Category Archives: Tradicionalni Katolicizam

Francis vs. Pope Pius XI: The Catholic Position on Sex Education

July 11, 2019

Modernist Apostate vs. Vicar of Christ

Francis vs. Pope Pius XI:
The Catholic Position on Sex Education

by Francis del Sarto

“More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”
–Our Lady to the children at Fatima on July 13, 1917

“The Least Serious Sins are the Sins of the Flesh.”
–“Pope” Francis to an agnostic French sociologist, 2017 (source)

Ever wonder how pretend-pope Francis wakes up in the morning? It could be that he has his clock radio blast the tango to get him going on the desired chaotic trajectory, after which he rises and consults his day planner to see what part of the Magisterium he’s scheduled to contradict that day. On very rare occasions, he will come across a listing marked “Double Down Day”, when he gets to set aside his vaunted (ahem) humility and take aim at a pair of Church teachings in one fell swoop.

Such an opportunity for double-down lunacy occurred January 28, 2018, during an on-board discussion he had with reporters as he returned to Rome on Airhead One at the conclusion of World Youth Day in Panama City. A previous article on this web site had already taken apart the heretical comments he made then concerning one of the dire consequences resulting from abortion:

In the same stand-up routine — er, in-flight press conference — the Oracle of the Pampas had another such “pearl of wisdom”, this time on the need for sex education. The exchange went as follows:

Q: Many girls in Central America get pregnant too early. The Church’s detractors say it’s the Church’s responsibility because it’s opposed to sexual education. What is your opinion on sexual education?

A: Sexual education must be given in school; sex is a gift of God, it’s not a monster; it’s a gift of God to love. That some then use it to earn money or to exploit is another problem. But it’s necessary to give an objective sexual education, without ideological colonization. If you begin to give a sexual education full of ideological colonization, you destroy the person.

However, sex must be educated as a gift of God. To educate in the sense of having the best of people emerge and to accompany them along the way. The problem is the system: the teachers and textbooks must be chosen for this task. I’ve seen some rather dirty books. There are things that make one mature and things that do harm. I don’t know if they are working on this in Panama; I don’t go into politics. But it’s necessary to have sexual education. The ideal is to begin at home. It’s not always possible because there are so many varied situations in families. And, therefore, the school supplies this, because otherwise there will be a void, which will then be filled by any ideology.

(Source: “Holy Father’s In-flight Discussion with Reporters (Full Text)”Zenit, Jan. 29, 2018; underlining added.)

The reporter’s question seems as though it may have been scripted, giving Francis an opportunity to respond to the charge that “the Church” is to blame for girls getting pregnant before they should in Panama, “because it’s opposed to sexual education”. He gives the sort of reply one expects from a Modernist, couching part of it in somewhat Catholic-sounding terms like “sex is a gift from God”, but also asserting, in direct repudiation of numerous authentic Church pronouncements, that “sexual education must be given in school”. His justification? After acknowledging that instruction in the home is “ideal”, it is “not always possible because there are so many varied situations in families”. And, as if to assuage any concerns about what will be taught, he emphasizes that he wants “objective sex education, without ideological colonization [sic]”.

Yet if some traditionally-minded souls are somewhat relieved at the qualifier objective, then they really don’t fully appreciate the level of devious mischief Jorge Bergoglio is capable of making out of one little word. For them it means that there won’t be any special interest group taking the lessons into places that impressionable young ears should not hear; for Francis, on the other hand, it has an altogether different meaning, as will be seen shortly.

“Pope” Francis can’t seem to keep Bergoglian dialectics out of any discussion, no matter the subject. Does the term “ideological colonization” have a certain Marxist ring to it? Well, it should, because like much of Francis’ rhetoric, that’s where it finds its roots. Among his many firsts, Bergoglio is the first of the Novus Ordo “popes” to use the term (no true Pope ever used it either, for that matter; but then, none of them were leftist Argentinians either).

His use of the term “ideological colonization” in regard to sex education is only the most recent time he’s invoked it, but don’t let that fool you — it’s a pet phrase of his, a go-to deprecation for whatever irks his Modernist sensibility. According to a Crux article from November 2017, he used the buzzword in the course of a homily. The reporter sought to give it a bit more context:

Francis has used the term “ideological colonization” to describe what he sees as a form of oppression of developing societies by affluent ones, especially the West, through imposing an alien worldview or set of values on poorer societies, often by making adoption of those values a condition of humanitarian or development aid.

(Inés San Martín, “Pope Francis: Ideological colonization a ‘blasphemy against God’”Crux, Nov. 21, 2017)

If that sounds like so much quasi-Marxist claptrap, it’s because that’s precisely what it is. In its promotion of a book on Francis’ theology, the publishing arm of the radical Maryknoll Order, Orbis Books, notes that

he has drawn not only from the social teaching of the Latin American Church, but also in a particular way from a school of the­ology that arose in Argentina called “Theology of the People.” A type of liberation theology, it emphasizes respect for the culture and popular religious expressions of the poor.

(Publisher’s description of Pope Francis and the Theology of the People by Rafael Luciani)

When “Theology of the People” is mentioned, one should think of the word “People” in the sense it is used by so many Communist countries past and present (as in: People’s Republic of China, Hungarian People’s Republic, etc.), and other similar instances, such as the publication of the Communist Party USA, People’s World (they’re fans of Bergoglio, by the way), ex-Beatle and leftist John Lennon’s song “Power to the People”, or the satirical conservative site, The People’s Cube. In all of these cases, the term signifies the lower socio-economic class — it’s always the people because leftists insist on emphasizing the collective to the detriment of individual worth.

Nearly forgotten due to an attempted Vatican cover-up by the scrubbing of a web page, the recognize-and-resist publication Tradition in Action is to be commended for exposing how Francis celebrated the 60th anniversary of the bloody, anti-Catholic Cuban revolution by welcoming a circus troupe from that island tyranny.

Indeed, the career of the “hammer-and-sickle crucifix pope” has been so consistently to the far left that it’s no wonder famed Vatican reporter Sandro Magister could write a column credibly titled “The Communists the Pope Likes. And Vice-versa”.

In any case, the question may now be asked, what possible relevance could Francis’ mention of “ideological colonization” have in the context of his sex-ed remarks? The Crux article explains:

Francis has a long record of denouncing ideological colonization, especially one form he believes it often takes, which is the imposition of “gender theory.”

“A great enemy of marriage today is the theory of gender,” Francis said in Georgia in Oct. 2016.

“Today, there is a global war trying to destroy marriage… they don’t destroy it with weapons, but with ideas. It’s certain ideological ways of thinking that are destroying it…we have to defend ourselves from ideological colonization,” he said.

(Inés San Martín, “Pope Francis: Ideological colonization a ‘blasphemy against God’”Crux, Nov. 21, 2017)

Further on in these 2016 comments, Bergoglio had alluded to “that wickedness shown today, by indoctrinating people with the gender theory”, citing this example:

A French father told me that he was chatting with his children at table once and asked his 10-year-old son: ‘what do you want to be when you grow up?’ ‘A girl!’ the boy said. The father realised that school text books were teaching the gender and this goes against what is natural. For a person to have this inclination, or this option or those who change sex, is one thing. It is quite another to teach according to this line at school, in order to change people’s mentality. This is what I call “ideological colonisations”.

(Andrea Tornielli, “This is how, I, as Pope, welcome homosexual people and transsexuals”Vatican Insider, Oct. 3, 2016)

But doesn’t Francis seem to be confused here? After all, if there is nothing wrong with a person having such an “inclination”, of what harm is there to acknowledge this in school as part of a broad gender “spectrum”?

Indeed, he himself brings this up in the next breath when he speaks of how he invited Diego Neria Lejárraga, a Spanish woman “identifying” as a man, and her female “fiancee”, to the Vatican, and endorsed their unnatural relationship. So, still more confusion. A photo shows Bergoglio posing with the “couple”. One wonders how Novus Ordo parents explained to their children how the “no gender theory in school pope” is giving free positive publicity to the transgender movement! Of course, as is so often the case, this was not so much Bergoglio’s personal confusion as it was him fomenting it.

Novus Ordo Watch, in an article from that time entitled “Francis on Transgenders: Case-by-Case Discernment Needed!”, addressed his hypocrisy in this way:

So, in short, the apostate pretend-pope gave his standard one-size-fits-all answer that says nothing concrete and leaves everything up in the air, just like in his infamous exhortation Amoris Laetitia. As always, he wants to have it both ways and remains vague and ambiguous so that each side — conservative or liberal — can pick whatever it prefers. On the one hand, he said “sin is sin” and we must accompany with “truth” — but then he also said we need to be “open” and use “mercy” and “accompany”, “discern”, and “integrate” because “this is what Jesus would do today”. You know, like our Blessed Lord did when He sensitively told the Samaritan adulteress at the well: “…he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband” (Jn 4:18). That kind of accompaniment?

Francis can verbally and theoretically reject transgenderism as being “against what is natural” all he wants; in actual practice he sings a different tune, and he admitted as much. Several times he referred to the Spanish girl as “male” simply because she “felt like a boy” and later, as an adult, had herself surgically mutilated. But as a biological female, how would she possibly know what it feels like to be a male, anyway? Still, Francis accepts her as male and thus in practice swallows the entire gender theory he just verbally denounced, hook, line, and sinker. Whatever he may say, the fact is that he accepts genderism; he accepts the female as a male simply because she “feels” that way. What is even worse, Francis also accepts that this woman-pretending-to-be-a-man can enter a marriage with a woman! This is beyond sickening!

But should anyone be surprised? This is a “Pope”, after all, who also believes in a transgender god, as it were, who is both father and mother. Remember?

(“Francis on Transgenders: Case-by-Case Discernment Needed!”Novus Ordo Wire, Oct. 2, 2016)

The same “Pope” Francis warns that “there is a global war trying to destroy marriage”, but again and again he shows himself to be an ideological colonialist who wages war against matrimony and traditional sexual morality by:

This is what must be considered at the forefront of his promotion of sex-ed. If you’re interested in understanding his spin on “objective sex education” (read: virtue-free, Bergolian XXX sex education), look no further than the July 29, 2016 LifeSiteNews article, “Vatican sex ed ‘surrenders’ to sexual revolution: Life and family leaders react”. Columnist Pete Baklinski opens by reporting:

Three international life-and-family leaders who have defended Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life for decades have called the Vatican’s newly released sex-ed program for teens “thoroughly immoral,” “entirely inappropriate,” and “quite tragic.”

“I find it monstrous that an official arm of the Church would not only create a sexual education program for teens but one that bypasses parents as the primary educator of their children,” said Dr. Thomas Ward, Founder and President of the National Association of Catholic Families as well as a Corresponding Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

The program, titled “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People,” was released last week by the Pontifical Council for the Family to be presented this week to young people at World Youth Day in Poland.

(Pete Baklinski, “Vatican sex ed ‘surrenders’ to sexual revolution: Life and family leaders react”Life Site, July 29, 2016; underlining added.)

In a separate piece on the Vatican’s sex-ed, Mr. Baklinski notes that “sexual sins are not mentioned at all [and] immoral videos are used as springboards for discussion.” And among his bullet points (from a much, much longer list) we read:

  • Handing the sexual formation of children over to educators while leaving parents out of the equation.
  • Failing to name and condemn sexual behaviors, such as fornication, prostitution, adultery, contracepted-sex, homosexual activity, and masturbation, as objectively sinful actions that destroy charity in the heart and turn one away from God.
  • Failing to warn youths about the possibility of eternal separation from God (damnation) for committing grave sexual sins. Hell is not mentioned once.
  • Failing to distinguish between mortal and venial sin.
  • Failing to speak about the 6th and 9th commandment, or any other commandment.
  • Failing to teach about the sacrament of confession as a way of restoring relationship with God after committing grave sin.
  • Not mentioning a healthy sense of shame when it comes to the body and sexuality.
  • Teaching boys and girls together in the same class.

(Pete Baklinski, “At World Youth Day, Vatican releases teen sex-ed program that leaves out parents and mortal sin”Life Site, July 27, 2016. Further indication of the very naturalistic orientation of the Vatican’s program is evident from a link near the beginning of the article to a slideshow of course offerings that comes with a viewer advisory that reads “Caution: Sexually explicit images.” Novus Ordo Watch reported on the outrage here.)

So, it turns out that the detractors mentioned in the question to Bergoglio were way behind the curve in suggesting that the Novus Ordo religion was against sex education, as it had already been in place and sowing its poisonous seeds for years. Now, if those detractors were somehow confusing the Vatican II Sect for the Catholic Church, then they would be right in thinking there is opposition to sex education, as it was explicitly condemned numerous times by the true Church.

Now might be as good a time as any to contrast what the American hierarchy 12 years before the start of Vatican II and three years after its conclusion were thinking about sex education. If you want a prime example of the hermeneutic of discontinuity, look no further! In an article entitled “Amoris Laetitia and ‘Sex Education’”, author and researcher Randy Engel observes:

On Nov 17, 1950, the National Catholic Welfare Council issued a formal statement titled “The Child: Citizens of Two Worlds” in the name of ALL the American bishops in which the hierarchy reminded parents of their special competence and duty in regard to the provision of sex instruction to their children. The paragraph ended with the solemn warning, “We protest in the strongest possible terms against the introduction of sex instruction into the schools.”

Take note of the date. It’s the last time you will see the American bishops’ collective support of Divini Illius Magistri. Eighteen years later, in their Pastoral, Human Life In Our Day, the American bishops made sex instruction “a grave obligation” and called for “systematic” provisions for classroom sex instruction in the diocesan curriculum due to “the new circumstances of modern culture and communications.” In fact, the only real change was the disintegration and collapse of the collective hierarchial spine.

(Randy Engel, Amoris Laetitia and ‘Sex Education’”AKA Catholic, Apr. 29, 2016; formatting given.)

It’s great that she sheds light on this pre-Vatican II/post-Vatican II disconnect but regrettable that she didn’t follow up on her last statement. Yes, there’s been a “disintegration and collapse of the collective hierarchical spine”, but why? That’s the big question, but it didn’t occur by accident, nor were they coerced due to societal changes. This Dr.-Jekyll-to-Mr.-Hyde transformation took place because they imbibed deeply of the toxic, vaporous potion of Modernism concocted at Roncalli-Montini Laboratories (“new circumstances of modern culture and communications”, as if fundamental human nature could be radically altered), and served in tall flasks and test tubes at the mad scientists’ conference known as the Second Vatican Council.

As the Novus Ordo is wont to be, things would soon go from bad to worse. One may reasonably ask the question: How could nominally Catholic teachers ever have been persuaded to turn away from sound teaching to include curricula so vile and impure as to lead countless pupils to embrace sexual promiscuity, even to the point of becoming sodomites, who in some cases became “clerical” sex abusers? To help answer this question, we turn to a 2002 World Net Daily article entitled “Catholics Learning Sex from Kinsey’s Disciples”. There, columnist Art Moore reports:

The U.S. Catholic bishops’ latest proposal to create “safe environments” for children through an “Office of Child and Youth Protection” offers little comfort to some members who closely monitor the Church’s gatekeepers.

For lay activists who have documented corruption in the church hierarchy over the past several decades, it comes as no surprise that the radical, anything-goes philosophy of famed “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey, a reputed pedophile, has triumphed over traditional teaching in Catholic institutions across the U.S., creating a flourishing environment for priests who abuse teens and children.

