The New Mass is the Abomination of Desolation –
and the Four Vatican II Antipopes parallel the Four False High
Priests at the time of the Abomination of Desolation in the Machabees
By Bro.
Michael Dimond, O.S.B.,
Bro. Peter Dimond,
O.S.B. and an Anonymous Biblical Scholar
Introductory
Note: This article was originally
published 5 years ago in Issue #2 of our magazine, A Voice Crying the Wilderness. (We have edited it slightly for the
internet and added numerous things). Recent
developments, including John Paul II recently being struck so that he could not
speak a word or give order concerning the Vatican, and then dying almost
immediately after this event in great torment, have proven that our original
article paralleling the Four False High Priests at the time of the Abomination
of Desolation in the Machabees with the Four Vatican II Antipopes was accurate
and correct.*
1
Machabees 9:55- "At that time Alcimus was struck: and his works were
hindered, and his mouth was stopped, and
he was taken with a palsy, so that
he could no more speak a word, nor give order concerning his house. And Alcimus died at that time in great
torment.”
John Paul II was struck so that he could not speak a word and then died
in great torment, just like Alcimus
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR, April
5, 2005: “… The pope's doctor gave an interview to an Italian newspaper. In that
interview he said, quote, "The pope passed away slowly, with pain and
suffering which he endured with great human dignity." And then the doctor added that for the
last couple of days, the pope was in fact unable to speak at all.”
In Visible
Pain and Unable to Speak,John Paul II Gives Easter Blessing in Silence
Internal Vatican sources have
also confirmed that John Paul II actually died on April 1, not April 2; but
that John Paul II’s death on April 1 “could not be announced because considerable work had to be done to make
the body (the face in particular) presentable due to the agony” of John
Paul II’s “final sufferings.” (Remnant report.)
This is more striking confirmation of the amazing parallels between the
four false High Priests of the Machabees and the four Vatican II Antipopes.
[NOTE:
Interesting new quote on Lysimachus. To
go to it click on the above table and go seven paragraphs up.]
Recently [in 1999], a Biblical Scholar
visited Most Holy Family Monastery. He
shared with us some of the insights and discoveries that he has made over the
past 30 years. This article is a
collection of what is, in our opinion, some of his most interesting
information. Much of what is contained
in this article is the fruit of his over 30 years of study. However, out of respect for his request, he
will remain anonymous.
In the New Testament Our Lord Jesus, in
response to the very explicit question “Tell us, when shall these things be?
and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (Matt.
24:3), gives very explicit answers, contained in what are referred to as the
eschatological discourses. Now we hold
that some of the forms of our sacraments were given by Christ to the apostles
generally, and others “in specie.” In
the same way, it is possible that the signs Jesus enumerates are “general,” but
it is also possible that one or more of the “signs” are absolutely “specific”
in nature.
One of the signs is in Matt 24:15, with
the parallel passage in Mark 13:14, “When you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, which was
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth,
let him understand” is deserving of extreme scrutiny.
Firstly, several conclusions are inescapable:
1. Christ is confirming and certifying Daniel as
an authentic prophet.
2. Christ is telling one, if one thinks one is
in the last days, to read canonical Daniel which for the Catholic includes what
the Protestants exclude and refer to as the “additions to Daniel.”
3. The “the abomination of desolation” (whatever
that is for the moment), is an end time sign, and capable of being seen, and it
will stand in the “Holy Place” (for the moment, wherever that is.)
4. Unless we take Our Lord’s statement as
unnecessary, the abomination of desolation is a defined thing; otherwise you
would have Jesus telling us to look for something that we can’t find. Therefore, what precisely we are to look for,
the “abomination of desolation,” must absolutely be knowable, or if it were
not, the statement would minimally be unnecessary. And that can’t be the case. In the divine economy, God would not possibly
tell us to watch or look for something that we can’t find.
5. The nativity stories of Matthew and Luke each
relate facts and events that are not in evidence in the others Gospel. In the same way it would be a mistake
to take Christ’s statement “spoken of by Daniel the prophet” as a limiting one;
i.e., that the only statements in Sacred Scripture relating to or
permitting us to identify the “abomination of desolation” are contained in
Daniel.
6. It is
known that the term “abomination of desolation” appears in 1 and 2 Machabees,
which are in the Catholic Bible. It
is known, and has always been held by the Fathers, that Daniel who was carried
away in the deportations that preceded Jerusalem’s fall to the Babylonians c.
585 B.C., prophesied the “abomination of desolation” that occurred during the
apostasy of the Jews and their hierarchy that began in reality with the
ascension to the throne of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 175 B.C., and which is
recorded in the books of the Machabees.
While the command of Christ to read Daniel is explicit, I would state that in light of the foregoing
it is implicit that Christ is admonishing us to read the Machabees for the
selfsame reasons we are told to read Daniel.
7. It is inescapable from the previous statement
that Christ is telling us that Daniel prophesied at least two time periods that
would contain the “abomination of desolation”: one at the time of the
Machabees; and one in the very last days.
I say at least two because there are those that argue that there was a
third (by no means certain) at the time of the 1st Jewish revolt 66 A.D.- 73
A.D.; but that time is not reported in Sacred Scripture whereas the other, the
Machabees, is recorded in Scripture.
8. The next statement relates to “he that
readeth, let him understand”(Mark 13:12; Matt 24:15). What does Christ mean by this?
Our
statements in this regard can’t be as certain as those that have preceded
them. The super majority opinion of
Catholic exegetes (those who interpret scripture) over time would, I think, be
described as follows:
Christ
is telling the reader to look for a hidden fulfillment or replication of the
1st time of the “abomination of desolation.”
The end time “abomination” will not replicate exactly the prior one in
every respect, but will so substantially resemble the first one as to be
recognizable to those who are looking with eyes of FAITH.
