Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing

“And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people: For, this day, is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David.” Luke 2:9-11

 

I find the latter verses of Adeste Fideles, verses 5-7, written by Abbé Étienne Jean François Borderies (1764-1832), to be particularly worthy of water works when the pipe organ, stops out, reverbs your internal organs:

Yea, Lord, we greet Thee, born this happy morning,
Jesu, to Thee be glory given.
Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing;

See how the shepherds, summoned to His cradle,
leaving their flocks, draw nigh to gaze.
We too will thither bend our hearts’ oblations;

There shall we see Him, His eternal Father’s
everlasting brightness now veiled under flesh.
God shall we find there, a Babe in infant clothing;

Child, for us sinners, poor and in the manger,
we would embrace Thee, with love and awe.
Who would not love Thee, loving us so dearly?

O come let us adore Him, O come let us adore Him, O come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord.

Merry Christmas!

(Apologies, but here is eight minutes of Anglican greatness)

“Thou art knocking at the doors… and in the morning you shall see Thy glory”

INTROIT Ex. 16:6-7 This day you shall know that the Lord will come and save us; and in the morning you shall see Thy glory. Ps. 23:1. The earth and its fullness is the Lord’s; the world and all those who dwell therein.

“O ineffable mystery! how grand is this apparent littleness! how mighty this divine weakness! But God has still lower to descend than merely coming on our earth. He goes from house to house of His people: not one will receive Him. He must go and seek a crib in the stable of poor dumb beasts. There, until such time as the angels sing to Him their hymn, and the shepherds and the Magi come with their offerings, He will meet “the ox that knoweth its Owner, and the ass that knoweth its Master’s crib!” (Isaias 1:3) O Savior of men, Emmanuel, Jesus! we, too, will go to this stable of Bethlehem. Thy new birth, which is tonight, shall not be without loving and devoted hearts to bless it. At this very hour, Thou art knocking at the doors of Bethlehem, and who is there that will take Thee in? Thou sayest to my soul in the words of the Canticle: “Open to me, my sister, my beloved! for my head is full of dew, and my locks of the drops of the night!” (Song of Soloman 5:2) Ah! sweet Jesus! Thou shalt not be refused here! I beseech Thee, enter my house. I have been watching and longing for Thee. Come, then, Lord Jesus! come! (Revelation 22:20)”

The Liturgical Year, by Dom Prosper Gueranger

https://stlouiscatholic.wordpress.com/2024/12/24/christmas-eve/

“Pope Francis’” public heresy means he isn’t a member of the Catholic Church: Dr. Edmund Mazza

Featured Image 

Matt Gaspers and I have previously—and charitably—debated the likelihood that Francis was ever a valid Pope due to Benedict’s innovation of becoming Pope Emeritus. It is in the same fraternal spirit that I take up the challenge again.

Virtually no one disputes that Pope Francis is at least a public material heretic (whether he is formally heretical, that is to say, subjectively guilty is a subject for another debate).

In his recent LifeSite article, however, Mr. Gaspers disputes Matthew McCusker’s position (and the authorities he cites) that Francis is not Pope because public material heretics are not members of the visible Church (and thus automatically lose office). Gaspers writes:

With all due respect for Msgr. Van Noort, it seems to me that material heretics — those “who externally deny a truth … or several truths of divine and Catholic faith … ignorantly and innocently,” in his words — must necessarily remain members of the Church, given that pertinacity (obstinate denial or doubt) is the hallmark of heresy in its full and proper sense. If full knowledge and full consent are lacking, it is simply not the case that one is a true heretic, canonically speaking.

