Are unvaccinated Catholics obligated to follow the mask mandates?

The short answer is "no". The long answer goes into the question of determining whether the current mandates are even properly laws at this point. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine makes the following point:

"Unjust laws are not properly called laws, as Augustine teaches. Moreover, four conditions are required for a law to be just. 1) On the side of the end, that it is ordained for the common good; for as a king differs from a tyrant, in that the former seeks the common advantage, while the latter seeks his own, so also a just law differs from a tyrannical one. 2) One the side of the agent, that it should be from having authority, for no one can impose a law except upon a subject. 3) On the side of the matter, that it should not forbid virtue, nor command a vice. 4) On the side of form, that a law should be clearly promulgated and constituted in a measure and order due to it, so that a law would preserve that proportion in the distribution of honors and imposition of burdens which subjects have in rank toward the common good." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, Ch. XV)

So we should investigate whether a particular law or mandate from an earthly prince follows this criteria before we subjugate ourselves to it. The recent church closures are obviously an infraction of a just law for they forbid the virtue of receiving the benefit of the sacraments. Catholics are not obligated to follow such laws. Therefore, Catholics everywhere ought to be seeking and pressuring their governments to open the churches or face worldwide counter-revolution. But the recent mask mandates that apply only to unvaccinated individuals have left some people wondering whether these are just laws or fraudulent laws. Are unvaccinated people walking around without masks "cheaters" who are using situational advantage to remove their masks. As stated, the short answer is a definitive "no". Under scrutiny, the current laws have actually created severe ethical and moral dilemmas to begin with which has benefited one side over the other. This of course would be sufficient to render the law inherently unjust. Either the law applies to all or it applies to none. But effectively, what these mandates have done is recreated the leper colonies of old where the unvaccinated are pushed aside and treated as lepers. This is doing nothing more but isolating the unvaccinated and the voiding them of their humanity. Unlike the leper colonies of old though, no one cares enough to visit the unvaccinated.

Underneath argument 1, the first question should be addressed whether this is for the common good. It's very difficult to argue in favor of this because no one can actually see a virus. In fact, Fauci's leaked e-mails show that he holds a very low confidence in masks. He even stated how masks would only serve a symbolic gesture. The "common good" that it's supposed to be used for is to "prevent the spread of COVID-19". That sounds good and all but we see the full revolutionary ideology at play here. It is the idea that "I am God and I control the situation!" The fact of the matter, is that it cannot be for the common good because we are not in control of viruses. Further, masks have been shown to have very unhealthy risks for children. What this entails is that masks are not at all beneficial for the common good. If they prevent the spread of COVID-19 at all, they do more harm than good. Since health is holistic, being concerned for only the spread of one disease is not a justifiable excuse for establishing the common good. The common good is something that all objectively understand to be good and it cannot be established that preventing the spread of a viral infection is a greater good than the other health risks that must be taken in concordance with the ascetical lack of not being able to see another person's face in order to establish a healthy relationship with the other. Thus, masks are not inherently critical to the common good. They fail to meet criteria 1. Even further, masks can only ever serve the benefit of those who are fearful of the spread of COVID-19. The tyrant seeks his own good and the tyrant makes tyrannical laws. If the law only seeks the good of those who are fearful of COVID-19 and ignores the good of others, then the law is inherently tyrannical and thus, unjust.

Argument 2 makes the point that the law must be in a relational context of authority to subject. The problem is that in a democracy, there are always ideological dissidents of the authority who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the one claiming authority. The one claiming authority must rely on the legitimacy he derives from the people. The Biden administration, particularly, insists that its authority is derived from the people. But which people? I didn't vote for the Biden administration. If you voted for Jo Jorgensen, did you vote for Biden? So how could Biden derive his authority from you? If democracy is about the consent of the governed, how does a mere majority make consent? Thus, the context of the authority and subject relationship is broken. There is no objective way to establish legitimacy and if the authority of the government ultimately derives from the people, then by pointing out that you are among the people and did not give consent, you cannot be placed as a subject. Of course, what other things mark legitimate authority? Authority requires legitimacy. For instance, does a governor who insists that infants be left to die have the capability to be entrusted with his state's health policies? Or does such a person lose authority due to a damaged capacity to reason? This may be seen as "begging the question" but the reality is that authority-subject relationship in a democracy itself begs the question!

