ANOINTED ANTICHRISTS
by
Peter J. Andrews
The doctors of the Law warrant that a satanist or a heretic may validly be anointed into any rank of the clergy; that if he happens to be a bishop he may validly dispense the sacrament of order to his fellow traitors. There is however one condition - supposing all the others satisfied - upon which the doctors concentrate, because enemies of the Church apparently will hardly be able to fulfil it. But they can do so, for they can have the actual intention of performing what the Church does in the sacrament of order: then the condition is respected; and the doctors are satisfied that the catholic intention is not beyond the dissemblers' reach. Thus they vouchsafe that, despite the "irregularity of their ordination" free-masons are legally-commissioned antichristian priests in Christ's Church. Can we agree with such a conclusion?
Protestants and satanists want priesthood to be abolished so that Jesus' sacrifice may not be renewed on any altar - which they have now achieved almost completely -. We contend with natural candour that we are unable to entertain two opposite intentions at the same time, that the stronger one will always prevail. During the ritual ceremony the "moles'" sacerdotal intention merely consists in an outward display; indeed they know that once the rite has been completed, they will resume their fight against the catholic mass and priests. - They cannot at the appointed time have an opportune fit of orthodoxy to forward their fraud. Nolens, malens, they do what the Devil wants them to do. This is what Jesus Himself has said: "one cannot serve two masters at the same time, God and Mammon". Therefore we write this down against the doctors as blot number one.
The subtle experts that nothing can deceive have a paradoxical argument that gives an advantage to criminal satanists over benighted heretics: as they hate Christ, they positively want to damage his Church as much as possible. They think that they must get (or become) true clerics. Satanical priests or bishops enjoy mystical powers that they can use against the camp of the saints: they will be more potent against their Maker by usurping His grace-bringing mediation, exactly as they do in "Black Masses". They are then careful to oonfect a valid mass, and their heinous intention warrants their intention of operating the transubstantiation: indeed they immediately start defiling the Saviour's crucified body once the consecration has been completed. - Such is the satanists' behaviour and creed according to our subtle theological experts who share the satanists' sacramental views about transient sincerity. - This subtlety means that the Holy Trinity may be wilfully abused by the Devil and made subservient to the hellish plot of the free-masons; but God cannot serve the fiends who attack and destroy His church. The subtle argument is a grievous blasphemy which we put down as blot number two.
The "Acta Apostolorum" provide us with an astounding occurence: St Peter inflicting capital, punishment upon Ananias and his wife. He and his wife, though, had not tried to destroy the christian community: they sincerely intended to join it. The trouble was that they pretended having given the whole price of their wordly goods to the deacons, where as they had kept part of the money in case they should need it later. St Peter before striking them dead with his spiritual condemnation said to Ananias: "Why did you lie to the Holy Ghost?" (V, 3). These words explain the shocking vengeance that the Head of Christ's Churoh exacted for so small, apparently-innocuous a fraud. The lesson cannot then fail to escape our attention, since God emphasized it with two miraculous deaths. Today we must understand from this atrocious episode that no "moles" howsoever dormant can deceive the Holy Ghost and be anointed into the church as God's missionaries. Despising scriptural evidence is blot number three.
The doctors of the Law apply the same criteria to dispensers and receivers. But the real point is this: when does a Christian enjoy the fruit of a sacrament? - When it brings him the grace it normally procures him ex opere operato. What validity means for him is the only relevant question to which the theological experts have never cared to answer. They have never thought of the supernatural essence of the thing which sacraments signify and are meant to achieve. The sacraments of the dead, i.e. Baptism and Penance, are validly received when they bring (back) into divine life, disgraced souls that were labouring under (mortal) sins. It is true the sinners' intention is then all - important, not the darkness of their souls: the same has been aptly said about the dispensing ministers; the sins they may have committed cannot interfere with the validity of their ministering. But the other sacraments are called "sacraments of the living" because they are supposed to procure additional graces to christians already partaking of God's life. Therefore the Church has required that the candidates to the sacrament of order, which is the most eminent sacrament of the living, should confess their sins on the eve of their consecration. Their hearts must be as pure as the hearts of the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. - On the contrary the souls of moles are as black as the spiritual death that they choose when they conceal from the Fathers-Confessors their being devoted to Satan. During the actual ordination they commit a second sacrilege when they are anointed with Chrism and pretend to receive the Holy Ghost. They only receive their condemnation from Him, exactly as when they eat their condemnation in the Euoharist: Jesus and the Holy Ghost repel their souls and their infernal tenants still farther on the way to abysmal night.
It is absurd to maintain that these souls then spiritually marked for Hell will for ever bear the stamp of the Holy Ghost which is indelible and makes them priests "in aeternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech." Not visited by God's grace they cannot be attained by the secondary effect of bhe spiritual unction that ought to have communicated them the special grace apostles always require to fulfil their ministry. Lacking what is essential they are surely deprived of the aftermath.
The doctors' point of view is sheer terrene legalism. They ought to deal with tradeunion problems not with supernatural ones. Blot number four.