In the first place, with all due respect to Mr. Gaspers, if he doesn’t believe Msgr. Van Noort’s claim that material heresy by itself is enough to place a person outside the visible Church and thus automatically lose office, perhaps he will listen to Ludwig Ott, the beloved author of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma? Ott writes:

Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is, the legal commonwealth of the Church. [1]

But if Mr. Gaspers doesn’t believe Ott that material heresy by itself is enough to place a person outside the visible Church and thus automatically lose office, perhaps he will listen to the young Karl Rahner? Rahner states that this is, in fact, not just his opinion but the almost unanimous [2] position of theologians up to and including the 1940s:

…even those public heretics and schismatics who either cannot be proved to be, or in fact, are not in heresy or schism through formal sin or subjective guilt are outside the Church. In short, even heretics and schismatics in good faith…do not belong…to the visible Church…

It was the almost universal teaching of theologians even before 1943, and…it follows from the very nature of things, that even material heretics and schismatics do not belong as members to the visible ChurchFor if those who are outside the Church by a non-imputable, but nevertheless public and juridical act, belonged…to the Church, then the visible Church could no longer be one in respect of her visibleness…[3]

But if Mr. Gaspers doesn’t believe Rahner that material heresy by itself is enough to place a person outside the visible Church and thus automatically lose office, perhaps he will listen to the eminent Louis Cardinal Billot? Billot writes:

The excommunication of vitandi is a consummated excommunication…they are quite simply outside the Church, no differently than are heretics and schismatics, though by a different means.

I say, ‘by a different means’…For heretics and schismatics—even purely material ones—are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church by the natural divine law itself[4]

But if Mr. Gaspers doesn’t believe Billot that material heresy by itself is enough to place a person outside the visible Church and thus automatically lose office, perhaps he will listen to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine? Bellarmine writes:

The Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ‘ipso facto’ [automatically, without Church declaration] deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity…

[A] pertinacious heretic is condemned by his own judgment, that is, as Jerome explains, he is not expelled from the Church by excommunication like a lot of other sinners, but he himself expels himself from the Church. [5]

But if Mr. Gaspers still insists, despite the unanimous judgment of the Fathers (like St. Jerome) that current Canon Law somehow prevents the course of Divine Law from taking effect, perhaps he will grudgingly accept Bellarmine’s rebuttal of his position?

Nor does the response which some make avail that these Fathers speak according to ancient laws, but now since the decree of the Council of Constance they do not lose jurisdiction unless excommunicated by name…this avails to nothing. For those Fathers when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws…rather they argued from the nature of heresy.[6]

Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church…A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.[7]

The heretic Pope “is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church.”

But if Gaspers should insist on subsequent canonical confirmation of Wernz and Vidal (favoring Bellarmine’s position) perhaps he will accept the position of leading canonist Dr. Edward Peters? Peters writes:

I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis [that of Wernz and Vidal]. See, e.g., Ayrinhac, CONSTITUTION (1930) 33; Sipos, ENCHIRIDION (1954) 156; Regatillo, INSTITUTIONES I (1961) 299; Palazzini, DMC III (1966) 573; and Wrenn (2001) above. As for the lack of detailed canonical examination of the mechanics for assessing possible papal heresy, Cocchi, COMMENTARIUM II/2 (1931) n. 155, ascribes it to the fact that law provides for common cases and adapts for rarer; may I say again, heretical popes are about as rare as rare can be and yet still be.

In sum, and while additional important points could be offered on this matter, in the view of modern canonists from Wernz to Wrenn, however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetetwould result in the loss of papal office. [8]

Or again, as Rahner put it in 1947:

 Moreover, a bishop or Pope, according to the universal teaching…keeps his ecclesiastical powers even if he is occultly unbelieving in the purely internal forum [i.e. in his heart, not public]. But possession of ordinary ecclesiastical authority [office holding] and non-membership in the Church [for public material heresy] are mutually exclusive notionsit is contrary to the nature of an ordinary sovereign power in a community, that it should be capable of being exercised by a non-member or outsider. For ordinary, enduring exercise of a function proper to the nature of a community does, in fact, constitute membership.

It is a little-known fact (but extremely important that it become widely known) that St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Commentary on Galatians, teaches that although no Churchman has power from God to excommunicate a co-equal successor of the Apostles, or a superior, i.e. a Successor of St. Peter (or for that matter, an Angel from Heaven), yet:

…the Apostle [Paul] says the dignity of the Gospel teaching which comes directly from God, is so great that if a man or even an angel preach another gospel …he is anathema, i.e., must be rejected and expelled.