9. The 1st “abomination of desolation” comes in
a certain context described among other places in 1 and 2 Machabees; but it is
also described by Josephus, whose works contain extensive material on the time
of the Machabees. It would be a mistake
to take Jesus’ statement to read Daniel (explicit), and Machabees (implicit) as
limited to reading the material only for references to what the “abomination of
desolation” is, rather than the entirety of events, persons, etc. that describe
the context of the 1st abomination, in order to recognize the 2nd at the time
of the end.
10. As to the “standing in the Holy Place” or the
parallel passage in Mark, “standing where it ought not,” we will hold this for
later. But I think the answer will be self evident.
As for the period of the Machabees
(implicit), I would recommend to the reader that he read 1 and 2 Machabees,
together with all the footnotes in the Challoner Douay-Rheims Bible, 1 and 2 Machabees
in the Jerusalem and/or the New Jerusalem Bible together with all the notes,
the commentary on the Machabees in the Jerome Biblical Commentary, the two
volumes on the Machabees in the Anchor Bible series. Drawing on that material I think I can make
the following statements:
The
“Abomination of Desolation” is an OBJECT: a 2nd altar ERECTED “upon” (1
Macc 1:57) and “over against” (1
Macc 1:62) the altar of God, in the
Jewish temple, as an integral part of a false and idolatrous worship form introduced in substitution of the true sacrifice, at a general time of
apostasy of Jewry from their received faith.
From the adjectives “UPON” and “OVER
AGAINST” that are used to describe the placement of the idolatrous 2nd altar,
in relation to the true altar, we can discern several things: the
shape of the true altar could not simply be horizontal, i.e., a “slab” because
then the 2nd altar would have simply been placed “UPON” the original. The words “OVER AGAINST” are the scriptural
way of describing two objects being brought in proximity vertically to one
another. Simply put, the “shape” of the
1st altar (the true altar) must have been such that the false altar could be
said to be placed both “UPON” (horizontal) and “OVER AGAINST” (in proximity to,
on a vertical basis) the original altar.
See
the picture below for an illustration.
Some
modern texts do not capture or translate the words “upon” and “over against”
properly. In this case we believe that
Bishop Challoner (whose translation of the Douay-Rheims Bible is used by most
English-speaking Catholics) has correctly translated St. Jerome’s supra “upon” and his contra “over against.”
One possible example of the cross
sectional shape of the true 1st altar would be a capital “L.” If one
erected a free standing “TABLE” on the horizontal line of the capital “L” (the
original altar) the table could correctly be said to be “UPON” the original
altar and also “OVER AGAINST” the original altar, because the original altar
has a “VERTICAL” aspect (the vertical line of the capital “L”) which the
“TABLE’S” (second altar) vertical aspect is in proximity to.
To carry the analogy a bit further, the
typical cross-sectional pre-conciliar Roman Rite altar could be described as
the original capital “L” of our example, with a few further modifications: the bottom horizontal line of the “L” is very
long and we add to the top of the vertical line of the “L” a horizontal “CAP”
or line. Why so? The horizontal “CAP” of the vertical line of
the capital “L” is the area on which rests (rested) the tabernacle, and on
which the priest offered the unbloody sacrifice, and the vertical line of the
“L” is the leading vertical edge of that part of the “ALTAR.” But where does the long horizontal line of the
capital “L” come from?
In the Roman Rite, the “altar rail”
separates the altar from the rest of the Church. When you step on the other side of the altar
rail, you are literally on the altar.
The “iconostasis” (icon screen separating altar from main body of
church) in the Oriental rites of the Church is functionally performing exactly
the same function in the “EAST” as the altar rail did in the “WEST,” that is,
separating the altar from the rest of the Church. Further proof that the area between the altar
rail and vertical leading edge of the “altar” is also the “altar”: when someone comes to the rectory inquiring
over the whereabouts of Father “X”, some of us reply, “he’s on the altar”! Now is he standing on the horizontal plane on
which the tabernacle rests? Obviously
not. But nonetheless, we say “he’s on
the altar” because he is in fact standing in the aforementioned area set apart
by the altar rail.
Now,
if as part of a new cult and worship form you erect a “table” (read 2nd altar)
between the vertical edge of the original altar and the altar rail, for the 1st
and only time in Catholic history, you will have replicated the abomination of
desolation in the Machabees; for the Table in the Novus Ordo is directly
“upon” (1 Macc 1:57) the true Roman Rite altar because it sits on top of the
horizontal plane of the altar, and “over against” (1 Macc 1:62) the true Roman
Rite altar because the table stands in proximity to the vertical aspect of the
altar.
Returning
to the Machabees: we are told that the time period of the persecution and
apostasy began with the commencement of the reign of Antiochus “in the year
137” (1 Macc 1:11). We know from
Babylonian archival material that Antiochus began to reign “in the sixth month”
of the Seleucid year 137. The
persecution period ended with the death of Simon, the last of five sons (the
Machabees) of the priest of Modin, “in the 11th month of the year 177” (1 Macc
16:14). So the period of persecution
lasted some 40 years and five months. It
is worthy of note, I think, to mention at this point, that Christ in the
eschatological discourse says: “This
generation will not pass away.....” A
biblical generation is known to be reckoned as being 40 years long. Anyone familiar with the existing material
(which material is clearly pre-Christian) of the Essene sect of the Jews knows
that the material speaks constantly of the last battle in the history of the
world being 40 years long.
In a prophecy about the last days, Saint Bridget of Sweden, known to have the
prophetic charism, states that the last battle in the history of the world will
be forty years long. Further, she makes the
following incredible prophesy:
“In
the year 1980 the wicked will
prevail. They will sacrilegiously
profane and defile the churches by erecting in them altars to idols and to
Anti-Christ, whom they will worship and attempt to force others to do the same.”
[1]
I wonder what that could be? Whatever it is, it is now in our past.
(Idolatry includes any worship of God that is inauthentic.) Of note is the fact that my “Catholic” Almanac
reports that the “Apostolic Constitution” on the Novus Ordo Missae was signed
by Paul VI on April 3, 1969 (which was Passover in that year) and that the Novus Ordo was made mandatory
in its final form on December 1st, 1974.
