Antipope Benedict XV, in addition to having subjected himself to the heretical antipopes Leo XIII and Pius X, revealed in his very first ‘encyclical’ as ‘pope’, his true colours to the world. In the entire 'encyclical' there is ambiguity and outright heresy, revealing what certainly appears to be a Masonic bent, and the 'legacy' he left in his wake would confirm this without a doubt. Take for instance the following excerpt from the very first paragraph in his very first ‘encyclical’:
Antipope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, Nov. 1, 1914: “For the whole of mankind was freed from the slavery of sin by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ as their ransom, and there is no one who is excluded from the benefit of this Redemption”
Here we have a denial of the Catholic understanding of the Redemption (no individual person is freed from the slavery of sin or redeemed until baptism, even though all are offered this freedom):
Catholic Encyclopedia, Redemption: "The restoration of man from the bondage of sin to the liberty of the children of God through the satisfactions and merits of Christ".
St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book 1, Chapter 22: "Now the Christian faith unfalteringly declares, what our new heretics have begun to deny, both that they who are cleansed in the laver of regeneration are redeemed from the power of the devil, and that those who have not yet been redeemed by such regeneration are still captive in the power of the devil, even if they be infant children of the redeemed, unless they be themselves redeemed by the self-same grace of Christ."
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 1: “If such, in all the regenerate, were their gratitude towards God, as that they constantly preserved the justice received in baptism by His bounty and grace; there would not have been need for another sacrament, besides that of baptism itself, to be instituted for the remission of sins. But because God, rich in mercy, knows our frame, He hath bestowed a remedy of life even on those who may, after baptism, have delivered themselves up to the servitude of sin and the power of the devil, the sacrament to wit of Penance, by which the benefit of the death of Christ is applied to those who have fallen after baptism.”
As the above dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent says, the benefit of Christ’s death is the REMISSION of sins. No sins are remitted without baptism.
Pope St. Zosimus, Epistle Tractatoria ad Orientalis Ecclesias, AD 418: "The Lord [is] faithful in his words [ Ps. 144:13] and His baptism holds the same plenitude in deed and words, that is in work, confession, and true remission of sins in every sex, age, and condition of the human race. For no one except him who is the servant of sin is made free, nor can he be said to be redeemed unless he has previously truly been a captive through sin, as it is written: "If the Son liberates you, you will be truly free [John 8:36]. For through Him we are reborn spiritually, through Him we are crucified to the world. By His death that bond of death introduced into all of us by Adam and transmitted to every soul, that bond contracted by propagation is broken, in which no one of our children is held not guilty until he is freed through baptism."
And finally it is a word for word contradiction of the solemn teaching of the Ecumenical Council of Trent, which tells us that indeed there are those who are excluded:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Chapter 3, Who are justified through Christ, Jan. 13, 1547: “But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.”
Certainly the virtue of Christ's passion extends to the generality of all men, it's power is sufficient for all, and from the beginning of the creation God did not exclude anyone from the virtue of the Redemption. Did Christ die for the souls of those in Hell, for Judas and for Cain? Yes! But THEY EXCLUDED THEMSELVES from the BENEFIT of the Redemption, even though God did not exclude them from beginning. They made their choice, just as so many pagans and idolaters make the choice to exclude themselves and their children.
Christ indeed died for all men, but according to Benedict XV, all men, including those in the state of original sin, are freed from the slavery of sin by His death. What else could be meant by the 'slavery of sin' if not original sin, into which all men are born? This teaching of Antipope Benedict XV also contradicts the Council of Florence, which tells us that the only remedy to snatch away children from the dominion of the devil is baptism. How could original sin, slavery of sin and the dominion of the devil be anything but one and the same?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, February 4, 1442, ex cathedra: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God..."
Antipope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, Nov. 1, 1914: "He [Jesus Christ] teaches all men, without distinction of nationality or of language, or of ideas, [...] as He was hanging from the cross, He poured out His blood over us all, whence being as it were compacted and fitly joined together in one body ..."
This particular passage serves to provide a context for his statement that "For the whole of mankind was freed from the slavery of sin by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ as their ransom,"
So if Jesus Christ poured His Blood out over us all (all men, without distinction of nationality, or of language, or of ideas), then he must mean that the Spirit of Sanctification and the water of baptism have also been received by all men without distinction as well, at least in a spiritual sense, since this is what necessarily follows when we receive the Blood of Redemption, the Blood of Jesus Christ, according to Pope St. Leo the Great:
Pope St. Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon, ex cathedra: "For there are three who give testimony—Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the Blood of Redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
Antipope Benedict XV stated that no one is excluded from the benefit of Christ’s redemption, but as Trent makes clear in more than just this passage, all who remain unbaptized exclude themselves from receiving these great benefits. How can they exclude themselves from the benefit of Christ's passion, yet somehow not be excluded? He states that the whole world was freed from the slavery of sin - he did not say "has the opportunity" he said "was"! This unpardonable heresy alone is sufficient to show that Benedict XV was an antipope.
Furthermore, what could Antipope Benedict XV possibly mean by ideas, in the above quotation? This ambiguous choice of words can quite easily be taken to mean RELIGION. And it fits with the rest of his teachings, including that there is Christianity outside the Catholic Church.
Antipope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, 1920: "The voice of Jerome summons those Christian nations which have unhappily fallen away from Mother Church to turn once more to her in whom lies all hope of eternal salvation."
He deceptively speaks out of both sides of his mouth, in one breath saying that men who have fallen away from the Holy Catholic faith are still Christian, while in the next saying that their is only salvation in the Catholic Church. Don't be fooled by this. The man would have know that he had to tread lightly with his inculcations of Freemasonic doctrines.