… [W]e must solve the objections which arise on this point. The first is that, since an equal has no authority over his peers and much less over his superiors, it seems that the Apostle [Paul] has no power to excommunicate the apostles, who are his peers, and less so, angels who are superior… Therefore, the anathema is invalid. The answer to this is that the Apostle passed this sentence not on his own authority, but on the authority of the Gospel teaching [Deposit of Faith], of which he was the minister, and the authority of which teaches that whoever says anything contrary to it must [emphasis added] be expelled and cast out.[9]

Yet Gaspers claims that St. Thomas supports his view that pertinacity must be present:

it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error (ST II-II, q. 5, art. 3).

But Thomas is speaking about the subjective guilt of the person, not whether he is still a member of the visible Church. In his Commentary on Galatians, he keeps the door open to the possibility that even material heretics who have not been warned and found pertinacious are ontologically outside the Church, again, as when St. Paul said: “Let them be anathema”:

But whether he [Paul] was then and there passing sentence on heretics by these words is open to question, since sentence was later passed against heretics in the Councils. Yet it can be said that perhaps he was showing that they deserved to be excommunicated.[10]

At any rate, the Church has had 750 years since St. Thomas to reflect, refine and clarify.

If after all this, Mr. Gaspers should insist that only a public FORMAL heretic Pope could ever lose office, then allow me to inform him that Canon Law itself (Canon 1321. 3) asserts that Francis is presumed to be a formal heretic, not merely a material one:

Unless it is otherwise evident IMPUTABILITY IS PRESUMED whenever an EXTERNAL VIOLATION has occurred.[xi] (emphasis mine)

Francis, by his remorseless and repeated materially heretical declarations—such as stating that the death penalty is illicit or that that all religions are paths to God—is, by these EXTERNAL VIOLATIONS PRESUMED a formal heretic because it is NOT “otherwise evident that he is not.”

But if Canon Law says that Francis is to be presumed to be formally heretical, then even Raymond Cardinal Burke must agree that Francis is not Pope, for this is exactly what he told Catholic World Report in December 2016:

If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.[12]

Hundreds of thousands of Catholics are now waiting for His Eminence to follow through on this statement.

Not that we cannot presume the invalidity already. For as I have been at pains to demonstrate above, it is the near unanimous opinion among theologians that even a material heretic, that is to say, a man who is NOT  a heretic even in the eyes of God, is nevertheless, NOT a member of the visible Church and therefore loses his office ipso facto. As Bellarmine says of Pope Liberius losing his office to Pope Felix:

Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic. [13]

It is worth mentioning that although many writers quote Thomas Cardinal Cajetan that a Pope only loses office AFTER an imperfect council declares him so, it is a little-known fact (but extremely important that it become widely known) that Cajetan later changed his position to that of Robert Cardinal Bellarmine:

… [Cajetan] abandoned his thesis, so strongly defended in De Comparatione, that in the case of a heresy the pope is not ipso facto to be considered deposed.” [14]

In conclusion, against the position of Matt Gaspers (and others) it seems it simply must be the case that a public material heretic Pope loses office BEFORE any declaratory action on the part of the Church. For as former Vatican Librarian Alfons Cardinal Stickler writes:

…[in] the first millennium of the Church…in the light of that tradition…it appears clearly that the pope stands for the Church which has never erred, which cannot err, in questions that involve eternal spiritual salvation. Therefore, he is the absolute (and consequently, implicitly infallible) guarantor of the truth which one who wishes to be Catholic must profess…if the pope really errs [publicly] in matters already defined (and this is something to be proved because it is often erroneously asserted [by Sedevacantists for example]), he is no longer pope and therefore does not compromise and cannot compromise papal infallibility…[15]

I have long argued that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid (Cf. The Third Secret of Fatima and the Synodal Church, Vol. I Pope Benedict’s ResignationAmazon). But if somehow the election of Pope Francis were valid, it is hard to see how the preponderance of the evidence does not now indicate that he has lost his office due to material heresy—even if he were somehow not formally guilty of heresy. [16]

ENDNOTES

[1] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (TAN Books, 1974), pp. 309-311.