Now our current reckoning has a strange anomaly; there is no year
-0-. We proceed directly and immediately
from December 31st, 1 B.C. to January 1st, 1 A.D. This is to say that B.C. events are 1 year
less removed from us than the sum total of the two integers. The majority opinion on the year of Christ’s
birth is that it occurred 2 to 3 years prior to Herod the Great’s death. Herod’s death date is one of the most certain
in all of antiquity, owing to Josephus who states that it took place in the
36th year of Herod’s reign, contemporaneously (at the same time) with a lunar
eclipse visible from Jerusalem, which event was followed closely by a
Passover. The date of that eclipse and
Herod’s death is Tuesday March 13th 4 B.C. at about 1:28 A.M. (Julian
Calendar). Further, the triple
conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces in 7 B.C. is
understood by the majority of the scholarly community to meet Matthew’s account
of the “star” of Bethlehem. This would place the 1980th anniversary of
the NATIVITY in our year 1974 A.D.
Interesting....minimally for some of us who still have regard for
private revelation.
For those into detail, the evidence is
that “Dennis the little” who is responsible for giving us our present year
reckoning, intended to make year 1 of the Christian era the first full year
following the year that saw the event of the Nativity of Christ. If the year 7 B.C. was the year that indeed
contained the event of the Nativity, 6 B.C. would be the year that Dennis
intended (although he didn’t accomplish it) to be year 1, and December 31st
1974 would be the end of the year of Christ 1980. There are some versions of the aforementioned
prophecy of Saint Bridget that start, “In the year of Christ 1980...” as though
Saint Bridget were drawing a distinction between the true year 1980 and our
year 1980, which are not the same.
But, returning to the period of the
Machabees, the Jews become tired of being set apart and desire to be like the
pagans around them. While having
religious liberty from their pagan overlords, they willingly forfeit that
liberty and ask to be made a pagan city complete with idolatrous worship. We are
talking about what is called religious syncretism. “Jews themselves were in the forefront of the
syncretism.” “They changed their
constitution which constituted an abandonment of their covenant with
Yahweh.” “The Holy of Holies ceased
being a CENTRAL part of Jewish worship.” The Holy of Holies, by the way, was known to
be associated with the Divine presence, known as the Shekinah, which Divine
presence was almost sacramental in
nature. Similarly, our tabernacles,
which contained the Divine presence in a sacramental manner, were, in the
post-Vatican II period, removed from
their central locations on our altars.
In many cases they were moved to the side, and some were even placed in
the sacristy.
“At no time in Jewish history were
women involved in Jewish liturgical practices except at the time of the
‘Abomination of Desolation’; and
then they were all over the altar” (commentary on 2 Mac. 6:4).
“…And
women thrust themselves of their own accord into the holy places, and
brought in things that were not lawful.
The altar was also filled with unlawful things, which were forbidden by
the laws. And neither were…the solemn
days of the fathers observed…” (2 Mac 6:4)
The renegade or apostate Jews fortified
and occupied the City of David in Jerusalem which they made their citadel, or
ACRA. “The City of David at the time of
the Machabees was known to occupy THE LARGE WESTERN HILL.” Because this is a central point, I would
refer the reader to confirm this for himself in either the Jerusalem or the New
Jerusalem Bible, both of which contain footnotes on the city of David.
“The
district called at that time the City of David occupied Jerusalem’s western
hill.” [2]
The adjective “Large” for the western hill
appears in the more extensive commentaries on the subject.
Now the Fathers held that the possibility
exists that the fact that there are various texts of some of the books of the
Bible may indeed be a product of Divine providence. The book of Daniel comes down to us in two
forms, the Greek and Masoretic or Hebrew.
They are not identical. The
Masoretic text of Daniel 9:27 has a critical difference between that of the
Greek. It states that the “Abomination of Desolation” will be on a “wing of
the temple.”
“And
on the wing of the Temple will be
the disastrous abomination” (Dan.
9:27, Jerusalem Bible; also see the note on this verse in the Haydock Bible).
Now, St. Hilary, doctor of the Church,
discourses on 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 and the Antichrist. He states that the “Temple of God” (2
Thessalonians 2:4) is clearly the Church.
But what about the “WING”? Could it be that the “Abomination of
Desolation,” which will be seen in the Church, will only be in a portion of the
Church, the “New Jerusalem”, and if so what portion?
The word “WING” was used by the ancients
in much the same way as we use it: the west WING of a hospital, for
example. Only one scriptural citation is
necessary to prove the point: “....and
the right WING of his army with them” (1 Machabees 9:1).
Now the renegade and apostate Jews made the
City of David, which occupied the LARGE WESTERN HILL in Jerusalem, their
Citadel.
Isn’t it interesting that the New
Mass, which has a table, a 2nd altar as an integral part of its worship, is
only present in the Roman Rite, which is the
large western portion (fully 98%) of Catholicism, as distinct from the
Eastern or Oriental WING, which still uses its old sacramental forms, including
the MASS, and no new 2nd altar!
Four False
High Priests, Four False Popes?
What about the Jewish Hierarchy at the
time of the Machabees? Onius III is the
last apparent and VALID high priest at the time of the apostasy. He is succeeded by his brother, Jason, who procures the office of the
High Priesthood by fraud (2 Macc 4:6-8), and who begins the religious syncretism (2 Macc 4:9-13). He is known, according to the author
of the two volume series on the Machabees (Anchor
Bible), as the equivalent of “King Johnny.” He also introduces the wearing of the
“broad brimmed petasos” (a hat). The
author of 2 Machabees (remember inspiration and inerrancy) says that Jason was
“an impious wretch and no priest” (2 Macc 4:13). Jason is followed by Menelaus who also
acquires the High Priesthood by fraud (2 Macc 4:23-25). Moreover, Menelaus introduces the “imposed cult,” a false sacrifice, with the
assistance of the secular arm King
Antiochus, who enforces the false sacrifice.
Therefore, the second false High
Priest of the four, Menelaus, imposes the false sacrifice. Menelaus is succeeded by his brother, Lysimachus, who reigns very briefly and
dies a violent death: “and as for the sacrilegious fellow, they slew him beside
the treasury” (2 Macc 4:42). Some
translations say: “they slew him over
the treasury.”
