If the hat fits, wear it.





INTRODUCTION

“The Saint Prophecies great Schisms and Tribulations in the Church.”

“The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound … there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man not canonically elected will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. […] except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion … Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”

“What I have dreamed is never to come, it is too painful and I hope that the Lord will not allow the Pope to deny all truths of faith and to put himself in place of God. How much pain I felt in the night, my legs became paralyzed and I could not move any more, for the pain I felt when I saw the Church reduced to a cluster of ruins”

Bruno Cornacchiola (Seer of the Apparition of Our Lady of Revelation)





On March 17, 2015, I spent the day with Fr. Nicholas Gruner in Slane, Ireland, not knowing that it would be the last time we would ever meet on this earth. One of the last things he said to me was to ask me again to systematically present in book form the argumentation and evidence proving that Pope Benedict XVI did not validly resign from the office of the papacy, and demonstrate that he is still the only legitimate Pontiff of the Roman Church. He had been asking me to write on this matter for more than a year, but due to other commitments, I had been unable to make any sustained effort to complete this task.

As his unexpected death approached, Fr. Gruner became ever more convinced of the urgency to prove with a mass of evidence and sound argumentation that Benedict XVI remains in office as the sole Vicar of Christ on earth; and that Francis is a manifest heretic who cannot validly occupy the papal throne. Unfortunately, I was not able to really occupy myself with this work until more than a year after Fr. Gruner's death, when circumstances compelled me to devote my time and energy to finally move toward getting this work done.

When I say circumstances compelled me to get to work on writing the book, I refer to the publication of books and articles that heretically argue that a manifest heretic pope would remain in office until he is judged to be a heretic by the Church – a judgment that neither would ever take place in an ecclesial organization that is occupied in its highest offices by heretics; nor in the Catholic Church which professes as a matter of faith that the pope is the supreme judge in all cases who is judged by no one. I say they "heretically argue" because the idea that any manifest heretic could validly hold office is, as I prove in Volume One of this work, contrary to the doctrine of the universal magisterium of the Church, and also rests on the heretical premise that a manifest heretic (i.e. one who is manifestly a formal heretic) would still be a member of the Church until he is judged a heretic by juridically competent ecclesiastical authority. In my earlier series of articles which I have amplified and revised, and which comprised in embryonic form what eventually became the main body of this volume, I have demonstrated that the Church teaches de fide, that the manifest sin of public formal heresy constitutes a defection from the Catholic faith, which by its very nature separates the heretic from the body of the Church; and as a consequence, any officeholder in the Church (including the pope if that were possible), who would publicly defect from the faith into heresy, would automatically lose office ipso jure, as is set forth in Canon 194 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law; Canon 188 n. 4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law; and is rooted in the ruling of Session 37 of the Council of Constance.

Another heresy I deal with in this volume, is the newly resurrected opinion which had been defunct for more than a century, (and which was generally abandoned after the dogmatic definition of the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff explicitly set forth the injudicability of the pope, made it doctrinally untenable and obsolete), that a heretic pope must first be judged by the Church before losing office; since the Church teaches de fide that the pope, who is the supreme judge for all cases that pertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, while he is in office, cannot be judged by anyone. Since the solemn definition of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff gave definitive dogmatic force to the doctrine of papal injudicability, the idea that a pope could be juridically judged by his subjects was clearly seen to be heretical, and therefore was generally abandoned by theologians and canonists after the First Vatican Council. The opinion that a reigning pontiff could be judged and deposed for heresy had its origin among medieval canonists and remained popular among theologians and canonists for about a century after the Counter-Reformation period, even though it could already have been seen to oppose pronouncements of several popes, of the Fifth Lateran Council, and the Council of Trent. Pastor Aeternus was the coup de grâce that put this errant theory out of its heretical misery, and as a consequence, was generally abandoned by theologians. That a true and validly reigning pope can be judged by no one is demonstrated beyond all shadow of doubt in this volume to be a de fide dogma of the Catholic Church.

In this first volume, I examine and explain the theology of defection from the faith and the Church; and refute primarily the erroneous and heretical arguments of the legalist-fundamentalist propagandists of Conciliarism, John Salza and Robert Siscoe, who heretically profess that a Church council possesses the authority to juridically pass judgment on a reigning Pontiff for the delict of heresy; and who heretically defend the thesis that a manifest heretic pope would, even as a manifest heretic who has publicly defected from the faith into formal heresy, remains in office as pope until judged guilty by the his inferiors in the Church.

In the second volume I will systematically present the case against Jorge Mario “Francis” Bergoglio, and prove that Benedict XVI is still the only legitimate claimant to the papal throne at this time. This is very easy to prove, and the arguments are so cut and dry that they are easily grasped and readily seen to be conclusive, correct and irrefutable. As always, the more clear, convincing and to the point is my argument, the more Salza & Siscoe reply with obfuscation, distortion, misrepresentation, and even deliberately falsify the text and invert the meaning of my words in order to make my reasoning appear logically incoherent, contradictory, and the product of an unsound mind. The fraud that Salza & Siscoe deliberately employ to obfuscate, falsify and distort is so systematically applied and systemically pervasive throughout their writings, that I have had to devote an entire chapter of this book to expose just some small portion of their fraud and sophistry; as well as an appendix to volume one to expose the more egregious examples of the fraud in their “Formal reply” to this book, by which they attempt to defend and cover up the earlier fraud in their book and articles. [Due to the size of this volume I have decided not to include that appendix in this volume.] Volume III will focus on the false religion of the counterfeit conciliar “Anti-church” (and its Masonic ecclesiology) that was foretold in the Secret of Fatima, in Scripture, and by the ancient Fathers; and which came into being more than half a century ago, and has existed as a cancer growing in the body of the Catholic Church – an alien entity inhabiting the same space as the Holy Catholic Church; and since the election of Jorge Bergoglio, has been in the process of visibly separating itself from the true apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

It may come as a surprise to many that Fr. Gruner believed that Benedict XVI, and not Francis, is the only valid Pope of the Catholic Church, but you can hear him explain (on 14 Nov. 2014 in Deerfield, Ill.) and state quite plainly that Benedict, “whatever he was doing, he was not resigning the papacy”; and he added, "that's the mystery which will be explained by the secret [of Fatima]." You can listen to Fr. Gruner explain the matter briefly at this link: https://vimeo.com/228833627

Briefly, what can be said on Pope Benedict's renunciation (not resignation or abdiction), is that Pope Benedict XVI, knowing full well that a valid renunciation of the papacy requires a correctly expressed renunciation of the Petrine munus, nevertheless did not renounce the munus petrinum; but very pointedly renounced only the “exercise of the ministry”, and therefore, the renunciation suffered from a fatal and nullifying defect of intention. Hence, the canonical issue is not so much the question of whether Francis is the legitimate pope or if the Chair is vacant (sede vacante), but whether Francis or Benedict is the legitimate pope. I have systematically analysed (as did even more completely Canon Law Professor Fr. Stefano Violi) Benedict's own words, in which Benedict very carefully distinguishes between the ministry and the munus, and then states his intention to renounce only the ministry, but not the petrine munus itself. Not only is this clearly expressed in Benedict’s official Declaratio of 11 Feb. 2013, but Benedict stated even more explicitly on 27 Feb. 2013 that he received his commitment to serve (i.e. the munus) on 19 April 2005, which he said was "for always" and added, "my decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this." Thus it is clear, as Fr. Violi demonstrated, that Benedict XVI did not validly resign the office, but only the exercise of the ministry. A renunciation made in this manner is clearly invalid, since to validly resign the office, the pope must correctly express his intention to renounce his munus: Can. "332 § 2 - Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur." Not only did Benedict not correctly express any intention to renounce his munus, but he expressly stated his renunciation of the ministry does not revoke his munus. Therefore, his intention was defective, which thereby rendered it null and void; and on the basis of an invalid act of renunciation, he erroneously stated that the act of renunciation vacates the Chair and necessitates a conclave to elect a successor – a clear-cut case of an invalidating substantial error: "Can. 188 — Renuntiatio ex metu gravi, iniuste incusso, dolo vel errore substantiali aut simoniace facta, ipso iure irrita est." It is on the basis of this substantial error rooted in a defect of intention; and on the erroneous belief that the Petrine office can be shared by two men, i.e., that the pope can remain in office and parcel out a portion of his munus to a successor in a shared ministry, that Benedict XVI erroneously maintains that his canonically invalid renunciation was “valid”. The resulting equivocation in the act, namely, that Benedict clearly stated his intention to retain his munus, and at the same time stated that his renunciation vacates the Chair, manifestly nullifies his renunciation; since, such an equivocation as this plainly renders the Declaratio dubious at the very least, and therefore incapable of having any force of law: lex dubia lex nulla.