“It’s like fighting cancer with a topical medication,” said Stephen Brady, president of the lay group Roman Catholic Faithful. “They are not addressing the problem – but they can’t because many of these bishops are compromised and waiting to be exposed [for abuse] themselves.”

The influence of the “father of the sexual revolution” on the Church can be easily illustrated in a course called “Sexual Attitude Restructuring,” which urges participants to rethink “restricting attitudes” acquired in their religious upbringing and adopt a lifestyle of free sexual expression.

The course is a staple of an institute started nearly 30 years ago by Kinsey disciples that directly or indirectly influences nearly every sex education and therapy program in the country. The San Francisco-based Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, or IASHS, requires its students to complete the SAR, where participants have been known to strip down and interact sexually with each other while surrounded by multiple screens that display hard-core pornographic films.

In her book, “Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences,” Judith Reisman, a noted researcher of Kinsey’s legacy, documents the IASHS leaders’ characterization of the course contents as the “f—orama.”

The SAR and its X-rated theater – perhaps missing only the in-class “lab work” – was offered to parishioners for 10 years by the Milwaukee Archdiocese under Rembert G. Weakland, who recently took early retirement after admitting to a $450,000 payment by the archdiocese that settled a complaint by a young man with whom he had an “inappropriate” relationship.

Lay activists, including Roman Catholic Faithful, have documented Weakland’s legacy of amoral values and homosexuality in diocesan schools and in pastoral and lay training.

Activist Thomas Phillips says in the preface to a dossier he collected on the archdiocese: “It is within this climate of lax sexual mores set by Rembert Weakland that proclivities toward sexual abuse have grown and festered, until giving rise to an explosion of pedophilia cases, criminal convictions and lawsuits.”

That was written nearly 10 years ago when seven priests had been accused of abuse. Since then, more cases have arisen, leading up to the present media focus on a crisis that afflicts not only Milwaukee, but the entire U.S. Church.

Brady states what is obvious to fellow Catholics who have connected the dots between the kind of environment created by Weakland and the current sex scandal.

“When you break down sexual barriers and open people to not being sensitive or ashamed, then you start to make them vulnerable to sin,” he told WorldNetDaily.

(Art Moore, “Catholics Learning Sex from Kinsey’s Disciples”World Net Daily, June 12, 2002)

It was Kinsey who did the most to open the Pandora’s Box known as the “sexual revolution” that has plagued American society and other parts of the world for over 70 years, since his 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. This and its companion volume, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), were pivotal in leading to the weakening or outright abandonment of traditional morality concerning the sexual act in favor of a naturalistic, statistics-driven, virtue-free conception.

Indeed, the late Hugh Hefner, founder of the pornographic Playboy, a magazine that introduced sexual hedonism to a mass audience, was “inspired” by Kinsey, even stating in an editorial from the inaugural issue that “we believe… we are filling a publishing need only slightly less important than the one taken care of by the Kinsey report.”

But there were even darker dimensions to Kinsey’s pseudo-scientific “research”: He utilized the testimony of inmates incarcerated for sex crimes, and he sanctioned and concealed the systematic abuse of children — even infants. By using this “data” and other highly objectionable “scientific findings”,

…Kinsey has created a “field” that advocates for normalization of sex between adults and children, including infants and youths as well as sex with animals. Indeed, Kinsey himself, viewed morality based standards of “normal” and “abnormal” as non-pragmatic, unrealistic and unenforceable. Unfortunately, such a perspective has become the seed of a social contagion that has infected the law, medicine, education, the media as well as religious and cultural institutions worldwide.

(Judith A. Reisman and Mary E. McAlister, “ECOSOC, the Kinsey Institute and Child Sexual Abuse”International Center on Law, Life, Faith and Family)

And there was also Kinsey’s involvement with the occult, which ties in with the child abuse. In 1955, eight years after the death of the notorious Satanist Aleister Crowley, Kinsey journeyed to Sicily to visit the ruins of Crowley’s so-called Abbey of Thelema, where he met filmmaker Kenneth Anger, a fellow devotee of Crowley, co-founder of the Church of Satan, and producer of movies with explicitly sinister titles such as Lucifer Rising and Invocation of My Demon Brother.

The two were drawn to the site based on its reputation as a center for “sex magick” (as spelled by Crowley to distinguish it from stage illusions). Rumors had it that the children who lived there witnessed — and perhaps participated in — such rituals. Other bizarre stories involved such incidences as when a follower, upon Crowley’s orders, drank cat blood and died. Benito Mussolini forced the cult out of Italy in 1923.

The rumors likely have more than a grain of truth, for in 2011 four members of a Welsh sex magick cult based on Crowley’s Book of the Law (a demonically-dictated tome that solemnly declares the advent of the “Æon of Horus”, an age that would signal the end of Christianity) were convicted of various crimes, including dozens of counts of perverted acts with children.

With such a background of Kinsey, the thought that his warped thinking is echoed in a “Sexual Attitude Restructuring” course, which urges participants to rethink “restricting attitudes” concerning sex, is beyond disturbing. Of course, in order for anti-Christian propaganda to have entered the doors of once-Catholic institutions, it required someone with enough power to open the doors for them in a welcoming manner.

That man was “Pope Saint” Paul VI, who at Vatican II pushed for sex education in the declaration on “Christian” education, Gravissimum Educationis, the first “magisterial” document to go against the previous teaching of the Church on the subject. So important is that declaration to the Novus Ordo revolution that Francis felt obliged to cite it in his infernal document Amoris Laetitia, which itself takes the revolution to a whole new level:

The Second Vatican Council spoke of the need for “a positive and prudent sex education” to be imparted to children and adolescents “as they grow older”, with “due weight being given to the advances in the psychological, pedogogical and didactic sciences”. [Vatican II, Declaration Gravissimum Educationis, n. 1]

(Antipope Francis, Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, n. 280)

In the subsequent paragraph of Amoris Laetitia, Francis attempts to allay concerns by speaking about modesty and the need for age-appropriate material in such curricula, but the truth can be seen by examining the bullet points above to see that neither of these are in reality of particularly great importance to him — it’s just another example of him playacting as a Catholic. What follows will show how vast the divide is between authentic Catholic thought concerning the sexual instruction of youth and what is being falsely presented as Catholic in the Novus Ordo religion.

As a general principle, even before the evil of sex-ed was proposed in recent times, The Roman Catechism (aka Catechism of the Council of Trent, a work written primarily for parish priests) gave a recommendation on how the Sixth Commandment should be taught:

In the explanation of this Commandment, however, the pastor has need of great caution and prudence, and should treat with great delicacy a subject which requires brevity rather than copiousness of exposition. For it is to be feared that if he explained in too great detail or at length the ways in which this Commandment is violated, he might unintentionally speak of subjects which, instead of extinguishing, usually serve rather to inflame corrupt passion.

(Catechism of the Council of Trent, trans. by John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1923], p. 431)

So, the mind of the Church is such that this is a topic about which a priest is to be circumspect even with adults.

As for modern sex education, the first condemnation was by Pope Pius XI in the encyclical titled Divini Illius Magistri (On the Christian Education of Youth) issued on December 31, 1929. Here, His Holiness specifically mentions the great importance of a 16th-century work by a teacher of St. Charles Borromeo (principal editor of The Roman Catechism):

54. While treating of education, it is not out of place to show here how an ecclesiastical writer, who flourished in more recent times, during the Renaissance, the holy and learned Cardinal Silvio Antoniano, to whom the cause of Christian education is greatly indebted, has set forth most clearly this well established point of Catholic doctrine. He had been a disciple of that wonderful educator of youth, St. Philip Neri; he was teacher and Latin secretary to St. Charles Borromeo, and it was at the latter’s suggestion and under his inspiration that he wrote his splendid treatise on The Christian Education of Youth. …

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra* destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice. *[hydra — The etymology is from the Greek, “a many-headed monster.”]

68. False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of “coeducation.” This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes. These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances. These principles, with due regard to time and place, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, nn. 54,65-68)

There is scarcely a precept expounded on here upon which Bergoglio and his “objective” sex education program haven’t made a full-on attack. The very grave danger against the purity of morals, about which Pius XI warns, namely Naturalism, is the demon lurking just beneath the very thin veneer of a Modernist Rome’s pseudo-Catholic curriculum.

But let us continue, for there is much more of relevance from this papacy. The following year, Pope Pius came out with Casti Connubii, his celebrated landmark encyclical on Christian Marriage. Although not directly addressing sex education, it lays out principles that show that those who advocate a naturalistic approach to treating carnal appetites, one that shoves God aside and relies on “natural means”, are “greatly deceived” to believe this way can “establish chastity”:

87. …since man cannot hold in check his passions, unless he first subject himself to God, this must be his primary endeavor, in accordance with the plan divinely ordained. For it is a sacred ordinance that whoever shall have first subjected himself to God will, by the aid of divine grace, be glad to subject to himself his own passions and concupiscence; while he who is a rebel against God, will, to his sorrow, experience within himself the violent rebellion of his worst passions.

1o1. They are greatly deceived who … think that they can induce men by the use and discovery of the natural sciences … to curb their natural desires. We do not say this in order to belittle those natural means which are not dishonest; for God is the author of nature as well as of grace, and He has disposed the good things of both orders for the beneficial use of men. But they are mistaken who think that these means are able to establish chastity in the nuptial union, or that they are more effective than supernatural grace.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, nn. 87,101)

However, Bergoglio’s program is even worse in a sense, because, as noted, not only does it ignore “a healthy sense of shame when it comes to the body and sexuality” — something absolutely necessary to keep passions in check –, it also fails to identify and condemn “objectively sinful actions that destroy charity in the heart and turn one away from God”. In other words, it is pure Naturalism.

In 1931, the Holy Office issued this pertinent judgment:

QUESTION: May the method called “sex education” or even “sex initiation” be approved?

ANSWER: No. In the education of youth the method to be followed is that hitherto observed by the Church and the Saints as recommended by His Holiness the Pope in the encyclical dealing with the Christian education of youth promulgated on December 31, 1929. The first place is to be given to the full, sound and continuous instruction in religion of both sexes. Esteem, desire and love of the angelic virtue must be instilled into their minds and hearts. They must be made fully alive to the necessity of constant prayer, and assiduous frequenting of the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist; they must be directed to foster a filial devotion to the Blessed Virgin as Mother of holy purity, to whose protection they must entirely commit themselves. Precautions must be taken to see that they avoid dangerous reading, indecent shows, conversations of the wicked, and all other occasions of sin.

Hence no approbation whatever can be given to the advocacy of the new method even as taken up recently by some Catholic authors and set before the public in printed publications.

(Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Decree on “Sex Education” and on “Eugenics”, Mar. 21, 1931; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis XXIII [1931], pp. 118-119; underlining added. Translation taken from EWTN.)

Pope Pius XI even made mention in Mit Brennender Sorge (On the Church and the German Reich), his 1937 encyclical to the German hierarchy in light of the ascendancy of the National Socialist ideology, of how compulsory naturalistic education (though not sex-ed, which was not favored by the Nazis) in government schools was gravely violating the rights of parents. Like with Francis’ sex education, the Hitler regime bypassed parents as the primary educators of their children. So, what’s important here to the present-day discussion is that the Pope restated the Church’s perennial position on said parental rights and obligations, declaring:

Parents who are earnest and conscious of their educative duties, have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school questions fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law, and are immoral. The Church, whose mission it is to preserve and explain the natural law, as it is divine in its origin, cannot but declare that the recent enrollment into schools organized without a semblance of freedom, is the result of unjust pressure, and is a violation of every common right.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, n. 31)

It is certainly worth reviewing the words of his successor, Pope Pius XII, whose comments in 1951 directed to French fathers shows how far the Modernists had made inroads in this regard, showing an ill-disguised contempt for anyone so backward as to think Pius XI’s words were still relevant (as if truth needed to change with the times in order to keep up with the advances of psychology, sociology, and other natural sciences):

…There is one field in which the work of educating public opinion and correcting it imposes itself with tragic urgency [i.e., classroom sex-ed].… Even the principles so wisely illustrated by Our Predecessor Pius XI, in the encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, on sex education and questions connected thereto are set aside — a sad sign of the times! With a smile of compassion: Pius XI, they say, wrote twenty years ago, for his times! Great progress has been made since then! … Fathers of families… Unite… to stop and curtail these movements under whatever name or under whatever patronage they conceal themselves or are patronized.

(Pope Pius XII, Allocution to French Fathers and Families, Sep. 18, 1951; excerpted in Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, eds., Papal Teachings: Education [Boston, MA: Daughters of St. Paul, 1960], nn. 568,572; underlining added.)

And in the same place Pius XII warned about so-called Catholic sex-ed literature in the strongest possible terms:

One is appalled at the intolerable impudence of such literature; and while paganism itself, in the face of the secret of matrimonial intimacy, seemed respectfully to draw the line, We are compelled to witness this mystery violated and its vision – sensual and dramatised – offered as food to the public at large, even to the youth. It is the case really to ask oneself if the dividing line is still sufficiently visible between this initiation, which is said to be Catholic, and the press which with erotic and obscene illustrations purposely and deliberately aims at corruption and shamefully exploits, for vile gain, the lowest instincts of fallen nature.

(Ibid., n. 570; underlining added.)

Here, Pope Pius almost seems to be casting a prophetic eye towards our times to castigate the sexual instruction favored by Bergoglio and his minions.

To further reinforce where the mind of the Church stands on the subject, let’s also take a moment to reflect on the sage wisdom of Pope Leo XIII, who taught in his encyclical Sapientiae Christianae (1890) the vital importance of parents inculcating virtue in their children — faith, piety, charity and chastity — which is of special importance when the enemies of Christ had redoubled their efforts to attack Him by attacking families through the instruction of little ones in wickedness:

This is a suitable moment for us to exhort especially heads of families to govern their households according to these precepts, and to be solicitous without failing for the right training of their children. The family may be regarded as the cradle of civil society, and it is in great measure within the circle of family life that the destiny of the States is fostered. Whence it is that they who would break away from Christian discipline are working to corrupt family life, and to destroy it utterly, root and branch. From such an unholy purpose they allow not themselves to be turned aside by the reflection that it cannot, even in any degree, be carried out without inflicting cruel outrage on the parents. These hold from nature their right of training the children to whom they have given birth, with the obligation super-added of shaping and directing the education of their little ones to the end for which God vouchsafed the privilege of transmitting the gift of life. It is, then, incumbent on parents to strain every nerve to ward off such an outrage, and to strive manfully to have and to hold exclusive authority to direct the education of their offspring, as is fitting, in a Christian manner, and first and foremost to keep them away from schools where there is risk of their drinking in the poison of impiety. Where the right education of youth is concerned, no amount of trouble or labor can be undertaken, how great soever, but that even greater still may not be called for. In this regard, indeed, there are to be found in many countries Catholics worthy of general admiration, who incur considerable outlay and bestow much zeal in founding schools for the education of youth. It is highly desirable that such noble example may be generously followed, where time and circumstances demand, yet all should be intimately persuaded that the minds of children are most influenced by the training they receive at home. If in their early years they find within the walls of their homes the rule of an upright life and the discipline of Christian virtues, the future welfare of society will in great measure be guaranteed.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 42)

It is evident that Catholics have a moral obligation to oppose sex education; and arguably even more so in 2019 than in the late 1800s or mid-1900s, given that the level of vile degradation to which such indoctrination has sunk is vastly worse than anything imagined back in those days. And yet this is the kind of spiritual sickness that Modernist Rome not only says we need not oppose but practically mandates as the only way to spiritual health for teens and pre-teens.

