Have the Gates of Hell Prevailed Against the Catholic Church?

In response to my last two videos on this channel, one of which was about Freemasonic infiltration into the Vatican and the other was about the manifest modernism of John Paul II, many have asked me seemingly sincerely whether the information I presented constitutes sufficient evidence for doubting that the Catholic faith is true and whether I'm implying that the gates of hell have prevailed against the church. I received lots of questions about the indefectibility of the church and how Catholics should respond to the crisis.

So today I will do my best to illustrate a robust picture of what I think could be going on in the post-conciliar Vatican using sacred scripture, approved church theologians, as well as ecumenical councils, and I will compare all of that with the practical reality on the ground to try and synthesize a coherent and cohesive conclusion as to where we stand today. And just to be clear before I go any further, I obviously do not possess the authority to declare with any certainty that this particular reading of the crisis is infallibly correct, nor am I prescribing it as the most prudent conclusion for anyone watching. I am merely offering for those who, uh, are concerned that the Catholic Church has defected, a lesser-known and often much less understood theological framework for reconciling the crisis, but one which, as we will see, is nevertheless coherent and, in fact, has its basis in sacred scripture and Catholic tradition.

As far as those asking for explicit advice on particulars like where you should go to mass or or how you should lead your family in the crisis, I just look, I cannot give you any information beyond pray the rosary every day and do penance as Our Lady of Fatima instructed the three shepherd children to do. Learn the perennial Catholic faith and teach that faith to your children using the Roman Catechism. Stay away from all mortal sin and beg Almighty God to lead you not into temptation. And beyond that, I do, I do not feel comfortable giving any further advice. Um, I, I, I don't feel comfortable prescribing anyone what to do because if I am wrong in my judgment of the facts, then I can only assume I will be judged accordingly for misleading you into error. St. James says, quote, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness." Please pray for me through the intercession of St. James that I may always remain faithful to the truth and steward this platform wisely.

Now, I've titled today's video, "Have the Gates of Hell Prevailed Against the Catholic Church?" Because even aside from my two recent videos, which apparently evoked this question, it really doesn't take much more than a cursory glance at the modern hierarchy in communion with Rome to notice that something is obviously very, very wrong. Catholics see the pride masses. They see the, the love for other religions amongst the hierarchy, and then they see that this, this same hierarchy punishes those who want to hold to the Catholic religion, and they are understandably quite scandalized. So how can we begin to piece this puzzle together without abandoning the Catholic faith?

Well, to begin, let us look at Matthew 16 where, starting in verse 13, Christ asks his disciples, quote, "Who do men say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven, and I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So what exactly does Christ mean by the gates of hell? Well, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 defined the gates of hell as the deadly tongues of heretics. Pope St. Leo IX in an apostolic letter from 1053 wrote of the church, quote, "by the gates of hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome." So we have both an ecumenical council and a canonized saint defining the gates of hell as the errors of heretics.

Now, we might consider why our Lord made this promise to the church that the errors of heretics would not prevail and why this promise lives on in the text of sacred scripture. Because if it were to be forever obvious that the gates of hell had not prevailed, then seemingly there would be no need for it to be preserved in the canon of scripture. But it would make perfect sense that Christ in his divinity foresaw a time, or even many times, when the faithful would need to cling to the hope of these words because, by all appearances, the gates had prevailed. So the first thing to keep in mind is that we should certainly not interpret Christ's promise to mean that it will always be clear and obvious to any potential onlooker that the gates of hell have not prevailed against the church. In fact, our Lord's promise makes arguably much more sense in the context of a time in which hell has laid siege against the church and, by all appearances, seems to have prevailed. This would be the context in which it would require a great faith to cling to the hope of our Lord's promise.

And this interpretation seems to make much more sense in light of other prophecies in sacred scripture. For example, the great apostasy foretold by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, quote, "The day of Christ shall not come except there come first a great apostasy." Now, apostasy is not merely a lack of faith, but a renunciation of the faith amongst those who already had it. And this distinction is important to keep in mind because what we seem to be witnessing is not the world outside the church rejecting something it never had. By all appearances, what we're seeing now is a renunciation of the faith occurring from within.