Warren H. Carroll, The Founding of Christendom, p. 236: “He sent his brother Lysimachus to take
enough treasury from the Temple in Jerusalem to make up what was lacking, and
the people of Jerusalem rose up and killed Lysimachus.” (Christendom
Press, 1985)
Anyone who has read the book In God’s Name by David Yallop (on the
death of John Paul I) knows that the entire book on the death of John Paul I is
about the Vatican treasury. The author
presents a compelling case that John Paul I, the third Vatican II Antipope, was
killed precisely because he may have
wanted to give away money from the Vatican treasury which caused a great
problem for certain individuals. The
parallel to Lysicmachus (the third false high priest at the time of the
Abomination of Desolation in the Machabees) is startling.
After Lysimachus’ death, Menelaus resumes
his “priesthood,” but is ultimately slain (2 Macc 13:7). He is said to be a “sacrilegious wretch,” a
“transgressor of the law” (2 Macc 13:6-7).
“He had committed many sins against the Altar of God” (2 Macc
13:8).
The last of these four false High Priests
is Alcimus, who in some respects
is the most dangerous of the lot because his act is the best. He obtains the appointment as reported in 2
Macc 14:3-4; but he had “willfully
defiled himself in the time of the mingling with the heathens, seeing that
there was no safety for him, nor access to the altar” (2 Macc 14:3). Bishop Challoner, who is famous for his
scriptural notes, states that Alcimus,
“for his apostasy here mentioned, was incapable of the High Priesthood....as Menelaus
had been before him....yet neither of them was truly High Priest....mingling
with heathens, that is, in their idolatrous worship” (2 Macc. 14:3,
Douay-Rheims note).
Alcimus is an apostate, one of the
renegade Jews. “And there came to him
the wicked and ungodly men of Israel: and Alcimus was at the head of them, who
desired to be made high priest” (1 Macc 7:5).
He is at the HEAD of the wicked and ungodly of Israel, and procures the
office from the hand of DEMETRIUS, an office which he cannot hold because of
his apostasy. I said that he was the
best act of the lot. The author of the Anchor Bible Series reports that he has
the people of Israel so “conned,” that he is referred to by them as “Alcimus
the Pious.”
It is not my intention to write a
commentary on the Machabees, but merely to point out certain parallels with our
own age. The syncretism begins with the election of Angelo Roncalli, who takes
the name John XXIII. He reports, after
his election, and with sarcasm, that his file has been marked “suspected
modernist,” as though this were a big joke.
Pope Saint Pius X calls Modernism “The Synthesis of All Heresies.” In the magazine, 30 Days, several years ago, the head of the Italian Freemasons
proclaimed that John XXIII was one of their number, an active member! The Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy
stated: “As for that, it seems that John
XXIII was initiated (into a Masonic Lodge) in Paris and participated in the
work of the Istanbul Workshops.” [3] I have also seen a sworn affidavit of one of
Cardinal Roncalli’s (John XXIII’s) French Government body guards, assigned to
protect him during the years when he was in France in an official Vatican
capacity. He swears that he escorted
Roncalli to the Masonic Lodge with great frequency. Now I ask, how does someone who is outside
the community (membership in Freemasonry is the subject of automatic major
excommunication) HEAD THE COMMUNITY?
This is a contradiction in terms.
It
may be mere coincidence, but just as Jason (1st false High Priest in the
Machabees), nicknamed “King Johnny” (from commentary on Anchor Bible series)
introduced the wearing of the broad brimmed hat, does anyone remember John
XXIII and the “sombrero” hat he started wearing?
The Periods of the Abomination of
Desolation
1st Abomination
2nd
Abomination
Jason
– False High Priest #1
John XXIII – False Pope #1
|
Introduces
the wearing of a “broad-brimmed petasos” |
Frequently
seen wearing a broad-brimmed hat |
|
The
Apostasy and the Syncretism explode during his reign |
The
Apostasy and the Syncretism explode during his reign starting with Vatican II |
|
Nicknamed
“King Johnny” |
Named
John |
|
Acquires
the High Priesthood by Fraud |
Dubious
Election (see Siri article), Anti-Catholic ideas and Membership in
Freemasonry made his Election a Fraud |
Menelaus
– False High Priest #2
Paul VI – False Pope #2
|
Acquires
the High Priesthood by Fraud |
Acquires
the High Priesthood by Fraud (discussed in Siri article) |
|
Second
False High Priest of Four |
Second
“Pope” of Four who are Apostates |
|
Imposes
the Abomination of Desolation, a false sacrifice, an integral part of which
is a second altar “upon and over against” (1 Mac. 1:57,62) the altar of God |
Imposes
the Abomination of Desolation, which is the New Mass, an integral part of
which is a table or second altar “upon and over against” the Roman Rite
altar, the altar of God |
Lysimachus
– False High Priest #3
John Paul I – False Pope #3
|
Reigns
Very Briefly and is murdered over the treasury (2 Mac. 4:42) |
Reigns
for 33 days and, according to many, is murdered over the Vatican Bank |
|
Is
the Third False High Priest of Four |
Is
the Third “Pope” of the Apostasy |
Alcimus
– False High Priest #4
John Paul II – False Pope #4
|
The
last of the False High Priests |
The Fourth of the Apostate “Popes” |
|
Convinces
almost everyone that he is “Pious” |
Convinces
almost everyone that he is “Mary’s Pope” |
|
The
most dangerous of the lot |
The
most deceptive and charismatic of the lot |
|
Mingles
with the heathens (2 Mac. 14:3) |
Mingles
with every false religion on earth |
|
Struck
with a palsy so that his mouth was stopped and he could not speak or give
order concerning his house (1 Mac. 9:55) And
then dies at that time in great torment. (1 Mac. 9:56.) |
Has
been struck with a shaking palsy and is basically unable to speak or give
order concerning the Vatican Died
in great torment shortly after being struck so that could not speak a word |
"At
that time Alcimus was struck: and his works were hindered, and his mouth was stopped, and he was taken with a palsy, so that he
could no more speak a word, nor give order concerning his house. And Alcimus died at that time in great
torment." (1 Machabees 9:55)
The
Abomination Occupies the Western Wing
|
The
Apostate Jews and the Abomination of Desolation occupied the “Large Western
Wing” of the City |
The
Abomination of Desolation occupies the Large Western Wing of the Church, the
Roman Rite; as opposed to the Eastern Rites, which don’t have the Novus Ordo |
In the first abomination, starting with
Jason, none of these men were true High Priests (2 Macc. 4:13). They obtained the office by fraud and/or were
incapable of the High Priesthood due to their apostasy (2 Macc. 14:3,
Douay-Rheims note). Similarly, the four
“popes” of the current apostasy obtained their office by fraud and are
incapable of the High Priesthood (pontificate) due to their public heresy
(Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law).
