directly against the Faith. 

Proof: Negatively, the Church has never mentioned in Her authoritative documents and decrees anything about a thousand year Earthly rule by Christ. From the beginning, the One True Church has taught of Christ returning in glory, and then Judging the living and the dead who go immediately to their reward or punishment.  

Positively, there have been two decisions on this topic from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. In 1941, the Holy Office gave the following response to Archbishop Jacobi of Chile who asked about Chiliasm that was being promoted in his archdiocese: The system of millennialism, even in the mitigated form--namely, the teaching that according to Catholic revelation Christ the Lord will come again before the Last Judgement, whether preceded or not by the resurrection of many just persons, bodily to this Earth in order to reign--cannot be taught safely. Your Excellency should take great care lest the said doctrine be taught, propagated, defended, or recommended under any pretext whatsoever, whether verbally or by writings of any kind. This decision was approved and promulgated by order of Pope Pius XII.

Three years later, in 1944, the Holy Office responded to the following question submitted for a decision: "What should be thought about the system of mitigated millennialism, which teaches that Christ the Lord, before the Last Judgement, whether preceded or not by the resurrection of many just persons, will come into this world visibly in order to reign." Response of the Holy Office: The system of mitigated millennialism cannot be safely taught. This decision was also approved and promulgated by order of Pope Pius XII. Unlike the response of 1941, the Holy Office condemns mitigated millennialism even if taught as a theory and not "according to Catholic revelation," and even if the so-called MRC is "visible" (an apparition of Christ) and not Bodily. Hence, all forms of mitigated millennialism (moderate chiliasm) stand condemned. 

MRC Rejected by Scripture

The Bible nowhere speaks about a MRC. It so joins the general resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgement, which is followed by the immediate execution of the sentence, with the Second Coming of Christ, that it leaves no place for a thousand year kingdom. After the Last Judgement there is no thousand year kingdom for the just, but an eternal one (St. Matthew 25:34). After the resurrection of the dead on the last day (St. John 6:39) there will be on that same day the Last Judgement (St. John 14:48) and the immediate bestowal of reward or punishment ( 1 Thessalonians 4:15). 

Apocalypse chapter 20 does nothing to prove Chiliasm. Both St. Augustine and Pope St. Gregory the Great interpret it thus: The imprisonment of Satan refers to Christ's first coming, and his temporary loosening to His Second Coming (Parousia) at the time of the Antichrist. Christ's "millennial reign" is with His saints in Heaven, where the blessed reign with Him until the resurrection of the dead on the Last Day. Similarly, the term "first death" refers to physical death, and "second death" refers to eternal damnation. The number "one thousand" need not be literal, but indicates an indefinite period time of considerable length. Many Catholic exegetes accept this interpretation. 

MRC Rejected by Sacred Tradition

Despite appearances to the contrary, Chiliasm has no foundation in Tradition. Some early Christians held to Chiliasm, but it was rejected by the Fathers. It was accepted by Tertullian only after he became a heretic. St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus wrote about Chiliasm as a mere personal opinion stated as such. St. Jerome mentions "the fable of a thousand years," and St. Augustine, who at first admitted Chiliasm, subsequently rejected it as false. The great theologian Franzelin in his work De Divina Traditione et Scriptura, [1882], writes, "Therefore, in general, given the constant and firm consensus of the Fathers and Doctors at least from the 5th century up to our own time, there can be no doubt that they rejected this opinion [Chiliasm]." 


If any Protestant, or Vatican II sect member, tells you about "the rapture" and the "Millennial Rule of Christ" which will follow, don't you believe it. Contrary to a popular series of books, we need not worry about being "Left Behind," but rather we must focus on not being led astray. "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13).  