On matter 3, we have a very serious issue on our hands. The mRNA vaccines out there for one, alter the genetic code. Of course, this is a very serious violation of moral theology as it alters the created order of God by altering the human body itself. A just law must order virtue but this law orders the alteration of the human genome itself. Because of this, the mRNA vaccine can never be said to be ethical. Ethics is not something the modern Leviathan cares for though. By commanding a vaccine that alters the genetic code be taken before you are allowed to remove the mask is to enforce one to violate his moral conscientiousness before being able to be treated like a valued human being. But a just law would order that one be treated like a valued human being regardless. One does not need a genetically altering vaccine in order to be treated as a valued human being. Regardless of what the Leviathan says, we can all be treated like valued human beings without having to subvert our moral conscientiousness. Thus, because the law places ethical violations before valued treatment, Catholics cannot be compelled to be subject to this law. The law is unjust and immoral. Further, many of these vaccines are made using the tissue of cloned aborted fetus cells. The Holy Emperor Constantine was told by a Pagan priest to bathe himself in the blood of children in order to be cured of his leprosy once. When the Emperor went to a Catholic priest, the priest forbade him to do this, baptized him, and this cleansed him from his leprosy. If the Holy Emperor Constantine is an example, we ought to avoid injecting ourselves with vaccines that use fetal cell tissue. But this does not mean we need to sit around and wait before we are able to be treated like valued human beings again. We can therefore remove our masks.

Under argument 4, we can clearly see the law weighs undue burdens upon the unvaccinated forcing them to subvert their moral conscience and, further, has great negative health risks for younger people. Because it imposes undue burdens and creates class groups, the law cannot be reasonably considered a law. It is inherently immoral. One can flippantly state, "must be nice to be in an age group where you won't be strongly harmed by COVID-19" all they want. The fact of the matter is that such a person is actually using "law" in order to benefit themselves. The issues are in fact difficult to navigate but none of the fear of COVID-19 can or should have been ever used to justify lockdowns or universal mask mandates. Further, to place the burden to make decisions regarding morality and health risks on an entire population before they can obtain basic freedoms that a particular class of people behold and to forever shame them is not only egregiously immoral but also unduly tyrannical. When a portion of the population seeks to control another portion of the population, that is an "us vs. them" mentality that is bred into the individual. That is a collectivist mentality that is bred into the individual. You might say that "the government has ordered it! How could this be wrong?" But think of what else governments have ordered. From the Communist State of Stalinist Russia to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews to Roosevelt's imprisonment of Asians to the segregation of colored people from whites. All of these things have been ordered by governments. And the government has been wrong to order these things. In fact, the State, as of this last century, has created a track record of itself being routinely wrong. You may think of these people as "cheaters". Don't do so. They are protesting an inherently unjust law. If you can argue against this, please do so.

Historicism Debunked, Pt. 5 - Origins of Futurism

It is fictitiously claimed by historicist conspiracy theorists that the origins of the doctrine of futurism were concocted by the Jesuit ministers of the Roman Catholic Church as a clever way to distract people from knowing "who the real Antichrist is". One such character who does this is a character we've seen in this series before. His site can be found here. It is quite clear from reading his sources on both preterism and futurism, the former we will tackle in the next article of this series, that he straw-mans both positions! Futurism does not insist on the "resurrection" of a Roman Empire. Futurism rather holds the postulation, historically Rome has not been divided up into ten kings and the Roman Empire may not have actually fallen to begin with as even Spain can claim legitimacy to the Roman Imperial Throne due to its connections with the Habsburgs. We established this position in the previous entry.

He contends that the Futurist school was created out of "panic" as the Pope was being exposed as the Antichrist as Martin Luther and the Reformers began "exposing" the Pope as the true Antichrist that Scriptures identified. Let alone, they can't even tell you which Pope was the Antichrist! But that's beside the point, the historicist school says the Papacy as an office is the Antichrist conflating its ecclesiastical role with the role of the Church played by those operating mostly independent of the Papacy and confusing its role as a secular role as opposed to a religious role. Thus, the historicist argument continues to be void of actual historical substance to back it up. I always found it rather odd that the Papacy even lacks a military. One could say the Swiss Guard is their military but that's more of a body-guard unit of Swiss soldiers. In fact, among the requirements to being in the Swiss guard is that you have to be Swiss. That's not a Papal militia but a secular militia supplied by an independent sovereign. Historicism can never make up its mind as to whether the Papacy is the Beast or the Whore of Babylon. Some say the entire Catholic Church led by the Papacy is the Whore of Babylon. Maybe the reason why historicism is such a bungled mess of interpretation has less to do with the book of Revelation being difficult but rather because the historicist school belongs in the trash-bin of history.