St. Paul continues in this same chapter and speaks of, quote, "He who now restrains being taken out of the way in order that the man of lawlessness, who is Antichrist, be revealed." Quote, "The mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way, and then the lawless one will be revealed." This restrainer, as he's come to be known, is called in Greek the *katechon*. The great English Cardinal Henry Manning described this restrainer, this *katechon*, as follows. Quote, "The power which hinders the revelation of the lawless one is not only a person but a system, and not only a system, but a person. In one word, it is Christendom and its head. And therefore, in the person of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, in other words, the Pope. And in that twofold authority with which by divine providence he has been invested, we see the direct antagonist to the principle of disorder. The lawless one who knows no law, human or divine, nor obeys any but his own will, has no antagonist on earth more direct than the Vicar of Jesus Christ."

So Manning sees this twofold authority which the Pope possesses, both the temporal authority and the spiritual authority, combined in this one office as the power which restrains the unleashing of lawlessness. Manning continues, and keep in mind as I read this that this was written in 1861, so long before the two World Wars. He says, quote, "It will not be long before a European war will wear out and waste the powers of Christian society and will give a fatal predominance to the anti-Christian society, which is everywhere preparing for the last struggle and for its supremacy. The critical point in the whole conflict, the key of the whole, and the last success to be gained is the dethronement of the Vicar of our Redeemer." In other words, the taking out of the way of the restrainer, which is the Pope's authority, is the primary goal of anti-Christian society, since that's the only way their goal of disorder and lawlessness might be achieved.

And keep in mind the very eschatological language being used here. You have "last struggle" and "last success to be gained." This becomes even more concerning in light of a quote from a prominent 19th-century Freemason, which I referenced in both my last two videos. Keep in mind this quote is published in a book which was personally approved by Pope Leo XIII. And in fact, he was so intent on making sure word got out about the dangers of Freemasonry that he ordered it be printed and published at his own expense. Listen, listen carefully to the strategy outlined here by this Freemason, and keep in mind he's writing to his fellow Freemasons. Quote, "You wish to revolutionize Italy. Seek out the Pope of whom we give the portrait. You wish to establish the reign of the elect upon the throne of the prostitute of Babylon. Let the clergy march under your banner, that is the banner of Freemasonry, in the belief always that they march under the banner of the apostolic keys. Lay your nets like Simon Barjona. Lay them in the depths of seminaries, and convents rather than in the depths of the sea."

Of course, from the strategic standpoint of the church's enemies, it would make far more prudential sense to orchestrate a situation in which people think they are following papal authority, in other words, the apostolic keys, when in reality, they are following a counterfeit. And this makes perfect sense considering the many Catholic prophecies about an ape of the church, an anti-church, a counter. The great Reverend E. Sylvester Berry wrote in 1927, quote, "The prophecies of the Apocalypse, or the Book of Revelation, show that Satan will imitate the church of Christ to deceive mankind. He will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messiah, and his prophet will act the part of Pope, and there will be imitations of the sacraments of the church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the church."

The great Fulton Sheen in 1948 wrote of a similar anti-church. Quote, "The Antichrist will set up a counter-church, which will be the ape of the church because the devil is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ." Let that language sink in for a moment. You have an ape of the church having all the notes and characteristics of the church but emptied of its divine content. This certainly seems to read as if the ape of the church has the visible structure of the church, just without the authority.

Something to consider here is that an ape would not necessarily need to conquer from the outside. It could instead convince the original to lay down precisely what made it what it was, namely its divine authority given to it by Almighty God for the very purpose of restraining lawlessness. It makes good sense that the only way a counterfeit church could ever successfully manage to wear the vestments of the one true church is if the one true church's own authority is voluntarily set aside from within.