The "substantial error" has created the appearance that two men in papal attire and both with papal names, and who address each other (in public at least) as "Your Holiness", in some manner share the Petrine munus. It is, therefore, patently absurd for anyone to claim that the election and subsequent "unanimous acceptance" of Bergoglio – an acceptance which followed an election occasioned by an invalid renunciation, nullified by a defect of intention, as well as an invalidating substantial error; and therefore an acceptance which took place following an invalid resignation – a "universal acceptance" which includes in some manner both men’ claim on the munus, and which is therefore not exclusive to one or the other, since what has been accepted is both men’s claim on the Petrine munus – and, according to Salza & Siscoe, this “universal acceptance” is somehow supposed to prove that Jorge Mario “Francis” Bergoglio is the validly reigning pontiff, and that Benedict XVI is merely a “former pope” whose renunciation was valid! The principal argument of Salza & Siscoe in their article which replies to me, and argues in favour of the validity of Benedict’s “resignation”, is expressly based on the premise that Benedict validly resigned the papacy! (And these are the men who are always falsely and scurrilously accusing me of petitio principii.) A plain and simple application of the cited canons proves beyond question that Benedict's resignation was invalid, and consequently, he is still the only reigning pope. They also speciously (and maliciously) argue with yet another example of petitio principii, accusing me of preferring, in Protestant manner, my own “Private Judgment” to the “public judgment of the Church”, for my having insisted that Benedict XVI remains in office as the only valid pope. For Salza & Siscoe, the election of Jorge Bergoglio constitutes a “public judgment of the Church”, and their argument uncritically assumes as a premise that this “judgment of the Church” was a valid juridical act. However, for a decree, declaration, or a papal election to be validly constituted as a “public judgment of the Church”, it must be a valid juridical act. If it is not a valid juridical act, then it is not a “public judgment of the Church”. Neither the renunciation of Benedict XVI (and consequently) nor the election of Cardinal Bergoglio was a valid juridical act, so neither act can be considered to be a public judgment of the Church. I will provide in Volume Two a systematic exposition on the question of whether Francis or Benedict is the legitimate pope; which will include a precise analysis of the relevant texts relating to Benedict XVI alleged “resignation”; and I will explain on the basis of undeniable, publicly known facts, that Pope Benedict XVI to this day maintains his claim on the Petrine munus which he never renounced.

Fr. Gruner also quite correctly explained that a heretic, because he is not Catholic, cannot validly hold the papal office;(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3D6gV2sEnQ), and stated, (although in a qualified manner), that Francis is not a Catholic. Fr. Gruner wanted compelling, systematic argumentation that would conclusively argue the case against Francis, so that he could then confidently state his case against Francis openly in public, and without qualification. Privately, Fr. Gruner stated categorically to some trusted individuals that Benedict, and not Francis, is the pope. One of them was Dr. Peter Chojnowski. He was also heard pronouncing the name "Benedict" in the prayer for the pope at the Canon of the Mass.

While Fr. Gruner, in the video clip, overstates St. Bernard's case of heresy against Cardinal Pierleoni (who took the papal name, Anacletus II); it will be shown in this book that his doctrinal principle, namely, that a public heretic, being not Catholic, cannot validly be pope, is entirely correct. The importance of this point cannot be exaggerated, because if a heretic intruder were to usurp the papal throne, he would not be a true and valid pope; because, as Pope Paul IV teaches, (solemnly but not ex cathedra), in Cum ex apostolatus officio (and then confirmed and renewed by St. Pius V in Inter Multiplices), a heretic cannot validly occupy the throne of Peter: if he is a heretic, he is not the pope. While it is humanly impossible to ever know if a man is secretly an internal heretic, if he is an external occult heretic, evidence may be able to be brought against him; and if he is a manifestly formal heretic, i.e. a public heretic, it is plainly evident that he is certainly not a valid pope; and therefore, when it is known with certitude that a claimant is a public heretic, the Catholic has the right and even the duty to refuse submission and recognition to him. Salza & Siscoe speciously ask, but who makes the determination that he is a manifest heretic? And they assert that only the Church has the authority to make the determination of heresy by establishing the crime of heresy. The fallacy of their position consists in the failure to recognize that when the fact of public defection into heresy is manifest, and thus, obvious to the mind or eye, it is already established per se as a manifestly evident fact (apart from any considerations of penal law), and hence, the defection from the faith is already manifestly “determined” as a patent public fact, and therefore does not need to be juridically determined as a crime in a penal process before private individuals would have the right to form a judgment of conscience in the matter. As will be shown in Volume One, the Church bases its law on loss of office for public defection from the faith into heresy on the fact of the defection alone; and not on whether or not a crime, i.e. a penal delict, has been committed in the act of defection; and juridically declared. Thus, the Salza/Siscoe opinion is like saying that even if the rain is visibly falling in a torrential downpour, one may not privately judge that it is raining until a competent tribunal juridically pronounces the formal judgment of the court against the clouds for raining. The reason why it is so important to understand this point is that “Pope” Francis (unlike his Conciliar predecessors who to my mind have not been proven to be formal heretics) can be plainly shown to be a manifest heretic; and since he is therefore not a valid pope, he can solemnly pronounce heretical definitions as a counterfeit pope in even his most solemn but invalid decrees, and thereby lead a vast multitude of souls (who think he is infallible), into heresy and apostasy; since a very large portion of the hierarchy is following him in the stampede into apostasy and out of the Catholic Church. The radical legalism of Salza & Siscoe leads undiscerning Catholics inexorably into the sin of false or indiscreet obedience, because, 1) they mistakenly believe they must give religious assent to every pronouncement of his authentic magisterium (which in reality he does not possess), no matter how heretical it may appear to them; and 2) because they must not only resist his evil laws and precepts, but they must not be subject to him, nor recognize any authority in him, nor obey him as their superior in anything. The very act of submission to the pretended authority of an openly heretical enemy of the Catholic faith constitutes per se an objectively grave act not only of indiscreet obedience; but done in ignorance, constitutes an act of material schism as well. Thus, while the Recognize and Resist policy of Catholics towards the errant conciliar popes was morally justified from the time of the post-council up to the end of February 2013, when Pope Benedict went into what is increasingly seen to be a forced retirement; it is no longer morally licit to adhere to it for so long as the heretical intruder (or another like him) remains in power, because if is morally wrong and schismatic to recognize and be subject to a manifestly formal heretic.

That Jorge Bergoglio is manifestly a formal heretic is plainly demonstrated by his obstinate and explicit rejection of some of the most basic dogmas of Christian belief – notably his outright and categorical rejection of Christ's explicit teaching on evangelizing and converting all nations; his explicit rejection of the dogma of absolute necessity of faith for justification; his pagan notion of "God" which logically rejects of the dogmatic Christian notion of God as distinct from and infinitely transcending the created universe – a notion of God which he contemptuously dismisses as a "vague idea in the clouds", and a "god spray". I have already written and posted articles on this topic, and on the invalidity of Pope Benedict's "resignation", and in Volume II, I will have more to say on these points.

As I have explained in my articles (upon which this book is based), it is not necessary or even possible that there be ecclesiastical warnings administered to a pope; nor can there be a juridical process to judge a reigning pontiff to be a heretic, (that is, if it were possible for a validly elected pope to be a heretic). Ecclesiastical warnings can only be administered by a superior, and therefore cannot be administered to a pope. Furthermore, Cardinal de Lugo (whom I quote later in this volume), considered by St. Alphonsus to rank second only to St. Thomas as a theologian, explained that the pertinacity of formal heresy can sometimes be known without warnings, and that even the Holy Office, in some penal cases, judged them not to be necessary.

I can say with absolute certitude that Jorge “Francis” Bergoglio is a formal heretic on the basis of the consideration that it is impossible for him to be in any degree inculpable for denying the most basic and universally known revealed truths of our religion, such as the necessity of faith in God for justification and salvation; because that pertains to the Natural Law which is written in the heart (Rom. 2:15). St. Alphonsus writes, "Certum est hominem teneri ex lege naturali ad Deum per Fidem, Spem et Charitatem se convertere, et ideo elicere earum virtutum actus" – and therefore there is besides the patent matter of heresy, the pertinacity: the inexcusable form of the sin of heresy, which puts Jorge Bergoglio visibly outside of communion with the Catholic Church: “Hæresis est error intellectus, et pertinax contra Fidem, in eo qui Fidem sucepit. ... Unde patet, ad Hæresim, ut et Apostasiam, duo requiri, 1. Judicium erroneum, quod est ejus quasi materiale. 2. Pertinaciam; quæ est quasi formale. Porro pertinaciter errare non est hic acriter, et mordicus suum errorem tueri; sed est eum retinere, postquam contrarium est sufficienter propositum: sive quando scit contrarium teneri a reliqua universali Christi in terris Ecclesia, cui suum iudicium præferat” – [St. Alphonsus M. De Liguori, Lib. II. Tract. I. De præcepto Fidei. Dubium III].

Since this matter pertains to the Natural Law and is universally known by all Christians to be de fide, it is patent and certain that both of the conditions for matter and form are present in Bergoglio's denial of the most fundamental principle upon which all religion is based and hinges on, since in such matters of natural law, "whoever shall have sinned without the law shall perish without the law". (Rom. 2:12).