[2] As Gaspers points out: “merely material heretics, even if manifest, are members of the Church, is defended by Franzelin, De Groot, D’Herbigny, Caperan, Terrien, and a few others.”

[3] Karl Rahner, “Die Zugehörigkeit zur Kirche nach der Lehre der Enzyklika Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 69 Band (1947), pp. 129-188. Cf. https://archive.org/details/theologicalinves0002karl/page/12/mode/2up?view=theater&q=universal+teaching+of+theologians

[4] Louis Cardinal Billot, S.J. Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi 5th Edition (Rome: Gregorian Pontifical University, 1927), pp. 310-311.

[5]  St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Vol. 1, Book II, Chapter 30, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press, 2015), pp. 308-310. As cited by Billot, p. 295. Cf. https://wmreview.co.uk/2023/01/09/tradivox-vi/#_ftnref9

[6] Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Vol. 1, Book II, Chapter 30, pp. 308-310.

[7] Fr. Franz Wernz and Fr. Pedro Vidal, Ius Canonicum II, p. 453.

[8] https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-canonical-primer-on-popes-and-heresy/

[9] https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/SSGalatians.htm#12

[10] https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/SSGalatians.htm#12

[11] Canon 1321 P. 4 in the latest revision of the 1983 Code. A thank you to Canonist Marc Balestrieri for bringing this to my attention.

[12] https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/12/19/cardinal-burke-no-i-am-not-saying-that-pope-francis-is-in-heresy/

[13] De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.

[14] Ulrich Horst, Juan de Torquemada and Thomas de Vio Cajetan, (Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 2012), p. 172. Horst is likely referencing Cajetan’s response to Luther in De divina institutione pontificatus Romani Pontificis.

[15] The Catholic Historical Review, vol. 60, no. 3 (October 1974), pp. 427-441; Cf. https://www.obeythepope.com/2017/12/the-indefectible-church-of-rome.html

[16]Sedevacantist critics undoubtedly claim the same of all the Popes since John XXIII, but we must remember that we are not merely talking about error on the part of the Popes, but heresy. And heresy means the denial of a teaching to be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It is up to them to prove that any of these Popes publicly denied De Fide dogmas of the Church in the unmistakable manner that Bergoglio has; Cf. https://www.padreperegrino.org/2022/10/infallible/.

8 critical flaws in Bishop Schneider’s defense of “Francis is Definitely Pope”

By Matthew McCusker via (LifeSiteNews)

Schneider’s article is mainly directed against those who reject the claims of Francis to the papacy because of (a) questions about the abdication of Benedict XVI and/or (b) the papal conclave which apparently elected Francis. However, Schneider reaches a conclusion which is much broader than simply refuting what has been called the “benevacantist” (“Benedict was still pope”) position. He asserts without qualification that “Pope Francis is certainly the valid Pope.”

This conclusion does not follow from the arguments which he makes in this article. His arguments may have some force against the “benevacantist” position, but they are not adequate to address the position which eschews consideration of resignations, conclaves, and conspiracies, and instead bases its argument for the current vacancy of the Holy See on theological principles rather than contingent events.

There are, I contend, eight critical flaws in Bishop Schneider’s argument, seen from this perspective:

  1. He prioritizes history over theology in resolving a question which is primarily theological in nature
  2. He fails to distinguish between what is of human law and what is of divine law in the law concerning papal elections
  3. He denies that the Holy See can be vacant for a “considerable time”
  4. He appears to deny that there can be temporary doubt over the identity of the pope
  5. He appears to make “the wish the father of the thought” in denying the possibility of a vacant see because of the evil consequences that would follow from it
  6. He assumes that it is certain that new ordinaries cannot take up office if the Holy See is vacant
  7. He encourages the faithful to make a profession of faith directly opposed to the teachings of the man whom he holds to be the pope, and thus the man who is “the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact” (Cardinal Billot).
  8. He categorizes the errors and heresies of Francis as “ambiguities.”

