Excerpt from The have uncrowned Him, Angelus Press

Obviously, the Church will one day judge this council and these popes. How will Paul VI, in particular, fare? Some call him heretic, schismatic, and apostate; others believe themselves to have proved that he could not have acted for the good of the Church, and that therefore he was not in fact pope - the theory held by Sedevacantists. I do not deny that these opinions have some arguments in their favor. Perhaps, you will say, in 30 years secrets will have been revealed, or elements that should have been obvious to contemporary observers will stand out, statements made by this pope in complete contradiction to the traditions of the Church, etc. Perhaps. But I do not believe that such hypotheses are necessary; in fact, I think it would be a mistake to espouse them.

Others think, simplistically, that there were two popes: one, the true pope, imprisoned in the cellars of the Vatican, and the other, an imposter, his double, seated on the throne of Peter, working for the destruction of the Church. Books have been published about the two popes, based on the ‘revelations’ of a possessed person and on supposedly scientific arguments that state, for instance, that the double’s voice is not the same as that of the real Paul VI…!



The real solution seems entirely different to me, much more complex, more difficult, and more painful.  It is given us by a friend of Paul VI, Cardinal Danielou. In his Memoirs, published by a member of his family, the cardinal clearly states, “It is clear that Paul VI is a liberal Pope.”

Such is the solution that seems the most historically likely, because this pope was himself a fruit of liberalism. His whole life was permeated with the influence of the men he chose to surround him or to rule him, and they were liberals.

Paul VI did not hide his liberal leanings; at the Council, the men he chose as moderators to replace the presidents appointed by John XXIII, were Cardinal Agagianian, a cardinal of colorless personality from the Curia, and Cardinals Lercaro, Suenens and Dopfner, all three liberals and the pope’s friends. The presidents were sidelined at the head table, and these three liberals directed the conciliar debates. In the same way, Paul VI supported the liberal faction that opposed the tradition of the Church throughout the entire Council. This is a recognized fact. Paul VI repeated – I quoted it to you - the exact words of Lammenais at the end of the Council: “L’Eglise ne demande que la liberte” – the Church only seeks freedom - a doctrine condemned by Gregory XVI and Pius IX.

Paul VI was undeniably very strongly influenced by liberalism. This explains the historic evolution experienced by the Church over the last few decades, and it describes Paul VI’s personal behavior very well. The liberal, as I have told you, is a man who lives in constant contradiction. He states the principles, and does the opposite; he is perpetually incoherent.


Here are a few examples of the thesis-antithesis conundrums that Paul VI loved to present as so many insoluble problems, mirroring his anxious and conflicted mind. The encyclical Ecclesiam suam, (August 6, 1964), provides an illustration:

If, as We said, the Church realizes what is God’s will in its regard, it will gain for itself a great store of energy, and in addition will conceive the need for pouring out this energy in the service of all men. It will have a clear awareness of a mission received from God, of a message to be spread far and wide. Here lies the source of our evangelical duty, our mandate to teach all nations, and our apostolic endeavor to strive for the eternal salvation of all men. (…) The very nature of the gifts which Christ has given the Church demands that they be extended to others and shared with others. This must be obvious from the words: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations,” Christ’s final command to His apostles. The word apostle implies a mission from which there is no escaping.

That is the thesis, and the antithesis follows immediately:

To this internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity, We will apply the word ‘dialogue.’ The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make.

And finally he attempts a synthesis, which only reinforces the antithesis:

Before we can convert the world - as the very condition of converting the world - we must approach it and speak to it.[1]


Of greater gravity are the words with which Paul VI suppressed Latin in the liturgy after the Council, and they are even more characteristic of his liberal psychology. After restating all the advantages of Latin: a sacred language, an unchanging language, a universal language, he calls, in the name of adaptation, for the “sacrifice” of Latin, admitting at the same time that it will be a great loss for the Church. Here are his very words, reported by Louis Salleron in his book La nouvelle messe [The New Mass] (Nouvelles Editions Latines, 2nd ed., 1976, p. 83)

On March 7, 1965, he said to the faithful gathered in St. Peter’s square,

It is a sacrifice that the Church makes in renouncing Latin, a sacred language, beautiful, expressive, and elegant. The Church sacrifices centuries of tradition and unity of language in the name of an ever-growing desire for universality.