Monday, January 16, 2023

Catholic Identity In Modern Times


To My Readers: I hope you enjoy this insightful post by my guest poster, Lee. Please feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific query or comment for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

SPECIAL NOTE: Beginning this week, Lee will be doing as I do; if you want to ask him a question privately, please send a message to the comments below with an email by which you can be contacted. Ask that it not be published and you want the information forwarded to Lee. It will not be published and I will give Lee the contact info. Then, Lee will make contact with a private email which protects his anonymity. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

DISCLAIMER: Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy is cited by Lee in his post. There are many problems with him. First, he was dubiously ordinated a priest by Bp. Gaston-Lopez who apparently botched the ceremony. Coomaraswamy was married at the time, but claimed to be living with his wife while both renounced use of marital relations. The doctor was also friends with Malachi Martin, a snake-in-the grass, who had many problems of his own. It has been brought to my attention that Coomaraswamy was an occultist. His book cited, The Destruction of Christian Tradition, is a work of historical significance, and the passage referenced by Lee contains no errors--it is factual regarding Freemasons and accurately reflects Catholic teaching in all ways. 

Nevertheless, to avoid giving scandal, and to uphold this blog's goal of exposing occultists, Coomaraswamy WILL NEVER BE CITED HERE AGAIN. Furthermore, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend any of his writings, even if orthodox. Occultists are not welcome here. My sincerest thanks to the reader who sent me proof about Coomaraswamy and his occult connection.---Introibo 

Catholic Identity In Modern Times
By Lee

One of the most confusing issues of our time is identity. I'm not going to be talking about somebody who claims to be cisgender, a demigirl, or a hermaphrodite which might be taught at your local library or public/private school. Nor am I going to be talking about the difference between a RINO (Republican In Name Only) compared to a non-RINO. Those things have no doubt received much attention from social media and the news. Something far greater is at stake for 1.2 billion who claim it, so much so that their salvation depends on it. It's Catholic identity.

I grew up thinking I was Catholic and believed I was in the Church knowing a bare minimum of what was required of me to say that made me Catholic. To say I'm a Catholic in a time after Vatican II could mean a variety of things depending on who is asked. Protestants generally understand that a Catholic is somebody who puts too much emphasis on devotion to Mary and who belongs to a bunch of rich and corrupt men connected to the Vatican. A liberal Jew or agnostic would say they wouldn't agree with certain beliefs of a Catholic such as in Christ's teachings and such, but might say they love "Pope" Francis and are more willing to co-exist with them since Francis accepts them as "people of God." Others who generally hate religion altogether will just call Catholics part of a pedophile cabal. The sad reality is the word Catholic among non-Catholics has lost it's good name, due to the effects of a new religion (more on that below).

What about those who claim to be Catholics today? How would they describe what a Catholic is? In the early 50's if you said you were a Catholic it was universally understood that you believed as all Catholics believed outside of local customs and rites in the church. In the 70's it split into two factions, "Liberal" versus "Conservative."

Today there are all sorts of different shades of Catholic grays. If a "priest" at a local diocesan church were asked what is or defines a Catholic, instead of answering it he might revert the question back to you. Whatever the answer you give, he will say something like, "I hope your faith grows in whatever path you choose so as to encounter God's mercy and love." If you ask a cafeteria "Catholic" the question, they might say that it is the religion they were born into and leave it at that. 

A more traditional-minded "priest" who is associated with the FSSP (Latin "Mass" group), or a lay person from that apostolate, might give you a more concrete answer : a Catholic is somebody who is baptized, submits to the Pope as head of the Church, believes all dogmas/doctrines it teaches, and lives out his life with faith, hope, and charity. Nevertheless, when they are pressed with further objections on submitting to the Roman Pontiff by being asked, "If I must submit to Francis as the Roman Pontiff, would it be okay to believe what he believes such as Martin Luther not erring on justification, or that God does not exist but the Three Persons exist, or that God would not be God without man etc.," they might reply by saying the pope can err when not speaking on behalf of the whole Church, or he is only submitted to when he speaks infallibly. However, if you ask any of them if it's okay to believe and practice as "Pope" Francis, some will say "no" as if submission means just merely calling him "pope" while closing their eyes and ears to everything he says and does. Others are afraid to say "no" while not personally agreeing with him on much of anything and remain silent. A contradiction indeed. So what is a Catholic and who is a true Catholic today? 