And this brings us to an extremely important consideration. We must remember that we all have free will. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:13 writes, quote, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." Satan can only enter when we allow him to. From Adam and Eve on, sin has always required consent from the sinner. And so a self-initiated renunciation of the authority given by God to the church is the only way the gates of hell could even seemingly prevail. The church herself would need to lay down what was given to her.

One could argue that Paul VI laying down the papal tiara in 1964 was a symbolic gesture of precisely this sort of renunciation. And in October 1965, he officially stated this policy in an address to the United Nations, saying he, quote, "has no temporal power, no ambition to enter into competition with you. As a matter of fact, we have nothing to ask, no question to raise, at most a desire to formulate a permission to seek that of being allowed to serve you in the area of our competence with disinterestedness, humility, and love." But Christ's own vision for his body, the church, was never this self-impoverishing surrender, but precisely the opposite. He came to draw all men to himself. As John 12:32 says, quote, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." The church's mission has always been to call the nations to herself, to conform the world to Christ, not to conform herself to the world. The whole point of the Great Commission is to go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

But today, we see the inverse. Instead of the church drawing the world to herself, she appears to be pouring herself out into the world and emptying herself of the very authority and distinctiveness that made her recognizable as the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church. As I've mentioned many times on this channel, Pope St. Pius X defined modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. But what exactly makes modernism the synthesis of all heresies? Well, individual heresies, they undermine particular truths of the faith. So, for example, the divinity of Christ or the sinlessness of Mary. But modernism attacks the very root of truth itself. It dissolves the very distinction between truth and untruth, between nature and supernature, between Christ's church and other so-called churches and religions. Modernists see the church as merely one institution among many. And so they see the church's dogmas not as timeless truths given with the backing of divine authority, but rather as mere expressions of thought, sort of conditioned by historical circumstances and ultimately conformable to the whims of the age. Modernism does not merely contain heresy. It removes the very capacity to even condemn heresy as such. And so if the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth and the mystical body of Christ, then modernism, in a sense, is the fullness of untruth and, and the body of Antichrist. Or, if you prefer, it is the ape of the church.

And this brings us back to the great apostasy. This refusal of these men to whom divine authority was given, this refusal to exercise this authority, could itself very well be the great apostasy. The great apostasy is thus inseparable from the restrainer, the *katechon*. And this makes sense when we look back at St. Paul's letter because he says, quote, "The day of Christ shall not come except there come first a great apostasy and the man of lawlessness be revealed." Again, lawlessness only comes as a result of authority not being exercised. Authority restrains lawlessness. The authority of the Pope is the restrainer which restrains lawlessness, but it can only restrain in so far as it not only exists but is actually exercised. And if the great apostasy is the renunciation of that restraining authority, then lawlessness naturally follows from it.

But if the restrainer is the Pope and if the great apostasy is connected to this restrainer being taken out of the way, then what does that actually mean in practice? Well, let us consider yet another passage from the second chapter of St. Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians where, starting in verse 9, he writes, quote, "The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and with pretended signs and wonders and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore, God sends upon them a strong delusion to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." This shows us that this, this whole deception, this, this anti-church, this apostasy, for many, it will not seem to be what it is because they will be deceived, deluded into thinking that this inversion of truth is the truth. And if we are living through these times, it would make perfect sense that very few people would see it for what it is. Most people would be deceived because God has sent upon them a strong delusion.

And this makes sense of what has long been the Catholic tradition: that in the end, there would be only a small remnant of the faithful. Luke 18:8 says, quote, "When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on earth?" In a very mysterious sense, this small remnant, just as in the times of the early church, will have to worship in the catacombs. Cardinal Manning again, from his 1861, *The Present Crisis of the Holy See*, writes, quote, "The church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible, hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places. For a time it shall be swept as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the fathers of the early centuries."

Now, if we take a step back and consider everything we've discussed so far, that we have a hierarchy which has, in some sense, laid down the authority which was given to it by God and has become an ape of the true church, and the true church has returned to the catacombs, then we have to begin asking some very difficult questions. But difficult questions are often good questions, and we should certainly not shy away from a question simply because it's difficult. So let's first consider whether our glorious Catholic tradition even has theological language for contextualizing what we might be looking at here. And the answer is a resounding yes. In fact, the idea is not novel at all.