Worse still, he subtly undermines the dogmatic truth that men cannot be saved except in the Church, from yet another angle:
Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, Sept. 15, 1920: "... he [St. Jerome] said only what the Christians of the East thought in his time when he declared that 'If anyone is outside the Ark of Noe he will perish in the overwhelming flood."
No, it's not just what they thought at that time, it is the dogmatic truth. Period. Benedict XV's language here undermines that dogmatic truth, and relegates it to merely "what they thought at that time".
Antipope Benedict XV has stated at the beginning of his so-called encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, that "there is no one who is excluded from the benefit of this Redemption", The ultimate benefit of the redemption of Jesus Christ is salvation, and eternal state of forgiveness from sin and perseverence in sanctity, and below we see that Benedict XV teaching the possibility that whole human race may attain salvation:
Antipope Benedict XV, Paterno Iam Diu (#2), Nov. 24, 1919: "No other circumstance could be more opportune than this to induce Us to solicit for innocent children the charity and pity of Christians and of all who do not despair of the salvation of the human race."
Wait a minute here. We know that the human race (all men) is not going to be saved, but only the elect. While it is not permissible to despair of salvation, without falling into mortal sin, it is certainly not lawful to hope for the salvation of the whole human race, as Antipope Benedict XV suggests! We already know, based on the testimony of God Himself, of many people who are in hell: Judas Iscariot, the Israelites who "went down alive into hell", etc.
Benedict XV did not stop at universal salvation (not just saying that all have the potential to be redeemed, but that nobody has been excluded from the benefit of the redemption, despite that every person who dies unbaptized IS excluded eternally from the benefit). He went on further to distort the role in redemption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, falling into heresy yet again:
Antipope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918: "As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother's rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race."
But our Blessed Mother, as worthy of honour and veneration as she is, above all creation, did NOT redeem the human race at all. She participated in the redemption by providing the human flesh, which nature Christ took from her, but she did not redeem the human race with Him.
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Session 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: "...God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer..."
The remainder of the anti-pontificate of Benedict XV was filled with other such proof that the man was not a Catholic pope, but an enemy of the Church and a soul damning liar. His writings reek of Freemasonic propaganda. Here is a sample:
Antipope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, #11, 1914: "... let them consider whether it is a prudent and safe idea for government or for states to separate themselves from the holy religion of Jesus Christ ... Let them consider again and again, whether it is a measure of political wisdom to seek to divorce the teaching of the Gospel and of the Church from the ruling of a country and from the public education of the young."
Benedict XV, if he was a Catholic pope, would be condemning this proposition, not encouraging people to consider it.
Antipope Benedict XV, Principi Apostolorum Petro, #23, 1920: "Would that by the grace of God and the aid of St. Ephrem those obstacles might collapse which separate so large a part of the Christian flock from the mystical rock upon which Christ founded his Church."
There is one shepherd, Christ, and one flock, the Holy Catholic Church. There is no Christian flock outside of the Church, but only fallen away Christians who belong to satan.
Antipope Benedict XV, Pacem, Dei Munus Pulcherrimum, #17, 1920: "... all States, putting aside mutual suspicion, should unite in one league, or rather a sort of family of peoples ..."
No! They shouldn't! This is New World Order nonsense! The only true familial unity to be had is that found in the Holy Catholic Church! You cannot be a family with God as your father while claiming brotherhood or familial ties with the children of the devil, non-Catholics.
If this is not the Freemasonic agenda then I don't know what is.
Does the fact that he quoted the Athanasian Creed in his first encyclical exonerate him?
Antipope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, #24: "It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself."
Hardly. Sure a casual reading over this section may make it appear as though he is orthodox and that what he stated about the "freedom from the slavery of sin" at the start of his encyclical was simply a misunderstanding, but is there perhaps an insidious design behind his words? Read it again, remembring the efforts that Benedict XV went to in destroying the Sodalitium Pianum, which kept a vigil against heresy. With these facts in mind it seems that he cloaked an intention to subvert the Church into Modernism by using a quote from the Athanasian Creed, a completely and perfectly orthodox quote, under the guise of exhorting the faithful. Was he saying "There's no salvation outside of the Catholic Church"? No. He was saying "don't bother the Modernists, if they say they're Catholic, they're Catholic, just worry about yourself instead".
Since Leo XIII, each of the successive antipopes have been schismatic for their adherence to this line of antipopes, Benedict XV included. A pope cannot come from a line of antipopes, any more than a pope can come from Eastern 'Orthodoxy' or Calvinism. For this reason, and because they never publicly abjured, it is correct to assert that all of the successors Leo XIII have been antipopes, their own heresies notwithstanding. Their names are Pix X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Each of these men, additionally to being schismatic for willingly following an antipope, either explicitly taught heretical or apostate doctrines, performed manifest acts of public heresy or apostasy, instituted disciplinary teachings (not binding on Catholics, since they were not popes remember) that would lead people to doubt or renounce their faith, and some of these men did all of the above, each of them contributing in their own way to the establishment and continuance of the counterfeit 'Catholic' church that busies itself in sending souls to hell by the millions, billions if possible.
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei (condemning the errors of the Synod of Pistoia), 1794: "[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
"Morever, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by Our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged."
When we have a man who fights against true doctrine by aiding the Modernists, and who promulgates heretical laws, it certainly becomes necessary to expose and denounce the perverse meaning under which his assault on Catholic Truth is camouflaged.