So the Pope, now freaking out (allegedly) because he was identified as the Biblical Antichrist got this guy named Francisco Ribera. The rest of the article's polemics is actually a bit humorous so let me quote it:

"Like Martin Luther, Francisco Ribera also read by candlelight the prophecies about the Antichrist, the Beast, the little horn and that man of sin. But because the Pope was his boss, he came to conclusions vastly different from that of the Protestants. “Why, these prophecies don’t apply to the Catholic Church at all!” Ribera said. Then to whom do they apply? Ribera proclaimed, “To only one sinister man who will rise up at the end of time!” “Fantastic!” was the reply from Rome, and this viewpoint was quickly adopted as the official Roman Catholic position on the Antichrist."

Thus, Ribera is now the "father of Futurism". Only this is wrong. Very wrong. Futurism actually had a very strong history in the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Protestant Reformation. It goes back to St. Irenaeus of Lyons. St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Ignatius who was a disciple of St. John, the one who wrote the Apocalypse. This is why the futurist school has maintained weight even with a position that the Olivet Discourse was entirely fulfilled (though most Furturists contend the Olivet Discourse was not entirely fulfilled). We'll go back to different preterist schools in another post though. For now, we will look at the classical futurist position developed by St. Irenaeus.

In Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus interprets the four beasts in Daniel 7 as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonia, and Rome (Bk. V, ch. 26). St. Irenaeus describes the fall of the Roman Empire particularly as "The ten toes, therefore, are these ten kings, among whom the kingdom shall be partitioned, of whom some indeed shall be strong and active, or energetic; others, again, shall be sluggish and useless, and shall not agree" (ibid). On the number 666, St. Irenaeus has this to say:

"the name Evanthas (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, (ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels ε and ι, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed Titan by those who do now possess [the rule]."

Clearly, St. Irenaeus holds the interpretation of Daniel 7 as being a literal division of ten kings and one man coming to uproot three of the kingdoms possessed by those ten kings. But he holds Antichrist as a literal man, not an "office" of the Papacy. The Papacy was of course alive and active in the days of St. Irenaeus and St. Irenaeus even has a list of the prominent Popes in order to prove Apostolic Succession! (Bk. 3, ch. III) So the Papacy did not arise from obscurity as this little horn did.

St. Hippolytus follows St. Irenaeus and writes this of the ten horns:

"As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms, let us look at the subject a little more closely, and consider these matters as in the clear light of a personal survey." (On Christ and Antichrist)

And of course, this is futurist thinking. The Barbarian kingdoms, though uncivilized, were monarchies, not democracies. Thus, the division into ten horns could not be the division of the Western Half in 476! Further, Sts. Hippolytus and Irenaeus are indeed thinking holistically of the Roman Empire. It is difficult to tell whether they would have thought the Holy Roman Empire the legitimate succession but they would have definitely acknowledged the legitimacy of Constantine's successors! Of course, if historicism is merely the position that Biblical prophecy unfolds throughout history, then technically all of the early church's positions on the subject are historicist. Because they felt the collapse of Rome was to come and that it would be divided into ten kingdoms. This was a prophecy in the making.

The Ven. Bede also maintains a futurist approach in his Explanation of the Apocalypse and we can see a clear depiction of the reign of Antichrist as futuristic in St. Hildegard of Bingen's Scivias (Bk. 3, Vision 11). All of these came long before St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and Francisco Ribera so to say that the origins of futurism lie with the Jesuits is an intellectually dishonest and deceitful abuse and misunderstanding of historical theology on this subject.

To Sedevacate? - Pt. 1

I decided to pick up St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine as I wrestle with the question of what to do regarding Pope Francis. It is possible he is an Antipope and I have indeed referred to him as such before and while the sedevacantist position has its grounding in historical theology, I don't think one should ever jump to it rashly on the basis of a few texts. In the next part, I'll show that St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine can definitely be read to support the sedevacantist position but for now, I want to go over some of the things he states about whether or not the Pope could be a heretic. There is a distinction he makes between occultic (hidden) heretics and manifest heretics. Only the latter is ipso facto excommunicated but the former, while holding error, can still in fact be full members of the Church. I'll discuss this distinction more in my next post too. Bellarmine has this to say about four opinions on whether the Pope can err:

"1) Should the Pope define something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can teach others heresy and that this has in fact happened thus. This is the opinion of all the heretics of this time, and especially of Luther, who in his book on councils recorded the errors of even general councils that the Pope approved. It is also the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that at some time the Pope with the whole college of Cardinals manifestly taught heresy on that question of whether the soul of man is extinguished with the body, which is a manifest lie, as well show a little later. Next, he teaches in the same book that the Pope can err with a general council.

2) The second opinion is that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council, something that this opinion holds did in fact happen. Nilos Cabásilas has followed this opinion in his book against the primacy of the Pope; a few others follow the same opinion, especially amongst the Parisian theologians such as John Gerson, Almain and still, Alonso de Castro as well as Pope Adrian VI in his question on Confirmation; all of these constitute infallibility of judgment on matters of faith not with the Pope but with the Church or with a General Council.