A Vision from the Enemy

​Taken from his book Destruction of Christian Tradition, Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, this except shows how the enemy (the Freemasons) planned out how there would come a day when people will think they are marching under the banner of Catholicism, when in fact they are marching under the banner of Freemasonic beliefs. Dr. Coomaraswamy writes:


In concluding this chapter, it is of great interest to consider some of the statements of the Freemasons on obedience. According to the Permanent Instruction drawn up by the Grand Masters of Freemasonry (Alta Vendita) in 1819-20, which fell in to the hands of the Church and were published by Pope Pius IX, "we must turn our attention to an ideal that has always been of great concern to man aspiring to the regeneration of all mankind. This ideal is the liberation of Italy, whence is to come the liberation of the entire world and the establishment of a republic of brotherhood and world peace." The document continues:

 "Among the many remedies that have been suggested by the more energetic members of our organization, there is one which we must never forget....The Papacy has always exerted a decisive influence on Italian destinies. Everywhere with the arms, voice, pen and heart of its countless bishops, monks, nuns and the faithful, the Papacy as always found people enthusiastically ready for sacrifice and martyrdom... At the present time we do not intend to rebuild, even for our advantage, this power which has been temporarily weakened [due to the overthrow of the papal states]. Our ultimate purpose is identical with that of Voltaire and the French Revolution: that is, the total annihilation of Catholicism and even of Christianity....

For seventeen hundred years the Papacy has been an essential part of Italian history... We cannot endure such a state of affairs; we must find a remedy for this situation. And here it is! Whoever he may be, the pope will never join the secret societies: therefore, the secret societies must take the first step toward the Church and the pope, for the purpose of vanquishing them both."...

The task we undertake will not be completed in a day, a month, or a year. It may require many years, perhaps even a century... We do not intend to win the pope over to our cause by converting him to our principles or making him their propagator... WHAT WE MUST DO IS WAIT FOR, like the Jews awaiting the Messiah, A POPE SUITABLE FOR OUR PURPOSES. Such a pope alone, will be of greater help to us in our assault on the Church than the little pamphlets of our French brothers or even the gold of England. And why? Because with such a pope we could effectively crush the rock upon which God built His Church... The little finger of Peter's successor would be caught in the plot, and this little finger would be more effective in this crusade than all the Urbans II and all the St. Bernards of Christianity....We have no doubt that we shall achieve this ultimate goal of our efforts... Before we can produce a pope according to our desires, we must produce an entire generation worthy of the kingdom we hope for. 

We must ignore old men and those of middle age. We must seek the young, and if possible, even the very young... Once your good reputation has been established in boarding schools, high schools, universities and seminaries, once you have won the trust of teachers and pupils alike, foster especially in those who are embracing the ecclesiastical state, a desire to associate with you... This reputation of yours will make the younger secular clergy and even the religious receptive to our doctrines. Within a few years, this same younger clergy will, of necessity occupy responsible positions. They will govern, administrate, judge and form the council of the Sovereign Pontiff; some will be called upon to elect a future pope. This pope, like most of his contemporaries, will be to a greater or lesser degree influenced by those Italian and humanitarian principles which we are now circulating. It is a small grain of mustard seed which we entrust to the soil...

Along this path which we now outline for our brethren there are major obstacles to surmount and difficulties of all kinds to overcome. With experience and wisdom, we shall triumph over them. The objective is so glorious that, to reach it, all sails must be unfurled. Do you want to revolutionize Italy? Seek a pope fitting our description. Do you want to establish the kingdom of the elect [i.e., the Masons] on the throne of the Babylonian whore? then INDUCE THE CLERGY TO MARCH UNDER YOUR BANNER, IN THE BELIEF THAT THEY ARE MARCHING UNDER THE PAPAL BANNER. Do you want to make the last trace of tyranny and oppression disappear? Lower your nets like Simon bar Jona; lower them into the sacristies, the seminaries and the monasteries, instead of into the sea. If you do not precipitate events, we promise you a catch of fish even greater than St. Peter's. The fisher of fish became a fisher of men; you will fish for friends at the very feet of St. Peter's Chair. BY SO DOING YOU WILL NET A REVOLUTION CLOTHED IN TIARA AND MANTLE, PRECEDED BY THE CROSS AND PAPAL ENSIGN; A REVOLUTION THAT WILL REQUIRE BUT LITTLE HELP TO SET FIRE TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD...IN A HUNDRED YEARS TIME... THE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS WILL THINK THEY ARE MARCHING BEHIND THE BANNER OF THE KEYS OF PETER WHEN IN FACT THEY WILL BE FOLLOWING OUR FLAG... THE REFORMS WILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE NAME OF OBEDIENCE."

