Dichotomy. It is a strange thought that restoring the Catholic Church to it’s rightful position in the world is going to require us to admit there is an active and powerful Antichurch that seeks to destroy it. But that’s the case I am going to make today.
I’ll never forget the look on my Italian Catholic grandmother’s face as a teenager when I announced that my Jesuit high school taught me that Adam and Eve were allegorical figures and did not really exist. It’s like you could see the life drain right out of her. Not because she actually thought that could be true, but because she thought I thought Adam and Eve were not real people. How awful it must have been to watch Modernism systematically infiltrate the Church over the course of my grandparents’ lifetime in the twentieth century.
But, enough with the pity parties. Now it is time for a Truth session. At some point, every traditional Catholic seems to ask: do I really belong to THE same Church as my friends and family who attend the New Mass? Or, does Francis actually believe in the same faith as Pope St. Pius X?
We can ask these questions because not only are the externals of the Mass, between the Traditional Latin Mass and the New Mass so obviously different, but after some time we begin to realize that what is actually taught and believed is different too. And this is important to note up front. Because the difference between the Antichurch and Church is not simply a difference in liturgies, it is a difference in faith and belief systems with different goals.
You don’t believe me on that last statement? Below is chart highlighting some of the differences in belief between traditional and post-Vatican II Catholicism.
Differences Between Traditional and Post-Vatican II Catholicism
Yes, it’s overly simplistic, but it gets the point across. Anyone who has lived a significant portion of their faith-life in both the traditional and non-traditional Catholic communities know what I am talking about. The folks on the ground, who I like to call the blue-collar Catholics, get it.
While Steubenville trained self-described “expert” theologians may take issue with the table above they are in a state of denial. Why? Because this is the reality of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. It doesn’t matter if you can articulately engage in legalistic mental gymnastics to force Modernist post-Vatican II realities into the Catholic faith as handed down to the faithful since the time of Christ.
Legalists can do many fancy things with words, I know because I am a professional legalist in the secular world. I do it for a living. I know legalists when I see them. But, I also know that being able to work backwards using forced reasoning (often defying common sense) to reach a pre-determined conclusion does not mean Truth or reality is necessarily being preserved or defended. Usually the opposite.
Can We Reconcile Traditional and Modernist Versions of the Church?
Different look, different feel, and different beliefs. They have to be different churches, right? If we are honest and consistently logical, we cannot reconcile traditional and Modernist versions of the Church.
And yet, there is something quite different going on here than anything that has ever happened in the past. For example, during the Protestant Revolt, Luther and is his followers were excommunicated for their rebellion against the Church. Luther was excommunicated, not just for being an unrepentant heretic, but because he rejected the concept of the Papacy and even a visible Church itself. He was a heretic and schismatic.
Presumably, if you were to ask both a Modernist priest like Fr. (James) Martin or a traditionally-minded priest like Fr. (James) Altman, both would claim to be obedient to the Church, the Church’s magisterial teachings and the Pope. After all, canon law tells us:
“A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.” Canon 750 §1.
Both Fr. Martin and Fr. Altman, I presume, would claim they are obedient to Canon 750. Fr. Martin is faithful in the sense he listens to and adheres to the Modernist magisterium while Fr. Altman is faithful to the magisterium as taught by Popes and Councils for centuries prior to Vatican II. I suspect Fr. Altman would also claim to be faithful to those teachings after Vatican II that conform to Tradition, such as Pope Paul VI’s rejection of artificial contraception in Humanae vitae or John Paul IIs rejection of a female priesthood in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis¸ which were simply restatements of consistent Catholic teaching since the time of Christ.
So now we are left with two very different ideas and concepts of Roman Catholicism that both claim to be “the Church.” For all intents and purposes, these visions of the Church are irreconcilable, despite the best (but now we know were failed) efforts of Pope Benedict XVI to force a reconciliation with a “hermeneutic of continuity. “
Father Linus Clovis penned the best description of the dichotomy between traditional and Modernist Roman Catholicism that have seen yet. It perfectly describes the unique and unprecedented position the Church finds herself in today. Fr. Clovis described it this way:
“IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ANTI-CHURCH CURRENTLY CO-EXIST IN THE SAME SACRAMENTAL, LITURGICAL AND JURIDICAL SPACE.”