The ‘sacrifice’ of which he spoke became a reality with the Instruction Tres abhinc annos (May 4, 1967) which established the use of the vernacular for reciting the Canon of the Mass aloud.

This ‘sacrifice,’ in Paul VI’s mind, seems to have been final. He explained it once again on November 26, 1969, when he presented the new rite of the Mass:

The principal language of the Mass will no longer be Latin, but the vernacular. For anyone familiar with the beauty and power of Latin, its aptness for expression of the sacred, it will certainly be a great sacrifice to see it replaced by the vernacular. We are losing the language of centuries of Christianity, we become as intruders, reduced to the profane in the literary domain of expressing the sacred. We lose, too, the greater part of the admirable, incomparable wealth of art and spirituality contained in Gregorian chant. It is with good reason, then, that we experience regret and even distress.

Everything therefore should have dissuaded Paul VI from imposing this ‘sacrifice’ and persuaded him to maintain the use of Latin. On the contrary, deriving a singularly masochistic pleasure from his ‘distress,’ he chose to act against the principles he had just set forth, and decreed the ‘sacrifice’ in the name of promoting understanding of prayer, a specious argument that was only a modernist pretext.

Never has liturgical Latin been an obstacle to the conversion of infidels or to their education as Christians. Quite the opposite: the simple peoples of Africa and Asia loved Gregorian chant and the one sacred language, the sign of their affiliation to Catholicism. And experience shows that where Latin was not imposed by missionaries of the Latin Church, there the seeds of future schism were planted.

Paul VI followed these remarks with this contradictory pronouncement:

The solution seems banal and prosaic, but it is good, because it is human and apostolic. The understanding of prayer is more precious than the dilapidated silks in which it has been royally clad.  More precious is the participation of the people, the people of today who want us to speak clearly, intelligibly, in words that can be translated into their secular tongue. If the noble Latin language cuts us off from children, from youth, from the world of work and business, if it is an opaque screen instead of a transparent crystal, would we fishers of men do well to maintain its exclusive use in the language of prayer and religion?

Alas, what mental confusion. Who prevents me from praying in my own tongue? But liturgical prayer is not private prayer; it is the prayer of the whole Church.  Moreover, another lamentable lack of distinction is present: the liturgy is not a teaching addressed to the faithful, but the worship the Christian people address to God. Catechism is one thing, and the liturgy is another. The point is not that we “speak clearly” to the people assembled in the church, but rather that these people may praise God in the most beautiful, most sacred, and most solemn manner possible. “Praying to God with beauty” was St. Pius X’s liturgical maxim. How right he was!


You see, the liberal mind is conflicted and confused, anguished and contradictory. Such a mind was Paul VI’s. Louis Salleron explained it very well when he described Paul VI’s physical countenance, saying “he was two-faced.” Not duplicitous—this word expresses a malicious intent to deceive which was not present in Paul VI. No, he had a double personality, and the contrast between the sides of face expressed this: traditionalist in words, then modernist in action; Catholic in his premises and principles, and then progressive in his conclusions; not condemning what he should have, and then condemning what he ought to have preserved.

This psychological weakness afforded an ideal opportunity for the enemies of the Church. While maintaining a Catholic face (or half-face, if you like) he contradicted tradition without hesitation, he encouraged change, baptized mutation and progress, and followed the lead of the enemies of the Church, who egged him on.

Did not the Izvestia, official newspaper of the Communist Soviet party, demand from Paul VI my condemnation and that of Econe in the name of Vatican II? And the Italian Communist paper L’Unita followed suit after the sermon I gave in Lille on August 29, 1976; furious because of my attack on Communism, they devoted an entire page to their demand. “Be aware,” they wrote, addressing Paul VI, “be aware of the danger Lefebvre represents, and continue the magnificent approach initiated through the ecumenism of Vatican II.” With friends like these, who needs enemies? This is a sad illustration of a rule we have already established: liberalism leads from compromise to treason.


The psychology of a liberal pope is easy enough to imagine, but difficult to bear! Indeed, such a leader—be it Paul VI or John Paul II—puts us in a very delicate position.