I will now explain each of these critical flaws in Bishop Schneider’s article, and their significance, in more detail…

https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/8-critical-flaws-in-bishop-schneiders-defense-of-a-francis-papacy/

The Roman Catechism Teaches that Heretics Separate Themselves from the Church

By  via Ecclesia Militans:

“St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism: ‘Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have defected (desciverunt) from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted’; whereas those who have not left the Church by defecting, but are excluded from the Church by excommunication, are ‘cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.’”

“As can be seen from the above quoted text of St. Pius V’s Catechism, heretics withdraw (descisco, desciscere, descivi, descitum – withdraw, leave, revolt from, desert defect), they leave the Church on their own, as opposed to the excommunicati, who are expelled by act of authority. By the act of heresy, i.e., by the sin of defecting from the Catholic faith by an external act of manifest formal heresy, the heretic, by that act of heresy suapte natura, i.e., by the effect that is intrinsic to the nature of the act of manifest formal heresy, leaves the Church and ceases to be a member of it. It is not by the force of law in virtue of a latæ sententiæ excommunication, or in any manner by means of, or after any ecclesiastical judgment, that the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church by having been expelled from the Church by the authority of ecclesiastical law (ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt), nor is it necessary for a heretic to formally declare his separation from the Church, join another religious sect or denomination, or explicitly admit that he is in heresy, but the desertion itself that is intrinsic to the nature of the public act of formal heresy, suapte natura, separates the heretic from the body of the Church, so that any judgment or censure does not in any manner separate the heretic, or play any role in the heretic’s ipso jure separation from the Church, nor does it merely dispose the heretic to be actually separated from the Church, but only gives juridical recognition and adds force of law to the fact of separation accomplished suapte natura by heresy. The severing of the juridical bond is accomplished by the heretic per se by his own actions. Consequently, any censure merely gives juridical recognition to the fact of separation, and thus imposes the obligation of absolution from the censure as a condition for reconciliation with the Church.”

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:

Hardcover versions:  see here.
Softcover and electronic versions:  see here and here.

 

Make it stop: Cardinal Burke somehow still thinks an apostate not only remains in the Church, but somehow is also running the Church?

(Sarcasm aside, no joke, I’m serious, not kidding… someone please splain it to me.  This man knows full well that an apostate is just that: Someone who has apostatized, denied the faith. Such a person, by their own choice, is outside the Church. A person outside the Church cannot hold juridical office inside the Church (if he ever did). According to canon law, this “loss of office” is automatic. Cardinal Burke was the top canon lawyer in the Church before the usurper illegally and invalidly stripped him of that rank. That this man is floating the erroneous idea that an apostate can hold any position of legitimate authority in the Church is, at best, diabolical disorientation. At worst, outright deception. Eminence, what the hell are you doing? You’re worried about people leaving the Church because an impostor has been imposing heresy for the past 12 years? Newsflash, you are part of the problem, not the solution (or not yet). Why do you keep claiming he’s definitely Pope? You owe it to the flock to depose this usurper, and then open an investigation into Pope Benedict’s failed partial abdication. The entire Bergoglian antipapacy needs to be declared null since its faux inception. Just like dozens of other antipopes have been deposed, while they yet lived. In fact, you owe it to Bergoglio himself, so that he may repent, confess his sins with full contrition and purpose of amendment, die in the state of grace, and obtain the Beatific Vision. Good grief, man, for the care of souls, all souls, DO SOMETHING.) -nvp


Cardinal Burke urges Catholics to stay in the Church even if the ‘highest’ leaders commit ‘apostasy’

‘No matter what we are asked to suffer, we must remain with Him, even if those in the highest positions of authority in the Church should abandon Him, should commit the grievous crime of apostasy from the Catholic faith,’ Cardinal Burke declared.   