Did you get that? The only way to explain in a sensible fashion how two irreconcilable versions of Catholicism that claim to be THE Church and obedient to the authentic magisterium, when we know there can only be ONE holy Catholic and APOSTOLIC Church, is that there must be a false claimant to the dignity of the Church that has fooled many of the faithful while sitting in the place of the True Church. Hence—the Antichurch.
This Antichurch language did not just spring up out of Fr. Clovis’ brain. John Paul II, before he was elected Pope, made the following observation in 1976:
“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever experienced. I do not think that the wide circle of the American Society, or the whole wide circle of the Christian Community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the antichrist. The confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence. It is, therefore, in God’s Plan, and it must be a trial which the Church must take up, and face courageously (emphasis added).”
These words were truly prophetic and no doubt correct based on how the world has turned out in the 45 years since he made this statement. Ironically, it was made at a Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia celebrating the signing of the Declaration of Independence—a document that played a key role in the institutionalization of anti-Catholic Enlightenment principles for modern nation-states. It is also ironic that John Paul II ordained and appointed so many of the Bishops today that adhere to and ruthlessly push a Modernist agenda, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
The point being that this notion of Antichurch explains what we are witnessing today. As Fr. Clovis implied, the Church and Antichurch are in a battle for the soul of Catholicism, the Deposit of Faith, the liturgical rites and the worldwide visibility that only the true Church is guaranteed by Christ Himself to prevail against the gates of hell (Matthew 16:18).
What is an Antichurch and is it Here?
Since the notion of an Antichurch is a unique and unprecedented conception, to understand the nature of an Antichurch we can look at what the Church has taught about Antichrist and analogize it to the Antichurch. Referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, itself a creature and victim of Modernist meddling in many respects, it says:
“Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.” CCC para. 675.
Why would an Antichrist not have an Antichurch to rule over? Is not religious deception what Modernism is? Is Modernism not persecuting the Church right now? Like the Antichrist, would not an Antichurch glorify itself in the place of the real Church?
But just as the Antichrist is not really Christ incarnate, but only a pseudo-type of Christ who may appear authentic, mimic Christ’s miracles or offer a false notion of salvation in which he becomes the object of worship in place of Christ, so too the Antichurch will out of necessity act as the real Church but change the object of its purpose.
An Antichurch is necessarily going to possess the church buildings, assert its financial power, teach in an authoritative way as if it was the Church and MUST have some claim to apostolic succession. Any false church that could not claim apostolic succession would easily be dismissed. Yes, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a validly ordained priest and consecrated Bishop.
Think about it. If you were Satan, how would you set up an Antichurch designed to extinguish Christ’s real Church and lead millions of souls to hell? You create an entity out of the “stuff” or “material” of the real Church, i.e. the sacraments, the Bishops, the physical property and take over the magisterium. Then, you can mislead the faithful away from the authentic Tradition and faith towards a new man-based, demonically fueled substitute that appears to be the real Church but is nothing more than an evil counterfeit. Lead good families, good priests and the rest of society into believing this counterfeit is the real thing. Now—that’s a devilish plan!
Finally, and perhaps most importantly. Any effective Antichurch must have an Antipope. After all, the Church was founded on the rock of Peter. So too, to look and feel authentic, it makes sense that an Antichurch would claim a Pope for itself otherwise it would easily be dismissed. But this Pope must teach in accordance with the teachings and traditions of the Antichurch, the principles of which we know as Modernism. This Antipope will necessarily become the vector of schism for Christ’s Church and serve at the same time as the principle of unity for the Antichurch.
Now, ask yourself, does the entity we know as the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church have the sacraments, a hierarchy with apostolic succession, it’s own liturgy, and a body of teaching which it claims is the true magisterial authority? If your answer is YES, then ask yourself, does it have an Antipope of its own? Finally, ask yourself, what is the key to discerning the true Church from an Antichurch?
In future posts, I look forward to answering these questions and exploring how THE one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church must defend itself and ultimately defeat the Antichurch.