In practice, our attitude must base itself on a preliminary distinction, made necessary by the extraordinary circumstances of a pope won over by liberalism.  This is the distinction we must make: when the pope says something in keeping with tradition, we follow him; when he opposes the Faith, or encourages opposition of the Faith, or allows something to be done that attacks the Faith, then we cannot follow him. The fundamental reason for this is that the Church, the pope, and the hierarchy must serve the Faith. They do not make the Faith, they must serve it. The Faith cannot be made; it is immutable, and must be transmitted.

This is why papal teachings intended to validate actions opposed to tradition cannot be followed. In following, we would participate in the self-destruction of the Church, in the destruction of our Faith.

It is clear that what is unceasingly demanded of us—complete submission to the pope, complete submission to the Council, acceptance of the entire liturgical reform—is in opposition to tradition, in the sense that the pope, the Council and the reforms lead us far from tradition, as the facts show more overwhelmingly every year. Therefore, to demand these things is to require us to participate in the downfall of the Faith. Impossible! The martyrs died to defend the Faith; we have the example of Christians imprisoned, tortured, sent to concentration camps for the Faith. One grain of incense offered to an idol, and their lives would have been safe. I was advised once, “Sign, sign saying you accept everything, and then you can continue as before!” No! One does not play games with the Faith.

Footnote

1 English translation taken from the Vatican’s website

Sylvester was a Roman by birth, and his father's name was Rufinus.  He was brought up from a very early age under a Priest named Cyrinus, of whose teaching and example he was a diligent learner.  During the fury of the persecutions, Sylvester hid himself upon Mount Soracte.  In his thirtieth year he was ordained Priest of the Holy Roman Church by Pope Marcellinus.  In the discharge of his duties he became a model for all the clergy, and, after the death of Melchiades, he succeeded him on the Papal throne, during the reign of Constantine, who had already by public decree proclaimed peace to the Church of Christ.  Hardly had he undertaken the government of the Church when he betook himself to stir up the Emperor to protect and propagate the religion of Christ.  Constantine was fresh from his victory over his enemy Maxentius, on the Eve whereof the sign of the Cross had been revealed to him limned in light upon the sky; and there was an old story in the Church of Rome that it was Sylvester who caused him to recognise the images of the Apostles, administered to him holy Baptism, and cleansed him from the leprosy of misbelief.

The godly Emperor had already granted to Christ's faithful people permission to build public churches, and by the advice of Sylvester he himself set them the example.  He built many Basilicas, and magnificently adorned them with holy images, and gifted them with gifts and endowments.  Among these there were, besides others, the Church of Christ the Saviour, hard by the Lateran Palace; that of St. Peter, upon the Vatican Mount; that of St. Paul, upon the Ostian Way; that of St. Lawrence in Agro Verano; that of the Holy Cross in Atro Sessoriano; that of St. Peter and St. Marcellinus, upon the Labican Way; and that of St. Agnes, upon the Nomentan Way.  Under this Pope was held the first Council of Nice, presided over by the Papal Legates, and in the Presence of Constantine, and three hundred and eighteen Bishops, where the holy and Catholick Faith was declared, and Arius and his followers condemned; which Council was finally confirmed by the Pope, at the request of all the assembled Fathers, in a synod held at Rome, where Arius was again condemned.  This Pope issued many useful ordinances for the Church of God.  He reserved to Bishops the right of consecrating the Holy Chrism; ordered Priests to anoint with Chrism the heads of the newly baptized; settled the offíciating dress of Deacons as a dalmatic and linen maniple; and forbade the consecration of the Sacrament of the Altar on anything but a linen corporal.

This Sylvester is likewise said to have ordained that all persons taking Holy Orders should remain a while in each grade  before being promoted to a higher; that laymen should not go to law against the clergy; and that the clergy themselves were not to plead before civil tribunals.  He decreed that the first and seventh days of the week should be called respectively the Lord's Day and the Sabbath, and the others, Second Day, Third Day, and so on.  In this he confirmed the use of the word Feria for the weekdays, the which use had already begun in the Church.  This word signifieth an holiday, and pointeth to the duty of the clergy ever to lay aside all worldly labour, and leave themselves free to do continually the work of the Lord.  The heavenly wisdom with which he ruled the Church of God, was joined in him to a singular holiness of life, and an inexhaustible tenderness towards the poor; in which matter he ordained that the wealthy clergy should each relieve a certain number of needy persons; and he also made arrangements for supplying the consecrated virgins with the necessaries of life.  He lived as Pope twenty-one years, ten months and one day, and was buried in the cemetery of Priscilla on the Salarian Way.  He held seven ordinations in the month of December, and made forty-two priests, twenty-five deacons, and sixty-five bishops of various sees.