Featured Image 

LA CROSSE, Wisconsin (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Raymond Burke exhorted Catholics to hold onto the Catholic faith regardless of “apostasy” at the highest levels of the Church hierarchy.  

In a December 14 homily during Mass at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Wisconsin, Cardinal Burke encouraged Catholics to keep their faith in difficult times, stressing the importance of the Blessed Virgin Mary in our redemption.  

“No matter what we are asked to suffer, we must remain with Him, even if those in the highest positions of authority in the Church should abandon Him, should commit the grievous crime of apostasy from the Catholic faith,” Cardinal Burke said during the candlelit Rorate Mass said in the honor of the Blessed Virgin…

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-urges-catholics-to-stay-in-the-church-even-if-the-highest-leaders-commit-apostasy/

All I want for Christmas is no drone dirty nukes over NYC

Via Vox Popoli:


“An Unprecedented Hit”

Whether it’s a false flag or a green flag, but you may recall that I said there would be some sort of showy, but underwhelming attack on US soil in a futile attempt to drum up public support for war with Iran, probably before the inauguration of President Trump. Events do appear to be preceding accordingly, if the rumors being propagated are any guide:

Overnight, I got word from seven (7) different sources out of the New York Police Department – so I know, too.

There is no way to report this without causing an immediate and widespread panic. There’s no reason to panic, but it would cause a panic. Think “Mad Max”-style, panic.

A lot people could be hurt by that panic, so I am NOT going to be the one to cause it. Period. Full stop.

Is it possible that people will die from the lack of reporting? Yes. Is it also possible that a lot of people would die WITH the reporting? Yes. So media outlets are damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

It Appears We’re Going To Take A “Hit”

Look, we here in the USA are now faced with an unprecedented situation. It’s not good.

It appears, at least right now, that we are going to take a very big hit. An unprecedented hit.

Considering that Clown World knows that the ~3,000 deaths associated with whatever 9/11 was will not be nearly enough to stir an indifferent public that is increasingly not American, I’d expect some sort of dirty bomb event on the East Coast, near but outside of New York City, that is initially reported to have killed up to 100,000 people, later downgraded to 20-30k…

https://voxday.net/2024/12/17/an-unprecedented-hit/

This is nearly 200 years old, but reads as if written yesterday

Posted by the always excellent over at Saint Louis Catholic:

“The Church of God on earth will be greatly reduced, as we may well imagine, in its apparent numbers, in the times of Antichrist, by the open desertion of the powers of the world. This desertion will begin in a professed indifference to any particular form of Christianity, under the pretence of universal toleration; which toleration will proceed from no true spirit of charity and forbearance, but from a design to undermine Christianity, by multiplying and encouraging sectaries. The pretended toleration will go far beyond a just toleration, even as it regards the different sects of Christians. For governments will pretend an indifference to all, and will give a protection in preference to none. All establishments will be laid aside. From the toleration of the most pestilent heresies, they will proceed to the toleration of Mahometanism, Atheism, and at last to a positive persecution of the truth of Christianity. In these times the Temple of God will be reduced almost to the Holy Place, that is, to the small number of real Christians who worship the Father in spirit and in truth, and regulate their doctrine and their worship, and their whole conduct, strictly by the word of God. The merely nominal {108} Christians will all desert the profession of the truth, when the powers of the world desert it. And this tragical event I take to be typified by the order to St. John to measure the Temple and the Altar, and leave the outer court (national Churches) to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles. The property of the clergy will be pillaged, the public worship insulted and vilified by these deserters of the faith they once professed, who are not called apostates because they never were in earnest in their profession. Their profession was nothing more than a compliance with fashion and public authority. In principle they were always, what they now appear to be, Gentiles. When this general desertion of the faith takes place, then will commence the sackcloth ministry of the witnesses … There will be nothing of splendour in the external appearance of their churches; they will have no support from governments, no honours, no emoluments, no immunities, no authority, but that which no earthly power can take away, which they derived from Him, who commissioned them to be His witnesses.”

Cardinal Newman, 1838