They are Antipopes. It is
interesting to note that Pope Boniface II, in 531, refers to Popes as “high
priests of the Apostolic See.” (Denz. 200b)
In the same scriptural note (2 Macc.
14:3), Challoner explains how the true High Priesthood lay with the
Machabees: “...the true high priesthood was amongst the Machabees, who were also of
the stock of Aaron, and had strictly held their religion, and were ordained
according to the rites commanded in the laws of Moses.” The Machabees held strictly to the
traditional faith, and ordained men according to the Traditional Rite.
Likewise, in our day, the true Priesthood
exists in those who hold fast to the religion that has been delivered to them,
and ordain and consecrate according to the Traditional Rite. Those who have retained the traditional
rituals, but yet do not retain the traditional faith or are associated with the
abominable Vatican II/New Order Church, do not possess the true faith.
Marie Julie Jahenny, the famous Briton
stigmatist, heard Satan say to Christ, “For
a time I will be Master of all things, everything will be under my control,
even your temple and all your people.”
A few further excerpts from Marie, “and will continue implacably to
obtain the cessation of Holy Mass...” On
March 29, 1879: “the abandoned Church will be without its Supreme Head who governs and
directs it.”
On May 10, 1904, Marie Julie Jahenny was
told: “I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are
now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of
the enemy of souls, a Mass that
contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the Faith
of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be
celebrated, in the second period. The
first period is the one of my priesthood, existing since me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of the
holy religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of my holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the
abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them
are those who will accept it.” On the
say day she was told: “the dispersion of the pastors...who will be replaced by others, formed by hell,
initiated in all vices, all iniquities, perfidious,....new preachers of new
sacraments, new temples....”
The
New Mass is without question the Abomination of Desolation predicted by Our
Lord as one of the primary signs of the end of the world.
ALL THE WORLD IS
MADE MAD WITH THE WINE
OF THE WRATH OF
HER FORNICATION
The whore of Babylon sits on seven
hills. Every major exegete states that
it is ROME, “the great city” of the Apocalypse.
“In
the Apocalypse, Babylon is used figuratively for Rome, a city of idolatrous
cults, dissolute vices and political oppression.”[4]
Saint
Peter himself, writing in his first epistle, refers to Rome by its code name,
Babylon.
“The
Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth
my son Mark.” (1 Peter 5:13)
Saint Peter is writing from Rome, yet he
calls it Babylon. He does this to
identify what Ecclesiastical Rome will become at the time of the end, a whore –
who has abandoned the faith of Christ, and fornicated with false gods and
idolatrous worship, just as the true Church of the Old Testament was called a
“whore” for partaking in inauthentic worship.
(The true Catholic Church, in Her official teaching, remains immaculate,
and will remain immaculate forever, for it is the one and only true Church, the
Church established by Jesus Christ. It
is the Vatican II sect that is a whore.)
Moreover, fornication in Sacred Scripture is used almost exclusively for
spiritual fornication: the chasing after false gods, idolatrous worship. Now
the part of the consecration that has been changed in a false and heretical
manner is the WINE portion of the consecration. The New Mass has changed the words of Jesus
Christ in the consecration of the wine from:
“This
is the Chalice of My Blood, of the New and Eternal Testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed
for you and for many unto the remission of sins”
into…
“This
is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament: which shall be shed for you and for all so
that sins may be forgiven”
However,
because one cannot consecrate one species without the other (Saint Thomas
Aquinas), the inauthentic wine portion invalidates both species. It is not an accident that the Apocalypse, in
speaking of the whore of Babylon, states repeatedly, “all the world is made mad with the WINE of the wrath of her
fornication.”
Apocalypse 18:3-
"Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with
her."
Apocalypse 14:8-
"And another angel followed, saying That great Babylon is fallen, is
fallen; which made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication."
Apocalypse 16:19-
"And great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give her the cup
of the wine of the indignation of His wrath."
Apocalypse 17:1-2
"Come, I will shew thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth
upon many waters. With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication; and
they who inhabit the earth, have been made drunk with the wine of her
whoredom."
The Vatican II Church has committed
spiritual fornication, typified by the inauthentic worship that characterizes
the sacrilegious and false New Mass.
Moreover, the heads of the Vatican II Church have prayed and mingled
with every false creed on the face of the planet; and, as a result, they commit
the very sin that is most offensive to God and a violation of the first
commandment. It was in order to avoid
this sin that (approximately) the first 30 popes suffered cruel
martyrdoms. It was in order to avoid
this sin that heroic young girls, like Saint Philomena, endured the most
hideous of tortures and millions of Christians were hung and beheaded – the sin
of praying with false religions and paying homage to false gods. As a result of this spiritual fornication
(e.g., false ecumenism), the Vatican II Church is guilty of the blood of the
saints. Read the word of God about the
whore of Babylon:
“And
in her was found the blood of the prophets and of saints, and of all that were
slain upon the earth.” (Apoc. 18:24)
To the extent that Rome loses the faith, and
hence by definition allies herself or indeed becomes the enemy of the true
Church, it becomes guilty of the blood of the very prophets and saints of the
true Church of all time. Just as Our
Lord was placed in the hands of His enemies during His Passion, Our Lords
allows the buildings and infrastructure of His Church to be placed in the hands
of its enemies during its passion.