Jorge Bergoglio is absolutely and most certainly a manifest formal heretic – one who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith. In conscience one has the right to make such a judgment because it is a legitimate matter of conscience, and can be known with certitude. All the canons, and teachings against privately judging superiors and prelates do not refer to judgments of conscience, such as the judgment concerning the manifest heresy of one's superior, when it can be known with certitude; but rather, they prohibit judgments that require jurisdiction; and explain that private individuals do not possess the requisite jurisdiction for rendering an official judgment, and therefore they may not presume to judge their superiors juridically, and depose them with force of law. However, the right of conscience to judge privately as a matter of conscience in such cases pertains to divine law, since such judgments of conscience are sometimes necessary for salvation; and such a right is acknowledged in Canon Law: " Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know. "

Furthermore, Jorge “Francis” Bergoglio pronounces the judgment of heresy against himself by directly denying and attacking a revealed truth of the universal magisterium which is and has been universally known to all Catholics throughout the bi-millennial history of the Church; namely, the explicit and solemn command and teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20). He is obstinate in his perverse denial and outright rejection of this dogma, professing his own opposed doctrine, which he professed previously in his interview with Eugenio Scalfari: "Proselytism is solemn nonsense." Bergoglio says Christ's teaching is "solemn nonsense":

Bergoglio on 13 October 2016 declared: ''It's not right to convince someone of your faith,'' […] ''Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism.''



« “Non è lecito convincere della tua fede: il proselitismo è il veleno più forte contro il cammino ecumenico”. A lanciare il grido d’allarme è stato il Papa, rivolgendosi a braccio ai luterani ricevuti in udienza oggi nell’Aula Paolo VI. » – ANSA



That Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest formal heretic is plainly demonstrated by his outright and explicit rejection of some of the most basic dogmas of Christian belief – notably, 1) his rejection of Christ's explicit teaching on evangelizing and converting all nations; 2) his rejection of the dogma of absolute necessity of faith for justification and redemption; 3) his rejection of the Catholic doctrine on marriage; 4) his rejection of the dogma of hell; 5) his rejection of the Church’s teaching on capital punishment; and 6) his pagan notion of "God" which logically denies the dogmatic Christian doctrine of God as distinct from and infinitely transcending the created universe; which he contemptuously dismisses as a "vague idea in the clouds", a "god spray", and a "Catholic God". These points will be fully elaborated in Volume II.



JORGE BERGOGLIO IS THE SPEARHEAD OF THE GREAT APOSTASY FORETOLD IN THE SECRET OF FATIMA

Another reason which emerged, and necessitates this book, is that there are pseudo-Catholic propagandists of the counterfeit Conciliar Church (most notably Kevin Symmonds) who attempt to prove that the entire secret of Fatima has been revealed already, and attempt to prevent Catholics from coming to understand what specifically are the dangers to the faith mentioned in the Secret, which Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of in his well-known interview published in the November 1984 issue of the periodical, Jesus; saying that it warns of “the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian”; and that what is revealed in the Secret corresponds to what is revealed in Scripture. In that interview, the future Pope Benedict XVI called attention to the fact that the specific content of the Secret does not merely correspond in a general way to what is revealed in Scripture; but he referred specifically to “i novissimi”; i.e., “the last things”, which in such a scriptural context cannot refer to the four last things of Christian Doctrine (death, judgment, heaven & hell); but are a clear reference to the “last things”, i.e. τα εσχατα – the eachatological events of the end-time scriptural prophecies – the apocalyptic texts of Scripture. The distinguished theologian, Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (as well as many other theologians and ecclesiastical writers), in one of the passages quoted below in his work on The Apocalypse of St. John, speaks of these events as a judgment: “This judgment shall be the great persecution of Antichrist and its attendant evils.”

This judgment is not to be confused with the General Judgment which pertains to the four last things; and which is explained in the catechism: «The judgment which will be passed on all men immediately after the general resurrection is called the general judgment. » […] «The general judgment was described by Our Saviour Himself … “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will render to everyone according to his conduct” (Matthew 16:27). […] “And he charged us to preach to the people and to testify that he it is who has been appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42) » A most authoritative exposition is given in the Catechismus Romanus, (sometimes referred to as The Catechism of the Council of Trent); which explains that the General Judgment will take place at the time of the general resurrection. This General Judgment, which is to take place at the end of the world (in consummatione sæculi); when Christ will come again on the last day to judge all men (summo illo die Christum Dominum de universo hominum genere iudicaturum esse), is what the Church teaches in the article of the Creed which professes, “From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead” (Inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos). This is the general judgment at the end of the world, the judgment of the living and the dead, revealed in Scripture by St. Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4: “ 14 For this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who have slept. 15 For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead who are in Christ, shall rise first. 16 Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with the Lord. ”

The judgment, which some ecclesiastical writers refer to as a minor judgment in order to clearly distinguish it from the general judgment at the end of the world, will consist in “the great persecution of Antichrist and its attendant evils”, as Fr. Berry explains; and will take place in the end times, but before the end of the world. Our Lord himself spoke of these events as the great tribulation: “there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be” (Matthew 24:21). Cardinal Manning, in his work quoted below, comments on the text of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, explaining that this tribulation will commence with “ a revolt, which shall precede the second coming of our Lord ”. That revolt is the apostasy foretold in Scripture and in the Secret of Fatima which threatens the faith of the Christian; and is the prelude to the great persecution of Antichrist and its attendant evils, which will threaten not only the faith, but the life of the Christian as well.

While it is known in a general sense that the Secret of Fatima speaks of the "apostasy" (as the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Msgr. Cosme do Amaral stated in his discourse in Vienna in 1981); that term is usually understood to refer to individuals or groups who abandon the faith and leave the Church, with the greater portion of the hierarchy remaining intact. What is extraordinary about the Secret of Fatima, is that it reveals the Great Apostasy foretold by St. Paul; and in that apostasy it will seem (and is already beginning to seem) like almost the whole Church has defected, and will appear to be defeated, and to have disappeared from the earth, having been replaced with a counterfeit Anti-church, led by a heretic-antipope foretold in prophecy (as Fr. John O'Connor and I discussed on Fr. Gruner's radio program more than 25 years ago - (https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=7kiu2uzZO7M) – and according to the Secret of Fatima, it will be a heretic-antipope will lead the stampede into apostasy.

The Third Secret reveals and warns against the conciliar ecumenical Anti-church, spawned by an "evil council". That council, the Secret revealed, will give rise to the movement which attempts to reform the Church into a counterfeit “church” with a false new religion. The Great Apostasy will be Vatican led, under a false and heretical "pope" – as Cardinal Ciappi said, "In the third secret it is revealed, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." This is also, as is elaborated below, the conclusion of some of the most learned commentators on the Apocalypse of St. John. (http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret/otherwitness.asp) The footnote in the linked article documents that these words of Cardinal Ciappi were reported by Fr. Gerard Mura in The Catholic. Fr. Gruner showed me his actual hardcopy of the paper in which Fr. Mura's article was published, and asked me to read it. Now, the front men of Ecclesiastical Masonry are spreading the lie that I fabricated the quotation, and placed it in The Devil's Final Battle! However, that book was more Fr. Gruner's project than mine: he directed the work, and he appointed me to be the editor. Only one chapter was written entirely by me; the rest, I did not write, but only edited.

Cardinal Ottaviani said essentially the same thing as Cardinal Ciappi – that Satan will penetrate to the highest level in the Church. Malachi Martin, who learned the content of the Secret from Cardinal Bea, confirmed to me in a phone conversation that, according to the Secret, the apostasy will be led by an antipope who will be a heretic.

The so-called "diplomatic version" of the secret, published in 1963 in Neues Europa, is not really a false or bogus version of the Secret, but is a fictitious version that sets forth in more general terms the specific points of the real Secret in the authentic text of the Secret. After having been published in Neues Europa, it was explicitly recognized by Cardinal Ottaviani who later acknowledged privately to Fr. Luigi Villa (whom Fr. Gruner knew personally) his own authorship of it. Fr. Gruner also reported, "We have as evidence of this the testimony of Msgr. Corrado Balducci, a Vatican insider for more than forty years, who related that when Cardinal Ottaviani was asked whether the Neues Europa account should be published, the Cardinal, who had read the Third Secret — and who had a dry personality and was basically indifferent to most apparitions — exclaimed very emphatically: 'Publish 10,000 copies! Publish 20,000 copies! Publish 30,000 copies!' "(http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret/neueseuropa.asp) Fr. Gruner was himself the source of this information, having heard it from the mouth of Mons. Balducci, whom he knew personally.

According to another report mentioned in the above cited article, «On March 17, 1990 Cardinal Oddi, who was a personal friend of Pope John XXIII and who had spoken to him regarding the Secret, gave the following testimony to Italian journalist Lucio Brunelli in the journal Il Sabato: “It [the Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.”»

On August 1, 1976 in Philadelphia, Pope John Paul II said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever experienced. I do not think that the wide circle of the American Society, or the whole wide circle of the Christian Community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the antichrist. The confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence. It is, therefore, in God's Plan, and it must be a trial which the Church must take up, and face courageously." After he was elected pope, John Paul II briefly reiterated this point in 1981, mentioning also that it pertains to the message of Fatima. Many years ago I read the text of a prophecy of St. John Eudes, in which he says the triumph of the Heart of Mary will be the triumph over the Antichrist. This is not surprising, because it is foretold in Scripture, and most notably in the Apocalypse of St. John. In fact, when speaking on the message of Fatima on May 13, 2000 in his homily of beatification of Bl. Jacinta & Francisco of Fatima, Pope John Paul II underscored the apocalyptic character of the message of Fatima by quoting the Apocalypse in connection with the message: « "Another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon" (Rv 12: 3). These words from the first reading of the Mass make us think of the great struggle between good and evil, showing how, when man puts God aside, he cannot achieve happiness, but ends up destroying himself. The message of Fatima is a call to conversion, alerting humanity to have nothing to do with the "dragon" whose "tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth" (Rv 12: 4). » The events foretold in these verses are of the great apostasy that will immediately precede the reign of Antichrist.