Where is the Church?

To identify as a Catholic one must be a member of Christ's Mystical Body, the Church. Where is it? I can certainly say where it is not. It's not among those who teach and subscribe to the doctrines of Vatican II, which is what the majority of those who call themselves "Catholic" believe.

There are those who say Vatican II can be seen in light of tradition as if it doesn't contradict previous Catholic beliefs. If that is so, why are there many among the hierarchy (and laity), who believe in heretical teachings because of their modern understanding of Vatican II? Where is the unity of faith? Either the Church before Vatican II is the True Church, and the Church after Vatican II is a false one, or vice versa. With that said, if the Church after Vatican II is a false one, where is the One True Church?

Cardinal Manning quoting St. Hippolytus says in his lecture IV "The Churches shall lament with a great lamentation, for there shall be offered no more oblation, nor incense, nor worship acceptable to God. The sacred buildings of the churches shall be as hovels; and the precious body and blood of Christ shall not be manifest in those days; the Liturgy shall be extinct; the chanting of psalms shall cease; the reading of Holy Scripture shall be heard no more. But there shall be upon men darkness, and mourning upon mourning, and woe upon woe.” Then, the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible, hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking-places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were, from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early centuries…."

For many Catholics, this saying is very hard to believe because it speaks in such a way that makes it look as though the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church. It's a guarantee that such a thing shall never happen, as promised by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Below I will again post an article written by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy titled as such:
The Gates Of Hell Shall Not Prevail

 In his great work Coomaraswamy writes:

One of the most frequent arguments in favor of the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar establishment is God's promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail." Implicit in this brief is that is neither possible nor likely that God has abandoned His own. How is one to respond to such an argument.

Let us start with indisputable facts. Whether we believe it or not, and whether it seems possible to us or not, what is abundantly clear is, that after a scandalous Council lacking both regularity and dignity, the Catholic religion has been changed. In the practical order, it has been replaced by another religion, an evolving religion, a religion greatly influenced by Freemasonry and Marxism and inspired throughout by what Popes Pius IX and X clearly rejected under the designation of "Modernism." Having created a "robber" Council that raised a host of errors such as the denial of the Church's "Unity" and Religious Liberty to the level of an infallible teaching, the post-Conciliar "Church" proceeded to abolish the Oath against Modernism and the Holy Office. What other purpose could such measures have than to deprive the Traditional Church - the Church of All Times - of all her defenses? And what followed? The turning of altars into tables, the changing of priests into "presidents," the invalidating of all the sacraments not acceptable to Protestants, the mistranslating of the Scriptures, and above all, the downgrading of Tabernacles and the destruction of the Mass - "humanist" and demagogic changes of the most serious nature. Cardinal Suenens was correct when he described this as "the French Revolution in the Catholic Church."

Consider the principle that "by their fruits you shall know them." Now what are the fruits of the new religion? Priests by the thousands have abandoned their calling - of those remaining over 25% requested and were refused permission to marry. Monks and nuns laicized by the thousands. The seminaries are virtually deserted. The median age for priests in the United States being the late fifties, with an anticipated drop to 40% of the present level by the end of the decade. Far more tragic: despite the wide range of "liturgies" offered - conservative to radical chic - Catholics by the millions have turned away from the Church and for all practical purposes the youth is no longer interested in what she has to offer. Only 15% of the erstwhile faithful still attend Sunday Mass and among these communions are up while confessions are down, suggesting that even sin is dwindling away. Over 80% of married Catholics use birth control and do so in the belief that such violates no divine principle, divorce statistics show no difference between Catholics and others;  and in the practical realm complete chaos exists with regard to sexual behavior.