On June 30, 1968, the Vatican II sect
adopts a new ritual for ordaining priests, as well as a new manner of
consecrating bishops, “The fullness of orders.”
The new manner is essentially and materially an Anglican ritual, which
ritual (the Anglican ritual) was declared by Pope Leo XIII, to not confect the
Sacrament of Orders. I am reminded of
the “Testimony of Moses” which contains the following line: “in the last days there will be slaves about
my altar who are not true priests but slaves.....” We have seen the fruits of their fraudulent
“Orders”: pedophiles, homosexuals, and
lecherous men, among other things.
Does
prophecy give the exact date of the New Mass?
Before we bring forward the evidence that
the prophet Daniel does give the date of the New Mass, which is the Abomination
of Desolation and the cessation of the continual sacrifice, we must answer an
objection which will arise in regard to this matter.
There are those who say that the true
understanding of the tribulation’s duration is that it is 7 years (or 1/2
that), and that the cessation will occur in the “midst of the week” “the middle
of the week” or the “half of the week” and last for 1260 days or 3 and 1/2
years.
And since the New Mass was decreed on
Passover April 3, 1969, by Paul VI in the Apostolic Constitution on the New
Mass, it has been with us more than 30 years, and therefore, it couldn’t be the
“cessation” of the Mass and the “abomination of desolation” (according to
them).
Is there evidence that the period of the
cessation would last longer? Yes, the
1260 day references in the Apocalypse are understood by many exegetes as
symbolic of any period of persecution, that is, they are not necessarily
literal.
The
Jerusalem Bible, Revelation 11:3, footnote c.- “This period (three-and-a-half
years) taken from Daniel, had become the
symbol for any persecution, cf. Lk 4:25; Jm 5:17. Here it is the Roman persecution.” [5]
Daniel
gives the date of the New Mass
Christ
and the Mass are inextricably linked.
And the prophet Daniel’s prophecy is bound up with the “going forth” of
the word, as we will see. So we must ask:
when is the “going forth” of the word in the New Testament? Christ’s commands at the Ascension are for
the Apostles to begin first at Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, then the rest
of the world. St. Paul is truly the
apostle of the Gentiles. The “going forth” of the Faith out of
Jerusalem and Judea starts in reality with St. Paul’s conversion. At the time of St. Stephen’s martyrdom, there
is a general persecution and dispersal except
for the Apostles who remain at Jerusalem.
Acts
8:1 “And at that time there was raised a great persecution against the church
which was at Jerusalem; and they were all dispersed through the countries of
Judea, and Samaria, except the apostles.”
Why?
It is because the “going forth” to the balance of the world awaits St.
Paul’s conversion. But when does St.
Paul’s ministry start? It could only
start with the event of his conversion.
Prior to that he has aligned himself with the enemy. The internal evidence of Acts and the Pauline
epistles places the martyrdom of St. Stephen in the winter of 36/37 A.D
– that is, between the winter solstice of 36 A.D. and the spring equinox of 37
A.D.
Jerusalem
Bible, Chronological Table- “36-37, winter (?), martyrdom of Stephen and
dispersion of part of the community. A little later, conversion of PAUL. Cf. Acts 9:1+” [6]
St. Paul is present at the death of St.
Stephen, by his own admission he “held the coats” for those doing the stoning
and he was “consenting” to the death of St. Stephen.
Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia, New
Testament- “In 36 he (St. Paul) witnessed with approval the stoning of the
first martyr, Stephen (Acts 7, 58, 60)...”[7]
Many theologians believe that St.
Stephen’s martyrdom was the efficient cause of St. Paul’s conversion. His conversion is said (unanimously) to have
occurred very shortly after the death of St. Stephen in 37 A.D.
“It
is believed that he (St. Stephen) won the grace of conversion for the vehement
Saul, who was among those responsible for the death of the first martyr (Acts
22, 20; 7, 60). His death was followed
by a persecution of the Church at Jerusalem, and the Christians were
dispersed.” [8]
Now the prophet Daniel speaks of the death
or “cutting off” of the Messiah and the “cessation of the daily sacrifice” of
the Mass, and his prophecies are all time oriented. In Daniel chapter 9 we have Daniel’s famous
prophecy of “weeks.” In that prophecy, each day is generally
(and has always been) understood to equal 1 year. The so-called
“day for a year” principle.
Daniel 9:25-26 “Know thou
therefore, and take notice: that from
the going forth of the word, to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ the
prince, there shall be seven weeks, and
sixty-two weeks: and the street shall be built again, and the walls in
straitness of times. And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be
slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his. And a people with their leader shall come,
shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be laid
waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation.”
The
seven weeks are not repeated the second time, but the time interval is clearly
intended to be the sum of seven weeks plus sixty two weeks, i.e., 69 weeks
until the “slaying” or, as some translations have it, the “cutting off” of the
Messiah or the cutting off of the Mass.
69
weeks equal 483 days (69 x 7). Based on
the day for a year principle, the 483 days or 69 weeks equal 483 years.
The final
piece of the puzzle is “fourfold”.
In Jewish law, the perpetrator of the
theft of a sheep must make restitution fourfold.
Exodus
22:1 “If any man steal an ox or a
sheep, and kill or sell it: he shall
restore five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep.” [9]
In the same way King David, when he steals
Uriah the Hittite’s wife and causes him to be murdered, is told a parable by
Nathan the Prophet. The parable is about
a rich man who upon encountering a stranger does not give him sheep of his own
flock, despite the fact that he has plenty, but rather takes the single ewe
lamb of a poor man and dresses it for the stranger. And hearing this,
“David’s
anger being exceedingly kindled against that man, he said to Nathan: As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done
this is a child of death. He shall restore the ewe fourfold,
because he did this thing, and had no pity.”
- 2 Kings 12:5-6
So the penalty for theft is fourfold.