When the cruel edicts of Diocletian and Maximin Hercules were published against the Christians in the year 303, it required more than ordinary force in the bishops and clergy, to encourage the people to undergo martyrdom rather than apostatize. All were forbidden even to draw water or grind wheat, if they would not first incense idols placed for that purpose in the markets and on street corners.

Saint Sabinus, Bishop of Spoleto, with Marcellus and Exuperantius, his deacons, and several other members of his clergy who were worthy of their sacred mandate, were apprehended in Assisi for revolt and thrown into prison by Venustianus, Governor of Etruria and Umbria. He summoned them before him a few days later and required that they adore his idol of Jupiter, richly adorned with gold. The holy bishop took up the idol and threw it down, breaking it in pieces. The prefect, furious, had his hands cut off and his deacons tortured on the rack and burnt with torches until they expired.

Saint Sabinus was put back into prison for a time. He was aided there by a Christian widow of rank, who brought her blind nephew to him there to be cured. Fifteen prisoners who witnessed this splendid miracle were converted to the Faith. The prefect left the bishop in peace for a month, because he himself was suffering from a painful eye ailment. He heard of the miracle and came to the bishop in prison with his wife and two sons, to ask him for help in his affliction. Saint Sabinus answered that if Venustianus would believe in Jesus Christ and be baptized with his wife and children, he would obtain that grace for him. The officer consented, they were baptized, and he threw into the river the pieces of his broken statue. Soon all the new converts gave their lives for having confessed the Gospel, sentenced by Lucius, whom Maximus Hercules sent to Spoleto after hearing of their decision, to judge and condemn them.

As for Saint Sabinus, he was beaten so cruelly that on December 7, 303, he expired under the blows. The charitable widow, Serena, after seeing to his honorable burial near the city, was also crowned with martyrdom. A basilica was later built at the site of the bishop's tomb, and a number of monasteries in Italy were consecrated under his illustrious name.

At that time: The shepherds said one to another: Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.  And they came with haste.


Sermon by St. Ambrose the Bishop

The shepherds came with haste.  So must every one put away sloth who would earnestly seek Christ.  The shepherds believed the Angel.  Wilt not thou believe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; Angels, Prophets, and Apostles?  Here also remark how carefully every word in the Scripture is chosen.  They come with haste, it saith, to see the Word which is come to pass.  Truly it was a word, the very Word of God himself.  Whosoever saw the Lord's Flesh, saw the Word, that is, God the Son.

Because the shepherds were men of little rank, belittle not the example of their faith.  Verily, though poor in learning, they were rich in faith.  The Lord seeketh not for schools crowded with wise men, but for a people with simplicity of heart, such as do not seek to disguise what they learn, by concealing it under vain and superfluous adornments.  He will have straightforwardness rather than vainglory.

And belittle not the shepherds' words.  For the shepherds strengthened the faith even of Mary.  The shepherds also led God's people to his worship.  For we read: All they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.  But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.  Let us learn the modesty of the Holy Virgin, even that modesty of speech as of body, whereby she pondered in her heart the evidences of her faith.

On December 29, the Catholic Church remembers St. Thomas Becket, the other Thomas who was martyred for the Catholic Faith in England by a king named Henry over matters of Church governance.

Thomas was born in London on the 21st of December in either 1117 or 1118 to Gilbert Becket and Matilda Roheise. His parents were buried in Old St. Paul's Cathedral. When Thomas was 10 he learned to read at the Merton Priory in England and then traveled to the Mainland for further studies of canon and civil law in Paris, Bologna, and Auxerre.

After his studies were concluded he returned to England around 1141 where he gained the attention of Theobold, Archbishop of Canterbury, who sent him on several missions to Rome and ordained him a deacon in 1154. Soon after this, he was named Archdeacon of Canterbury. About this same time King Stephen died, leaving Henry the II as the new king. At Archbishop Theobold's urging, King Henry named Thomas the Lord High Chancellor of England. Thomas and King Henry were close friends and both spent a good deal of time “living it up.”

Thomas was so zealous in carrying out his duties as chancellor that many of the English clergy distrusted him.