Along with all this is the corruption, nay destruction of doctrine and theology. The acceptance of evolution as a fact in every realm - be it biology, theology, sociology - even the Teilhardian thesis that God Himself evolves! The abrogation of canons 1399 and 2318, the refusal of the Church to condemn out and out heretics and the blatant indulgence extended to those who like Hans Kung - their name is legion - would poison the thinking of the faithful are symptomatic of the wide-spread modernist malignancy. The self proclaimed "desacralization" and "demytholization" of the Church combined with the misrepresentation of everything traditional has resulted in an all-pervasive familiarity and vulgarity. Recent attempts to cover this over by dressing the presidents (clergy) and nuns in traditional garb has in no way changed the situation.

Let those who have ears hear. The writing was on the wall from the very opening of the Council. But who of us wished to listen. It's leitmotiv was Aggiornamento, a concept inimical to any religion based on eternal verities and Revelation. Roncalli, alias John XXIII, then declared his intention "to safeguard the sacred deposit of the faith more effectively." It does not take much imagination to understand what he meant - and he did not hesitate to declare that "...the substance of the ancient doctrine contained in the deposit of the faith is one thing, the manner in which it is expressed in another..." This claim is false and in fact satanic, for it opened the door to all the betrayals and falsifications that followed. The traditional formulations were not superficial luxuries, they were guarantees of the truth and efficacy; they more then adequately expressed what they wished to say - their adequacy was in fact their raison d'etre. Is not the truth inseparable from its expression? Was it not the strength of the Church that the old expressions were always valid? They only displeased those who wished to make modernism, scientism, evolutionism and socialism part of the "Deposit of the Faith."

One must take a phenomena for what it is. If one sees a tiger in the streets of New York one does not require a news broadcast to know that what one sees is a reality. One can deny its existence only at the risk of one's life.

Despite the obvious, there are those who, desiring to have the "best of both worlds," would exculpate the post-Conciliar Church; and who seek to explain why is it that the "smoke of Satan" has all but obscured "the dome of St. Peter's"? Some claim that it is because the Council and the subsequent innovations were "badly interpreted." But, by whom? Others, loudly proclaiming their loyalty to those usurping the Chair of Peter, claim it is the fault of the bishops and cardinals around him. But who appointed them? Since when has the principle of respondeat superior been abandoned? (Even hell has a hierarchical structure.) Despite the fact that such claims are often motivated by the desire "to cover Noah's drunkenness," they remain a combination of improbabilities and hypocrisy.

Whether we like it or not, this blame must fall primarily upon the post-conciliar "popes." Even though none of us are without an element of culpability, it is they who must bear the burden. It is they who approved the Council and the Reforms, and without their approval neither the Council nor the Reforms would have any meaning or authority. It is they who have misapplied the principles of obedience in order to bring the erstwhile faithful into line. It is they who tolerate every conceivable deviation while condemning out of hand whatever is traditional. They are not individuals who have "fallen into heresy," or who are, as Lefebvre would say, "tainted with Modernism." (Can one have a touch of pregnancy?) They are much worse, for they are heretics who have been elected precisely because they are heretics; men who, by the laws of the traditional Church have long since excommunicated themselves. And this condemnation applies to virtually the entire "electoral body" responsible for the implementation of what can only be described as a modernist conspiracy. It further applies to the sycophant hierarchy which declares itself una cum those in power.