3) The Third opinion is another extreme, that the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.

4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics. ...

From these four opinions, the first is heretical; the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The fourth is very certain and must be asserted." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, ch. II)

We see that the opinion that the Pope can only be deemed infallible when speaking in agreement with the Church and with the Councils on his own is not necessarily heretical as determined by Bellarmine. Of course, Vatican I seems to suggest that this opinion is now a heresy but, it limits the Papal authority to a matter of ex cathedra statements. If the Chair of St. Peter is derived from the Church, then only speaking in accordance with the Councils and the Church, and not of himself, can the Pope be said to be speaking infallibly. So there is a legitimate case to be made still for the second opinion. That said, regardless of how the ex cathedra statement is interpreted as, it is only when he is defining a matter of faith. We have had multiple encyclicals and councils containing errors as of recently that have never been submitted as de fide statements. To say the Church is bound to error when it is only made pastoral and not as a matter of dogma is erroneous. For the Church is only bound to that which is a de fide matter. Neo-Catholics aren't particularly conservative as they pretend to be. They've only been concerned with conserving the mistakes made by liberals. Some of them have even insisted the Church is bound by everything a Pope says or does, which is highly inaccurate. This is why Bellarmine also states that, "just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more should he endeavor to destroy the Church" (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. II, Ch. XXIX)

Now, Pope Celestine I shows in his epistle that Nestorius lost authority the moment he began to preach his heresies. But we note in the case of St. Cyprian that he viciously disagreed with the Pope's question on whether or not heretics should be rebaptized. Dom John Chapman notes this instance, commenting that "St. Jerome...tells us: 'Bl. Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejecting the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain." (Studies on the Early Papacy, 48) The Pope had Tradition on his side in this matter. Though he never defined the position as a de fide statement, the Pope had the Tradition on his side, St. Cyprian did not. St. Cyprian could have definitely been considered a Donatist heretic but he was not. He was not because he was moved for what he felt was orthodoxy and his push toward his position was for what he resisted as a heresy. Citing St. Vincent of Lerins Chapman writes, "For who is so mad as to doubt that blessed Cyprian, that light of all saints and martyrs, with his colleagues shall reign for eternity with Christ? Or who, on the contrary, so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and the other plagues, who boast that it is by the authority of that Council that they rebaptize, shall burn with the Devil for ever?" (50)

We might finish this section with words of the Great Enunciator, Marcel Lefebvre,

"To be a heretic, it is necessary to be pertinacious in adhering to the error; it is not enough to have uttered an heretical phrase. For example, on the subject of the Blessed Trinity―a very difficult subject subject―we might make a mistake or blunder in speech and say something that is not very orthodox. If someone points it out to us we retract; but if they accuse us of heresy, or excommunicate us...how frightful." (Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, 16)

I want to also add that sedevacantists should not be treated as heretics or Protestants. That is grotesque slander from the Neo-Catholics who have shown that they only intend to conserve every single mistake the liberals in the Church have made via "pastoral" decisions any way. Sedevacantists may adhere to the position that the See of Peter remains vacant as a heretic holds that position but they are still in a valid Apostolic Succession. The current situation the Church is in right now is comparable to the Great Schism of the 14th century. That year in which we had a multitude of claimants to the Papal Throne and holy people on both sides adhering to the other as legitimate. We are in that situation currently. Sedevacantists must be treated as our fellow brethren. They are often better Catholics than some of those who uphold the current Pope as legitimate too.

Historicism Debunked, Pt. 3 - The Myth of Persecution

In order to bolster their claims that the Papacy is the Antichrist, Protestants are obliged to come up with a whole persecution legend of how the Papacy somehow rose up to persecute the "true Christians" and was in power performing this action the whole time. This is historically problematic to say the least. Numerous details are left out. Numbers from the Inquisitions, Religious Wars, and individual massacres are grotesquely inflated, context is ignored, and they'll even claim certain sects as their own. Let's just state this, it's a fictitious claim to begin with so naturally, numbers have to be inflated. One source claims that the Inquisitions killed an estimated 50,000,000-150,000,000 people! I tried to contact the author of that website in the past, ages ago, asking him what his credentials were. His health seems to be poor and at the time, his wife was also battling a serious illness. It seems she has since reposed as well. He never got back to me. I contacted him recently but have still not heard a response. I don't know if it's because he is simply so caught up in this fictitious narrative that he thinks any one who disagrees with him is a Satanic Beast or simply that he doesn't want to engage in counter-arguments. Regardless, he needs serious prayer so if you can commend him to your prayers, that would be the Christian thing to do.