The truth of the preceding mystical process is attested as expressing both the Spirit and the Letter of sacramental laws by the Holy Ghost who has had the constitution "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" written for us in 1559. It is directed at "the foxes who devastate the Lord's vineyard" and whom we now call "moles" because of their underground work. Here is an excerpt of § 6: "If it ever appears that a bishop... before being promoted... deviating from the catholic faith has fallen into any heresy, his promotion will be void and null". This puts an end to every nonsensical speculation about conflicting intentions. Since a true pope wants to avoid equivocation, Paul IV has insisted heavily: "Nothing can validate such episcopal consecrations"... "Such men, when raised to the rank of bishops... or Supreme Pontiffs have not actually received any right of spiritual or Temporal government in the Church." As the infiltrated moles have never been bishops, they must not leave any poison in the Church. "Every one of their deeds, words or decrees, every act of their administration is void and null. These have not imparted any right or power to anybody." After the impostor, all his progeny is expelled. All the tunnels that had been burrowed are filled up again.
This irrefragable explanation cannot be despised by any christian, however great a doctor he may be.
There have been controversies about the field of application of this most important Constitution: this is unavoidable, since there is no papal authority to tell the truth in all fields.
Only in one case would the problem of a pope's ordination afford some similarity to Achille Liénart's. We have to imagine a very unlikely hypothesis; we must suppose that a schismatic pope should plan infiltrating into the Roman Church in order to attack the doctrine of papal supremacy from inside his Church. To encompass this end he would pretend to be converted. Then he would manage to be raised to episcopacy and, by means of his fraud, become a bishop in the Uniate Church. Anyhow his case would remain exceptional, for he would not work for a secret society. Moreover an orthodox of the Eastern Church is no heretic -. Having, perhaps, no responsiblity in the secession of his Church he may even have some connection with Jesus' mystical Body (i.e. be unconsciously a catholic).
*) The dootors of the Law assert that only the CODEX IURIS CANONICI can be applied. Contrariwise some sedevacantists claim that the Bull has only juridicticnal authority. If, however, we read § 6 with unbiassed critical sense, we realise that every potential form of existence is denied to the consecrations of moles. They are not merely "irregular" or "illicit". Since "nothing can validate them", they are mystically non existent as well.
*) The popes of the schismatic Eastern Church, though excommunicated have always been recognized as validly ordained in the apostolic succession. This is alleged against Paul IV's constitution: freemasons are also excommunicated; they however can be validly ordained.
*) A lady-philosopher declares that heretics only are hit by the Bull. We can but agree with her. But she goes on saying that free-masons have never been condemned as heretics. At the same time she recognizes that they are more dangerous than Luther or Calvin. - Common sense retorts that if mystical rejection is certain for protestants, it is all the more certain for enemies that are far more satanic, and undoubtedly severed from God.
There are enough proofs of the masons' hellish conjuration to convince any christian jury if assizes could be held against religious frauds. In fact masons may be dubbed heretics for the very reason why the lady finds it impossible to put a label on these servants of the Devil. They lie about their real religion and never utter an error ex-qualité but as a personal creed.
Achille Liénart for example never revealed he had been a free-mason since 1912. He only began defending modernist heresies and the cult of Man divine, when another freemason, rosicrucian Roncalli gave the signal that he had awaited for so long a time: now Rome was to be changed. Shall we say that masons gratuitously persecute and destroy the catholic Church? Is it sensible to diagnose that, since no theologian has described a specific masonic heresy, masons are catholics as well as anything else? Is theirs a merely secular conjuration because, unlike normal dissenters, they pretend to adhere to the religion with which they disagree? (or, rather, they have pretended till they could preach their own credo).
All these questions find an answer if we realise that every "obedience" has its special religious affinity. So, by their multifarious errors the different "lodges" contribute to a syncretic heresy, the worship of Man: every false ideology or doctrine, every false religion is good, for, as K.W. said it builds up the "treasure" of Man. Masons, obviously, may be anything, except catholics.
It is, now, easy to understand that the secret society is the sewer that has been laid to be the confluent of all the heresies extant. The masons' treacherous warfare against the catholic Church is the human connterpart of the arch-liar's mystical warfare against God.
We must conclude that the lady-philosopher will never catch the criminal she looks for, because of her tutiorist method. That fish is too fine and sly not to pass through her net that is too loosely-knit. We prefer the methods the police recurs to, to have bandits convicted. Our tribunal (and God's we dare say) won't discharge the secret society, because mafiosi will plead "not guilty" (lest they should be murdered). The "foxes" whom Paul IV wanted to strip of their disguise are not ordinary heretics. We call them "moles". They must be despoiled of their spurious spiritual unction.
*) Another more detective-like catholic lady owns that Liénart was a heretic and a satanist, but she loathes thinking that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio prevents us from admitting he has been a bishop. "Let us think," she says, "of all the priests in the diocese of Lille that would have been but laymen!" And she adds: "through Lefèbvre's failure, - that is a consequence of Paul IV's decree, - think of all the christians of Senegal that would have been deprived of every sacrament, Baptism excepted." She concludes that free-masons can be God-anointed messengers. The curious thing in her way of arguing is that all the time she has never quailed at acknowledging that Rome has become the breeding-ground of apostates who have suppressed clergy and sacraments altogether! |