"And Caiaphas was, in his own mind, a benefactor of mankind" (Blake). To speak of a conspiracy is not to deny the sincerity of those involved. But what heretic has ever lacked sincerity? Nor is it to claim that every individual who lent and lends his support is a conscious subversive. (Thou our Lord did said that he who is not with Him was  against Him - not to condemn error is to condone it.) The net result is clear. The Council and its aftermath was achieved by a conspiracy of individuals who Pope Saint Pius X clearly condemned, and against whom he desired to protect the Church. He went so far as to state, in his capacity as Pope and hence ex cathedra, that any individual who even defended a single modernist proposition condemned by his Encyclicals and Lamentabili was ipso facto and latae sententiae excommunicated - that is, by that very fact and without any need for any one to publicly so declare (Praestantia Scripturae, Nov. 18, 1907). No father signing the Council documents and no member of the hierarchy accepting and teaching them, can claim to fall outside this condemnation. Everyone who considers himself "in obedience" to the new Church implicitly accepts its Modernist principles.

Consider Religious Liberty - the idea that every man is free to decide for himself what is true and false, what is right and wrong, and that his very human dignity resides in just this license. Imagine Christ upon the Cross telling us that he came to establish a visible Church - "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic," and to confide to it those truths necessary for our salvation. He continues however to assure us that we have no obligation to listen to Him. - that we are free to choose for ourselves what we shall believe, and that our real human dignity resides, not in conforming to His image, but in making just such choices! Incredible!  And now, some two thousand years later, we find Christ's representative whose function it is to teach us what Christ taught us, assuring us that, as a result of Christ's incarnation, all men, even those who reject the very idea of God, are saved, that Christ's Church, through her own fault, has lost her "unity," and that the Crucifixion is but a "witness to man's human dignity" - his ability to determine for himself what is true and false. Madness reigns supreme!

It will be argued that these false popes have said some nice things. Such however is of no importance or interest in the present situation when we must decide whether or not they are truly Christ's representatives on earth. If they are truly "one hierarchical person" with our Lord, we must obey them. But Catholics must understand that the Pope's infallibility is totally dependent upon his being himself in obedience to Christ, and that when he rejects Christ and falsifies Christ's teaching, we must reject his authority. As Peter said, "one must obey God rather than man." A modernist pope is an impossibility. Either he is a modernist and then he isn't a pope, or he is a pope and then he isn't a modernist. All this is not a matter of picking or choosing what we shall believe. It is a matter of being Catholic. To deny this principle is to declare Christ a liar! St. Catherine of Sienna told us that a Pope who falsifies his function will go to hell, and further, that those of us who obey him will go there with him. Let us be done with those who claim that John Paul II is trying to bring the "Church" back to tradition. The lie is easily exposed. All he has to do is reject Vatican II and restore the traditional sacraments. Short of this he is but a wolf in sheep's clothing pulling the wool over our eyes.

Have the "gates of hell" prevailed?. Certainly not. Catholics know that Christ cannot lie. Let us then examine the meaning of this promise. What it proclaims is that the truth will ultimately win out - though not necessarily so in the "short run." That such is "true" is an intellectual certainty, for error can only be defined in terms of the denial of truth. Now the Catholic Church is true, and hence it can no more be totally destroyed than can the truth itself. But this Church resides, not in numbers, not in buildings, and not even of necessity in the hierarchy. The truth functions ex opere operatio. It resides in the faithful (the hierarchy must be "of the faithful," before they can be "of the hierarchy." Or as the theologians put it, members of the "teaching Church" (the Magisterium) must be first of all members of the "learning Church.") Every baptized infant, according to the traditional rite, becomes a "member of the body of Christ." And what is the Church if not the Body of Christ, the presence of Christ in this world? It follows then that, as Catherine Emerick points out, if there were but one person alive who was truly Catholic, the Church would reside in him.

Visibility is a quality of the Church. Does visibility require a hierarchy. The matter is open to debate, but time has not yet run its course. In any event traditional bishops are available, and if but one traditional bishop survives, the hierarchy would reside in him. What has to be remembered however is that the Church does not exist for the sake of the hierarchy, it is the hierarchy that exists for the sake of the Church. And history has shown that Catholics can live and retain the faith for centuries without any hierarchy. God knows his own and will not abandon them. If a bishop is necessary for the visibility of the Church, He will certainly provide one. Ultimately, it is we who abandon God, his truth and his Church, and never the other way around.