But again, these numbers are grotesquely exaggerated and there is a huge context missing. Since all historicists maintain that the Papacy is a persecuting power, let's see if they can actually back those claims up. Albert Barnes, in his Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel states the following,

"This would be a persecuting power - "making war with the saints," and "wearing out the saints of the Most High." Can anyone doubt that this is true of the Papacy? The Inquisition; the "persecutions of the Waldenses;" the ravages of the Duke of Alva; the fires of Smithfield; the tortures at Goa - indeed, the whole history of the Papacy may be appealed to in proof that this is applicable to that power. If anything could have "worn out the saints of the Most High" - could have cut them off from the earth so that evangelical religion would have become extinct, it would have been the persecutions of the Papal power. In the year 1208, a crusade was proclaimed by Pope Innocent III against the Waldenses and Albigenses, in which a million of men perished. From the beginning of the order of the Jesuits, in the year 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed. One hundred and fifty thousand perished by the Inquisition in thirty years. In the Low Countries fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, burned, or buried alive, for the crime of heresy, within the space of thirty-eight years from the edict of Charles V, against the Protestants, to the peace of Chateau Cambresis in 1559. Eighteen thousand suffered by the hands of the executioner, in the space of five years and a half, during the administration of the Duke of Alva. Indeed, the slightest acquaintance with the history of the Papacy, will convince anyone that what is here said of "making war with the saints" Daniel 7:21, and "wearing out the saints of the Most High" Daniel 7:25, is strictly applicable to that power, and will accurately describe its history."

If I count correctly, that is a grand total of 2,280,000 Protestants killed by the Papacy. Definitely no where near the number claimed by the previous source cited. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Book of Revelation also cites Bp. Thomas Newton saying the exact same thing. But here's the full context.

Heretics are a pestilence upon the Church. When one actually studies the context of these "persecutions", one will see that not only have Protestants committed equal crimes against Catholics throughout the years, but also that in many instances, Protestants were the instigators. Who exactly were the Waldensians, the Lollards, and the Albigensians? It's important to start with the Albigensians. The Albigensians, or the Cathar movement, was a sect that "believed the material world was the creation of an evil deity, and that the pope's church was not only corrupt, but also false and evil...[they] also believed in reincarnation and rejected the sacraments, prayers for the dead, and the veneration of images and relics" (47)

Waldensians initially sought approval for their order from the Pope, but somewhere down the line, distanced themselves even more overtly from him and began "to argue that that the ultimate supreme authority was the Bible, not the pope. In addition, much like the Cathars, the Waldenses also questioned the validity of the church's sacraments, prayers for the dead, and the veneration of saints and icons." (Carlos M.N. Eire, Reformations: The Early Modern World, 48)

The Lollards who followed Wycliffe's sacramentarian movement gained incredible popularity in England but then showed a demonic hostility toward iconography, "On taking an image of St. Catherine [of Alexandria] from a chapel, one Lollard said to another: Aha...my dear chap, now God has sent us fuel to cook our cabbage and appease hunger. This holy image will make a bonfire for us. By axe and fire she will undergo a new martyrdom, and perhaps through cruelty of those new torments she will come at last to the kingdom of heaven." (52)

Anabaptists weren't all peaceful either. One sect, "a group of fanatics under Jan van Batenburg (1495-1538" were known as "swordsmen" and "indulged in sporadic terrorism in the Netherlands for nearly a decade after 1535" (Euan Cameron, The European Reformation, 333).

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine highlights the fact of religious wars ongoing between Protestants and Catholics and notes that,

"St. Augustine, disputing on this citation, says in the time of Antichrist the Devil will be loosed, and hence that persecution will be much more severe than all the ones that preceded it; the Devil can do so much more cruelly loosed than bound....Hippolytus the Martyr and St. Cyril say that the martyrs whom Antichrist will kill are going to be more illustrious than all the previous ones, because the old martyrs fought against the human ministers of the devil, but these will fight against the Devil himself...we have experienced nothing like that from the year 600 or even 1000." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. III, ch. VII)

He then challenges the heretics, "what comparison is there of that sort of persecution with that carried out by Nero, Domitian, Decius, Diocletian, and others? Accordingly, for one heretic who is burned, a thousand Christians formerly were burned—and that was exercised in the whole Roman world, not only in one place. Furthermore, at present when the supreme penalty is given a man is merely burned, but in ancient times they exercised the most unbelievable torments." (ibid)

And this is evident when one examines the martyrdom of St. Catherine of Alexandria, the Forty Martyrs who had rocks thrown at them, the martyr Barbara who was locked in the tower by her father, the martyr Irene who escaped numerous tortures before finally laying down in a coffin having converted thousands to Christianity, St. George who was brutally tortured multiple times before finally being being beheaded, etc. And further, "the fact is that heretics killed many more Catholics in the last ten or fifteen years in France and Flanders than inquisitors burned heretics in perhaps the last hundred." (ibid)