The more we hear from the lips of “Pope” Francis, the more clearly evident it is that he’s on a counter-crusade, a crusade against purity among the youth.

Earlier this year, Novus Ordo Watch carried a report entitled “Moral Advice from ‘Pope’ Francis: ‘The Least Serious Sins are the Sins of the Flesh’”, which covers a series of interviews he gave to Dominique Wolton, a French sociologist who happens to be an agnostic. (Don’t worry, Dominique, your skepticism is safe with Jorge.)

After citing the relevant passage, this web site responded as follows:

This is so outrageous and filled with error and half-truths that, in order to refute it, it’s a good idea to first provide a succinct recap of just what Bergoglio is actually affirming, namely:

  1. Sins of impurity are the least serious of all sins.
  2. Sins of impurity are not necessarily the gravest.
  3. Pride and vanity are more serious sins than sins of impurity.
  4. Not reading the Gospel is a more serious sin than impurity.
  5. Confessors ought not to inquire as to circumstances in which a sin of impurity was committed, and those who do need a psychiatrist.

We offer the following succint points in response, some of which we will then elaborate on:

  1. False. Impurity does not admit of light matter, wherefore every such sin, if committed with full knowledge and consent, is mortal.
  2. True, but so what? It does not follow from that that they are therefore the lightest of all sins or that they are not grave or very dangerous.
  3. False. Ordinarily, pride and vanity are only venial sins, although they can be mortal under certain circumstances.
  4. False. Although reading the Gospels is very much to be encouraged, not doing so is not in itself a sin. There is no divine law that states: Thou shalt read the Gospel.
  5. False. Although needless details must be avoided, the penitent must confess all the circumstances necessary to make known the species of the sin and the number of times he has committed it. If he does not do so, the confessor has the right to ask for this information. Such questions also help the confessor to assess the general spiritual state of the penitent’s soul.

Before we look at the subject matter in greater depth, it must be pointed out that in this controversy no one can defend Francis, as is so often done, on the grounds that he was merely speaking off-the-cuff and therefore may be excused for not having the most theologically precise terminology at the ready. This is not true. We are talking about a book publication that gets proofread, vetted, and edited as necessary before final release in order to ensure all the words printed say exactly what the person interviewed wants to communicate. In other words: There is no “slip of the tongue” in Wolton’s interview book. All of the words attributed to Francis are definitely and intendedly his.

So, is it true to say that the “least serious sins are the sins of the flesh”? That the “more serious sins are elsewhere”? Although it is clear that there are sins graver than those of a sexual nature, it does not follow that therefore sins of lust are among the least serious or the least dangerous.

Sacred Scripture is clear that sins of impurity, if not genuinely repented of, make the sinner worthy of eternal punishment. St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews: “[Let] Marriage [be] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb 13:4).

(“Moral Advice from ‘Pope’ Francis: ‘The Least Serious Sins are the Sins of the Flesh’”Novus Ordo Wire, Feb. 14, 2019)

From this we get further proof that the mind of Bergoglio is not remotely one with the mind of Christ and His Church, and is, in fact, much closer to one of the gravest errors against orthodox moral teaching: Antinomianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains what the term signifies:

The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law. The term first came into use at the Protestant Reformation, when it was employed by Martin Luther to designate the teachings of Johannes Agricola and his sectaries, who, pushing a mistaken and perverted interpretation of the Reformer’s doctrine of justification by faith alone to a far-reaching but logical conclusion, asserted that, as good works do not promote salvation, so neither do evil works hinder it; and, as all Christians are necessarily sanctified by their very vocation and profession, so as justified Christians, they are incapable of losing their spiritual holiness, justification, and final salvation by any act of disobedience to, or even by any direct violation of the law of God.

Although the term designating this error came into use only in the sixteenth century, the doctrine itself can be traced in the teaching of the earlier heresies. Certain of the Gnostic sect — possibly, for example, Marcion and his followers, in their antithesis of the Old and New Testament, or the Carpocratians, in their doctrine of the indifference of good works and their contempt for all human laws — held Antinomian or quasi-Antinomian views. In any case, it is generally understood that Antinomianism was professed by more than one of the Gnostic schools. Several passages of the New Testament writings are quoted in support of the contention that even as early as Apostolic times it was found necessary to single out and combat this heresy in its theoretical or dogmatic as well as in its grosser and practical form. The indignant words of St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians (Romans 3:8, 31; 6:1; Ephesians 5:6), as well as those of St. Peter, the Second Epistle (2 Peter 2:18, 19), seem to lend direct evidence in favour of this view.

(Catholic Encyclopedias.v. “Antinomianism”; underlining added.)

While it is true that Francis doesn’t openly promote the outright rejection of the moral law, he certainly relativizes it in Amoris Laetitia, and he not-so-subtly undermines it by continually minimizing the gravity of sin and its offense to Almighty God. It is fair to say that his is a quasi-Antinomianism, which is no less a heresy since it blurs, and at times erases, the line between mortal and venial sin, as well as trivializes its consequences, as when he went so far as to deny the very existence of Hell. Parents who knowingly send their children to schools that include Francis’s virtue-free sex-ed classes are in effect guilty of poisoning their youngsters’ souls.

Of course, any school using a Modernist, post-Vatican II curriculum will have the same deadly effect on souls, though sex-ed is where the lethal dose is perhaps most likely to find easy entrance. Children must be removed from such schools as quickly as if a venomous snake were about to strike them, because in a sense that’s exactly what happens. The only options available are homeschooling or traditional Catholic schools, though even some schools promoting themselves as traditional have proven to be suspect, to say the least, as shown here.

In any case, parents will not be held blameless before the Judgment Seat if they allow their children to be spiritually ruined, when their responsibility is to raise them chastely and keep them out of harm’s way, and that means keeping them out of Bergoglio’s Schools of Scandal — and out of Novus Ordo schools in general.

How sage has the observation of the English writer Malcolm Muggeridge proven to be:

So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over — a weary, battered old brontosaurus — and became extinct.

(Malcolm Muggeridge, Jesus: The Man Who Lives [London: Collins, 1975], pp. 32-33; underlining added.)

And all along, the Novus Ordo Counterfeit Church has been complicit in the destruction, at every step inverting Catholic teaching and becoming more and more openly aligned with anti-Christian maxims of the world. No one seems to embrace this destructive work with so unconcealed a glee as pretend-pope Francis.

May God quickly remove the smirk from his mouth, and by removing him and the rest of the Modernists from Rome, rescue the Church from their clutches!

“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil.”
–Isaias 5:20

“And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
–Matthew 18:5-6 (Are you listening, Jorge Bergoglio?)

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Oglasi

How we got to this point: Bishop Sanborn explains the History of Christendom

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Over 3 hours of video — free!

How we got to this point:
Bp. Sanborn explains the History of Christendom 

Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

We live in the year of our Lord 2019. Although it has been evident for a long time that this world is headed in the wrong direction, certainly the last six years of “Pope” Francis have convinced a great many who consider themselves faithful Catholics that something is terribly amiss, not just in the world but also in the institution they believe to be the Roman Catholic Church. The world is drowning in unbelief, false philosophies, immorality, and hostilities; and the religion practiced and preached in the Vatican is simply no longer the Catholic religion of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors.

However, there is no reason to be discouraged or despair. On the contrary. Judging from the viewpoint of Divine Revelation and prophecy, we could say that “everything is going according to plan” — so to speak. While we must at all times fight for religious truth, good morals, decency, common sense, and true justice, nevertheless we know that this world will at some point in the future be ruled by the Antichrist, not because God positively desires it so, but because He permits it as part of salvation history in order to draw a greater good from it. This has been revealed to us in Holy Scripture by Almighty God Himself (e.g., 2 Thess 2; 1 Jn 2:18; cf. Mt 24).

Although the knowledge that it will and must happen is no excuse to surrender, to sit back and watch it all come about, it is cause to not despair, to not be dismayed, and to understand why all these frightening social and pseudo-ecclesiastical upheavals against God’s law — both natural and revealed — are happening, and why God is permitting them. This, in turn, boosts our trustful and loving surrender to Divine Providence, full of Faith and hope, keeping in mind that even though the times in which we live are evil, nevertheless Almighty God, who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, has chosen to place us into precisely this time of human history and no other — and He did so because He foreknew that this would be most conducive to our salvation.

Some years ago, True Restoration Media conducted three interviews with Bishop Donald Sanborn, rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, on the history of Christendom, beginning with the Edict of Milan in the fourth century and ending in 1788, the eve of the French Revolution. This journey through the history of Western civilization is so powerful and so informative that we cannot recommend it too highly to anyone who wishes to understand how it is that we have come this far, and what lies ahead.

In the past, the three videos on the history of Christendom were available to the public only through a True Restoration subscription or by purchase. We are excited to announce that Novus Ordo Watch has now sponsored the release of these videos to the entire public — they are now free of charge:

FIRST VIDEO: The History of Christendom from the Edict of Milan to 1274

SECOND VIDEO: The History of Christendom from 1274 to 1648

THIRD VIDEO: The History of Christendom from 1649 to 1788

Listen to Bp. Sanborn as he explains how Christian society as it is willed by God was realized perfectly in the High Middle Ages (13th century), which were the apex, as it were, of Christian civilization, and what has caused its gradual but steady decline ever since. Understand how it all hangs together — how we went from a society imbued with the sacred and the supernatural, in conformity with Catholic teaching, to a Freemasonic-naturalist society in which God has been discarded and man and his “liberty” enthroned in His place. Understand how we got from St. Thomas Aquinas to Martin Luther, why the latter can be called the “father” of the modern world, and how the Protestant Reformation inevitably had to lead to Socialism, Communism, Freemasonry, and Modernism. As the “synthesis of all heresies”, dubbed such by Pope St. Pius X (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 39), Modernism is still with us today and has ushered in the current eclipse of the Catholic Church as part of the “operation of error” warned about by St. Paul the Apostle (2 Thess 2:10).

Bp. Sanborn’s video series on the history of Christendom is eminently educational and quite fascinating. It is not boring! At the end of it you will say, “It all makes sense now. I can see clearly now why we are where we are, how we got here, and where it’s all headed.”

You might wonder why this series on the history of Christendom ends in 1788, and why that which is perhaps the most important part, beginning with the French Revolution of 1789, is not included. The reason is that an interview with His Excellency on that most recent part of Church history was never conducted; however, it is covered in True Restoration‘s audio program The Root of the Rot, of which the first 7 episodes are likewise free:

We must never lose sight of the fact that all the trials we are now undergoing, both in the Church and in society, are not a negation or refutation of the holy Catholic religion, but actually its vindication and reaffirmation, which will ultimately lead to its inevitable, divinely-guaranteed triumph.

Pray much, especially the Holy Rosary, as urged by our Lady of Fatima, and devote yourself to her Immaculate Heart. She will guide us through these difficult and stormy times into which our souls have been placed by Divine Providence.

Everything is going according to plan. It’s time we all understood the plan.

Links to Related Information:

 

in Novus Ordo WireWe Had Been Warned     0

The Anti-Catholic Religion of the Second Vatican Council: A Book Review of “Vatican II Exposed”

Move over, Taylor Marshall…

The Anti-Catholic Religion of the Second Vatican Council:

A Book Review of
Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism

On Mar. 6 of this year, we posted an announcement about a brand-new book exposing the history and heresies of the Novus Ordo religion, its false popes, and its other pivotal players. The work is an 809-page tome called Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism and was written by Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI:

People interested in buying a copy may do so directly from the authors, at this link (Novus Ordo Watch does not make a commission on the sales). Despite initial plans, it is unlikely that Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism will be available through Amazon.com soon, except perhaps in electronic format.

Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism is a mammoth work of sturdy quality!

We are excited to be able to offer now a sizable review of this book, contributed by a reader of this blog who wishes to remain anonymous. The book reviewer presents a mostly-descriptive Overview (Part 1) followed by a Critical Analysis and Conclusion (Part 2) from the perspective of a simple layman who holds no formal qualifications in theology, history, nor journalism. The opinions expressed in the review are those of the reviewer and not necessarily those of Novus Ordo Watch.


Book Review: Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism
by Fr. Francisco Radecki, CMRI and Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI.
Copyright 2019, St. Joseph’s Media

************************************************************************

PART 1: Overview
The first thing that struck me was the size of this book. It is a huge tome, with 757 pages of text, or 809 pages counting the Bibliography. Each page measures approximately 8 and a half inches by 11 inches. The font used is average in size, and the line spacing is generous which makes this book easy to read, insofar as visual comfort. It is a very beautifully presented hardback with dustjacket. The dustjacket is of matching design to the cover itself, but unlike many books, it isn’t hiding, nor making up for, a plain nor inferior cover underneath. The artwork is truly commendable, being both clever in symbolism and elegant in appearance. Very few book covers are so striking for their aesthetically-pleasing quality; implementing a very tasteful color scheme, including metallic red and metallic silver accents, with embossed three-dimensional imagery and text.

Upon opening the book, in the Introduction, we are told:

Why This Book was Written
Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism doesn’t merely tell what occurred at Vatican II, but the who, when, where, why and how. Masterminds, guided by Satan, prepared the way for the creation of the Modern, Counterfeit Church.

The task undertaken by the authors must have been daunting given the quantity and nature of material that they chose to try to somehow sort through. The list of references is probably of the broadest spectrum I have ever come across in one book; the authors certainly cannot be accused of overly-selective resourcing of opinions, viewpoints or accounts. The claims of people from all walks of life, so to speak, have been presented in this volume, ranging from the most authoritative sources such as popes via papal encyclicals, followed by reliable contemporary clergy who are renowned for their theological rectitude, such as Bp. Donald Sanborn (Catholic Restoration), Fr. Noel Barbara, Fr. Anthony Cekada and Fr. Francesco Ricossa (whose articles published in the esteemed priestly periodical, Sacerdotium, made the latter well known to the English-speaking traditional Catholic milieu), right through to such unexpected sources as websites including wikipedia.com, washingtonpost.com, businessinsider.com, strangehistory.net and psywarrior.com. Even the enigmatic Malachi Martin was given a hearing and is quoted at least twice. No one can dare point the finger of “discrimination.”

In view of website articles comprising a substantial portion of the Bibliography (can it still technically be called a “Bibliography” if the reference list includes mostly non-books?), this book obviously doesn’t purport to be a weighty scholarly work — nor do the authors make any such claim. Refraining from pretentious language and extensive theology, they instead use everyday parlance presented in a style that would be comfortable to the average modern mind. Hence, people who get daunted by heavy theological treatises shouldn’t be frightened by the substantial physical size of this book because the approach is very casual overall; and the mode is even conversational in many parts. Consequently, if you aren’t a canon lawyer, nor inclined to pick up the Summa Theologica for your bedtime reading, fear not, because this is nothing like hard-core scholasticism. It seems to be aimed at the common layman who isn’t accustomed to intense academia, nor to rigid and laborious study. Rather, the reader will find within these pages a collection of stories of deception, intrigue, suspicions and allegations of murder, extensive Freemasonic plotting and scheming, shocking examples of disgusting immorality of Modernists even as far back as before the Second Vatican Council – and worst of all, the unspeakable tragedy of the widespread loss of Faith of countless clergy, of all ranks, even up to the highest positions in the Church, which led to the unprecedented catastrophe of the near-universal loss of Faith, which renders the 20th century not only the allegedly “bloodiest of centuries” but surely the most reprehensible.