Pope Paul IV, in his 1559 papal bull *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio*, writes, quote, "If at any time it will have appeared that any bishop, even acting as an archbishop or patriarch or a cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or even the Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion as cardinal or assumption as Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, let the promotion or assumption of him, even accomplished in agreement and unanimous assent of all the cardinals, stand forth as null, void, and worthless. Those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically and without need for any further declaration of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office, and power." Now ask yourself this: Why, in God's providence, did a Pope so explicitly lay forth this pronouncement if one, this scenario could never occur? Or even two, this scenario would never occur? Because to me, it makes much more sense that God, in his divine providence, foresaw a situation wherein precisely this would happen, and he wanted his faithful to be able to make sense of it.

But this isn't even isolated to Pope Paul IV. In fact, it's in both the 1917 and the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Canon 188 of the 1917 Code states, quote, "Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith." And Canon 194 of the 1983 Code states, quote, "The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself: a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the church." So if, and I really do mean if, if the men occupying the highest offices in the post-conciliar church are in fact manifest public heretics, then there is more than enough precedent in the church's own law for understanding them to be devoid of their authority. And by that same legal framework, the office itself becomes vacant upon the very fact of their defection.

St. Athanasius, who lived through his own version of this crisis, wrote in a letter to his flock, quote, "They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true church of Jesus Christ." So it is certainly not the case that we find the Catholic Church just by virtue of finding the Catholic Church's buildings or visible structures. Otherwise, there would be no need for the church's four marks to identify it.

In fact, Christ himself warned us to expect to have to make this sort of discernment. He says, quote, "Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them." As Catholics, we certainly should not understand this to be referring to those who are obviously outside the church. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in sheep's clothing. That's the whole reason Christ has to warn us about them because they appear to be in the church.

St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 11, speaking similarly of men who claim to be carrying out the same mission as the apostles, says, quote, "Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness." In Galatians, he says, quote, "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be anathema." Notice St. Paul includes even himself in this warning, which is particularly interesting considering Catholic theology teaches that the apostles were infallible in virtue of their office.

St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, says, quote, "The people must indeed discern a true prophet from a false one, but not by any other rule than by a diligent attention as to whether he who is preaching says anything contrary to what was said by his predecessors or to what is said by the other ordinary pastors, and particularly by the Apostolic See and the principal church. The people should not therefore judge its pastor unless it hears novelties and things different from the doctrine of other pastors."

Now again, I'm not making any explicit declarations here. All I'm doing in this particular video is illustrating that this theological position and framework for making sense of the crisis is legitimate, and it's held together by canon law, by papal bulls, by patristic testimony, by St. Paul, an apostle, by a Doctor of the Church, St. Robert, and by the words of Christ himself. And it's both a coherent and quite faithful way of holding on to his promise even while everything on the ground appears as if the gates of hell have, in fact, prevailed. If we stand before our Lord in judgment and say, "Lord, I refuse to accept as legitimate what the church herself had already condemned in prior centuries," in my estimation, our Lord would count that as fidelity to his mystical body.

And we just so happen, in God's providence, to live in a time now where so many people have access to the internet and can instantly check and verify prior councils and condemnations so that novel teachings can be compared against the deposit of faith. God gave us 1,900 years of consistent Catholic teaching as a motive of credibility for the truth of the Catholic faith. And in his providence, he gave us the very theological framework we've been discussing to make sense of the sudden break.