One could even add that if one takes the date of 538 as the start of supposed "Antichrist" reign, you have to take into account the Holy Emperor Justinian's torments of a demon that caused him to turn on numerous orthodox Christians, the iconoclastic Roman Emperors who persecuted men such as St. John of Damascus, framing him for a crime that had the Muhammadans cut his hand off, the imprisonment of St. Maximus the Confessor whose tongue was cut out, and numerous Patriarchs of Constantinople who were deposed by these Emperors for upholding the orthodox Catholic doctrine. And yet it's the Papacy who is the persecuting power? Clerics don't even have the authority to kill or maim a heretic. Only the legitimate authorities of a State have that right! (St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. IV, 378)

Now, let's not sanitize history. Catholics have done some wretched things, especially to the Waldensians.

"Those in the Piedmont valleys enjoyed religious peace from 1536-1559, owing to the political dependence of the districts upon France. A contrary policy was pursued by the Dukes of Savoy; but the Waldenses at the very outset successfully resisted, and in 1561 were granted in certain districts the free exercise of their religion. In 1655 violence was again fruitlessly resorted to. Later in the same century (1686, 1699) some of them, under stress of renewed persecution, emigrated to Switzerland and Germany." (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Waldenses")

Catholics are not perfect but indeed are sinners too. That said, the Protestants have done some nasty things to Catholics. And sites that claim this exaggerated number do a grotesque disservice to Christianity in toto by claiming such egregious absurdities as it clearly leads men away from God. 2,300,000 still seems like an exaggeration but when you give about 1,260 years for "beast power" to reign, that is remarkably light. Especially when you consider how much Adolf Hitler massacred in regards to innocent non-combatants in the years of 1939-1945. Or even how much Stalin was able to kill during his great persecutions of political opponents. And one final note, we may not ever know the exact total of numbers but...

"These data and others of the same nature bear out the assertion that the Inquisition marks a substantial advance in the contemporary administration of justice, and therefore in the general civilization of mankind. A more terrible fate awaited the heretic when judged by a secular court. In 1249 Count Raymund VII of Toulouse caused eighty confessed heretics to be burned in his presence without permitting them to recant. It is impossible to imagine any such trials before the Inquisition courts. The large numbers of burnings detailed in various histories are completely unauthenticated, and are either the deliberate invention of pamphleteers, or are based on materials that pertain to the Spanish Inquisition of later times or the German witchcraft trials (Vacandard, op. cit., 237 sqq.)." (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Inquisition")

Overall, the numbers of 50,000,000-150,000,000 given by our first source are a drastically unverified claim and to insist that the Catholic Church is just covering up the true numbers to "hide itself" from being identified as "the Antichrist" is just absurd. It's a blanket statement. Protestants underwent no where near the persecution that was let loose by the Roman Empire on the faithful Christians. That's just an historic fact. Much of their claim is based on a moronic persecution complex built on inflated pride. The Waldensians clearly disturbed public peace in preaching and spreading their errors into the Church much like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons go door-knocking on everyone's house nowadays disturbing them. The State's response toward them was brutal at times, and possibly over-the-top, but no where near the level of persecution. The Albigensians weren't even Christians but were Gnostics who held to "Good-god, bad-god" ideology and other Gnostic theology. The Lollards themselves persecuted and smashed churches much like the Black Lives Matter idiot, Shaun King, commands that his demented followers destroy all images of "White Jesus". At certain points, the Protestant killings of Catholics rivaled, if not even flat-out exceeded the numbers killed by Catholics. So the "beast" is not the Papacy. The Papacy never persecuted Christians. This is just simple nonsense.

Nevertheless, keep the man who wrote the article linked in your prayers. He needs healing. Both from his heresy and from the ailments he faces. God bless his soul!

Historicism Debunked, Pt. 2 - The Four Beasts

"The Second proof [that Antichrist has not come] is taken from another sign that will precede the times of Antichrist, which will be the desolation in every way possible of the Roman Empire. At length, it must be known that the Roman Empire was divided into ten kings, none of whom will be called 'King of the Romans,' although all will occupy some provinces of the Roman Empire in the same way that the King of France, the King Spain, the Queen of England, and by chance some others hold parts of the Roman Empire; at length they are not Roman kings or emperors, but until they cease to hold those dominions Antichrist cannot come." (St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. III, ch. V)

"In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings. It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord. For that the kingdom must be divided, and thus come to ruin, the Lord [declares when He] says: Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. It must be, therefore, that the kingdom, the city, and the house be divided into ten; and for this reason He has already foreshadowed the partition and division [which shall take place]." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. V, ch. 26)