When Archbishop Theobold died in 1161, King Henry thought that naming Thomas the new Archbishop of Canterbury would solidify his position as sole head of England; something that had long been opposed by Archbishop Theobold.

Thomas warned the King that if he were to become the Archbishop, he would fulfill his duty as zealously for the Church as he had as chancellor for England. The King insisted, even obtaining a dispensation from the Pope for Thomas to hold both positions. In 1162 Thomas was named Archbishop of Canterbury and immediately the conflicts that he had warned King Henry about began.

He resigned as Chancellor, excommunicated one of the nobles, and successfully opposed a new land tax by the king. Within two years, Thomas fled to France in exile after more fighting with the king over the Constitutions of Clarendon which were an attempt by the king to define clearly the various spheres of authority between church and state.

King Louis VII of France welcomed Thomas and let him stay at the Cistercian Abbey of Pontigny for two years until threats by King Henry forced him to move. During this time, Thomas was in constant contact with Pope Alexander III who sympathized but wanted to try a more diplomatic approach to resolving the crisis than Thomas wanted.

In 1166 the pope granted Thomas permission to take what measures he saw fit to try to bring the matter to a close. Thomas immediately excommunicated several of the king's councilors. In 1167 the pope appointed arbiters to try to resolve the authority disputes peacefully, but Thomas refused to compromise. In 1169 Thomas excommunicated two bishops loyal to King Henry. In 1170 King Henry had himself crowned king by the Archbishop of York and the pope threatened to excommunicate all of Britain unless the king agreed to work out a compromise with Thomas.

Thomas returned to England in November of 1170 and immediately declared the Constitutions of Clarendon null and void. Henry, in a rage, said “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” or similar words. Four of his knights, Reginald Fitzurse, Hugh de Moreville, William de Tracy, and Richard le Breton, took this as a clear command from the king and murdered Thomas during vespers in Canterbury Cathedral on December 29, 1170.

Thomas Becket was canonized in 1173. On July 12, 1174, in an attempt to calm a revolt, King Henry II did public penance at Thomas' tomb.

In 1538, three years after having St. Thomas More beheaded for opposing the rule of the Catholic Church by the king, King Henry VIII had the shrine of St. Thomas Becket destroyed in an act of vengeance. He also had Thomas' relics destroyed and any mention of his name obliterated.

Here are some excerpts from the section on Chapter 12


v. 1: "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

"Quote from: Fr. Kramer, pp. 276-7
The woman of chapter twelve is not the Blessed Virgin Mary.
…
According to the ancient Fathers, the human nature or character of the Church is here delineated, while in chapters four and five her divine nature and prerogatives were depicted.
…
The twelve stars represent the twelve apostles; or they may be God’s mystical number symbolizing the Christian nations, that as a contrast to the ten crowned horns of the beast, shall be the glory of the Church when the days of Antichrist approach.
…
The moon under her feet has ever been understood to symbolize the unchanging and unchangeable character of the Church.

v. 2: "And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.

"Quote from: Fr. Kramer, p. 278In that travail, she gives birth to some definite “per­son” who is to RULE the Church with a rod of iron (verse 5). It then points to a conflict waged within the Church to elect one who was to “rule all nations” in the manner clearly stated. In accord with the text this is unmistakably a PAPAL ELECTION, for only Christ and His Vicar have the divine right to rule ALL NATIONS. Furthermore, the Church does not travail in anguish at EVERY papal election which can be held without trouble or danger. But at this time the great powers may take a menacing attitude to hinder the election of the logical and expected candidate by threats of a general apostasy, assassination or imprisonment of this candidate if elected. This would suppose an extremely hostile mind in the governments of Europe towards the Church and would cause intense anguish to the Church, because an extended interregnum in the papacy is always disastrous and more so in a time of universal persecution. If Satan would contrive to hinder a papal election, the Church would suffer great travail.

v. 3: "And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems:

"Quote from: Fr. Kramer, pg. 279
This red dragon it is that brings the Church into great distress at that time.
…
No fiercer enemy of God and man has appeared in Christian times than Communism, and strange to say, RED is its emblematic color. Communism may by that time have gained control of the governments of Europe, It would then erect almost insurmountable difficulties for the holding of a conclave to elect a pope.
…
Satan knows how exten­sively an interregnum in the papacy would favor his success in recovering his ancient lordship over the world. (See 2 Thess II. 7 ["For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way."]).