Fr. Herman Bernard F. Leonard Kramer comments on this passage in his work, The Book of Destiny:

Verse 4. The tail of the dragon draws in its coils one third of the stars of Heaven and casts them to the earth. This is one third of the clergy. In Arianism (VI. 13), there was great apostasy of bishops and priests; the stars fell from heaven in large numbers. In the Greek schism, a great star, the Patriarch, fell from heaven (VIII. 10); and a star fell from heaven who led the apostasy from the Church into Protestantism (IX. 1). Before the appearance of Antichrist, “one third” of the stars shall follow the dragon. This is a compulsory apostasy shown by the Greek word, συρει which means “to drag by force”. The subsequent phrase, “and cast them to the earth”, specifies this meaning with greater precision. Satan will probably through the evil world-powers of the time exercise such tyranny over the church as to leave the clergy the alternative of submission to the government or martyrdom by death or imprisonment and will enforce the acceptance of unchristian morals, false doctrines, compromise with error, or obedience to the civil rulers in violation of conscience. St. John evidently had in mind the world-empires of ancient times, all of which were persecutors of God’s people. The text suggests a use of the apostate clergy, after their own defection, in persecuting the Church. Verse nine clearly states that those who will not brave martyrdom will surrender to Satan. The dragon will have them doing his will.

According to Ven. Bede, “Tyconius more suo tertiam partem stellarum quae cecidit falsos fratres interpretatur”. Though Tyconius was a Donatist, his interpretation of the Apocalypse was very popular. Origen likewise expresses this opinion (Lorn. iv. p. 306) “qui . . . peccatum . . sequitur, trahitur a cauda draconis vadens post eum”. They probably followed the lead of Methodius, who says of these stars: “And the stars, which the dragon touched with the end of his tail, and drew them down to the earth, are the bodies of heresies; for we must say that the stars, which are dark, obscure, and falling are the assemblies of the heterodox. The verse seems to allude to Isaias (IX. 15-16). The tail is a symbol of lying and hypocrisy. Through false doctrines and principles, Satan will mislead the clergy, who will have become worldly-minded, haughty, hypocritical, obsequient avaricious sycophants. It seems to forebode a long period of peace, growth and temporal prosperity for the Church, so that many will enter the priesthood from bad motives. They will look to the Church to satisfy their ambition and avarice and will think it easier to gain an honorable position in the Church than in the world. In Catholic countries pious parents often for pride or other unworthy reasons urge their sons unduly to enter the priesthood for the honor there is in it. Such have not the spirit of sacrifice or mortification in the priesthood, and when persecution shall “sift them as wheat”, they shall be found to be chaff. By their lax principles they will infect the laity. They will easily welcome a mitigation or change of doctrine to sanction the lukewarm lives they want to lead. Then will Satan see a rich harvest ripening for himself. The symbolic meaning of the dragon’s tail may reveal that the clergy who are ripe for apostasy will hold the influential positions in the Church having won preferment by hypocrisy, deceit and flattery.





Fr. E. Sylvester Berry wrote in the second part of his commentary on Apocalypse 10:7, (“7. But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound the trumpet, the mystery of God shall be finished, as he hath declared by his servants, the prophets.”):

This judgment shall be the great persecution of Antichrist and its attendant evils. Then shall be accomplished the “mystery of God” which has been announced (evangelized) by the prophets of old. To evangelize is to announce good tidings, hence this “mystery of God” is probably the plenitude of the Redemption applied to nations of earth. After the destruction of Antichrist and his kingdom all peoples shall accept the Gospel and the Church of Christ shall reign peacefully over all nations.

Fr. Berry elaborates further on pp. 306 – 7 of the same work:

The beast is not the aggregate of infidels, heretics, enemies and persecutors of the people of God but a person. He is Antichrist, who had not yet appeared when St. John wrote his first letter (1 Jo. II. 18). St. Paul speaks of the same person, when he says: “he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God”. This could not be said of a world-power or organization of any kind but only of a person. The phrase “temple of God” does not mean the ancient Temple but a Catholic Church. When this comes to pass, “the mystery of iniquity” will have reached its culmination, which mystery was already developing in apostolic times. The height of iniquity is reached when a man poses as God and demands divine honors for himself. Though this was done by rulers of kingdoms and empires, Antichrist will make the boldest pretensions to the possession of divine prerogatives. And though the rulers of the world-empires allowed temples to be built to their own divinity and demanded the worship of their statues, there is no record of their going personally to the “temple of God” to be worshipped.

On page 130 he states:

Our study of the Apocalypse thus far makes it certain that the beast cannot be identified with the Roman Empire as many interpreters have done. Others, following the opinion of St. Augustine, (St. Augustine “City of God” xx, 19.) take the beast as a symbol of all the wicked and unfaithful. This interpretation is true in a measure since Antichrist could not accomplish his nefarious work without disciples and followers. Hence the beast may be taken by extension to represent the whole empire of Antichrist. Nevertheless it is certain, in fact Suarez holds it as an article of faith, that the Antichrist is a definite individual. The words of St. Paul to the Thessalonians leave no room for doubt in this matter. (II Thessalonians ii, 3 – 9)

He explains on page 18:

St. John uses the word “Beast” and not the word “Antichrist”, because he writes a prophetical book, and by using the same term used by Daniel, he puts this book in the same category. St. John, as Daniel did, presents the world-power under a figure that would arouse the reader’s resentment and would heighten his trust in God to defend His Church against its malevolent might. Had he used the word “Antichrist”, he would have restricted the prophecies to the man of sin, who according to both St. John and St. Paul was a person destined to gather all the evil forces in the world and unite and co-ordinate them under his dominion for the last desperate attack on the Church of Jesus Christ. By using the word “Beast”, he could unite his empire of evil and his person of evil in one single term and include under it the anti-christian world-power of his own time and unify their efforts against Christ and God by the mind and power of Satan. He thus aptly portrays the evil world-power of all times in the form of a bloodthirsty beast.

And on page 19:

St. John presents Antichrist in a two-fold role, personal and political. He depicts the first in chapter XIII. and the second in chapter XVII. His idea of Antichrist is exactly that of St. Paul, that he is not on impersonal power but a man. “Little children, it is the last hour: and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many antichrists” (1 Jo. II. 18, 22; IV. 3). St. Paul had expressed the same view: “unless there come a revolt first and the man of sin be revealed . . . etc.” (2 Thess. II.), leaving no doubt of its being a man. St. John gives another view of Antichrist, that he not only “cometh” but is already in the world and his presence is in the form of a power or organization, and it manifested itself in the doctrines of the Docetae (1 Jo. IV. 3, 33; 2 Jo. 7). Irenaeus and Hippolytus apply the name to a person only not to an organization. The former identifies the “beast” with Antichrist. (Adv. Haer. V. xxvi, 1). According to St. John’s view so clearly revealed in the Apocalypse, before Antichrist appears, the beast is non-existent for a time. “The beast that was and is not and yet shall be” (XVII. 8) is the anti-christian world-power. This sentence has mystified many interpreters. St. Jerome left the last clause out of his translation, probably because he considered it a contradiction. However, the beast in chapter XVII. is the empire of Antichrist though not entirely differentiated from his person. This anti-christian empire existed in former times for a long course of ages but then ceased to exist for a time.

And he continues on page 131:

It is a very general opinion that Antichrist will set himself up as the Messias. This opinion seems to be supported by the words of our Saviour: “I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.” (St. John v, 43; see also I John ii, 18.) This pretension to Messiasship will make it necessary that he spring from the Jewish race.

The coming of Antichrist opens the decisive conflict between the Church and the powers of hell. It shall be the complete realization of the prophecy of Genesis: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman and thy seed and her seed.” (Genesis iii, 15.) The seed of the serpent is the Antichrist and his followers; the seed of Mary, the woman, is Jesus Christ and his faithful disciples.

In the third part of the same work Fr. Berry writes:

The words of St. Paul to the Thessalonians’ [II Thessalonians ii, 8] prove clearly that Antichrist must be a definite individual, and our study of the Apocalypse shows that he has not yet made his appearance in the world. But practically all interpreters who accept these conclusions take the reign of Antichrist as a prelude to the last judgment and the end of the world. Then, contrary to the plain sense of Holy Scripture, they place the universal reign of Christ before the time of Antichrist. This in turn, makes the chaining of the dragon a difficult problem. Some refer it to the time of our Saviour’s death, or to the day of Pentecost. Others fix upon the date of Constantine’s conversion, the reign of Charlemagne, the fall of the Western Empire, or the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, – all purely arbitrary dates as their great divergencies prove.

A careful reading of the Apocalypse shows clearly that Antichrist will appear long centuries before the last judgment and the end of the world. In fact his reign will be but the final attempt of Satan to prevent the universal reign of Christ in the world. Since the day of Pentecost the Church has been engaged in perpetual warfare. Judaism was her first enemy; then followed Arianism, Mohammedanism, the Greek Schism, the Reformation, and secret societies fostering atheism and rationalism. Today she is also battling indifferentism and a recrudescence of paganism. The reign of Antichrist shall be the final conflict in this prolonged struggle with the powers of darkness.