As part of an attempt to organize what would seem to many people an overwhelming amount of information, numerous lists and tables were formulated, including, but not limited to, those with the following titles:

  • European Modernist Training Centers
  • French Modernists
  • German Modernists
  • American Modernists who Attended Vatican II
  • Belgian Modernists who Attended Vatican II
  • Dutch Modernists who Attended Vatican II
  • Italian Modernists who Attended Vatican II
  • Modernists from Formerly Communist Countries who Attended Vatican II
  • Commissions Controlled by Modernist Cardinals
  • Various Addresses of Pope Pius XII
  • John XXIII’s Meetings with Representatives of Other Religions
  • Members of the International Theological Commission

A large portion of the book is devoted to the documents of Vatican II. Though this is contained in only five chapters out of 31, viz. Chapters 18 through 22, it spans pages 283 through 514. Each of the six recent antipopes, from Roncalli/John XXIII through Bergoglio/Francis, has a chapter devoted specifically to him, as does Pope Pius XII, and there are chapters discussing the Novus Ordo invalid Mass and invalid sacraments, as well as the valid Tridentine Mass.

When reading some of the tales of the characters in the events surrounding the whole disaster of Vatican II and its aftermath, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” came to mind; not the movie itself, which I’ve never seen and therefore wouldn’t be recommending, but merely the title. Sadly, “the good” are pitifully few in number (there are only 18 people in the list presented on page 127 of “Cardinals and Bishops who Opposed Modernism”), and these few are overwhelmingly outnumbered by “the bad” who are also “the ugly” due to their ugly beliefs and actions of which they seemingly remained unrepentant (there are about 193 people listed in the tables of Modernists from various nations, presented on pages 54 through 126).

PART 2: Critical Analysis and Conclusion

Some Notable Pros

  1. The extensive lists of the names of Modernists (“the bad” and “the ugly”) who were actively attacking the Church around the time of Vatican II, could prove useful to refer to, or commit to memory if nearly 200 names is within one’s memorizing capacity, when reading any material of a religious nature published between the late 1800s through to the 1960s. Unfortunately, even writings bearing an Imprimatur carry no guarantee of orthodoxy nor harmlessness, especially in view of the insidious and deceptive manner in which Modernists operate. Hence, for example, if one has a book with an Imprimatur from, say, 1950, that is written by, or even based on ideas held by, any of these Modernists, one would know to beware.
  2. In Chapter 24, “Preparing the Ground for the New Mass”, enough information is presented for the reader to conclude that the Novus Ordo Missae didn’t just get dropped suddenly like a bomb. Rather, the principle of gradualism, combined with tenacious cunning, was employed by conspiring Modernists to desacralize the liturgy, introducing heretical and dangerous elements as far back as the 1920s; and even earlier trial balloons occurred in a localized manner.
  3. The untrustworthiness of Modernists and their modus operandi of cleverly crafted deception techniques, combined with bully tactics when needed, is really rammed home throughout this book. We are alerted to always be wary because in spite of artful phraseology in attempts to disguise what they really mean, everything they say should be presumed to be intended to work toward their evil agendas.
  4. The information presented in the chapters specifically about the Second Vatican Council, taken as a whole, is sufficient for the reader to conclude that the main characters involved and their Modernist errors (“the bad” and “the ugly” again) formally brought into existence an entirely different religion to the Catholic Faith. Moreover, this undoubtedly was their intention, as evident from their own words.

Some Caveats

  1. The initial outlines of Freemasonry and Modernism seem a bit hazy. If the reader had no prior knowledge of the nature and history of them, the background provided in this book, alone, wouldn’t provide a sufficiently thorough foundation, nor a very clear understanding, which would be required for properly grasping the full import of what is presented afterwards about the activities of the Freemasons and Modernists in the Church, State and society in general. Before handing this book to anyone new to Sedevacantism, it would be advisable to have them study some encyclicals on these subjects, such as Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Humanum Genus and books such as Fr Denis Fahey’s The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism to provide a more solid base. Near the end of the book, the authors do recommend and reference Pascendi Dominici Gregis, but reading that encyclical prior to starting this book would probably be beneficial for everyone.
  2. The overview provided regarding the Bugnini Holy Week liturgical changes of 1955, mostly on pages 169-171, sufficiently explains the viewpoint of those clergy who hold the opinion that it is fine to keep using those changes. However, the position held by sedevacantist clergy who reject the use of this interim liturgical form was presented in a way that would likely lead the reader to an inaccurate apprehension of the issue. It seems that the authors mustn’t have come across the number of articles available on traditionalmass.org explaining their rationale. Reading those articles (and for those who like videos, viewing Fr. Anthony Cekada’s recently released presentation on this topic) should suffice to dispel any false notions. It should be noted that the authors clearly respect Fr. Cekada’s scholarship, as attested to by his booklet, “Sedevacantism, A Quick Primer” being quoted at length on p. 236 – in addition to two books and one article by the same author also being referenced in a favorable light.
  3. Numerous Modernists are exposed by name, yet when they are quoted it sometimes seems that their words are to be taken as being in some way credible, despite what is made clear about Modernists as mentioned in Pro #3 (above). Most of the time what the Modernists are quoted to have said or done is obviously included in the book to demonstrate their devious scheming and heretical beliefs; however, there are places where the reader could get the impression that their words are being used as a verification. As an example, in line with the topic of Caveat #2 (above): a Fr. Antonelli is quoted on p. 169 as criticizing the pre-1955 Holy Week liturgy (an entire paragraph of his is presented on that page) and the authors distill his quote as remarking “how the phrases ‘splendor of the night,’ ‘blessed night’ and ‘holy night’ are inappropriate when ceremonies are performed on Holy Saturday morning.” Yet, on p. 557, Fr. Antonelli (who is definitely the same person as the previously quoted Fr. Antonelli, as evident from this book which refers to the same source) is manifested as a clearly questionable source – whose opinion should be presumed to be in support of the Modernist agenda – by the following statement: “Fr. Fernando [sic] Antonelli, who revered the writings of Beauduin and Casel, was a close friend of Botte, Jungmann and Martimort.” Similarly, Abp. Bugnini is listed on p. 108 as a “Freemason” who “Helped Write the New Mass” and is exposed in great detail throughout the book for the scheming Modernist that he was, including on p. 109: “As chief architect of the New Mass, Bugnini worked with liturgical committees before, during and after Vatican II. If he ran into opposition, Bugnini would merely say, ‘The pope wills it,’ and continue.” On p. 557, it states, “Bugnini, the driving force behind liturgical change, boldly declared, ‘I am the liturgical reform!’ His methods were so chaotic and hurried that Paul VI told him to slow down. When one considers the incompetent men who formed the New Mass and New Sacraments, it is no wonder they turned out so poorly.” All this justifiable criticism of Bugnini and his liturgical havoc seems inconsistent with the overall sense of praise given by the authors for his 1955 liturgy. Another example of how possible confusion could result from what might seem a mixed message, is the Dialogue Mass. It is presented in a way that one could think there are no problems associated with it, viz., in the chapter describing the Tridentine Mass vs. the New Mass, in a section titled, “Active Participation in the Liturgy”, it states: “The Faithful are encouraged to join the choir in singing the various parts of the Mass or hymns during a Sung Mass (Missa Cantata) or to answer Latin responses of the priest during the Dialogue Mass.” Some readers may not be aware that the majority of scholarly works since Vatican II which substantially address the Dialogue Mass have used it as a stepping-stone to the Novus Ordo Missae, encouraged by Modernists. This led to the concept of the inability to offer Mass when there is no congregation present, which then led to the Novus Ordo concelebration nonsense; so one can certainly question its prudence.
  4. On page 201, it states that “Holy Scripture foretold that before the coming of Antichrist, the protective power of the papacy would be eliminated” and St Paul, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, is quoted as referring to this, as follows: “St Paul wrote: For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that he [the pope] who is at present restraining it, does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way.” Some readers might presume that the phrase “the pope” inserted in square brackets is referring to an explicit mention of “the pope” occurring in the surrounding text of Scripture, thus indicating that that meaning of the pronoun “he” is self-evident. However, that is not the case, so the distinction between that being merely an opinion and not fact, must be made. Scriptural exegetes are divided as to what that passage might mean which reminded me of a section in Rev. E. Sylvester Berry’s book, The Apocalypse of St. John, where he similarly propounds such a possibility, on pages 121-122. Whereas the 1940s’ Dominican Fr. H. M. Feret in his book on the same subject presents a completely different approach, founded on doctrine and history, being devoid of speculations.
  5. Towards the end of the book, the authors state: “Hopefully, this book will inspire readers who have never attended the Tridentine Latin Mass to see what they have been missing”, followed by directing readers to the CMRI website to access a list of where some such Masses are being offered in the United States. However (unless I overlooked a statement to the contrary), after leading the reader to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo Counterfeit Church is not Catholic, one might be led to be content with assisting at FSSP (Fraternity of St. Peter) or SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) Masses, since they are “valid” Tridentine Masses (assuming the priest is validly ordained, which is a big “if”) because the illicit nature of assisting at such Masses isn’t expressly condemned. Nor could I find an explicit warning for the need to strictly avoid these organizations, entirely, due to their heterodoxy and deviations from orthopraxy. Reading this book will do little good if from it people end up with the SSPX as “crypto-sedevacantists” who assist at the Holy Sacrifice offered in union with heretics. Therefore, one must take very seriously the full ramifications, and practical consequences, implicit in their words: “It is important to realize there is much more at stake than just Mass being offered in Latin. The very foundation of the Church was attacked at Vatican II. This is the time to defend God’s Church, not the time to find excuses to remain in a man-made Church”, and “After reading this book, it is evident that a choice must be made, to either remain faithful to Christ and His Church, or belong to the Counterfeit Church. There is no room for neutrality.” Thus, to make it clear: Organizations of the likes of the FSSP and SSPX, regardless of whatever personal piety and good will the people in them may have, represent precisely this condemnable “neutrality” and constitute part of this antichrist “man-made Church.”

Some Additional Notes about the Bibliography

  1. Although the format of the referencing doesn’t apparently follow a consistent nor standardized system, the reader should be able to work around this with a little bit of resourcefulness.
  2. The Wikipedia website features as the most abundant source, followed by Catholic-hierarchy.org.
  3. Youtube.com video presentations and TV documentaries are included.
  4. Sometimes the timestamp is included for when a website was accessed and a reference was downloaded. Because of this it can be ascertained that the work of gathering information for this book goes back to at least 2012.
  5. Mainstream sources as well as those that might be considered “conspiratorial” or “dubious” (albeit the latter are often more trustworthy than the former) are included. Examples from the former category include rollingstone.com, “Rebel Pope” – National Geographic documentary, theguardian.com, nytimes.com, History Channel, CNN.com, bbc.com. Examples from the latter category include, beforeitsnews.com, 2nddegreemasons.org, Chiesa Viva, crisismagazine.com, lifesitenews.com, eyeofthetiber.com, satanic-kindred.org and thedailybeast.com.
  6. Religious and historical sources both orthodox and heterodox are referenced. Examples of the former include Haydock/Douay Rheims Bible, St. Robert Bellarmine, Dom Prosper Guéranger, Baltimore Catechism, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Msgr. Philip Hughes and G. K. Chesterton. Examples of the latter include EWTN, Teilhard de Chardin, Yves Congar, Masonic Book Club, “Cardinal” Walter Kasper and Hans Kung.
  7. Winning entry for irony is “Bringing the Sacraments to the People” from the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Inc, 1966, being right before the sanctioned attempts to annihilate the possibility of bringing sacraments to any people, by the imposition of invalid sacraments.
  8. Winning entry for most nauseating is Peggy Noonan’s book entitled, “John Paul II the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father.” And no need for the ipecacuanha if one has a copy handy of, “Pope Benedict in America; the Full Texts of Papal Talks Given during His Apostolic Visit to the United States,” 2008 – no need to even open the book either; the title, alone, will surely do the job.
  9. Winning entry for what best exemplifies the era of the millennials is the presence of a pinterest.com reference.
  10. Winning entry for “You can’t make this stuff up!” is Catholic World Report article titled, “Pope’s former professor: Francis never supported a Marxist-based liberation theology.”
  11. Modernist gobbledygook award (despite ample competition by virtue of the inherent quality of Modernist talk) goes to Jennifer Cooper’s “Humanity in the Mystery of God: the Theological Anthropology of Edward Schillebeeckx” (due to entries being limited to one category, this one missed out on the “most emetic award”). Runner-up is “Cornerstones of Faith: Reconciliation, Eucharist and Stewardship” by “Cardinal” Thomas Collins, 2013.
  12. The winner of the shortest book in the world, sight unseen (provided the contents are true to the title, it presumably has no pages in it at all): “The Legacy of Pope John Paul II: His Contribution to Catholic Thought,” 2000.

Once the restoration of the Church has taken place, future generations will likely access the written record to ascertain the many different ways that Catholics in our times assessed and addressed this monumentally horrendous situation; and this book will form part of that written record, which will show the melange of the human reactions to this frightful and awful period of history. It will exist alongside books which present similar subject matter, such as Iota UnumThe Rhine Flows into the TiberPeter Lovest Thou Me? and The Great Sacrilege, yet which, unlike Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism, fail to point out that the sedevacantist conclusion is the only logical and true position, with its concomitant responsibility to categorically reject the Novus Ordo Church and its various offshoots in their entirety.


A view of the book with the dust jacket taken off

Again, Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism may be purchased directly from the authors here (quantity discounts available).

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Ending Cognitive Dissonance: Recognize-and-Resist Blogger becomes Sedevacantist

Deo gratias!

Ending Cognitive Dissonance:
Another Recognize-and-Resist Blogger becomes Sedevacantist

Cognitive dissonance can be defined as “the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values” (Wikipedia).

On July 10, 2016, we posted the article “The Trouble with Jorge: Semi-Trads at the Breaking Point”. After providing some papal quotes on the traditional Catholic doctrine on the Magisterium and the Papacy, we observed: “The cognitive dissonance involved in perhaps professing these truths externally — as the semi-trads might very well do — while at the same time thinking, acting, and speaking in contrary fashion is beginning to push people over the edge.”

In April of the following year, we published the essay “Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon”. There, too, we spoke about the same subject: “We have seen that the Papacy has consequences. So does a denial of the Papacy. The cognitive dissonance of a ‘practical sedevacantism’ [proposed by Steve Skojec] will be coming home to roost.”

And finally, we again brought up the issue in the July 25, 2017 post “The Stumbling Block of the Papacy: Why Bergoglio doesn’t fit”.

We were all the more hopeful, therefore, when we noticed a new post on a recognize-and-resist blog the other day that was entitled, “Ending Cognitive Dissonance”, written by one Jonathan Byrd. The site’s name is Traditional Catholic Priest.

And indeed, we were not disappointed. The blogger in question (shown on the left) is a layman “with a wife, 10 kids, 4 cats and a dog”, as his profile says. He had already been convinced that Francis was a false pope, but he thought Benedict XVI was the true Pope instead. In other words, he held the position we have dubbed “Resignationism”, due to doubts about the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI in 2013.

Byrd wrote his post to outline the evidence — the data and the reasoning — that have led him to understand that the only way to be a true traditional Catholic — one who actually believeswhat the Church traditionally taught, especially about the Papacy — is to dump Francis and the entire Vatican II religion. In other words, he has taken the difficult but necessary step to becoming what is typically called a sedevacantist. Mr. Byrd, congratulations!