In the story of Zachaeus, Zachaeus says to
Jesus: “Behold Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have
taken anything from a man by fraud, I
restore him fourfold.” - Luke 19:8
Lastly,
and most importantly, is the curse pronounced on the whore of Babylon.
“Render
to her as she also hath rendered to you; and
double unto her double according to her works:” - Apoc. 18:6
Double unto double is fourfold.
The
penalty for the theft of a Lamb, for fraud (a false sacrifice) is fourfold.
Therefore: 4 (fourfold) x 483 years = 1932 years.
1932 years + 37 A.D.
(St. Paul’s conversion and the “going forth” of Daniel 9) = 1969 A.D.
Christ was slain on a Passover. Therefore, the Mass would also be slain on a
Passover. The date of the Apostolic
Constitution of Paul VI for the New Mass was Passover April 3, 1969. The New Mass is the Abomination of Desolation
– the Abomination of Desolation that was predicted by Daniel and mentioned by
Our Lord (Matt. 24:15) as one of the signs of the end.
More Parallels with the Machabees
"Traditional" Bishop Rifan
Takes Part in the Abominable New Mass
1
Machabees 1:50-51- “And the king sent letters... that they… should… let their
souls be defiled with all uncleanness, and abominations to the end that they
should forget the law, and should change all the justifications of God.”
In
Campos, Brazil there exists a prominent “traditional” group of priests that was
started many years ago by the late Bishop Castro De Mayer. The group goes by the name “The Society of
St. John Vianney.” Bishop Castro De
Mayer, who started the group, had been a friend of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, and
was present when Bishop Lefebvre consecrated the four Bishops of the Society of
St. Pius X in 1988. The Campos group of
priests held a position that is similar to the SSPX: it was independent of the
Novus Ordo dioceses, even though it was definitely not Sedevacantist and always
recognized Antipope John Paul II as the Pope.
The
Campos group remained independent of the Novus Ordo “Bishops,” even though it
recognized them as the legitimate hierarchy, because it criticized as
unacceptable many aspects of the New Mass and the Vatican II religion. In fact,
years ago the Campos group published a pamphlet called “62 Reasons Why In
Conscience, We Cannot Attend the New Mass.”
Having discouraged people from attending the New Mass, the Campos
group’s position was not compatible with approval by the apostate Novus Ordo
Bishops. As long as they held to such a
position, they would have to continue operating independently of John Paul II
and the Novus Ordo Bishops.
But, in
2002, the Society of St. John Vianney (SSJV) changed its views. Perhaps perceiving the fundamental
contradiction, and the schismatic attitude, in its position – and in the
position of the SSPX – namely, to operate completely independent of the
hierarchy it recognizes as the true Catholic hierarchy (when, in truth, it
shouldn’t recognize them as the true hierarchy at all), the SSJV came to
apostate Rome and John Paul II to be “reconciled.” Antipope John Paul II and his “Cardinals”
agreed to give the SSJV an “Apostolic Administration” whereby they would be
fully “reconciled” and “recognized” by John Paul II and the Novus Ordo sect, as long as the SSJV agreed to accept the
validity of the New Mass and that Vatican II is a true Council – and, of
course, that John Paul II is Pope. The
full “reconciliation” of this “traditionalist” group with the Novus Ordo sect
was praised by many false traditionalists who believed that this group would
get the “best of both worlds” (according to them) – i.e., it would maintain its
“traditionalism” while also being recognized by Antipope John Paul II, their “Pope.” The heretics Chris Ferrara and Thomas Woods
expressed their approval of the development with the SSJV in their heretical
book, The Great Façade.
Christopher
Ferrara and Thomas Woods, The Great
Façade, p. 403: “One encouraging development
occurred early in 2002: the erection of an apostolic administration for the
traditionalist Society of St. John Vianney (SSJV), an order of priests in
Campos, Brazil. The Pope granted to
these priests the very canonical structure we here suggest, permitting them to
work and to expand without (it would seem as of this writing) the consent of
the local diocesan bishop… It is highly
significant for our thesis that in order to be ‘reconciled’ with Rome and ‘end
the schism,’ SSJV had merely to affirm what it never denied in the first place:
that John Paul II is the Pope, that the Mass of Paul VI (when correctly
celebrated according to the proper intention) is valid, that Vatican II is a Council of the Church,
and that open questions are to be studied with humility and charity.…”
(emphasis mine)
Please
notice how inextricably bound up are 1) acceptance that John Paul II is the
Pope and 2) the acceptance of Vatican II and the New Mass. If you accept # 1, then you must accept # 2,
as this instance proves again. Vatican
II is the official Council and
teaching of the “Church” of John Paul II; and the New Mass is an official rite of the “Church” of John Paul II. That is why John Paul II and his apostate
“Bishops” will not recognize those persons who don’t accept the legitimacy and
validity of these two things as “Catholics in full communion” with them. That
is precisely why the SSJV had to accept these things to get full “approval”
from the Vatican II sect.
So, in
2002, the SSJV completely sold its
soul and gave in to apostate Rome.
Though the SSJV did not yet celebrate the New Mass, some predicted that
it would only be a short time before its priests did. (But after already having recognized that the
New Mass is a legitimate rite that may be attended, why would they be opposed
to offering it themselves?) The
selling-of-their-souls out to the New Mass would not come in the future when they finally offered it; it already came when they accepted it as
legitimate.
Thus, on
September 8, 2004, the apostate Bishop Rifan of the SSJV carried his heretical
position to its logical conclusion and he concelebrated an invalid New Mass,
which adulterated the words of Christ (using “shed for you and for all so that
sins may be forgiven” in the Consecration) – and contained numerous other
abominations, including laywomen giving out the Novus Ordo cookie; a speech by
a Marxist; and other pagan-like abominations so common at the Novus Ordo.
All of
this is strikingly reminiscent of the story in the Machabees. In the books of the Machabees, we are told
the story of how the wicked King Antiochus took over the children of Israel,
imposed upon them a new religion of idolatry, changed their traditions, and
forced them to accept the new religion.