After the defeat of Antichrist the Gentile nations will return to the Church and the Jews will enter her fold. Then shall be fulfilled the words of Christ: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd.” [St. John X, 16] Unfortunately sin and evil will not have entirely disappeared, the good and the bad will still be mingled, in the Church, although the good shall predominate. After many centuries, symbolized by a thousand years, faith will diminish and charity grow cold as a result of the long peace and security enjoyed by the Church. Then Satan, unchained for a short time, will seduce many nations (Gog and Magog) to make war on the Church and persecute the faithful. These apostate nations shall be promptly overwhelmed with a deluge of fire and the Church will come forth again triumphant. The general judgment and the end of the world will then be near at hand. Men will be living in daily expectation until Our Lord appears in the clouds with the suddenness of a lightening flash [St. Matthew xxiv, 27] Then shall all people be gathered together unto judgment.

The establishment of the Church over all nations is foretold on almost every page of Holy Scripture. “He shall rule from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth. . . . And all kings of the earth shall adore him; and all nations shall serve him.” [Ps. lxxi, 8, 9] “All the nations thou hast made shall come and adore before thee, o Lord.” [lxxxv, 9] “His empire shall be multiplied and there shall be no end of peace” [Isaias ix, 7] “His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all kings shall serve him and obey him.” [Daniel vii, 27] “He shall speak peace to the Gentiles, and his power shall be from sea to sea, and from the rivers even to the ends of the earth..” [Zacharias ix, 10]

The Apostles were sent forth to preach the Gospel to all nations and every creature, [St. Matthew xxviii, 16; St. Luke xvi, 15] and St Paul applies to them the words of the Psalmist: “Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the whole world.” [Romans x, 18; Ps. Xviii, 5] Can it be supposed that these prophecies are fulfilled by the conversion of a few thousand souls in the various pagan countries of the world? Can we admit that a world steeped in paganism, and torn with schism and heresy is the only result of Christ’s death upon the Cross? Such an admission is necessary if the closing of the abyss and the binding off Satan be placed at the beginning of Christianity, and the thousand years of Christ’s reign, before the defeat of Antichrist.

The prophecies cited above and hundreds of others scattered through the Scriptures make it certain that the reign of Christ shall be truly universal. After the Gentile nations return to the faith, the Jews shall also submit to the yoke of the Gospel. St. Paul states this fact very plainly: “Blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel shall be saved as it is written: “There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” [Romans xi, 25, 26; Isaias lix, 20] Again he writes: “If the loss of them (the Jews) be the reconciliation of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? [Romans xi, 15]

These prophecies will not be fulfilled before the time of Antichrist, since the Apocalypse clearly shows that he will come into a world harassed by paganism, apostacy, schism, and heresy. [Apocalypse ix, 20, 21] The Jews still unconverted, will accept him as Messias and assist in his warfare against the Church. Only after the defeat of Antichrist and the return of the Gentile nations to the Faith, will the Jews accept Christ as the true Messias. Then shall begin the universal reign of Christ over all peoples, and tribes, and tongues.

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, in his book, The Present Crisis of the Holy See (1861), expounds on the great apostasy foretold by the sacred writers of Scripture, and explained by the great theologians of the Church. He begins by quoting St. Paul’s prophecy of the apostasy:

St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, says: “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, who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh : only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way, and then that wicked one shall be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish: because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”

He then provides his lengthy commentary, which I present here in edited form for the sake of abbreviation:

We have here a prophecy of four great facts: first, of a revolt, which shall precede the second coming of our Lord; secondly, of the manifestation of one who is called “the wicked one;” thirdly, of a hindrance, which restrains his manifestation; and lastly, of the period of power and persecution, of which he will be the author. First, then, what is the revolt? In the original it is called α π οστασία , ‘an apostasy;’ and in the Vulgate, discessio, or ‘a departure.” Now a revolt implies a seditious separation from some authority, and a consequent opposition to it. If we can find the authority, we shall find perhaps also the revolt. [p. 4] The authority, then, from which the revolt is to take place is that of the kingdom of God on earth (In treating of this subject, I shall not venture upon any conjectures of my own, but shall deliver simply what I find either in the Fathers of the Church, or in such theologians as the Church has recognised) [p. 3] p. 5 Such being the authority against which the revolt is made, it cannot be difficult to ascertain its character. The inspired writers expressly describe its notes. [i.e. 1) schism, 2) heresy, 3) the denial of the Incarnation] p. 6 These, then, are the marks by which, as the Church is to be known by her notes, the antichristian revolt, or apostasy, may be distinguished.

The first point to notice is, that both St. Paul and St. Peter speak of this antichristian revolt as already begun in their own day. St. Paul says, “The mystery of iniquity already worketh […]” […] And St. John expressly, in the above-quoted places: […] “This is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.”

[p. 7] Every age has its heresy, as every article of faith by denial receives its definition; and the course of heresy is measured and periodical; various materially, but formally one, both in principle and action; so that all the heresies from the beginning are no more than the continuous development and expansion of “the mystery of iniquity,” which was already at work.

[p. 8] Physiologists tell us that there is a perfect ultimate unity even in the countless diseases which devour the body; nevertheless, each disease seems to throw out its progeny by a corruption and reproduction. So in the history and development of heresy. To name no more than these, Gnosticism, Arianism, and, above all, Protestantism, have generated each a multitude of subordinate and affiliated heresies. But it is Protestantism which, above all others, bears the three notes of the inspired writers in the greatest breadth and evidence. Other heresies have opposed parts and details of the Christian faith and Church; but Protestantism, taken in its historical complex, as we now are able, with the retrospect of three [. 9] hundred years, to measure it, reaching from the religion of Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer at the one end, to the Rationalism and Pantheism of England and Germany at the other, is of all the most formal, detailed, and commensurate antagonist of Christianity. I do not mean that it has as yet attained its full development, for we shall see reasons to believe that it is still pregnant with a darker future; but even as “the mystery of iniquity has already worked,” no other antagonist has as yet gone so deep in undermining the faith of the Christian world. […]

[p. 9] All that I wish to point out is, to use a modern phrase, that the movement of heresy is one and the same from the beginning: that the Gnostics were the Protestants of their day, and the Protestants the Gnostics of ours; that the principle is identical, and the bulk of the movement unfolded to greater proportions; and its successes accumulated, and its antagonism to the Catholic Church [p. 10] changeless and essential.

[p. 10] There are two consequences or operations of this movement so strange and so full of importance, as bearing upon its relation to the Church, that I cannot pass them by.The first is, the development and worship of the principle of nationality, which has always been found in combination with heresy. Now, the Incarnation abolished all national distinctions within the sphere of grace, and the Church absorbed all nations into its supernatural unity. One Fountain of spiritual jurisdiction, and one Divine Voice, held together the wills and actions of a family of nations. Sooner or later, every heresy has identified itself with the nation in which it arose. It has lived by the support of civil powers, and they have embodied the claim of national independence. This movement, which is the key of the so-called great Western schism, is the rationale also of the Reformation; and the last three hundred years have given a development and intensity to the spirit of separate nationalism, of which we as yet see no more than the preludes. I need not point out how this nationalism is essentially schismatical, which is to be seen not only in the Anglican Reformation, but in the Gallican liberties, and the contentions of Portugal in Europe and in India, to name no more. […] If heresy in the individual dissolves the unity of the Incarnation, heresy in a nation dissolves the unity of the Church, which is built upon [p.11] the Incarnation. And in this we see a truer and deeper meaning of the words of St. Jerome than he foresaw himself. It is not the revolt of nations from the Roman Empire, but the apostasy of nations from the kingdom of God, which was set up on its ruins. And this process of national defection, which began openly with the Protestant Reformation, is running its course, as we shall see hereafter, even in nations still nominally Catholic; and the Church is putting off its mediaeval character as the mother of nations, returning again into its primitive condition as a society of members scattered among the peoples and cities of the world.

[p.11] The other result I spoke of as the consequence of the later workings of the heretical spirit is the deification of humanity. This we have before us in two distinct forms, namely, in the Pantheistic and in the Positive philosophies; or rather in the religion of Positivism, the last aberration of Comte. I take the expression of the Pantheism of Germany from two of its modern expositors, in whom it may be said to culminate. We are told that, “Before the time when creation began, we may imagine that an infinite mind, an infinite essence, or an infinite thought (for here all these are one), filled the universe of space. This, then, as the self-existent [p. 12] One, must be the only absolute reality; all else can be but a developing of the one original and eternal being. . . . This primary essence is not . . . an infinite substance, having the two properties of extension and thought, but an infinite, acting, producing, self-unfolding mind—the living soul of the world.” “If we can view all things as the development of the original and absolute principle of life, reason, or being, then it is evident conversely that we may trace the marks of the absolute in every thing that exists, and consequently may scan them in the operation of our own minds, as one particular phase of its manifestation.”