If you don't believe there's been a break in the continuity of tradition, let me offer you a concrete example. Christ himself, in John 17, prays to the Father, quote, "That they, meaning his followers, all may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." Now, Catholic tradition has always taught that this prayer is not merely a request, but actually expresses an ontological reality about the church, namely that it is one and that it cannot be otherwise. St. Clement of Alexandria, a Church Father, says, quote, "The church, in respect of its unity, belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics tried to divide it into many parts. We say, therefore, that the Catholic Church is unique in its essence, in its doctrine, in its origin, and in its excellence. The eminence of the church arises from its unity as the principle of its constitution, a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it." St. Cyprian says similarly, quote, "There is one God and one Christ, and his church is one, and the faith is one, and one the people joined together in the solid unity of the body and the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts." Not to mention the Nicene Creed itself professes belief in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church.

But what did the Second Vatican Council teach on this question? Well, let's look at the very first sentence of the council's decree on ecumenism, *Unitatis Redintegratio*. Quote, "The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council." But as we just read from a Church Father, from a saint, and from Christ himself, the church is already one, and it always has been, and it cannot be otherwise. Heretics try to divide it, but it is indivisible by nature. The document continues, quote, "This movement toward unity is called ecumenical. For the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, many efforts are being made to attain that fullness of unity which Jesus Christ desires. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time." I'm not sure this document could be more clear that the council does not see a church that is already one. And this is a clear contradiction of prior teaching, as we've shown. In fact, the Second Vatican Council doesn't even believe that this unity is found exclusively in the Catholic Church. It merely "subsists" in the Catholic Church.

This is even restated again in another Vatican II document, *Lumen Gentium*, which states, quote, "The one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would later become Benedict XVI, interpreted this language as follows. Quote, "When the council fathers replaced the word 'is' with the word 'subsistit,' they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by 'is' is far broader than that expressed by 'to subsist.' To subsist is a very precise way of being. That is, to be as a subject which exists in itself. Thus the council fathers meant to say that the being of the church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church." But this is again an explicit contradiction of prior teaching. Pope Pius XII, in his 1943 encyclical *Mystici Corporis Christi*, explicitly identifies the one true church of Jesus Christ as the Roman Church. Quote, "If we would define and describe this true church of Jesus Christ, which is the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, and Roman church, we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression the mystical body of Christ." Pius IX, in his 1868 apostolic letter addressed to all Protestants and other non-Catholics, similarly condemns what Vatican II would eventually teach. Quote, "The various religious societies divided among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity."

We can find a similar contradiction when it comes to the Catholic teaching on religious liberty. In 1864, the *Syllabus of Errors* of Pope Blessed Pius IX condemned the notion that, quote, "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." But then Vatican II's declaration on religious freedom, *Dignitatis Humanae*, says, quote, "This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. In all his activity, a man is bound to follow his conscience. Nor is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious." But wait, Pope Gregory XVI, in his 1832 *Mirari Vos*, writes, quote, "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone." Contrast this with Leo XIII, who just this month, on America's 250th anniversary, said, quote, "Among the most cherished principles is religious freedom, the right of every person to worship according to conscience." These are outright and explicit contradictions, and these are only a few examples.

So again, how do we reconcile all this? We know that error cannot proceed from God because God is truth himself. Which means we can know with certainty that wherever we see error, it must be proceeding from mere human authority, not divine authority. But we know that the one true church of Christ is divinely protected from the gates of hell, which are the errors of heresy. And so this church cannot teach error. And of course, this church is built on the rock which is Peter, the papacy. Moreover, St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that, quote, "God is not the author of confusion."

Let us return to Fulton Sheen's notion of a counter-church, which he says, quote, "will have all the notes and characteristics of the church, but emptied of its divine content." As we noted earlier, this seems to indicate a church which, by all appearances, is the church, but which has been stripped of its authority. In other words, the offices which carry with them a divinely backed authority are vacant. You might even say the visible offices are desolate.

In Matthew 24:15, Christ himself says, quote, "When you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." Now, it's a long-standing interpretation in Catholic tradition that this prophecy has something to do with Antichrist. And as Christians, how are we to understand this holy place in which the abomination will stand? Because we know that the physical temple in Jerusalem has been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. He is himself the third temple. So the holy place must not be Jerusalem, but in some sense, the church herself. And this would perfectly contextualize Reverend E. Sylvester Berry's passage from earlier. Quote, "Satan will imitate the church of Christ to deceive mankind. He will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messiah, and his prophet will act the part of Pope, and there will be imitations of the sacraments of the church."