Card. Manning's 1862 argument for why the Antichrist will be within the Catholic Church is simple:

Quote from: Card. Manning
We have here [2 Thessalonians 2:3-11] a prophecy … of a [spiritual*] revolt, which shall precede the second coming of our Lord … The authority, then, from which the revolt is to take place is that of the kingdom of God on earth, prophesied by Daniel [cf. Daniel 2] as the kingdom which the God of heaven should set up … in other words, the one and universal Church, founded by our Divine Lord, and spread by His Apostles throughout the world. In this one only kingdom was deposited the true and supernatural pure theism, or knowledge of God, and the true and only faith of God incarnate, with the doctrines and laws of grace. This, then, is the authority from which the revolt is to be made, be that revolt what it may.
[*"St. Jerome, with some others, interprets this revolt to be the rebellion of the nations or provinces against the Roman Empire. … They have revolted, and no manifestation has appeared." Thus, the revolt is spiritual, not temporal.]{Lect. 1 of Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ's 2nd part (4 lectures), "The Perpetual Conflict of the Vicar of Christ", pp. 81-173}

v. 4: "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son.

"Quote from: Fr. Kramer, p. 284

Some eminent cardinal may be particularly outstanding in his efforts to stem the tide of demoralization of bishops and priests. Satan will know, and the world-powers will know, that he is the likely choice for the papacy, and that if elected, he will convoke a general council and exercise his supreme jurisdiction to inaugurate measures of reform. Satan knows that his own hopes of a rich harvest of souls will then be dashed to the ground.  Hence he must avert the election or have the pope assassinated when elected. The judgment is about to begin “at the house of God” (1 Peter IV. 17). The influence of the dragon will every­ where aim to subject the Church to the state. This persecution is thus a political subjugation, and one third of the bishops and priests will be ripe for apostasy. Satan’s intention is to subject the newly-elected pope also to the purposes of the World-powers or to plot his death. He may contrive an assurance of safety and immunity from harm for the cardinals to convene for the election the more easily to take the pope-elect prisoner. The dragon will want to intimidate the new pope into non-interference—to let affairs run and develop as heretofore. In that way would he “devour the son”, absorb the papacy and alone direct and rule the world.

v. 5: "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne."

Quote from: Fr. Kramer, p. 285-6
A general council may decree the reforms, but the pope must enforce them. These decrees will be the “seven thunders” mentioned in chapter ten.
…
The clause, “that he might devour her son”, does not necessarily mean assassination. The dragon is a symbolic form of the evil world-powers, who will resent the existence of a spiritual empire among them and through them and independent of them in its essential functions and will attempt to subject this empire to their will and service. They will try to make the Church a “state church” everywhere. This is possible only if they can subject the pope to their wills and compel him to teach and rule as they direct. That would be literally devouring the papacy.  Since they are defeated in this, they have the pope assassinated and “he is taken up to God and to His throne”, just as Christ by His death “was taken away from distress” (Is. LIII. 8).
…
this “son” will hardly have time to purify the Church, before he is persecuted, imprisoned and martyred. He is therefore surely not Christ.
…
This pope will be given the power to rule over the destiny of the Church immediately from Heaven. He carries out the will of God and loses his life in consequence; and immediately as part of his reward, he receives in Heaven patronage over the Church on earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lúcia herself is reported to have explicitly stated that the Third Secret contains apocalyptic content. According to one source, when Lúcia was asked about the Third Secret, she said it was "in the Gospels and in the Apocalypse", and at one point she had even specified Apocalypse chapters 8 to 13, a range that includes Apocalypse 12:4, the chapter and verse cited by Pope John Paul II in his homily in Fátima on 13 May 2000.
Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite (1990). The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume III. Buffalo, New York CityA. p. 533.

The Lesson is taken from a Sermon by St. Augustine the Bishop


Dearly beloved, today we keep the birth of these children, who, as we are informed by the Gospel were put to death by cruel King Herod.  Therefore let earth rejoice with exceeding joy, for she is the fruitful mother of this great host of heavenly soldiers.  The favour of vile Herod could never have done such service to these blessed ones as hath his hatred.  For the Church testifieth by this holy solemnity, that whereas iniquity did specially abound against these little Saints, so much the more were heavenly blessings poured out upon them.