There are striking parallels to our own situation in this history,
including in regard to compromising false traditionalists.
1 Machabees 1:41 ff. “Her sanctuary was desolate like a wilderness, her festival days were
turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honors were brought to
nothing… And King Antiochus wrote to all his kingdom, that all the people
should be one: and every one should leave his own law. And all nations consented, according to the
word of King Antiochus. And many of Israel consented to his
service [read: the New Mass], and they sacrificed to idols, and profaned the
Sabbath. And the king sent letters.. that they… should forbid holocausts and
sacrifices [read:the Traditional Mass]… and let their souls be defiled with all
uncleanness, and abominations to the end that they should forget the law, and
should change all the justifications of God… Then many of the people were
gathered to them that had forsaken the law of the Lord: and they committed
evils in the land: And they drove away
the people of Israel into lurking holes, and into the secret places of
fugitives [read: independent of the dioceses]. On the fifteenth day of the month, Casleu, in
the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of
desolation upon the altar of God [read: the New Mass], and they built altars
throughout all the cities of Juda round about…”
Those
who resisted the new religion were led by Judas Machabeus and his supporters;
and they made no compromise with the wicked usurpers. But some of the Machabees were led to their
deaths by being deceived by the “peaceable” words spoken by the supporters of
King Antiochus. Please read the
following and tell me if it is not a description of the SSJV and the SSPX and
like-minded false traditionalists, who listen to the “peaceable words and
deals” offered to them by the apostate “Bishops” in Rome, such as Ratzinger,
Castrillon-Hoyos, etc. – and are led to their spiritual deaths as a
result.
1 Machabees 7:10-17 “And they arose, and came with
a great army into the land of Juda: and they sent messengers, and spoke to Judas and his brethren with
peaceable words, deceitfully. But
they [Judas and his brethren] gave no heed to their words: for they saw that
they were come with a great army. Then
there assembled to Alcimus and Bacchides a company of the scribes, to require
things that are just: And first the
Assideans, that were among the children of Israel, and they sought peace of
them. For they said: One that is a priest of the seed of Aaron is come
[read: a dignitary of the Vatican], he will not deceive us. And he
spoke to them peaceably: and he swore to them, saying: We will do you no harm,
nor your friends [read: we will allow you to keep your traditional Mass, just
accept us]. And they believed him. And he
took threescore of them, and slew them in one day…”
We see
that Bishop Rifan of the SSJV is one such victim. But here are the words of a recent interview
of Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, regarding his continuing discussion with “reconciling”
with Rome [read: King Antiochus].
The
Angelus, August 2004, pp. 2-3: “Q. In this interview for Latin Mass Magazine, Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos does more than
just stretch out a hand to the faithful attached to Tradition, he affirms that
the Holy Father holds his arms open.
Aren’t you touched by such a generous offer? [Bishop Fellay’s Answer]: I am very much
touched by this gesture and do not doubt the generosity behind it…”
Notice
how similar Bishop Fellay’s attitude is to that of the compromising Machabees.
Rome “does more than just stretch out a hand to the faithful attached to
Tradition… Aren’t you touched by such a
generous offer?” “I am,” says Bishop Fellay. (If Bishop Fellay were Catholic, he would denounce
the Novus Ordo Bishops and John Paul II as heretics who possess no authority to
offer anyone anything.)
We see
that the people who wanted to compromise with the representatives of Antiochus
– the people who listened to their “peaceable” words and believed them to be
their friends – were slain, just like the false traditionalists of the SSJV,
the SSPX, etc. are spiritually slain by obstinately recognizing as Catholics,
rather than denouncing as apostate non-Catholics, John Paul II and his Novus
Ordo Bishops. [One also cannot ignore
the absurdity of a group like the SSPX “making deals” with the hierarchy it
recognizes as the “Catholic hierarchy.”
This shows again that the SSPX is schismatic; they won’t submit to the hierarchy they think (wrongly) is the
“Catholic hierarchy” until the “hierarchy of the Catholic Church” gives the
SSPX what it wants! Any sincere
person who considers this carefully will see how absurd it is.]
“No Jurisdiction” Advocates
Recently, many among the Sedevacantists (i.e., those who don’t accept
John Paul II as the Pope) are being convinced by certain tracts that none of
the traditional priests have jurisdiction to hear Confessions or faculties to
say Mass. This is a false claim, which is
based on a failure of these authors to recognize the distinction between
ecclesiastical laws and divine revelation, and how the former apply in a state
of necessity. This error causes them to
conclude falsely that no priest can lawfully say Mass; that no Bishop can
lawfully consecrate another Bishop, etc. in this situation. It is not the purpose of this article to go
into detail addressing this false claim, but merely to illustrate what I
believe to be another clear parallel to the Machabees. In the Machabees, the resisting Israelites
were attacked on the Sabbath because the allies of evil King Antiochus didn’t
believe that they would fight back on the Sabbath. And,
at first, the resisters did not fight back on the Sabbath because they believed
it would be unlawful [read: they did not say Mass; they did not hear
Confessions; they did not Consecrate Bishops, etc. because they believed it was
unlawful], but after their people were all being slain, they changed their
course and did fight back on the Sabbath.
1 Machabees 2:32 ff. “And forthwith they [the
allies of king Antiochus] went out towards them, and made war against them on
the Sabbath day… But they [the resisting
Israelites ] answered them not, neither did they cast a stone at them, nor
stopped up the secret places [because it was the Sabbath], Saying: Let us
all die in our innocency: and heaven and earth shall be witnesses for us, that
you put us to death wrongfully. So they [the allies of evil King Antiochus]
gave them battle on the Sabbath: and they [the resisting Israelites] were
slain, with their wives, and their children, and their cattle, to the number of
a thousand persons. And every man said to his neighbor: If
we shall do as our brethren have done, and not fight against the heathens for our
lives, and our justifications: they will now quickly root us out of the earth. And
they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up against us to
fight on the Sabbath day, we will fight against him: and we will not all die,
as our brethren that were slain in the secret places.”
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com