One would have thought that the changes were more than enough to induce the faithful to revolt. The great surprise, truly apocalyptic, was that the Catholic people did not do so. That they did not only goes to show what "sincere, pious, fervent and well intentioned" Catholics really valued. One is tempted to feel sorry for them, but as always, even in such a situation "God knows his own." One must insist upon this, for the truly innocent are far less numerous than one is inclined to believe. The argument that it is not possible or likely that God would abandon his own presumes that "his own" did not deserve to be abandoned, when in fact they did deserve it precisely to the degree that they are in fact abandoned.

 Why did Catholics not revolt?. Well, first of all, many did, but their stand was undermined by poor leadership. Psychologically dependent upon the hierarchy and the clergy, they looked for guidance that was not provided. The Modernists, working for decades, had prepared the ground, and even those who were not out and out subversives had their faith corrupted and hence weakened. At the Council there were perhaps 70 individuals who - towards the end - began to understand what was happening. No more! And among them not one was willing to take a clear cut stand on solid doctrinal grounds. Even Lefebvre based his opposition on false theological premises, arguing for example that one can disobey a valid pope. Secondly, for decades the faithful were both inadequately trained in their faith and discouraged from leading active spiritual lives. Educated in secularized colleges, taught by "liberal" priests, they were by in large modernists without knowing it. And finally, both clergy and laity found the modern world seductively attractive. 

They found the rejection and scorn of the modern world - a world which had repudiated the Church and like the Prodigal Son, had walked away from the bosom of the Father - increasingly intolerable. They could not accept the disapproval of this world in which they believed more strongly than in Christ. The Council declared the Church would henceforth not only be "open to the world," but that it would "embrace" it! Its avowed aim and promise was aggiornamento to bring the Church "into the twentieth century" and make it part of, and acceptable to that world. No longer did she proclaim that it was necessary for the Prodigal son to return to the bosom of the Father. Rather, abandoning both her function and her identity, she proclaimed that the Father was obliged to eat the swill fit only for pigs!. Both clergy and laity - exceptions apart - rushed headlong into to the sea to spend their patrimony as if there was no tomorrow. It is this that is at the heart of the conspiracy. It is this that is the crux of the problem. It is this that created the smoke swirling around St. Peter's Basilica. This spark of rebellion, present in the soul of every man, needed only the "winds of change" to create an inferno.

However, as has always been the case throughout the history of the Church, a remnant persisted in retaining the fullness of the faith. The true Church is to be found among those who believe and continue to believe in the manner of their ancestors. It is they who bear witness to the truth of Christ's promise. It is they who provide the proof that "the gates of hell have not prevailed." Not all are profound theologians. Not all are sinless. But they can be recognized by their insistence on true priests, true doctrine, and the true Mass - the Mass of All Times.

Some would accuse traditional Catholics - those that insist on retaining the fullness of the Catholic faith intact and who therefore refuse the new religion of the post-Conciliar Church, of being in "schism." The accusation is a lie. In reality, the schismatic is one who removes himself from the truth, and not one who insists upon it. And if it is necessary to separate oneself from something in order to save the truth, long live Schism! But in reality, it is not the traditional Catholic who is in Schism, but those who are responsible for changing the Catholic faith. But let is be both clear and honest. The new Church is not schismatic. It is heretical. In similar manner traditional Catholics are accused of being Protestants because they disobey the pope. Such accusations are false. Traditional Catholics do not "pick and choose" what they wish to believe; they are adhering with all their hearts to what the Church has always taught and always done. 

Nor are they disobeying the pope. They believe that the pope, being Christ's vicar on earth and "one hierarchical person" with our Lord, is to be obeyed. They know that when Peter speaks he is infallible because it is Christ who speaks through him. They are the out and out papists and are doing nothing less than refusing to disobey Peter. In such a situation they are obliged to disobey those who falsely speak in Peter's name. To obey modernist and heretical "popes" is to declare that they are "one hierarchical person" with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely - quod absit!