Blessed art thou, O Bethlehem in the land of Judah, which hath suffered the cruelty of King Herod in the slaughter of thy children.  For thou wast found worthy to offer to God, and that all at one time, an entire white-robed army of guileless Martyrs.  Surely we do well to keep this day whereon they were borne from earth into heaven, which is so much more blessed to them than the day that brought them out of their mother's womb.  Scarcely had they entered on the life that now is, than they obtained that glorious life which is to come.

We esteem as precious the death of those Martyrs who have deserved praise for the confession which they made during their lifetime; but these little Martyrs delight us by their death-time alone.  Scarcely had life dawned upon them, when the very destruction which brought it to a close became for them the beginning of glory.  They, whom the wickedness of Herod tore from their mothers' breasts, are rightly called the Flowers of the Martyrs.  Hardly had these early buds of the Church pushed above the ground in the winter of unbelief, than the frost of persecution destroyed them.

BILLOT II

It is not only by the names of the seven Churches of Asia (cf. “Comments”# ) but also by the contents of the seven Letters addressed to them (Apoc. II and III) that Cardinal Billot establishes the connection between the Letters and seven main periods of Church history. Especially interesting in this respect is the Letter to the church of Sardis (Apoc. III, 1-6) which would correspond to our own Age, the fifth, the Age of Apostasy. After evoking the wealth, luxury and material prosperity associated with Croesus, famous ruler of Sardis, Billot writes:--

“As one might expect, this church seems to be in a state of spiritual decline. Apostasy and falling away are on all sides, but while the majority of souls abandon religion, there are a few who remain faithful to Christ. The angel says, ‘Thou hast a few names in Sardis which have not defiled their garments.’ But: ‘Thou hast the name of being alive: and thou art dead !’ The name (but not the reality) of life, knowledge, freedom, civilization, progress; and thou art dead, sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, because the light of life, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ, has been rejected. Hence the bishop of Sardis is told, ‘Be watchful and strengthen the things that remain, which are ready to die.’ And he is above all recommended to cleave unfailingly to all the traditions of the holy Apostles, without in the least way departing from the meaning they held for the Church Fathers, with the excuse or under the appearance of a deeper understanding: ‘Have in mind therefore what thou hast received and heard: and observe, and do penance.’ So much for the Fifth Age. But what follows is a little morerejoicing.”And theCardinal goes on to the Sixth and Seventh Ages.

Readers who have never read the first six verses of Apocalypse III in connection with our own times should be interested to do so. The connection is remarkable, and not co-incidental.

It is remarkable because “Strengthen the things that remain, which are ready to die” corresponds exactly to the Counter-reformation saving Catholicism from Protestantism, to the anti-liberal Popes saving what remained of the Church from the French Revolution, to Archbishop Lefebvre (and others) rescuing Tradition from Vatican II, and now to a Resistance battling to save what can be saved from his Society collapsing into liberalism. Surely Catholics may take heart from this perspective, that their long and seemingly hopeless rearguard action comes from a distant past and does fit into an ultimately triumphant future. That is why we were given the book of the Apocalypse.

Nor is the connection co-incidental. Our Lord promised his Apostles (Jn. XVI, 12-14) that his Spirit, the Holy Ghost, would be with them and with their successors down the ages to reveal to them what they would only then need to know. It was only when the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was ravaging Germany that the Venerable Holzhauser was given his understanding of the Seven Ages hidden within the Letters to the seven churches of Asia. Similarly it was only when the Russian Revolution was just about to break out that we needed Our Lady to assure us at Fatima that in the end her Immaculate Heart would triumph. True, the Church is right now being eclipsed (see on the Internet the film-clips of the public Mass celebrated recently in Brazil by the churchman in white), but there is still no need or justification for us to become liberals.

Kyrie eleison.

The Lesson is taken from the Book on Ecclesiastical writers, written by St. Jerome the Priest

The Apostle John, whom Jesus loved, was a son of Zebedee, and the brother of that James the Apostle who was beheaded by Herod soon after our Lord suffered.  He was the last of the Evangelists to write his Gospel, which he published at the request of the Bishops of Asia against Cerinthus and other heretics, and particularly against the then spreading doctrine of the Ebionites, who asserted that Christ had had no existence before Mary.  It was therefore needful for the Evangelist to declare his eternal and divine generation.