If this false prophet plays the part of the Pope sitting in the holy place, maybe that holy place is St. Peter's. But then how are we to understand the command to flee to the mountains as anything other than a command to flee to some sort of remnant church in the catacombs? What exactly that looks like in practice is obviously not entirely clear, but we can see that all of this is beginning to, to line up as one big coherent and cohesive picture. And it actually lines up perfectly with Revelation 12 as well, where Mary flees, quote, "into the wilderness where she has a place prepared by God." As is often the case in sacred scripture, this woman is not only a symbol of the Blessed Virgin Mary but also of the church. So it lends further credence to this idea that the church, in the times of the great apostasy and amid the deception of Antichrist and amid the war in heaven, the church will flee to the mountains, flee to the catacombs as a remnant church.

But the question this video posits is: "Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church?" So how do we actually answer that question? Well, if these men in the Vatican actually do have authority, and if I am correct in my interpretation of the errors which have overtaken the post-conciliar hierarchy, then we must conclude that the gates of hell have, in fact, prevailed. But the promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail certainly does not apply to a theoretical counter-church. Indeed, the entire essence of a counter-church would be predicated on error, since it would be a perfect inversion of the true church, which is predicated on truth.

Let's read another passage from the great Cardinal Manning. Quote, "The apostasy of the city of Rome from the Vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics that I think it well to recite the text of theologians in the greatest repute." Malenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gasparoli, Viegas, Suarez, Bellarmine, and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ, and return to its ancient paganism. This apostasy of Rome is precisely what the hidden third secret of Fatima prophesies. This secret was supposed to be revealed by the Catholic Church in 1960, just before the Second Vatican Council, but was instead held, and a version which many believed not to be the full secret was released by the Vatican in 2000. According to Cardinal Ottaviani, Sister Lucy told him the Blessed Virgin ordered the secret to be revealed in 1960 because, quote, "by that time it would be more clearly understood." The hidden third secret is said to contain prophecies about a great apostasy occurring within the highest levels of the Vatican.

And what's even more bizarre is that when the Vatican did ultimately release what they claimed to be the third secret in 2000, 40 years late, they interpreted it to be related to the attempted assassination of John Paul II in 1981. But this doesn't seem to make sense of why the Blessed Virgin wished the secret to be released in 1960. If the secret was really about 1981, then revealing it in 1960, 21 years early, wouldn't have made anything clearer. It would have been a riddle that nobody would have been able to solve for over 20 years. Of course, what this actually means is pure speculation, but it's nevertheless interesting considering the larger narrative we're exploring in this video.

To wrap up, let's consider why we're all so confused during these times. We should keep in mind that a true shepherd is one who leads his flock. His sheep are scattered, but he, as their unifying principle, leads and directs them to a unified end. But if our shepherd has been struck, or if our Pope is not being a father, or if we've lost our Pope entirely, then it only makes sense that we'd be lost and aimless and wandering and scattered.

I'll close this video, as I close just about all my videos, with a reminder of what St. Paul tells us is the antidote to the deception of Antichrist. He tells us to, quote, "Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." We must hold to these traditional teachings of the church because the times of Antichrist will bring new teachings, false teachings, which nevertheless still claim to be the true ones, and their claim will be backed by the appearance of the true church, all the notes and characteristics of the true church. As Fulton Sheen said, it's important to remember that St. Paul wrote these words about holding to tradition for a reason. Inspired by the Holy Ghost, he was warning us of a time of great deception, a time when the world has chosen to refuse the kingship of truth, the kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to instead take pleasure in unrighteousness. In these times especially, we must beg Almighty God, who has instructed the hearts of his faithful by the light of the Holy Ghost, to grant that by the same Spirit, we may always be truly wise and ever rejoice in his consolation through Christ our Lord. Amen. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. Until next time, thank you all very much for watching and God bless.