It is clear that the beasts in the apocalyptic vision of Daniel 7 are accurately interpreted by the Protestant historicists as the succeeding Empires of the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans. I find the assertions of the Preterists to be baffling in regards to this text. For the symbolism of the third beast clearly depicts the division of the four generals of Alexander the Great and the Macedonian-Greek Empire. Further, this position is backed by St. Jerome as Bellarmine proves. Thus, Tradition establishes that the four beasts are the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and the Romans. There is no need for Catholics to dispute this in order to shake off the false and blasphemous charge that the Papacy is Antichrist because the very St. Irenaeus who admits this also speaks of Our Lady such,

"And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience." (Against Heresies, Bk. V, ch. 19)

And what anti-Papist would speak of Our Lady like that? Indeed, they blasphemy Her and state that Our Lady could not possibly advocate for anybody attempting to claim that She's dead when in fact She was raised to life again three days after Her reposal!

So yes, the last beast is the Roman Empire. And there you have it. The heretics can now go on with their histories of the ten kings except...which one is even accurate? Adam Clarke teaches that it's the Lombards, the Exarchate of the Greeks in Ravenna, the Goths, Saxons, Saracens, Burgundians, Franks, Alemans, Buns, and the Roman Senate. John Gill holds that these are the Britons, Saxons, Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Suevians and Alanes, Vandals, Almanes, Ostrogoths, Greeks (Exarchate of Ravenna, that is). Albert Barnes says that they are the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Sueves and Alans, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians, Heruli and Turingi, Saxons and Angles, Huns, and Lombards.

Still, the SDA heretics insist that the ten kings are the "Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Suevi, Burgundians, Heruli, Anglo-Saxons, and Lombards" (Understanding Daniel and Revelation, 38). Barnes also gives the arrangement of Sir Isaac Newton, an Arian heretic himself, who gives the arrangement as the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa, the Suevians in Spain, the Visigoths, the Alans in Gallia, the Burgundians, the Franks, the Britons, the Huns, the Lombards, the Exarchate of Ravenna. The kingdoms are arranged differently in each narrative because none of the kingdoms actually exist. They are historical inventions of the heretics in order to indict the Papacy and justify their own blasphemies.

Is there a reason to provide further refutation at this point? The four beasts theory is solid and based in Tradition. It is given to us by men who believed in and affirmed the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady. It was not given to us by heretics. The problem as to their ten kings and why they cannot agree on an arrangement unless they plagiarize each other is that there were never ten kings who took over the western half of the Roman Empire. And there is the major problem as to their delusion. They think the Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D. That is false and it is generally upheld by secular classicists apologizing for the Pagan Roman Empire as distinct from the Christian Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire did under the Holy Emperor Constantine, declare Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. What else did Constantine do? He moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople. The "Western Roman Empire" is not what the fourth beast is. The fourth beast didn't split in half but remained whole while the ten horns reigned over it. It needs to be understood that the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire is the Fourth Beast because it is the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire fell to the Turks in 1453 A.D. So the heretics wishing to indict the Papacy on the Tradition that the beasts are understood as the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans, invent different arrangements of the ten kings because this was not what was prophesied in Scripture but rather the fall in 1453 A.D. was what was predicted. Their historical analysis of the Roman Empire is West-centered and neglects the totality of the Roman Empire either conscientiously or deliberately forgetting that the Roman Empire was still in-tact almost a millennium longer than they think it fell. Their ten kings simply cannot be because they never were.

Of course, this also should repudiate those who think the Antichrist is imminent in today's world. Considering that Bellarmine has indicated that as long as the ten kings reign, and Tradition affirms this, Antichrist will not come. John Gill cites St. Jerome, 

"all ecclesiastical writers, that when the Roman empire is destroyed, there shall be ten kings who shall divide it among them; and an eleventh shall arise, a little king, who shall conquer three of the ten kings; and having slain them, the other seven shall submit their necks to the conqueror:"

So if England, Spain, the Netherlands, Saudis, Emirates, Jordan, Liechenstein, all have their monarchies in-tact, and if the pretenders still have supporters to their claims of legitimacy, it cannot be said that the Antichrist will come. Until they cease holding the dominions of the Roman Empire, Antichrist will not come. The Protestant attempt to indict not only ignores the historical fact that the Roman Empire did not fall until 1453 A.D., but also it neglects that the Tradition upholds that the ten kings will lose their dominion over the former Roman provinces. Which they do not uphold. Antichrist is just not coming in our lifetime it seems.