“In practical philosophy we have three movements: the first is, that in which the active intelligence shows itself operating within a limited circuit, as in a single mind. This is the principle of individuality, not as though the infinite intelligence were something different from the finite, or as though there were an infinite intelligence out of and apart from the finite, but it is merely the absolute in one of its particular moments; just as an individual thought is but a single moment of the whole mind. Each finite reason, then, is but a thought of the infinite and eternal reason.” The absolute essence being thus everything, all difference between God and the universe is truly lost; and Pantheism becomes complete, “as the absolute is evolved from its lowest form to the highest, in accordance with the necessary law or rhythm of its being, the whole world, material and mental, becoming one enormous [p.13] chain of necessity, to which no idea of free creation can be attached.” Again: “Deity is a process ever going on but never accomplished, nay, the Divine consciousness is absolutely one with the advancing consciousness of mankind. The hope of immortality perishes; for death is but the return of the individual to the infinite, and man is annihilated, though the Deity will eternally live.” Once more: “Deity is the eternal process of self-development as realised in man; the Divine and human consciousness falling absolutely together.” “The knowledge of God and of his manifestations forms the subject of speculative theology. . . . Of these manifestations there are three great spheres of observation—nature, mind, and humanity. In nature we see the Divine idea in its lowest expression; in mind, with its powers, faculties, moral feelings, freedom, &c., we see it in its higher and more perfect form; lastly, in humanity we see God, not only as creator and sustainer, but also as a father and a guide.” “The soul is a perfect mirror of the universe, and we have only to gaze into it with earnest attention to discover all truth which is accessible to humanity. What we know of God, therefore, can be only that which is originally revealed to us of Him in our own minds.”: I have given these extracts to show the [p. 47] legitimate resolution of the subjective system of private judgment into pure rationalistic Pantheism.

[p. 14] With a few words on the Positivism of Comte, I will conclude. […] “From the study of the development of human intelligence, in all directions and through all times, the discovery arises of a great fundamental law, […] The law is this: that each of our leading conceptions, each branch of our knowledge, passes successively through three different theoretical conditions—the Theological or fictitious; the Metaphysical or abstract; and the Scientific or positive. In other words, the human mind by its nature employs in its progress three methods of philosophising, the character of which is essentially different and even radically opposed, viz. the theological method, the metaphysical, and the positive. Hence arise three philosophies, or general systems of conceptions, on the aggregate of phenomena, each of which excludes the others. The first is the necessary point of departure of the human understanding, and the third is its fixed and definite state. The second is merely a state of transition. […]” [Positive Philosophy, vol. i. c. 1.]

[p. 15] From this it will be observed that the belief in God has passed into the first or fictitious period of the human reason. Nevertheless, after the completion of his Philosophy, Comte perceived the necessity of a religion. Hence the Catechism of Positive Religion, which thus begins: “In the name of the Past and of the Future, the servants of Humanity—both its philosophical and practical servants—come forward to claim as their due the general direction of this world. Their object is, to constitute at length a real Providence in all departments, moral, intellectual, and material. Consequently they exclude, once for all, from political supremacy all the different servants of God—Catholic, Protestant, or Deist— as being at once behindhand and a cause of disturbance.” [Catechism of Positive Religion, Preface]

p. 16 But inasmuch as there can be no religion without worship, and no worship without a God, and inasmuch as there is no God, Comte had need to find or to create a Divinity. Now as there is no God, there can be no being higher than man, and no object of worship higher than mankind.

[p. 17] “[…] We are now able to condense the whole of our Positive conceptions in the one single idea of an immense and eternal Being, Humanity, destined by sociological laws to constant development under the preponderating influence of biological and cosmological necessities. This the real great Being, on whom all, whether individuals or societies, depend as the prime mover of their existence, becomes the centre of our affections. They rest on it by as spontaneous an impulse as do our thoughts and our actions. This Being, by its very idea, suggests at once the sacred formula of Positivism;-Love as our principle, Order as our basis, and Progress as our end. […]

[p. 18] “You must define Humanity as the whole of human beings, past, present, and future. The word whole points out clearly that you must not take in all men, but those only who are really capable of assimilation, in virtue of a real coöperation on their part in furthering the common good. All are necessarily born children of Humanity, but all do not become her servants. Many remain in the parasitic state, which, excusable during their education, becomes blamable when that education is complete. Times of anarchy bring forth in swarms such creatures, nay, even enable them to flourish, though they are, in sad truth, but burdens on the true Great Being.” [Catechism of Positive Religion, pp. 63, 74.]

It will be observed that both Pantheism and Positivism alike end in the deification of man; they are a boundless egotism and an apotheosis of human pride.

[p. 47] We have already seen that the third and special mark of Antichrist is the denial of the Incarnation

[p. 79] The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist, and of these prophecies of Daniel, without a single exception, as far as I know, and they are the Fathers both of the East and of the West, the Greek and the Latin Church—all of them unanimously,–say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the holy sacrifice of the altar will cease * [* Malvenda, lib. viii. c. 4, &c.]

Don Curzio Nitoglia’s comments on this theme, in his Introduction to AUGUSTIN LEHMANN – L’ANTICRISTO – L’uomo più fatale della storia, agree entirely with those of Cardinal Manning:

« St. Paul, in the II Epistle to the Thessalonians, says that the end of the world must be preceded by the Antichrist and that the Antichrist will be preceded in turn by general apostasy. It will be the defection of a large number of Christians caused by indifferentism or heresy or persecution or all these causes and altered together. St. Pius X, for example, in his encyclical E supremi apostolatus cathedra (1904) writes:

"When all this is considered [the general Loss of faith, ed.] there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity of minds may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of the 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)] (...) and in that place precisely which, according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has put himself in the place of God, (...) he has made the universe almost a temple unto itself to be worshiped" ». (p. 23)

«About the universality of apostasy, St. Robert Bellarmine states that it will be the Antichrist to complete it, so if this has not reached its summit, he will have time to reach it. St. Paul also says that after the defection and apostasy the man of sin will appear "in omni seductione iniquitatis"; which will therefore increase the apostasy and make it universal. But, we must ask ourselves, what is left that is missing now except for the advent of the Antichrist and the physical persecution? » (p. 24)

«. . . the Antichrist will claim to surpass the same God to be worshiped and to serve him only [...] (p.25) The history of philosophical thought, for example: In fact it is the continuation of two contraposed principles: on the one hand the personal and transcendent God who creates the world to make man participate in his Beatitude, and on the other Lucifer who wants to grasp his end without the help of God, with his only forces: this revolt was renewed in the earthly paradise, when the serpent said to Eve "Eritis sicut dii", and is renewed in the man who wants to become God with his natural forces (pantheism). »

« The realist and perennial philosophy of Aristotle and St. Thomas is the continuation of the first line, professing the adaptation of the intellect to the object and the dependence of the creature on the Creator. Gnosis follows the second, professing that the subject is to establish and create the object, and that man must create a new world – one that, unlike the present, would no longer sing out the dependence of the creature on the Creator - one in which man himself is God. Well: this false philosophy or Gnosis, which was the soul of Vatican II, penetrated inside the Church with the new theologians, whose principal representative is Teilhard de Chardin. It comes from Lucifer and leads to the Antichrist. Hence, we should not be surprised that John Paul II would write that "God is immanent to the world and vivifies it from within." All this had already been predicted by the Holy Scripture. »

«If we think of all this, the words of Paul VI to the UN cannot fail to reverberate with terror in our mind: " We more than anyone else have the cult of man ". The religion of the Second Vatican Council is the religion of man and prepares the way for the manifestation and the reign of the Antichrist who works in history, until he can triumph when the obstacle and the guardian are removed from the midst. The universal temple is under construction (Assisi 1986) and the Universal Republic also (thanks to the New World Order, to globalization to the nefarious power of USA and Israel). »

Bearing in mind these words of Don Nitoglia, “The religion of the Second Vatican Council is the religion of man and prepares the way for the manifestation and the reign of the Antichrist”; it can be seen that what was foretold in the prophecy of St. Francis quoted at the beginning of this work is being fulfilled at the present time:

“… there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man not canonically elected will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. […] except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion …”