We would like to encourage all to read his post in full. What follows below are some of the highlights (bold print and italics in original):

These reasons are all objective – all based on the teachings of the church, the doctors of the church the popes, etc. In short, all identify exactly what Francis is without the need or worry about what Benedict “meant” when he “resigned”.

We can know from the above a few things that have held constant:

Christ will always be with His Church

The Church is a teaching Church

The Pope has the power to loose and bind and that he who hears Peter hears Christ.

This is what the Church has always held from the very beginning.

Our souls were so important to Christ He offered up His life for us in the most brutal way imaginable so do you really think a God made Man who suffered this much for our salvation wasn’t going to make the Faith and consequently our Salvation objectively easy to comprehend?

The spotless bride of Christ – Our holy Mother – The Church hasn’t left us without recourse.  Our Father was well aware of the situation all Catholics would be in today so He provided, through the Church, the solutions to end our cognitive dissonance.

The way forward – the way to Truth – is to look back. We look back to what the Church has taught.

We don’t bring our intellectual criticism – our thoughts, our opinions, our blogs, our blog followers, our livelihood, our comforts, our friends, our “mother and brethren” into this equation.

We can know The Truth and as a Catholic, we have a duty to seek it out at all cost as it is the Pearl of Great price and then give our assent to that Truth no matter what the cost is to us.

Our Holy religion teaches us that our Holy Mother the Church is the pure spotless bride of Christ.  This church can only give us Bread – she can’t give us stones. She can be trusted in all matters because Christ promised “he who hears you hears ME.”

We look around at what we see around us occurring in the world and in what we know as the church and all we see is heresy – stones being fed to us – someone – something – that can’t be trusted if you want to keep the faith.

I recently had a conversation with a priest friend of mine and I asked him about teaching what the church currently teaches and he told me “if I did that I would go to hell.

This about sums up the current state of affairs in the church and at the same time provides the cognitive dissonance that we all feel.

The problem with the above is it directly contradicts what the church has always taught about the Magisterium of the Church, the honor, respect and obedience we owe to Her and to the Pope, and it doesn’t square at all with the Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians.

Because of this apparent contradiction we have tried to explain why this could be the case. The problem is, while trying to explain this away – we have done harm to the Faith.

How so?

We did the very things that the modernist have done – namely- we have twisted words to suit new meanings.  

We want to cling to this idea that all is well when we know full well it isn’t.  This dissonance has spawn so many theories, arguments, and innumerable bloggers making a living off of trying to explain this dissonance.  The problem is this hasn’t helped.

If this was the answer we would have figured it out sometime before the last 60 years. Instead of spending all of this energy trying to understand how a heretic calling himself pope francis could be the pope – we failed to be Catholic.

In fact, we have lost what it means to be Catholic by explaining away the faith to justify how people like Francis can all themselves Catholic. Think about this for a moment.

I can go on and on showing the changes but we are all aware of them. They have been talked about ad nauseam for the last 60 years yet no one seems any closer to the answer.

But maybe, just maybe, they do know the answer and that answer shakes them to the core of their being.

That answer is what keeps them up at night because they know if they ever truly accept it – it would mean being an outcast.

They know they would have to come outside the camp, take up their cross and proceed to the inevitable crucifixion and that would cost them too much……

I converted nearly 10 years ago and I was firmly in the Recognize and Resist camp from the very beginning.

Coming from my protestant background – that never sat well with me. I just left “Protesting the Church” to join a church so I could continue protesting….

That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Its extremely illogical and extremely NOT Catholic.

One thing that we have to always keep at the forefront of our mind is that we can’t twist facts to make it come to the conclusion we want.  We simply have to state the facts and see where it leadsand this is what is going to be outlined below.

The person that is the Pope must first be Catholic and if he isn’t Catholic then he isn’t the pope.  1+1=2…ain’t that hard to understand.

The Conclusion is very simple

If you accept Francis is the pope then you must acceptcommunion for adulterers, you must accept allowing communion for protestants, you must accept LGBT novelties, you must accept the novus ordo mass, the new rites, the “cult of man”, Ecumenism, that the Roman Catholic Church is just one of many that lead to heaven, That error has rights, and all of the other profanations you see around you because it is from the pope and the magisterium and Vatican II……

If the above is abhorrent to you…

If you would rather die a thousand deaths than to give your consent to such abdominal practices…

Then welcome to Sedevacantism….

Welcome indeed! Again, the full post is really worth reading and can be found here:

It is wonderful to see that another soul has allowed God’s grace to prevail, despite the tireless efforts of our opponents to fight Sedevacantism tooth and nail.

Rejoice, fellow-sedevacantists, for another good man has seen the light and followed it wheresoever it led, no matter the consequences! Let us “make merry and be glad, for this [our] brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found” (Lk 15:32)! Pray for Jonathan Byrd and his family, that they will persevere to the end, and that there may be many more like them.

Our Lady, Queen of the Rosary, pray for us.

Bouix on the “Heretical Pope”: A big Nothingburger from John Salza and Robert Siscoe

Another irrelevant argument… 

Bouix on the “Heretical Pope”: A big Nothingburger from John Salza and Robert Siscoe

More than three years after the release of their book True or False Pope? A Refutation of Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, John Salza and Robert Siscoe are still busy wasting everybody’s time.

On May 14, they posted on their web site an English translation of an excerpt from the 3-volume book Tractatus de Papa, ubi et de Concilio Oecumenico (“Treatise on the Pope and the Ecumenical Council”) written by the French canonist Marie Dominique Bouix (1808-1870). Bouix took the unusual position that if a Pope as a private person were to become a heretic, he would not lose the pontificate in any way, nor could anyone take it from him. In other words: If a Pope were to become manifestly heretical, he would still be Pope, and no one would be able to do anything about it.

The question of the Papa haereticus — that is, what would happen if a Pope were to become a heretic in his private capacity — was debated among theologians for centuries before the First Vatican Council (1870). Five different positions emerged in the course of the dispute:

  1. That the Pope cannot become a heretic even in his private capacity, so the question is moot.
  2. That a Pope who becomes a heretic even only internally (by pertinaciously assenting to heresy in his mind) would immediately and automatically fall from the pontificate.
  3. That a Pope who becomes a heretic does not fall from the pontificate, regardless of how manifest his heresy is.
  4. That a Pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate only after a declaration by the Church.
  5. That a Pope who becomes a heretic automatically falls from the pontificate as soon as his heresy is public and manifest.

Out of all the theologians who argued in depth about this subject, so far only one has been declared a saint and, more pertinently, a Doctor of the Church. It is St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621). He was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1930 and declared a Doctor of the Church by the same pope the following year.

In his monumental work on the Papacy, De Romano Pontifice (“On the Roman Pontiff”), St. Robert argued that “[i]t is probable and may piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular [=private] person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith” (Book IV, Chapter 6). In other words, Bellarmine believed that out of the five opinions enumerated above, Position 1 was the most likely to be correct.

In the event, however, that Position 1 was not correct and a Pope could indeed become a heretic, Bellarmine insisted on and argued convincingly for Position 5, that such a “heretical Pope” would immediately and automatically cease to be Pope, without the need for a declaration or other ecclesiastical intervention:

Although Fr. Bouix, like Bellarmine, also believed that Position 1 was the most likely to be correct, he held that if it was possible for a Pope to become a heretic, then this would not affect his holding of the Papacy at all — in other words, he supported Position 3 as the correct one, although in his Tractatus de Papa it is numbered differently, namely, as Position 4. He concludes:

Certainly, just as to Suárez and many others, myself included, it seems more probable that the Pope, even as a private person, cannot fall into heresy. But in the hypothesis that the Pope could become a heretic privately, I would absolutely deny that he is ipso facto deposed, or capable of being deposed by any council.

(D. Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, vol. II [Paris: Lecoffre, 1869], p. 666, trans. by Gerardus Maiella; in “Bouix On The Question of an Heretical Pope”True or False Pope?, May 14, 2019.)

It appears that Salza and Siscoe are now trying, as they have done in the past with other theologians, to advertise this as some kind of a “refutation” of the Sedevacantist position, which is identical to that of Bellarmine. St. Robert called the position Bouix takes “exceedingly improbable” and said that “it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd” (De Romano PontificeBook II, Chapter 30).

But what is perhaps even more significant, Bouix seems to be the only theologian who defended Position 3. The non-sedevacant Brazilian layman Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira (1929-2018), whom Salza and Siscoe happily advertise on their site as endorsing their book, remarks: “This third opinion … is defended by one sole theologian, among 136 ancient and modern theologians whose position on this matter we could verify” (Da Silveira, Can the Pope go Bad?, trans. by John Russell Spann [Greenacres, WA: Catholic Research Institute, 1998], p. 31); and again a bit later: “…it has against it the practically unanimous Tradition of the Church” (p. 36); “We remind the reader that of 136 authors whom we consulted, only Bouix defends this opinion” (p. 36, fn. 16).

Moreover, the position Bouix takes is not even that taken by Salza and Siscoe themselves, nor does it apply to the case of the manifest heresies of “Pope” Francis, for Bouix explicitly states that he is talking only about the case of a Pope who becomes a heretic as a private individual, not a “Pope” whose private heresies become part of his magisterium, as is clearly the case with Francis:

There is no sufficient reason why Christ should be thought to have provided that a Pope heretic would be able to be deposed. Surely that reason would be the vast detriment which would come to the Church unless such a Pope were deposed. But that reason is not valid; as much because the Pope heretic is not so harmful an evil that the Church therefore must necessarily be ruined and perish; as because the remedy, the Pope’s deposition, would be a much worse evil. And firstly, the heresy of the Pope about which this question is moved, is not so grave an evil that it is necessary to think that Christ had willed the deposition of such a Pontiff. The matter is only of private heresy; not which the Pope professes as the Pastor of the Church and in his Papal decrees or acts, but to which he adheres as a private doctor, and only in his private sayings or writings. What is more, so long as the Pope, whenever he defines and speaks Pontifically, teaches the right faith, the faithful are sufficiently safe, although at the same time it would be clear that the same Pope privately adheres to some heresy. All would readily understand that the opinion argued for by the Pope as a private doctor lacks authority, and he is only to be followed when he defines and relates the faith ex officio and with Pontifical authority.

(Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, vol. II, p. 670; underlining added.)

Precisely what, then, are Salza and Siscoe attempting to accomplish by putting up Bouix’s theological argumentation concerning the Papa haereticus?

It seems they are trying to amass writings from theologians that dispute the position taken by sedevacantists regarding “heretical Popes”. There is only one problem: With one possible exception (one that we still need to investigate fully), as far as we have seen, all the “evidence” they have published in that regard comes from books that were written before the First Vatican Council, which promulgated rich teaching on the Papacy such as the following:

So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1837; underlining added.)

The ecclesiastical approbation given to Bouix’s Tractatus de Papa is dated Aug. 20, 1868, almost two full years before the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus. The first two volumes were published in 1869, the third in 1870. The translated excerpt published by Salza and Siscoe is from volume 2.

In addition, one should keep in mind that although Bouix was writing roughly 250 years after Bellarmine’s death, he was writing before St. Robert was canonized or declared a Doctor of the Church, or even beatified (his beatification took place in 1923). In other words, although he certainly took Bellarmine’s argumentation into consideration as coming from a most capable and renowned theologian, he did not have the privilege of learning from SaintBellarmine, Doctor of the Church.

The notion of a “heretical Pope” — at least the kind the world has seen in the Vatican II “popes” since the 1960’s — is impossible to reconcile with the teaching of Pastor Aeternus. Whoever doubts it is advised to take our special papacy test with regard to the manifest heretic Jorge Bergoglio. Our test replaces every mention of the phrase “Roman Pontiff” in the conciliar constitution with the words “Pope Francis” — and the results are… interesting:

Although Vatican I did not address the issue of the Papa haereticus directly in its dogmatic constitution on the Papacy, the question did indeed come up during the deliberations, and the deputation on the Faith responded to it. Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati relates what happened and how the council answered:

After Vatican I, the alternatives to Position 1 and Position 5 were abandoned, and instead we find theologians in agreement that a “heretical Pope” would automatically cease to be Pope:

…it cannot be proved that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic, for example, if he contumaciously denies a dogma previously defined; this impeccability was nowhere promised to him by God. On the contrary, [Pope] Innocent III expressly admits that the case can be conceded. But if the case should take place, he falls from office by divine law, without any sentence, not even a declaratory one. For he who openly professes heresy places his very self outside the Church, and it is not probable that Christ preserves the Primacy of His Church with such an unworthy individual. Consequently, if the Roman Pontiff professes heresy, he is deprived of his authority before any whatsoever sentence, which [sentence] is impossible.

(Rev. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, vol. I, 4th ed. [Rome: Marietti, 1950], n. 316c; our translation; underlining added.)

For more examples of what theologians writing after Vatican I have said about the scenario of a “heretical Pope”, please see our informative commentary on the recent “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” accusing Francis of heresy:

Quite frankly, the Bouix text Salza and Siscoe have presented is a big nothingburger: So they found a theologian writing before Vatican I who argued that a Pope cannot lose his pontificate at all, no matter how manifestly heretical he is. So what? In Church history you can find all sorts of theologians writing on disputed questions before they were settled by the Church, including a position on the Beatific Vision by St. Bernard of Clairvaux that was later declared to be heretical (see Fr. Joseph Sagüés, On the Last Things, p. 298, n. 30).

The real question is: Is it possible to affirm of the Novus Ordo “popes” everything the Catholic Church teaches about the Papacy and still remain faithful to the Catholic religion of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors? But we all know the answer to that.

By the way: Bouix’s Tractatus de Papa ends with the words: “Scripta mea omnia judicio ac correctioni Romani Pontificis subjicio” — “I subject all my writings to the judgment and correction of the Roman Pontiff” (vol. 3, p. 436).

Would John Salza and Robert Siscoe do that?

 

in Novus Ordo Wire    

The Case Against Roncalli

I learn quite a lot thanks to my readers. Each week in the comments section, there are many good discussions. Most are on the same topic as the post, but not always, and that’s fine by me. When I’m challenged on a topic I often re-think my position, to get a better understanding both for my own edification and that I may be of more informative value to my readers. I believe in the axiom,”He who does not understand his opponents’ point of view, doesn’t fully understand his own.” Last week, a comment was made by someone who objected to my designating Roncalli (John XXIII) as a false pope. He had challenged me on this point about a year ago, and I was going to research my position more thoroughly, but alas, life so often gets in the way of our plans.

This time, I started to research the topic and my findings were most fruitful–resulting in this post you’re now reading. Anyone who wishes to read the whole thread between my interlocutor and myself may do so by referring to the comments section of last week’s post. In sum, he said, “Sedevacantists recognize Paul VI onwards as pseudo-popes based on SOLID, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. For some reason you’re not applying this standard to Roncalli…Again, I don’t know if Roncalli was an usurper. Neither do you, so perhaps you should pull back on DECLARING him a pseudo-pope, and instead just state that YOU believe he was problematic to the point that YOU have your doubts that he was genuine. ” (Emphasis in the original).

In this post, I will put forth the reasons, proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that Roncalli must be objectively dismissed as a false pope. There’s so much that could be written, but I will confine myself as best as possible to make it terse and get the point across without delving into all aspects of his life. Hence, you will not see, for example, accusations that he was a Freemason addressed. I might touch on such issues in another post. This one will suffice for the stated purpose.