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, Monarchy is the Best Form of Government

Much time is typically spent by monarchists refuting and countering the arguments of democracy. With good reason. Democracy is a sham system of government that has proven to divide people. But perhaps it is also best to provide a strong argument for the case of monarchy. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, in his massive work, On the Roman Pontiff, covers the topic of monarchy first. He spends a devoted amount of time addressing John Calvin's arguments against monarchy because the Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of papal primacy. The Pope reigns and governs supreme over the entire Catholic Church as God's visible head. He argues that this must be so because God wanted His Church to be modeled after the best form of civil government: monarchy.

"Among the Greek [Fathers], blessed Justin teaches that the rule of many is harmful, and on the contrary, the rule of one is more useful and beneficial: 'The rule of one is freed from wars and dissensions and is usually free.' Also St. Athanasius, 'Truly we have said that a multitude of gods is a nullity of gods: so also, necessarily a multitude of princes makes it that there should appear to be no prince: however where there is no prince, there confusion is born.

"Among the Latin [Fathers], St. Cyprian teaches the same thing, and he proves it best and most eminently from the very fact that monarchy should be the best and most natural government, because God is one. 'For the divine authority, let us borrow from an earthly example: In what way has an alliance of power ever begun with trust, or ended without blood?' St. Jerome says: 'One emperor, one judge of the province. When Rome was built, she could not have two brothers as kings at the same time.' Lastly, one can consult St. Thomas." (Bk. I, ch. II)

He continues his argument citing the classics. According to Plato, "One dominion has been arranged for good laws, the law of these is best; that governance in which not many command, we ought to esteem as the middle: the administration of many others is weak, and also frail." Aristotle, who was Plato's student, repeats, "[a] kingdom is the best of these, a republic the worst." Seneca, commenting on the assassination of Caesar, "[T]he best state of citizenry is to be under just one king." Bellarmine is able to recruit the moral philosopher Plutarch, "[i]f the choice of electing were conceded, one should not choose anything else than the power of one." Finally, Homer's statement that "[i]t is not good that there be many; in war there must be one chief and one king." These philosophers build the rational argument to the case for monarchy that Bellarmine makes but Bellarmine is a theologian first and foremost. He doesn't stop with the human but ascends to the divine.

In accordance with the Divine law "God made from one every kind of man, as the Apostle says." He draws from this the same conclusion made by St. John Chrysostom "that this is so that there should not be democracy among men, but a kingdom." Not only that but in nature, we see that monarchy is the most natural form of government. For St. Cyprian tells us that "[t]here is one king for bees, one leader among flocks, and one rule among rams" and St. Jerome adds that "cranes follow one by the order of the litter."

We observe in Scripture how easily a monarchy formed.

"He did not (as Calvin says but cannot prove), make the government of the Hebrews an aristocracy, or a government of many, but was plainly a monarchy. The princes among the Hebrews were first of all patriarchs, as Abraham, Jacob, Jude and the rest; thereupon generals, as Moses and Joshua; then judges, as Samuel, Sampson, and others; afterwards kings, as Saul, David, and Solomon; thereafter again generals, as Zerubbabel and the Maccabees."

And Bellarmine is not without evidence or examples of this. The confusion is of course is a titular confusion. People think monarchy means having a king but a monarch need not be a king but any sort of ruler. Bellarmine points to the examples set by Abraham, Judah, Moses, and the Judges of Israel. Abraham waged war against four kings with no consultation from any senate, Judah judged his daughter-in-law accused of adultery, with fire, and consulted no senate. Moses commanded thousands of the Jews to be killed for idolatry with no consultation from any senate. The judges only answered to God.

Monarchies have provided untold stability in leadership in countries throughout history. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine states, "[t]here cannot be any doubt, whether that form of ruling the multitude would be better that more fittingly and easily acquires its proposed end. The end of government, however, is the unity of the citizens among themselves, and peace, which that union appears principally to be centered on that all might think the same, wish the same and follow the same." Of the four greatest Empires of the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, only the Romans did not emerge to power under a monarchy. But there was much civil war going on inside the Roman Empire until the Triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, and Mark Antony. After Caesar’s assassination, the Empire was left entirely to his son Augustus. Under Augustus began the Pax Romana (peace of Rome) as the civil wars and strife were ended. The monarchy of the Assyrians lasted 1240 years, the Scythians were the oldest monarchy in Bellarmine’s day, and the Roman monarchy lasted for 1495 years until the Turks toppled Constantinople. We might also add the longevity that was experienced by the Persians and the Ethiopians. Republics evaporate and if they survive, are typically held hostage to civil wars and strife as we observed in the Roman Empire.

There cannot be a doubt, Bellarmine, in one fell swoop, provides the most extensive and comprehensive argument in favor of a simple monarchy.