The first clause, “there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity”, has been fulfilled in the half-century that followed Vatican II. It has been an unprecedented tribulation for the Church. In his article, La problematica della teologia contemporanea, Fr. Cornelio Fabro indicated that the present doctrinal crisis in the Church is the greatest she has suffered in all her history. Sr. Jeanne Sœur Jeanne de la Nativité (Jeanne le Royer, 1732 – 1798), renowned for her prophecies, foretold the same tribulation in greater detail: “O God! In what agitation do I see the Holy Church, when she will perceive, suddenly, the progress of these impious, their extent and the number of souls that they will have trained in their party! This heresy will extend so far that it will seem to envelop all countries and states. Never has any heresy been so fatal!” She elaborates: “[There will appear] the most deadly of heresies. Faith will undergo a new expansion: some religious orders will be reborn, in small numbers; others will be founded and their fervour will be great. Most of these orders will last until the time of the Antichrist, under whose reign all communities will suffer martyrdom, be crushed and destroyed.” She describes in some detail: “ The first assault she will have to sustain after the one that she now undergoes will come from the spirit of Satan who will stir up leagues and assemblies against her. There are also those who will hide in underground places to form their diabolical plans to attack the Church and abolish religion. They will show themselves in a device that will charm curious minds and men of little religion. By their stratagems, they will endeavour to insinuate in the minds, and to show to all that their ways are right and reasonable for the human mind. "The Holy Spirit who governs our Mother the Church will make known to her children that what wants to seduce them are the deceivers and enchanters. Then, the Church will decide by the light of the Holy Spirit that they are bad trees and saviours, that will produce only the bitter fruits and that it is necessary to cut and cut down quickly. ” … “Then, Satan's henchmen will hide in the shadows and make a lot of books appear that will do a lot of harm. Everything will happen in silence, wrapped in an inviolable secret.” … “ All this bad business will last a long time without appearing outside; all will pass in silence, and will be wrapped under an inviolable secret; like a fire which burns below, without noise and little by little, and which spreads without raising its flame, this evil will spread in a large space and in several countries , it will be all the more serious and dangerous for the Holy Church that she will not see so soon of these fires.” … “Some priests will see fumes from this cursed fire. They will rise up against those in whom they will notice singularities of devotion that will stand out from the good customs of the Church.” … “Before the Antichrist arrives, the world will be afflicted with bloody wars. Peoples will rise up against the peoples; the nations, sometimes united, sometimes divided, will fight for or against the same party. The armies will shock each other horribly and fill the earth with murder and bloodshed. These wars, internal and foreign, will cause enormous sacrileges, profanations, scandals, infinite evils. The rights of the Holy Church will be usurped; she will receive great afflictions.” … “His followers, in order to succeed, will first of all have great respect for the Gospel and Catholicity. There will be books on spirituality which will be written by them with a warmth of devotion, and will bring souls to a point of perfection which will seem to raise them to the third heaven. Therefore, there will be no doubt of the sanctity of their authors and partisans, who will be placed above the greatest saints, who, according to them, will have only begun to sketch virtue” … “I see yet in God that the people most likely to be deceived by the artifices of the devil or by the wiles of the wicked, will be those who, faltering in faith, will have in the heart only a dead faith, it is that is to say, without vigour and without activity, and who will also be indulged in the feelings of corrupt nature, a spirit of curiosity, an itch and a certain lust, anxious to know all that is happening in these beautiful novelties of religion. As I have already said, before the judgment, there will never have been so many deceptions under the colour of religion, so much devotion and sanctity in appearance and reputation; I see these hypocrites mounted on magnificence, and filled with pride and ostentation of Lucifer, make beautiful speeches, and attract to them all the vain souls of which I have spoken, and who have almost nothing Christian except the name.” “When the time of the reign of Antichrist is near, a false religion will appear which will be opposed to the unity of God and His Church. This will cause the greatest schism the world has ever known. Errors will cause ravages as never before. The nearer the time of the end, the more the darkness of Satan will spread on earth, the greater will be the number of the children of corruption, and the number of the just will correspondingly diminish...”

According to the prophecy of St. Francis, the leader of this great heresy that will immediately precede the reign of Antichrist will be a false pope; one who has been invalidly elected: « At the time of this tribulation a man not canonically elected will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. » Sr. Jeanne described him in these words, “I see that when the Second Coming of Christ approaches, a bad priest will do much harm to the Church...” This false pope and heretic, who will spearhead the revolt and lead the stampede into the great apostasy, is foretold in the third secret of Fatima. When I mentioned to Malachi Martin that my research into the secret of Fatima leads me to believe that the secret reveals tha there will be an antipope who will be a heretic, Malachi, who knew the secret from Cardinal Bea, replied to me, “Were it only that!”

The heresy of the false pope, and the false religion he and his Sect will eventually spawn, are foretold in these prophecies. They will attack the principal dogmas of the Catholic faith, and is foretold in some detail:

One day, a heresy will try to deny the reality of Our Lord's presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Some will deny the Divinity, others the humanity of Jesus Christ in the adorable Eucharist. Finally, the others will try to divide one from the other by separating the attributes which in the person of the Messiah become inseparable, any attribution or denomination being, in a sense, common to both natures. There will be a great number of faithful who will suffer martyrdom for the defense of the real Presence, for towards the end of the centuries this truth will be sharply attacked and victoriously defended.

At the approach of the reign of the Antichrist, that is to say towards the last times of the Church, a false and artificial people will attack the truths of the faith the most incontestable, even the attributes of Divinity. They will pretend that God has never left to the reprobates their free will only because he foresaw the abuse they must make of it, that consequently those who lose themselves do so without their fault; that at the same time God has removed free will from the elect, whom he has filled with privileges without any correspondence or merit on their part.

I see in God that from the moment they begin to announce themselves to the Church until the time when the Church will see it, it is a bad nation. I see in God that from the time they came out of their caves, until the time when the Church will recognize their malice, there will transpire a considerable time, maybe half a century, more or less, I can not not say it exactly. During all this time their diabolical profession and their pernicious hypocrisy, which will make them look like saints, will attract many souls after them; for in the beginning this heresy will have a magnificent and imposing air of goodness, and even of religion, which will be a seductive trap for many.

I see in God that all these satellites of the devil will no longer wish to suffer in the Holy Church, nor priest, nor sacrifice, nor altar, nor confession, nor communion, nor any sacrament. They will want to appear no sign of our holy religion, and they will not even be able to suffer a sign of the cross from good Christians. These impious ones will have altars and temples in which their priests will endeavor to imitate the mysteries, the ceremonies, and the sacrifice of religion, to which they will mingle many extravagant and superstitious circumstances by invoking, or rather desecrating, the holy name of God. They will counter the sacraments. First they will baptize in the name of the three Divine Persons, but soon they will change the order of the Persons, and then they will remove them, to replace them with some of their saints. Their hypocrisy will make them invent surprising austerities, and far superior to the Lent and Abstinence of the Church and to all the mortifications of the Saints. But all this will take place only in appearance, and to impose on the eyes of men. Their religion being founded only on the pleasures of the senses, they will despise inwardly the crucified life, the mortification, the suffering; and all that they will show outside will be reduced to tricks of strength, by which clever charlatans will compete to seduce the simple, and make dupes of their deceit; what will soon be manifested by the contempt they will publicly make of the faith and morals of the Gospel.

BERGOGLIO IS THE LEADER OF THE REVOLT

Jorge “Francis” Bergoglio has declared his intention to reform the Church (and is initiating those reforms) in such a manner that would transform the Church into the anti-church foretold in the secret of Fatima, as Pope John Paul II indicated – and under an apostate Vatican, as foretold by Pope Leo XIII.

Bergoglio is in the process of “reforming” the Catholic Church into a new heretical “church”, with a new religion: what Freemasonry calls "dogma free Christianity ". This is the long-term plan of Freemasonry to demolish Catholicism and replace it with a new, dogma-free religion (as Father Manfred Adler explained and documented in his book Die Antichristliche Revolution der Freimaurerei). When that reform is accomplished, (not if but when; Bergoglio says it will happen), then the visible break of the "Conciliar Church" from the true Catholic Church will be accomplished and consummated, as Pope Leo XIII foretold in the original version of his prayer to St. Michael:



« Behold the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, filled with bitterness and inebriated with gall by the most crafty enemies; who have laid impious hands on all that is most sacred. Where the See of the most blessed Peter and the Chair of the truth, was constituted as the light of the nations, there they have set up the throne of their abominable impiety, so that the shepherd being struck, the sheep may be dispersed. »

Thus, “where the See of the most blessed Peter and the Chair of the Truth was constituted as the light of the nations, there they [the Masonic Sankt Gallen Mafia] have raised the throne of their abominable impiety”. These words actually refer to Apostate Conciliar Rome, where the “throne of abominable impiety” will be (and already is), and under Bergoglio has been “raised up”, and is the visible entity that occupies the place “where the See of the most blessed Peter and the Chair of Truth" was "set up as the light of the nations”, as Cardinal Henry Edward Manning also explained more than 20 years earlier in his book, The Present Crisis of the Holy See. Basing his conclusion on the unanimous teaching of the ancient Fathers, Cardinal Manning wrote: "I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient Paganism. ...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 Church.” We can gather from credible prophecies when these things will take place. From the prophecy of La Salette we read, "The Church will be eclipsed. At first, we will not know which is the true pope. Then secondly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease to be offered in churches and houses; it will be such that, for a time, there will not be public services any more. But I see that the Holy Sacrifice has not really ceased: it will be offered in barns, in alcoves, in caves, and underground." There is uncertainty in the minds of many at present, (even of high-ranking prelates who express their doubts in private), as to which is the true pope. This situation in which we find ourselves at present will be succeeded by a return to such conditions as existed during the ancient Roman persecutions, and existed during the penal times after the Reformation in Britain and Ireland, when the practice of the Catholic religion became a capital offense. It will be ushered in by a heretical “pope” whose “reforms” will gain state recognition in the apostate nations as the established religion. It will begin with a morally unacceptable concession that will be demand of all the clergy. This has been foretold by Bl. Anna Katherine Emmerich: April 12, 1820 “I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps…”

As was the case during the Arian heresy, so now also, as Fr. Linus Clovis explained in May 2016: “The Catholic Church and the anti-church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space”. However, the "Conciliar Church" under Jorge Bergoglio is now in the actual process of breaking away formally from the true Church, while calling itself "Catholic", and excoriating the true Catholics as belonging to fringe groups of schismatics fanatically attached to the past. The actual breaking-away process was started by Bergoglio with Amoris Lætitia, and was eerily foretold by Sr. Lucia in her well-known letter to Cardinal Caffarra: “The final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family. Don’t be afraid … because anyone who operates for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be contended and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue … however, Our Lady has already crushed its head.”