Angelo Roncalli: A Brief Background
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, the man who would convoke the Robber Council Vatican II, was born the fourth of thirteen children in 1881. He was born to a family of sharecroppers who lived in an Italian village. Roncalli studied for the priesthood, and completed his doctorate in Canon Law the same year as his ordination, 1904.  He became Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University in 1924, only to be relieved of his post within months “on suspicion of Modernism.”
In February 1925, the Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri summoned him to the Vatican and informed him of Pope Pius XI’s decision to appoint him as the Apostolic Visitor to Bulgaria (1925–1935). He was subsequently consecrated a bishop in 1925 by Cardinal Porchelli. On 12 January 1953, he was appointed Patriarch of Venice and raised to the rank of Cardinal-Priest of Santa Prisca by Pope Pius XII. After the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, Roncalli was allegedly elected pope on the eleventh ballot occurring on October 28th. He took the regnal name of John XXIII. Interestingly, this was the first time in over 500 years that this name had been chosen; previous popes had avoided its use since the time of Antipope John XXIII during the Great Western Schism several centuries before. Both his name and his “reign” would be an appropriate foreshadowing of the Vatican II sect which he helped to create.
Preliminary Considerations
1. A pope who falls into heresy— as a private individual— automatically loses his papal authority by Divine Law.
 According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).
According to Wernz-Vidal, “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church….A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943] 2:453).
2. A heretic is incapable by Divine Law of attaining the papacy.
 According to theologian Baldii, “Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…” (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).
According to canonist Coronata, “III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: …Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.” (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)
3. If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order.
According to theologian Szal, “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).
Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on “specific and articulable facts,” “taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances.” Hence, if someone were elected pope, and coerced into resigning, he would remain pope. Any subsequent Cardinal “elected” could not attain to the papacy even if not a heretic. Moreover, with the death or true resignation of the man elected pope (at a time subsequent to the invalid election), it would not thereby automatically make the invalidly elected cardinal the Vicar of Christ.
Was Roncalli a Heretic Prior to His Election?
  • In the biography by Lawrence Elliot entitled I Will Be Called John:A Biography of Pope John XXIII,[Reader’s Digest Press, 1973] it is recorded that as early as 1914, Roncalli was accused of Modernism while a teacher at the seminary at Bergamo. Cardinal De Lai, Secretary for the Congregation of Seminaries, formally reprimanded Roncalli, saying: “According to the information that came my way, I knew that you had been a reader of Duchesne [an author of a three volume work placed on the Index of Forbidden Books  for teaching Modernist tenets—Introibo] and other unbridled authors, and that on certain occasions you had shown yourself inclined to that school of thought which tends to empty out the value of tradition and the authority of the past, a dangerous current which leads to fatal consequences.” (pg. 59)
  • For ten years (1905-1915), Roncalli was secretary for Bishop Radini Tedeschi, a Modernist sympathizer. Roncalli describes him thus: “His burning eloquence, his innumerable projects, and his extraordinary personal activity could have given the impression to many, at the beginning, that he had in view the most radical changes and that he was moved by the sole desire to innovate…[Tedeshi] concerned himself less with carrying out reforms than with maintaining the glorious traditions of his diocese and with interpreting them in harmony with new conditions and the new needs of the times.”(See Leroux, John XXIII: Initiator of the Changes, pg. 10) Bp. Tedeschi wanted to “update” traditions by re-interpreting them with the “needs of the times.” Sound familiar?
  • He received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli’s own insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an “honest socialist.” Pope Pius XI had stated, “No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”(See Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno [1931], para #120)
  • While working in Bulgaria, Roncalli became well acquainted with Eastern Schismatics. His heretical ecumenism shone through “Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (See Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, [1998], pp. 18-19; Emphasis mine.) Do the schismatics share the same faith with the One True Church? Obviously not.
  • According to Renzo Allegri (translated from the original Italian Il Papa che ha cambiato il mondo, Testimonianze sulla vita private di Giovanni XXIII, pg. 66) a Bulgarian journalist named Stefano Karadgiov stated, “I knew Catholic priests who refused to go into an Orthodox Church even as tourists. Bishop Roncalli, on the contrary, always participated in Orthodox functions, arousing astonishment and perplexity in some Catholics. He never missed the great ceremonies which were celebrated in the principle Orthodox church in Sofia. He put himself in a corner and devoutly followed the rites. The Orthodox chants especially pleased him. (Emphasis mine)
  • The import of Roncalli actively participating in false worship cannot be understated. Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746; Emphasis mine)
  • Nor is this an isolated report of Roncalli participating in prayer with those outside the Church. According to John Hughes in Pontiffs:Popes Who Shaped History [Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1994], “He [Roncalli] became good friends of the Reverend Austin Oakley, chaplain at the British Embassy and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s personal representative to the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch. Even more unusual were Roncalli’s visits to Oakley’s chapel, where the two men prayed together.” (Emphasis mine). Furthermore, according to Kerry Walters in John XXIII (A Short Biography) Franciscan Media,[2013], Roncalli once proclaimed from the pulpit that Jesus Christ “died to proclaim universal brotherhood.” (pg. 14)
Did Something Strange Happen at the 1958 Conclave?
 1.  There were several top contenders for the papacy after the death of Pope Pius XII. Fr. DePauw, my spiritual father, made it known to me that his personal friend, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who was in charge of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, was so certain he would be elected, that he had already picked out his regnal name as Pope Pius XIII. Other strong contenders included Cardinals Agagianian (Modernist sympathizer), Lercaro (Modernist sympathizer), and Siri (anti-Communist and anti-Modernist like Ottaviani). The U.S. government was very interested in the election, as the Cold War was in high gear, and they wanted another staunch anti-Communist like Pope Pius XII.
In October of 1958, there were only 55 Cardinals in the world, the lowest number in decades because Pope Pius knew so many bishops were suspect of Modernism. It was the “second wave” of resurgent Modernism. Pope St. Pius X had driven the Modernists underground, but had not extirpated them. So why did Pope Pius XII give the red hat of a Cardinal to Roncalli? Contrary to what many think, the Church doesn’t simply excommunicate clerics on a whim. The fact that they were censured or held suspect of heresy is the Church doing Her job. The hope is to reform those who go astray and bring them back into the fold. Even the great St. Pius X gave the worst Modernists time to reform before excommunication. To be clear, the Church is in no way infallible when it comes to ecclesiastical appointments. Choosing someone as a Cardinal does not relieve their censure or suspicion of heresy automatically.
Pope Pius XII had a back-stabbing Judas as his confessor; Fr. Augustin Bea. Bea was thought to be anti-Modernist, but at Vatican II he worked for the passage of Nostra Aetate, the heretical document on non-Christian religions. He was an ecumenist to the extreme and wanted the Jews “absolved” for their crime of Deicide. Could he have protected Roncalli, having the ear of Pope Pius and convincing him he was “reformed” and/or not electable as pope? This is one of many possibilities, but the crux of the matter is it does nothing to absolve Roncalli of his false teachings and even without ecclesiastical excommunication, he would have been removed from the Church by Divine Law for profession of heresy.
2. Confusing white smoke signals appeared and American intelligence had allegedly found out that Cardinal Siri had been elected pope. Then the smoke was black. White smoke signals mean that a Cardinal had been elected and accepted his election as the new pope. This has lead some to speculate that Siri was elected pope (“Gregory XVII”) and was forced to resign. Therefore Roncalli’s election was null and void. I don’t accept the “Siri Theory” for good reason.

See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html for my thoughts on the “Siri Theory.” Is it possible some other Cardinal was elected, forced to resign (which made Roncalli’s election null and void), and then lost office by going along with the Modernists? It’s a possibility. Lest anyone say there is no evidence of seriously confusing smoke, according to Kirk Clinger, “The partly white, partly dark smoke confused even the Vatican radio announcers. They had to apologize frequently for their error. The column of smoke which rose from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel was first whitish, then definitely white, and only later definitely black.” (See A Pope Laughs: Stories of John XXIII,Holt, Rinehard, and Winston[1964], pg. 43)

3. The most convincing report I heard was that both Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri were unable to muster the two-thirds plus one vote to be elected. As a result, a group of “moderates” convinced most Cardinals to give their votes to Roncalli as a “transitional” pope. He was 77 years old, and (so the reasoning went) wouldn’t do much. Could there have been threats to a Cardinal that got elected and he was forced to resign? At least two Cardinals present made disparaging statements about what transpired at that conclave, which is highly suggestive that there was something seriously wrong. They were Cardinals Ottaviani and Spellman.
4. Does this give us a reasonable suspicion, such that we may doubt Roncalli’s election? Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of evidence, so I’d say definitely so. However, there is more than ample proof Roncalli was a heretic prior to his election and therefore could not attain to the papacy. Finally, let’s not forget that a cause can be discerned by examining the effects. For example, the intelligent design of the universe points to a Creator. Likewise, if the man who came out of the conclave did what a true pope would not (indeed could not) do, we can safely say he wasn’t elected pope.
5. Roncalli, as “pope” rehabilitated every major heretic that had been censured under Pope Pius XII and had them as approved periti (theological experts) at Vatican II. These heretics included the likes of Congar, de Lubac, and Hans Kung, among many others, none of whom were required to abjure any errors. Roncalli promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism.” He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase “perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews.” He modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar. He was friends with Socialists, Communists, and Freemasons, none of whom he sought to convert. Are these the actions of a true Vicar of Christ?
Pacem In Terris: Heresy On Earth
The death-knell for those who wish to consider Roncalli pope lies in the fact that he professed heresy in his encyclical Pacem In Terris, published April 11, 1963. This section of my post is taken from the work of Mr. John Lane called John XXIII and Pacem in Terris. I give full credit to Mr. Lane for his incredible research  and incisive analysis. I have condensed the pertinent parts of his article in this section and included some of my comments and research, which I mixed in.—Introibo
The encyclical Pacem in Terris, was about “establishing universal peace in truth, justice, charity, and liberty,” and in addition to the Church, it was addressed “to all men of good will.” The heretical proposition is the opening sentence of paragraph #14. The official Latin version, published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (“AAS” –Acts of the Apostolic See), No. 55, 257-304 is as follows:

In hominis juribus hoc quoque numerandum est, ut et Deum, ad rectum conscientiae suae normam, venerari possit, et religionem privatim et publice profiteri. 

In English it means, “We must include among the rights of man that he should be able to worship God according to the rightful prompting of his conscience and to profess his religion privately and publicly.”
Those who defend Roncalli will point out (correctly) that the Church teaches humans have the right to profess and practice only the Catholic religion which is the One True Church, outside of which no one is saved. Error has no rights. There is nothing wrong with this statement in Pacem (they contend) because the word rightful modifies the “prompting of his conscience” such that it implies that one is not simply entitled to follow his conscience in the worship of God unless his conscience is rightful (i.e., in accordance with the One True Church). What no Catholic can declare is that each person should be able “to profess his religion privately and publicly.” This implies (as we shall see) that one can profess any religion, be it the True Religion or any of the myriad false religions, both privately and in public; which idea is heretical and condemned by the Church.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The possessive adjective “his” does not appear in the official Latin text published in the AAS. However, its interpolation by translators (including the official English text available on the Modernist Vatican’s website) is by no means unjustified for two reasons:

(a) Latin very rarely includes such adjectives, frequently showing them to be  understood from the context.
(b) Abundant evidence shows that John XXIII’s true meaning is represented by the inclusion of “his”–which evidence will be examined.

If you read the sentence without the word “his” it admits of an orthodox interpretation: i.e., people have the right to profess religion publicly and privately provided it’s the Catholic religion. Nevertheless, we cannot omit that word without altering the intended sense of the encyclical; a sense that is unabashedly heretical. Let no one protest that this is an exercise in mere semantics. The semi-Arian heretics, under pressure from the Emperor, were prepared to submit to every syllable of the Nicene Creed except they rejected the statement that Our Lord was consubstantial (homo-ousion) with the Father, but He was merely (homoi-ousion) of like substance, not the same substance. One letter marked the all important line between Catholic doctrine and heresy.

It is beyond dispute that the meaning Roncalli wished to convey, and to which he consciously lent his (alleged) “authority,” was that each person has the right to profess his religion—whatever that religion may be–both privately and publicly. Here is the evidence:

1. The encyclical was not, as traditionally done, addressed only to the members of the Roman Catholic Church, but to “all men of good will.” If it was only addressed to Catholics, one could argue that they would know that “his” religion is the Catholic religion, because only the Truth may be openly professed and preached. After all, he would then only have Catholics as his intended audience. It is completely unreasonable to expect Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants, and Eastern Schismatics (among other non-Catholics) to obtain that understanding from the context. The only reasonable conclusion at which they would arrive is that the encyclical guarantees every single one of them the objective moral right to practice and professhis particular false religion in public.

2. The 32nd edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum [The Enchiridion is a compendium of all the basic texts on Catholic dogma and morality since the Apostolic Age. Commissioned by Pope Pius IX, it has been in use since 1854, and has been regularly updated since] was edited by Fr. Schonmetzer and has the offending sentence tagged with a footnote referencing the Masonic United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This passage is irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine, yet it is linked to the very sentence that would make a reader believe that everyone is free to express his religion in public, no matter if it is the true religion or not. It would suggest that Roncalli was conscious of that portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as he penned Pacem in Terris. If this does not contradict Catholic teaching, nothing does.

As Pope Gregory XVI taught: “Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care…This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it.” (See Mirari Vos [1832], para. #13 and 14).

The defenders of Roncalli will protest that there is a “lack of evidence” that Roncalli authorized the footnote; but such objection fails miserably. The authors of the Enchiridion are selected precisely to ensure that their references and explanations will meet with official approval of the Holy See, and any remark misrepresenting the mind of same would meet with a public rebuke and a retraction demanded by Rome, which was far from the case. Moreover, the involvement of the editors of the 32nd edition is more demonstrable than in any prior edition. It was the first time that the passage of Pope Pius IX’s condemnation of religious liberty was omitted.  The startling omission is explicable only on the basis that it was intended to conceal the explicit contradiction between Pacem in Terris and Quanta Cura. 

This passage was omitted: From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.” (See Quanta Cura [1864], para. #3).

Clearly, it cannot be reasonably maintained that those who took such great care to arrange the suppression of the “offending” part of Quanta Cura were not also responsible for the footnote to Pacem in Terris which concerned the same subject.

3. That fact that the sentence from Pacem in Terris must be understood in connection with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is confirmed by the fact that in Pacem itself, the Masonic United Nations and its Declaration are commended and praised in paragraphs #142, 143, and 144. Roncalli said of the Declaration “It is a solemn recognition of the personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone’s right to be free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights connected with these.” (para. #144; Emphasis mine). An encyclical is carefully read over by the Pontiff before signing and promulgating it. Moreover, high ranking theologians craft it at the direction of the pope. Each word is carefully chosen. If these “other rights” written in the Declaration did not include the infamous “right” to religious liberty, is it not obvious this would have been made clear?

4. The encyclical was roundly praised by the Masonic lodges and the secular media both of which promote religious Indifferentism and religious liberty through supporting separation of Church and State.

5. The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed “heretical by defect.” This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:
“After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances.”

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because “it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith…insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question.”

Summation: It is impossible to excuse Roncalli (John XXIII) from the charge of heresy by arguing that this sentence can admit of an orthodox interpretation, because it does not. Even if, ad arguendo, it could so admit of an orthodox interpretation, Roncalli would still be guilty of heresy by defect because it has been shown that the obvious sense of the sentence, taken in both text and context, is incontrovertibly heretical.