In the fourteenth year of Domitian, whilst this same was stirring up the second persecution after that of Nero, John was exiled to the Island of Patmos where he wrote his Apocalypse, whereon commentaries have been composed by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.  When Domitian was killed, the Senate annulled all his acts on account of their excessive severity, and the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Nerva.  There he remained until the time of Trajan, and founded and governed all the churches of Asia.  There also in an extreme old age, he died, in the sixty-eighth year after the Lord's passion, and was buried near the same city of Ephesus.

At that time: Jesus saith unto Peter: Follow me.  Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following.

Sermon by St. Augustine the Bishop


The Church knoweth of two different lives which God hath revealed and blessed.  One is the life of faith, the other the life of knowledge.  One is the life of this pilgrimage, the other the life of the eternal mansions.  One is the life of labour, the other the life of rest.  In one we are on the journey, in the other we are in our own home.  One continueth the toil of action, the other continueth in the recompense of contemplation.  The one escheweth evil and doeth good; the other hath no evil to eschew, but rather an exceeding good to enjoy.  The one striveth with the enemy, the other hath no enemies, and reigneth.

The one succoureth the needy; the other is where there be none to succour.  The one must needs forgive trespasses that its own may be forgiven; the other neither hath trespasses to forgive nor to be forgiven.  The one is straitened by adversity lest it be swollen in the pride of its good things; the other is enlarged by grace so that it may embrace the Highest Good, wherein it hath no temptation to pride.

Wherefore the one is good but still sorrowful; the other is better and blissful.  And of these two lives there are types, of the one in the Apostle Peter, of the other in the Apostle John.  The one laboureth here even unto the end, and findeth its end hereafter.  The other stretcheth out into the hereafter, and in eternity findeth no end.  Wherefore is it said unto the one: Follow me.  But of the other: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.  What is the meaning of these words?  Who can know?  As far as I can understand them, it is this: Follow thou me, O Peter, by the imitation of my example in the bearing of earthly sorrow; do thou, O John, tarry patiently till I come for thee again, bringing the everlasting reward.

Sermon by St. Fulgentius the Bishop

Yesterday we were celebrating the Birth in time of our eternal King.  Today we celebrate the triumphant suffering of one of his soldiers.  Yesterday our King, clothed in the robe of our flesh, was pleased to come forth from his royal palace of the Virgin's womb to visit the world.  Today his soldier, laying aside the tabernacle of the body, entereth in triumph into the palace of heaven.  The One, preserving unchanged that majesty of the Godhead which he had before the world was, girded himself with the lowliness of our flesh in the form of a servant, and entered the battlefield of this world.  The other, putting off the corruptible garment of our flesh, entered into the heavenly mansion, there to reign for ever.  The One cometh down, and is veiled in the flesh of his human birth.  The other goeth up, and is robed with a glory which is red with the blood of his temporal death.

The One cometh down amid the jubilation of Angels.  The other goeth up amid the stoning of Jewry.  Yesterday the holy Angels rejoiced in the song: Glory to God in the highest.  Today they rejoice in the welcome whereby they do receive Stephen into their company.  Yesterday the Lord came forth from the Virgin's womb.  Today his soldier is delivered from the prison of the body.  Yesterday Christ was for our sakes wrapped in swaddling bands.  Today he girdeth Stephen with a robe of immortality.  Yesterday the new-born Christ lay in a narrow manger.  Today Stephen entereth victorious into the boundless heavens.  The Lord came down, one and alone, that he might raise many up.  Our King descended to our low estate that he might set his soldiers, such as Stephen, in high places.

Now let us consider, brethren, by what arms Stephen conquered the hatred and persecution of Jewry in such wise as to win so blessed a triumph.  Verily he had no arms or armour other than charity.  Love it was that armed him in that struggle, and strengthened him to conquer on all sides, and brought him to the crown whereof his name is a prophecy.  The love of God strengthened him against the hatred of Jewry.  The love of his neighbour made him pray even for his murderers.  Through love he rebuked them, in their perversities that they might be corrected.  Through love he prayed for them that stoned him that they might not be punished.  By the might of his charity he overcame Saul, his cruel persecutor, and earned, as a comrade in heaven, the very man who had done him to death upon earth.