BERGOGLIO IS A FAITHLESS APOSTATE







"This is the bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.”



These are the words of Fr. Bergoglio: "ALL THE DIVORCED WHO ASK [for Holy Communion] WILL BE ADMITTED." ( At the end of the synod, Bergoglio declared in yet another interview with Eugenio Scalfari:"This is the bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.”These are the words of Fr. Bergoglio: "ALL THE DIVORCED WHO ASK [for Holy Communion] WILL BE ADMITTED." ( http://fatima.org/perspectives/sd/perspective798.asp





"POPE" FRANCIS HAS OFFICIALLY APPROVED OF HOLY COMMUNION FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN ADULTERY:



"Pope" Francis approves the granting of sacraments to adulterers under certain circumstances:



"5) Cuando las circunstancias concretas de una pareja lo hagan factible, especialmente cuando ambos sean cristianos con un camino de fe, se puede proponer el empeño de vivir en continencia. Amoris laetitia no ignora las dificultades de esta opción (cf. nota 329) y deja abierta la posibilidad de acceder al sacramento de la Reconciliación cuando se falle en ese propósito (cf. nota 364, según la enseñanza de san Juan Pablo II al Cardenal W. Baum, del 22/03/1996).

6) En otras circunstancias más complejas, y cuando no se pudo obtener una declaración de nulidad, la opción mencionada puede no ser de hecho factible. No obstante, igualmente es posible un camino de discernimiento. Si se llega a reconocer que, en un caso concreto, hay limitaciones que atenúan la responsabilidad y la culpabilidad (cf. 301-302), particularmente cuando una persona considere que caería en una ulterior falta dañando a los hijos de la nueva unión, Amoris laetitia abre la posibilidad del acceso a los sacramentos de la Reconciliación y la Eucaristía (cf. notas 336 y 351). Estos a su vez disponen a la persona a seguir madurando y creciendo con la fuerza de la gracia.7) Pero hay que evitar entender esta posibilidad como un acceso irrestricto a los sacramentos . . . "

Bergoglio's explicit approval: "El escrito es muy bueno y explícita cabalmente el sentido del capitulo VIII de Amoris laetitia. No hay otras interpretaciones."

What is worse, as Emmett O’Regan observes, “this papal correspondence has now been raised to the level of the authentic Magisterium, and as such, requires obsequium religiosum - the submission of the will and intellect, in accordance with Lumen Gentium 25, CIC Can. 752 and CCC 892.” Well, it would theoretically require a religious assent if Jorge Bergoglio were really the pope of the Catholic Church, and if there could be found no positive doubt that there is error in the document. However, the doctrine approved by Francis is heresy – he is not the pope, but an antipope, who possesses no authentic magisterium.

What utter contempt for God's law. Bergoglio does not believe in Christ's doctrine on marriage – Jorge Bergoglio is an infidel – a faithless heretic who openly denies the most basic dogmas and moral teachings of the Church. He is not a member of the Catholic Church, nor its pope.

His recent statement claiming that monogamous cohabitation constitutes a valid marriage opposes the supernatural sacramentality of Holy Matrimony and manifests the anti-supernaturalism of the radical Naturalism of his belief system. If cohabitation were to be considered a valid marriage, then there would be no need for sacramental marriage, since the cohabitation would fulfil the law of God – which is heresy. Bergoglio's idea of marriage is rooted in Masonic naturalism — which is no surprise, because Bergoglio's religion is identical to the Masonic religion of Naturalism.

Francis is the closer of the ecclesial revolution begun by the Protestant Reformers. If the new changes in the Mass would be ordered by Rome, it would eventually become obvious that Protestant Rome is consummating the work of the 16th Century reformers. Bergoglio, by his Motu Proprio Magnum Principium, has now ordered the revolution to be carried out from below:

(Canon 383)

« §2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere. »

« §3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See. »

Thus, the last vestiges of Catholicism that Benedict XVI restored to the Conciliar liturgy must now give way to the radical Modernist liberal Protestantism of Gnostic, Neo-Pagan Rome, which is now being ushered in by His Humbleness, “Pope” Francis by means of this liturgical reform, will be carried out by the bishops' conferences. The actual engine that transformed Catholicism into Protestantism in England (and Germany, etc.), as Hillaire Belloc explained, was the liturgical reform that mutated the Catholic Mass into Cranmer's (Protestant) Masse or Lord's Supper, with its Protestant lex orandi reflecting the new lex credendi of the Reformation. A nearly identical reform of the liturgy was inaugurated by Pope Paul VI, with his Ordo Missæ (1967) and Missale Romanum (1969). The Novus Ordo liturgy of Paul VI does not instruct the faithful in the truths of the faith, because it was constructed in the same manner as the heretical services of the Reformers, who, as J. P. M. van der Ploeg OP explains, adapted, “existing Catholic rites, but removed from them everything which was not compatible with the particular heresies they favoured.” The pattern of adaptation of the traditional rite in the making of the Novus Ordo has been shown to be substantially identical to that employed by Thomas Cranmer in the making of the Protestant Masse or Lord’s Sup per of 1549. Cranmer’s purpose for modifying the liturgy was doctrinal, as Belloc explains: “... to get rid of the Mass was the soul of the whole affair, because he hated it, especially ... its central doctrine ... the Real Presence of God upon the altar. ... But it would be impossible to effect so complete a revolution at one blow ... it had to be done in two stages ... The first new service in the place of the Mass must be of a kind that men might mistake for something like a continuance of the Mass in another form. When that pretence had done its work and the measure of popular resistance taken, they could proceed to the second step and produce a final Service Book in which no trace of the old sanctities should remain.”

The Conciliar reformed liturgy of Paul VI, (i.e. the "Lord's Supper or Mass" constructed by Annibale Bugnini), was the preliminary transitional liturgy – the "reformed liturgy" of the "reformed Church". It is not just I, but even the Modernist adherents of the heretical ‘Conciliar Church’ refer to it as a “reformed church”. Father Richard P. McBrien, in The Catholic Transcript of June 21, 1996, wrote: “Opposition to this reformed liturgy and to the communal environment in which it occurs is, at root, opposition to the reformed church”. It was this transitional liturgy of the transitional "Conciliar Church", or as Cardinal Ratzinger called it, "the Church of the Present", which set the stage for the consummation of consummation of the work of the sixteenth century Reformers which is at present being carried out by Bergoglian Rome.

The Conciliar Church is not a renewed Catholic Church, but rather it is a Reformed Church — a Church that has, by means of a reformed liturgy, undergone a transformistic evolution – a metamorphosis that has paved the way for the fulfillment of the Sixteenth Century Reformers’ dream: Protestant Rome. Father Hubert Jedin, one of the premier historians of the modern era, already pointed out in 1968, that a new Protestant Reformation is taking place in the Church: «We know that today the inner process of schism, the formation of a “Confession” (denomination), lasted not years, but decades. Melanchton and Calvin claimed to be “Catholic” until the end of their lives while the adherents of the old faith were calumniated as “Papists.” The faithful long clung to the Mass and their saints, and the church regulations introduced by Lutheran magistrates took over many Catholic customs — even processions and pilgrimages. The bulk of the simple faithful never under stood that the “Reformation” was not a reform of the Church but the construction of a new Church set up on a different basis. In retrospect one must therefore maintain: the schism of the Church succeeded by nothing so much as by the illusion that it did not exist. The illusion was widespread in Rome and in the German episcopate, among many theologians, among the majority of clergymen and among the people. The parallels between now and then are obvious. ... The Church’s present crisis ... is in its inner most essence, as in the 16th Century, a matter of uncertainty and disorientation in the Faith. »

Being transitional, the Conciliar Church is a “church” in transition towards something in the future – what Ratzinger termed, the «Church of the Future"; and he said we cannot really imagine what that future church will be like: “[T]he end of all ecumenical effort is to attain the true unity of the Church … For the moment, I wouldn’t dare venture to suggest any concrete realisation, possible or imaginable, of this future Church … We are at an intermediate stage of unity in diversity. » The “unity in diversity” which Cardinal Ratzinger described in terms of existing in relation between separate denominations and the Catholic Church, cannot ever exist within the unity of the one Church founded by Christ, because that Church possesses perfect unity in the rulership of the Church by Christ through the governance of Christ’s vicar on earth, the Roman Pontiff; in the one Catholic faith contained in the deposit of revelation, taught infallibly by the pope and the bishops in communion with him; and in the true worship of God consisting in the Church’s sacraments and pre-eminently in the sacrifice of the New Covenant instituted by Christ, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Pope Benedict XVI does not intend for the Church the heretical unity in diversity of the interfaith communion envisaged by the Bergoglian reform. In the magisterium of Benedict, one reads:

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

Further on in the same document, concerning the Protestant churches:

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

Like Cardinal Ratzinger, whose own words manifest that he could not foresee the catastrophe that Ecumenism would unleash; John Paul II also did not comprehend how ecumenism would destroy the Catholic faith down to its foundations, as Pius XI stated in Mortalium Animos. In Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II explains that the Ecumenism adopted by the Second Vatican Council is the Ecumenism that had its origin in the Protestant sects: “At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following t