Conclusion
What, then, are the practical and objective conclusions we can deduce from the so-called pontificate of “Good Pope John”?
  • He was influenced and kept friends with Modernists, Masons, Socialists and other sworn enemies of the Church from his earliest days in the priesthood
  • He was removed from his teaching post on suspicion of heresy (Modernism)
  • He worshiped and prayed with heretics and schismatics
  • He made an overtly heretical statement regarding Catholics and Eastern Schismatics having the “same faith”
  • The conclave of 1958 was surrounded by suspicious activity and lead many to believe that someone else had been elected pope prior to Roncalli
  • After his “election” Roncalli rehabilitated all the living censured theologians under Pope Pius XII and had them actively serve as theological experts during Vatican II
  • Roncalli taught the heresy of religious liberty in Pacem in Terris; he paved the way for its adoption at Vatican II in the heretical document Dignitatis Humanae

Therefore,

1. It is morally certain that Roncalli was not pope since at least the promulgation of the heretical encyclical Pacem in Terris of April 11, 1963. A true pope cannot teach heresy.
2. Was Roncalli “pope” from October of 1958 until April 11, 1963? In a word: No. We know a cause by the effect it produces. If you see someone who’s sick, you know it’s caused by an illness, even if you can’t diagnose exactly what illness it is. Pope’s do not rehabilitate heretics, promote ecumenism and teach heresy. It is highly more probable than not that Roncalli was a heretic at the time he entered the conclave and never attained to the papacy in the first place. It is also possible (but not likely) that someone else was elected pope and resigned under duress, making Roncalli’s subsequent “election” invalid. There’s more than sufficient evidence prior to the promulgation of Pacem in Terris that we can suspect the validity of his election (due to heresy, election of another, or both) to treat him as a dubious pope –which is no pope in the practical order.
I could write dozens of posts on “Evil Pseudo-Pope John.” However, I hope this one will be sufficient to put to rest the arguments of those who are “agnostic” about his “papacy” and think he might have been pope. Finally, for those who have even the slightest qualm of conscience or scintilla of doubt remaining, let me add that Bergoglio “canonized” him a “saint.” The same Argentinian apostate who gave us “St.” John Paul the Great Apostate and “St” Paul VI, gave us “St” John XXIII. If that’s not enough to make you realize the destruction he caused, and for which the Vatican II sect praises him, no amount of information can wake you from your denial.

The Anti-Father

If you ever heard the Vatican II sect “priests” talk about the Gospel in their “homily,” you would get the idea that the books of the Bible are more or less a bunch of nice stories that teach us to be kind because “God is good all the time.” They denigrate “born again” Protestant ministers, not for their many and genuine heresies, but because they “falsely” believe the Bible to be the inspired and infallible Word of God. At the same time, (so we are told), in the days pre-Vatican II, Catholics were “not allowed” or “discouraged” from reading the Bible on their own. In this way, they were prevented from seeing that the Bible is a nice collection of myths, stories, and some truths to encourage us to believe in a nice God and His Son Who was “the greatest man (sic) on Earth.”

If you’re wondering how we got to this sorry state of affairs, modern Biblical scholarship was infected by the Modernists in the wake of Vatican II. The seeds were sowed in the late 19th century, and one man in particular did more damage than all the others. Alfred Firmin Loisy was born in France on February 28, 1857, and died June 1, 1940. He was ordained a priest on June 29, 1879, but was off-course in his spiritual life. He obtained his theology degree in 1890. Loisy claimed in his journal that he had a “fever for glory” and wanted to become a “Father of the Church.”(See McKee, The Enemy Within the Gate [1974], pg. 23). His arrogance and diabolical hatred for all things traditional Catholic, led to him becoming one of the “Fathers of Modernism” and of the Vatican II sect, which his influence helped to spawn in 1964.

As we shall see in this post, Loisy was particularly critical of the Bible, and is even called in some circles the “Founder of Biblical Modernism in the Catholic (sic) Church.” It is because of him, and his intellectual/spiritual disciples, that the true teaching regarding the Bible was discarded.

Ridding The Bible of “Myths”
Loisy argued against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the reliability of Genesis’ creation accounts, and against the historical dependability of the Bible in general. As a result, he was removed from his teaching position at the Institut Catholique.  After his dismissal, he was made a chaplain at a girls school at Neuilly. In 1900 Loisy became lecturer at Ecole des hautes Estudes at the Sorbonne, where he was able to continue spreading his ideas as a Modernist. Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Providentissimus Deus in 1893 condemning the errors of Modernist Biblical criticism.
 Undaunted, Loisy continued to write heretical books, using Modernist Biblical criticism. In particular, Loisy:
  • Denied the authority of God, the Scriptures, and Tradition
  • Denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ
  • Denied Christ was omniscient
  • Denied the Redemptive death and Resurrection of Christ
  • Denied the Virgin Birth
  • Denied Transubstantiation
  • Denied the Divine Institution of both the papacy and the Church

In December of 1903, Loisy’s books were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office with the full approval of Pope St. Pius X, who had just been elected pope in August of that year. On January 24, 1904, Loisy wrote to the saintly and thoroughly Anti-Modernist Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val. The Cardinal was the right hand man of Pope St. Pius X, and with good reason. Cardinal Merry del Val was everything Loisy was not: humble and pious. Moreover, the Cardinal was an intellectual giant, having not only a Doctorate in Sacred Theology as an approved theologian, but he also earned a doctorate in philosophy and licentiate in Canon Law. He did not fancy himself a “Father of the Church” but actually penned a “Litany of Humility.” Some ascribed the authorship to another, but the Cardinal recited it daily, nevertheless.  His cause for sainthood was introduced in 1953, and in my opinion, had Vatican II not happened, he would have an “St.” before his name.

Loisy told the Cardinal in his letter that “I accept all the dogmas of the Church.” This was an unabashed lie, because at the same time in his journal he wrote, “I have not been Catholic in the official sense of the word for a long time…Roman Catholicism as such is destined to perish, and it will deserve no regrets.” (Ibid, pgs. 32-33). The wise Cardinal was not satisfied, as he knew all too well how Modernists lie and conceal their true intentions by giving different meanings to dogmas. A Modernist could say, “I believe in the Resurrection of Christ (insofar as he lives on; not materially, but in the minds of His followers).” The part in parentheses is never said aloud. Cardinal Merry del Val continued to advise Pope St. Pius that more stringent measures needed to be taken.
Finally, in 1907, His Holiness Pope St. Pius X condemned 65 Modernist propositions in his famous declaration Lamentabili Sane. Of those 65 propositions, fifty (50) were taken from the works of Loisy. Enraged, Loisy realized that there was no reconciliation possible with the Church and his heresy. He now made plain what he had heretofore keep close to his vest when he wrote publicly, “Christ has even less importance in my religion than he does in that of the liberal Protestants: for I attach little importance to the revelation of God the Father for which they honor Jesus. If I am anything in religion, it is more pantheist-positivist-humanitarian than Christian.” On March 7, 1908, Loisy was solemnly excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X. He became a college professor, forsaking his clerical status, and died unrepentant in 1940.
The Condemnations of Lamentabili Sane
Here are just some of the propositions (all solemnly condemned by St. Pius X) which Loisy propagated in regard to Holy Scripture:
4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s Magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments She issues are to be embraced.

9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.

10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete[interpreter of the Bible] must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

In Defense of God’s Word
The attacks of Loisy and the Modernists on Sacred Scripture lack merit, even apart from a theological perspective. The following is taken and condensed from the work of A. Anderson, a lawyer who attacked the alleged logical basis of the Modernists’ faulty exegesis. Anderson shows that the Modernists cannot maintain their position in regard to Sacred Scripture being “unreliable”— even in the purposeful absence of theological proof. What makes his work, entitled A Lawyer Among the Theologians, (Hodder and Stoughton, [1967]) truly masterful, is how he demonstrates that the Gospels are historically reliable while fighting Modernists “on their own turf” by using the best secular evidence, and not invoking any theological authority.
Reasons for Accepting the Gospels as Historically Reliable
As a form of literature, the Gospels are unique, for they were written by believers to confirm the readers in their faith or to bring to faith those who did not yet believe. Since the Christian faith is rooted in history, the Evangelists were concerned in reporting what actually happened, and therefore the religious aim of the Gospels is not a valid reason for rejecting them as historically inaccurate or unreliable.
1. Two Evangelists explicitly claim they are reporting historical facts. St. Luke begins his Gospel by telling us that he has been at pains to gather reliable information about the events he plans to chronicle in order that Theophilus, for whom he is directly writing, may rest assured that his faith in Christ is based on well-established fact. The order in which he recounts the facts is not strictly chronological, but in its main outlines Luke’s account of the public ministry of Jesus tallies with those of Sts. Matthew and Mark. St. John also presents his Gospel as a record of facts which serve as a warranty for faith in Christ.
2. The Evangelists, even if they wanted to, could not have made up the story, for the central figure is so tremendous and the story of His life so unique as to be beyond the power of human imagination. Even John Stuart Mill, a rationalist philosopher who rejected the supernatural said, “Who among His disciples or among the proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings of Jesus or or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the simple fishermen of Galilee; certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort; still less the early Christian writers.”
3. The Gospels had to pass the scrutiny of men who had witnessed the events that were recorded, and were hostile to the Christian claims.
4. Historical and archaeological research have revealed that the Gospels depict with striking exactitude the very complex social and political order that prevailed in the Middle East in the third decade of the first century, an order that was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. The Evangelists’ reliability in recording these items creates a presumption that their testimony on other matters is true as well.
5. A crucified Messiah was completely out of step with regard to Jewish expectations. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, but not a suffering Messiah, and still less an Incarnate Deity. Even if they thought the Messiah was to be the Son of God, even the most learned rabbis of the day would NOT think Him to be born in a stable, spend thirty years in obscurity as a carpenter, and end His life on the ignominious death of the cross. Christ therefore was, in the words of St. Paul, a “stumbling block” on the path to faith. (1 Corinthians 1:23).
There is non-Christian testimony from pagan historians which corroborate the unique life of Jesus Christ. These writers include:
  • Flavius Josephus
  • Tacitus
  • Suetonius
  • Pliny the Younger
Conclusion
The Modernists have come to destroy all that is good, beautiful, and true. The would be “Church Father” Alfred Loisy was the quintessential Modernist, seeking to destroy the Church and replace Her with a One World Religion. He began attacking the reliability of the Bible, and the Vatican II sect continues with the de-supernaturalized “social Gospel” which reduces the Faith to little more than worldly concerns and advocates for Socialism/Communism. One of Loisy’s most noted sayings was, “Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church,” as if Our Lord never intended to found a Church. Loisy admitted to being a “pantheist-positivist-humanitarian” –a man devoid of the Faith.
Bergoglio and his false hierarchy are Loisy’s successors in heresy and apostasy. They proclaim a mythical Jesus (“There is no Catholic God”) Who founded no Church (“proselytism is solemn nonsense”) and lets you do what you want (“Who am I to judge?”). The only thing our SSPX friends need to recognize is that the Vatican II sect is not the Roman Catholic Church, and then resist the sect by admitting sedevacantism— thereby joining the fight against it.

41 comments:

  1. Admit sedevacantism? The only thing harder than admitting you were wrong is admitting you were fooled. SSPX and the other cottage industry resisters have painted themselves so far in the corner that they have become blinded by their own spin.

    Reply

  2. Tom,
    True. I guess miracles do happen? At least we can hope so—for all our sakes!

    —-Introibo

  3. Thank you, Introibo, for displaying the correct attitude one should take towards the SSPX.

    If one believes that all of the SSPX clergy are engaged in a false opposition designed to ensnare souls, one probably spends a good deal of time slapping their own head (ala Mel Gibson in “Conspiracy Theory”) while breathlessly ranting about various conspiratorial organizations. *Wild look in the eyes is optional.

    If one thinks that the SSPX has been somewhat infiltrated by the enemy, all the MORE reason to fervently pray for all of the good and holy SSPX clergy that aren’t traitors to our Lord.

    As sedevacantists we believe that they’ve concluded wrongly. This doesn’t mean we’re better or are “the chosen ones.” Far from it. Many of us are only right due to favorable circumstances.

    Did St. Monica revile and disown Augustine? It is incumbent on us to pray fervently each day for tne intention that the SSPX and their adherents see the truth. We also have a moral responsibility to see the very best in others until that is no longer possible. So from a starting point of the SSPX being horribly wrong on serious religious matters, tbey are to be pitied rather than be excoriated. Prayed for rather than uncharitably criticized.

    We’re all in this together. We all ultimately want the same thing – Heaven.

    Reply

  4. @anon7:28
    Well stated my friend!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  5. Is their any difference between the SSPX and the Indult?

  6. The title of this article “The Anti-Father” reminds me of a statement by Frankie the Fake stating that “God is Father and also Mother”. Leave it to Frankie the Fake to spread confusion and modernism. Since Frankie is into and a practicing New Ager himself, perhaps he is telling many of the feminists and New Agers that it is ok to pray to God as “Goddess”? I also wonder if he will change the Our Father to “Our Father and Mother” in the Vatican II Sect?
    See link below:

    https://www.lastampa.it/2019/01/16/vaticaninsider/the-pope-god-is-father-and-also-mother-and-always-loves-even-criminals-TDZFfyjpVfPqOD6mpRYprJ/pagina.html

    Reply

  7. Joann,
    No doubt “feminist theology” has taken hold since Vatican II. Bergoglio will lead people into EVERY EVIL. There was a “priest” in Boston when Ratzinger was “pope.” He was baptizing babies “In the name of God the Creator, and of Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.”

    Some parents questioned its validity, and much to that “priest’s “ chagrin, even the Modernist Vatican declared them null and void and to be unconditionally repeated!!

    Be assured that under Francis, he wouldn’t perturb an invalid Sacrament!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  8. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Matthew 7: 21-23

    I hate to say it, but I bet Alfred Firmin Loisy wishes he believed in the bible and in the Church now.

    I’m surprised the Novus ordo hasn’t talked about making him a “Doctor of the Church” like some have in regards to Teilhard de Chardin.

    Reply

  9. @anon5:39
    Oh, give them time! Teilhard shall be their “doctor,” Loisy shall be their “father,” and since its inception the V2 sect has had Satan for their lord and master.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  10. The seeds of Modernism were sown in the 17th century, when many theologians downplayed the condemnation of Galileo by the Holy See, insolently maintaining that the last word had not been had not yet been spoken on the subject of heliocentrism. By the second half of the 19th century, not a single theologian held to the biblical view of cosmology, and all without exception accepted heliocentrism. By the mid-20th century, scarcely a single one held to the Genesis account of creation, and evolutionism was all the rage in theological circles. Small wonder, then, that the Modernists were able to just waltz in and take the fortress unopposed. For the institutional Church had already been gut-shot by the craven capitulation of modern churchmen to the impious ravings of modern science. Therefore, the task of the Modernists couldn’t have been easier. It was like drowning puppies.

    Reply

  11. George,
    Good to hear from you again! It’s been some time since you last commented.

    Are you claiming that geocentrism is “dogma” or Catholic doctrine the denial of which is a mortal sin against the Faith?

    Two responses:
    According to Theologian Salavarri, “…decisions of this kind [regarding Biblical Commissions, condemning Galileo, ] are not absolutely infallible nor irrevocable; therefore the assent due to them, although anyone rightly ascents to them without a prudent fear of being in error (I.e., morally certain) , still it is not absolute nor absolutely irreformable.” (See “Sacrae Theologiae Summa” Volume IB, pg. 701).