It is an unfortunate fact that too many of the traditionalists do not wish to be labeled "integrists." or "sedevacantists." And why not? Why should they stop mid way? Such only leads to wrangling about the most absurd positions, or to timidity of language combined with conventional and infantile sentimentalities. If the post-Conciliar "popes" are true popes, let us obey them. If not, let us obey Peter and through him Christ. People claim to be "confused" or "troubled." Why? The ancient catechisms are always there and modern innovations are no different in principle than those of a prior era. Sin can change its style, but not its nature. "There is no greater right than that of truth," and despite the teaching of Vatican II, "error has no rights whatsoever."

Traditional Catholics often give scandal by arguing among themselves. The new Church in comparison seems more united. In point of fact it is, for it accepts within its aegis every conceivable deviation. But if traditional Catholics seem divided it is because, in the absence of clear leadership, each individual group seeks to determine just what is truly Catholic for itself. What is required is a deeper study and commitment to what is truly Catholic on the part of all. Paraphrasing Lenin, let us have no enemies on the right - none more orthodox and none more traditional than ourselves. Let us be united in the truth manifested in the constant teaching and practice of the Church throughout the ages. So help us God.

It is extraordinary that modern churchman should claim to be reading "the signs of the times." Christ depicted the "last times" in very somber colors. Scripture warns of an unparalleled outbreak of evil, called by St. Paul an Apostasy, in the midst of which a terrible Man of Sin and child of perdition, the special singular enemy of Christ, or Antichrist will appear; that this will be when revolutions prevail and the present framework of society breaks to pieces. We are told that they "shall defile the sanctuary of strength and shall take away the continual sacrifice and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation." Does not Jeremias speak in God's Name when he says "My Tabernacle is laid waste, all My cords are broken: My children are gone out from Me, and they are not... Because the pastors have done foolishly, and have not sought the Lord." And are we not told that "many false Christs will arise," that false doctrines will be preached and that even the seeming elect will be deceived? 

Finally, is not Christ specific when He tells us that at the final coming only a "remnant" will be left - a remnant persecuted by the Antichrist? Despite such warnings the modern Sanhedrin in Rome insist on supporting and fostering the forces of revolution. They proclaim their intention to create a better world, in which the principles of the French Revolution are brought to fruition - where all men will be free, equal, and live in brotherly peace. And with this in view they have committed themselves to the creation of a one world religion in which all men - even atheists - will be gathered together as "the people of God," and salvation will be as Vatican II preaches, "a communitarian process." Fortunately traditional Catholics can also read the signs of the times. They see in all this the fulfillment of the Scriptural prophecies. This is why they insist on being a traditional Remnant. May God give them the gift of perseverance.

"It is necessary that scandals should occur..." And this is not because of some arbitrary decision on the part of a personal God - quod absit - but because of the necessary ontological "play" that results from All Possibility, and which relates inevitably to the contradictions and privations without which the world would not be in existence. God does not desire "a given evil," but He tolerates 'evil as such" in view of a still greater good that results from it. Ad majorem Dei gloriam.

Despite the Church suffering immensely, not only from the lack of a Head, but most of it's Body, the hierarchy, She will always be in those who are baptized, profess it's dogmatic and doctrinal teachings, and obey lawful authority. Today, lawful authority has been reduced to tradition and those bishops and priests who, without papal appointment (because there has not been a pope for many years), substitute not as intruders, but as the last crumbs left on the table who have remained Catholic. The true intruders are masquerading throughout the whole world as imposters of the new Counterfeit Catholicism. 

Just as "the Grinch stole Christmas," heretics, apostates, and schismatics have stolen the Catholic name. The difference lies in the fact that they will not grow a heart big enough to give it back to those who are Catholic, unless a great miracle happens and they convert from the poison of Modernism. For the sake of informing the misinformed, when we say "I'm Catholic," we must explain what it always has meant and what it doesn't mean, as some might think. No matter what, I will still say gladly with St. Athanasius, "Christian my name, Catholic my surname."