    2. Pope St Pius X solemnly approved the following two answers and decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on 6/29/1909 in response to several queries:

    Question # 7: “Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man’s intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?”

    Answer: In the negative.

    Question # 8: “Whether the word yom (‘day’), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?”

    Answer: In the affirmative.

    Therefore, one is free to accept or deny geocentric ideas and the idea that Earth is only 6,000 years old. The decisions of the time referred to in Genesis was approved by The Foe Of Modernism himself—Pope St Pius X.

    That there were Modernists seeking to infiltrate the Church prior to V2, conceded. That the approved theologians all taught error, denied. For this would ascribe error to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which is impossible lest the Church defected. (Heresy)

    Notice how vigilant the Church was in condemning Loisy and his ilk. So were Roncalli and Ratzinger censured. It was only after Roncalli usurped the Throne Of St Peter did we get to this point.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  12. Introibo: “It was only after Roncalli usurped the Throne Of St Peter did we get to this point.”

    Hi Introibo,

    We’ve previously had a conversation about the strict requirement for solid evidence before we can observe that an individual is a papal usurper or pseudo-pope.

    As noted previously, the world hasn’t yet been graced with the exhaustive and definitive article by Fr. Cekada wherein he deals the killer blow to Roncalli’s papacy by demonstrating clear-cut actions and words that would’ve doubtlessly eliminated any possibility of Roncalli attaining or maintaining the office of pope. We know that John Salza demolished a facile argument put forth by Bp. Sanborn. Others have unsuccessfully sought to show heresy in “Pacem in Terris.” There are the persistent rumors of Freemasonry, etc. But nothing presented thus far has any probative value insofar Roncalli being a pseudo-pope. There is plenty demonstrating that Roncalli was a very bad egg, sailing close to wind of heresy (he is on file as being “suspected of Modernism”), but it appears that solid evidence to convict him has not yet surfaced.

    Arising from the preceding are three immediate questions.

    1) Should we or can we refer to a papal claimant as a definite usurper without a standard of evidence that clearly demonstrates this?

    2) Considering all of the mystery (e.g., white smoke appearing at one stage during the 1958 conclave), and confusion wrought by rumors and known, dubious associations Roncalli had with bad actors, is this enough to put John XXIII/Roncalli into a “doubtful pope” category, thus enabling informed Catholics to flee him like one would run from doubtful sacraments?

    3) Do you now have any unimpeachable/solid evidence clearly showing that Roncalli was a definite false pope?

    Please discuss.

  13. Roncalli has many flaws as you rightly pointed out. Let’s first review this general principle from Theologian Szal:
    “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if ONE REFUSES OBEDIENCE INASMUCH AS ONE SUSPECTS THE PERSON OF THE POPE OR THE VALIDITY OF HIS ELECTION, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics” CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).

    Do we have reason to suspect the election of Roncalli? Yes.

    John XXIII
    Was removed from his teaching position at the Lateran University under “suspicion of Modernism.” He was on a list of suspected Modernists as far back as 1925, and which list was kept at the Holy Office.

    Received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli’s insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an “honest socialist.” Pope Pius XI had stated, ” No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”

    Promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism.” He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase “perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews.” He further modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar.

    He made the following statement which is isolated, yet enunciates a heretical idea:
    In his encyclical Pacem In Terris (1963), he stated in paragraph #11, “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”

    I really don’t see how he can escape the charge of heresy and either lost office or never attained it.

    Could the Siri Theory be true ? Possibly. I don’t buy it, but I try to follow the evidence where it leads. US intelligence DID report only an hour or so after the original white smoke that Giuseppe Cardinal Siri was elected as Pope Gregory XVII.

    Finally, According to Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, there was someone deeply into the teachings of Rudolf Steiner; one Angelo Roncalli, who would become “Pope” John XXIII and convoke the Second Vatican (Robber) Council! Coomaraswamy writes, “Then in 1924, after the death of his beloved bishop [Bp. Tedeschi], he [Roncalli] was called back to Rome and given a minor post in the Association for the Propagation of the Faith. At this time he also became a part time Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, only to be relieved of his post within months “on suspicion of Modernism” and for “teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner” (See The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, World Wisdom Press, 2006, pg. 134 & Footnote 17, pg. 154).

    Rudolf Steiner was an open occultist.

    In 1958, would a Catholic have reason to suspect Roncalli? The average Catholic, no. But with over 60 years of hindsight we DO. Hence, a doubtful pope is to be treated as no pope at all.

    —-Introibo

  14. Thanks for all that, Introibo.

    We’ve been through all this before. You’ve said nothing new. I don’t find your reasoning convincing.

    Bottom line: What you’ve listed is not solid evidence for heresy or apostasy.

    Your “cumulative” approach does not magically add up to Roncalli being a heretic/apostate/non-Catholic. What we need is a minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    Rumors of being a Freemason, Freemasons claiming he was one of their own, rumors of being a Communist, hearsay in books, hearsay about what American security agencies thought at time, theories about Cardinal Siri being elected, Steiner being an occultist, your view of a passage out of Pacem in Terris, etc. etc., don’t even begin to approach proof for Roncalli being a false pope. As a lawyer, I think you know what I’m saying is true. And Canonical legal standards are what Roncalli must be judged against, and not, for example, a “preponderance of evidence” based on hearsay.

    What I was seeking was your thoughts on whether a Catholic today can legitimately put Roncalli in the “too hard basket,” DESPITE the FACT that one would be doing so based purely on a wealth of rumor, innuendo, unverified facts, etc. That’s what our “doubt” would be/is based on. Let’s be very clear about that. Based on a complete lack of solid evidence, I hardly think one can go about 100% declaring Roncalli an usurper. That’s not how justice works.

    Heavily in Roncalli’s favor is:

    1) Compelling, is that Roncalli was suspected of Modernism (heresy) as early as 1925 yet was never brought before the courts.

    2) Although the average Catholic layman wasn’t aware of Roncalli’s shenanigans, Church authorities certainly were. Everything you’ve mentioned was seen by the authorities.

    3) Compelling, is that Roncalli sat unchallenged (for years) as Cardinal under Pope Pius XII, right up until Pius’ death in 1958.

    4) None of the traditional clergy use your arguments. They obviously don’t think that what’s on your list suffices as examples that would prove the case against Roncalli. Again, where is Fr. Cekada’s article clearly showing that Roncalli was a false pope?

    Introibo: “I really don’t see how he can escape the charge of heresy and either lost office or never attained it.”

    Again, we need a minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    I simply don’t know whether Roncalli was an impostor or not. Therefore I can’t declare him to definitely be an usurper.

  15. Even if I concede we don’t know if he’s an imposter or not, the fact remains that there is enough evidence TO SUSPECT his election.
    Teaching occult theories and being removed from a teaching post are FACTS. What was written in Pacem in Terris is religious liberty.

    Is this enough (plus the white smoke and verified reports from American intelligence) to be SUSPICIOUS of his election? Yes. It is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid.

    —-Introibo

  16. “verified reports from American intelligence”

    Are you talking about the story that the FBI or CIA had documents that Siri was elected? That story is extremely questionable. I believe the only source for it is an anti-Catholic book by someone whom I heard was an apostate from being a trad. He made that claim in his book, citing a document in the archives of the CIA. Several people have filed Freedom of Information requests for the document cited in the footnote, and the response has always been that no such document exists.

    Contrary to popular belief, the author who made this claim was never a federal agent, but only a journalist, and thus did not have special access to the CIA archives. The footnote that cited a specific CIA document was changed in subsequent editions of the book and replaced with a vague reference to “CIA sources” or something equally vague. Numerous people have contacted this author requesting more information about this whole situation, and he refuses to discuss it.

    All in all it looks pretty bogus to me.

  17. Introibo,

    Geocentrism is not a dogma, as it was not solemnly defined. However, it was determined by the Holy See to be the correct interpretation of Scripture. On what grounds, then, would any obedient Catholic deny it to be the correct interpretation? On no good grounds, that’s for sure. And yet, not merely some, but absolutely ALL of the theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries did in fact deny it. And here we are in the Great Apostasy. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    You say that Salaverri considered the Galileo decision to be fallible. Of course, he would have to say that, since he obviously had no intention of assenting to it. Show me a theologian that is willing to assent to the decisions of the Holy See, and I will listen to him. The rest aren’t worth too much.

    As for the decisions of the Biblical Commission, Question #7 is not to the point, as none of the Fathers (nor anyone else, for that matter) ever considered themselves “strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?”

    On the other hand, Question #8 merely allowed (for the time being) the opinion that yom may mean a certain period of time, rather than a single 24-hour day. This question doesn’t bind the Catholic conscience to anything. Moreover, we are still bound to follow the common interpretation of the Fathers on Scripture, and ALL the Fathers interpreted yom to be a 24-hour day, except for St. Augustine, who believed that God created all things in a single instant, and the “days” were symbolic. Not a single Father considered yom to mean “a certain space of time,” and neither should we.

    But my main point is that the Modernists were not a sufficient cause to destroy the institutional Church.

    Reply

  18. George,
    The Church can never be destroyed, it was just driven underground—and I’m sure that’s what you meant.

    I hope you see where the problems lie:

    1. The Church defected as She was unable to prevent Her approved theologians from teaching something (geocentrism) that an obedient Catholic has “no good grounds” to reject. Yet all the popes allowed this to go unchecked.

    2. Show you a theologian Willing to assent to the decisions of the Holy See? Van Noort, Salaverri, Dorsch, Tanquerey, McHugh and Callan, etc. If they weren’t willing to submit to decisions of the Holy See, they would have been censured. Obviously, even St Pius X was a Modernist sympathizer and a weak pope since he did nothing to correct the theologians of his day.

    3. You claim:
    “Moreover, we are still bound to follow the common interpretation of the Fathers on Scripture, and ALL the Fathers interpreted yom to be a 24-hour day, except for St. Augustine, who believed that God created all things in a single instant, and the “days” were symbolic. Not a single Father considered yom to mean “a certain space of time,” and neither should we.”

    Yet, why would Pope St Pius X approve a decree that would allow you to contradict the common teaching of the Fathers on Scripture, something you say we are “bound” to do. Does this not make the decision of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and its approval by Pope St Pius X wrong??

    —-Introibo

  19. Not exactly relevant, but the term “institutional Church” makes me very uncomfortable in the way it seems designed to create a distinction between the Catholic Church and an institution called the “institutional Church”. Obviously for a Catholic there is no distinction between the two. Creating new terms to make a distinction between two things that our Faith teaches are identical seems like a bad idea.

  20. The institutional Church is merely an aspect of the One, Holy Catholic Church, which I have thought up to illustrate that part of the Church that has defected. It can be defined as the Catholic Church in its aspect as a unified and coherent network of diverse ecclesiastical communities subject to a hierarchy that possesses from God the authority to teach and govern it. Since it is clear that this aspect of the Church no longer exists, it can be rightly said that the institutional Church has been destroyed.

  21. Introibo,

    Again, thanks.

    There is enough evidence to suspect his election IF, as I said before, one is allowed to suspect based purely on a wealth of rumor, innuendo, unverified facts, etc. Are we?

    Teaching occult theories and being removed from a teaching post are NOT FACTS. The first is a story that was retailed by Dr. Coomaraswamy, and the second is a FACT, but it’s ALSO a FACT that Roncalli remained in place as a Cardinal under Pope Pius XII, and is therefore presumed to be papabile.

    No. What was in Pacem and Terris was NOT religious liberty, and I pointed it out last time we discussed this. I think you need to review that exchange and your responses.

    Since when do Catholics rely on the CIA and FBI to learn when their new pope has been elected? I’ll grant that something unusual happened with the smoke, but none of the Cardinals came out at the time and denied John XXIII’s election.

    Introibo: “Yes. It is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid.”

    Who says that you can declare that suspicions based on this, particular, set of flimsy “evidence” is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid? No one. That’s “Introibo’s Law.”

    Sedevacantists recognize Paul VI onwards as pseudo-popes based on SOLID, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. For some reason you’re not applying this standard to Roncalli.

    Again, Fr. Cekada and other clerics aren’t using your reasons. Fr. Cekada avoids John XXIII for precisely the same reason he avoids Pius XII’s liturgical changes. He hasn’t taken the huge bundle of rumors, false ideas about Pacem in Terris etc., and then declared that they create suspicion to enable one to definitively declare Roncalli an usurper.

    Again, I don’t know if Roncalli was an usurper. Neither do you, so perhaps you should pull back on DECLARING him a pseudo-pope, and instead just state that YOU believe he was problematic to the point that YOU have your doubts that he was genuine.

    Reply

  22. I have an excellent memory but I don’t remember every exchange I’ve had with readers over the course of nine years. I believe Pacem in Terris to promote religious liberty. If you wish to argue it go right ahead.

    When do Catholics rely on the FBI and CIA for information about a conclave? Since the information is now public and declassified and casts a serious doubt over the election. A specific cardinal with a specific papal name was mentioned.
    See https://novusordowatch.org/fbi-consultant-cardinal-siri-elected-pope-1958/

    That is real credible FACT that there is serious concerns over the 1958 conclave. None of the Cardinals denied Roncalli’s election because if the resignation of the other elected cardinal was coerced, its invalid. Later, Siri may have genuinely resigned with no duress but that has no retroactive Force with regard to Roncalli.

    Fr Cekada And the other Traditionalist clerics don’t use this line of reasoning. Who cares? They have no ordinary jurisdiction and none were approved pre-V2 theologians or canonists as was my spiritual father, Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD. The SSPV denies the validity of Thuc bishops. Fr Cekada would have us believe an Una Cum Mass is mortal sin, but you can freely avail yourself of elderly V2 apostate priests with valid orders for Confession outside the danger of death. I follow no one blindly in this age of the Great Apostasy.

    If Roncalli is not an objectively doubtful pope as per Theologian Szal, you must submit to him.

    Therefore,
    The 1962 Missal with the name of St Joseph in the Canon and the elimination of the people’s Confiteor, the Misereatur, and Indulgentium must be the only Mass for you. (Ironically, SSPX refuses to eliminate those prayers). Do you attend the Mass of 1962 and acknowledge it as the normative Mass?

    Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Küng and other censured heretics were all rehabilitated by Roncalli without abjuration of heresy. Do you accept them as approved Theologians?

    The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 had been called to Rome at the behest of John XXIII and also rehabilitated. Do you accept them?

    He rehabilitated Montini. All the cardinals he appointed are valid. Paul VI should therefore be accepted until November 21, 1964 when he signed Lumen Gentium. You might want to update your Mass to the first steps of the Novus Bogus in January 1964.

    A doubtful Sacrament is treated as no Sacrament in the practical order. Ditto for a dubiously elected pope. If there is no objective doubt, one must submit.

    If you want to consider him pope, go ahead. You might want to rethink that while you read approved Theologian Kung.

    —-Introibo

  23. Introibo,

    Thanks, yet again.

    We debated recently, about a year ago or so. I did argue successfully against your notion that Pacem in Terris contains heresy. You’ve forgotten. But it’s there in one of the threads.

    Go read the NOW article again. There’s no probative value. It’s admitted that the information cannot be verified. For all we know it could’ve been completely fabricated. Therefore all else you say that flows from it (the report) is inadmissible.

    Do you exclusively attend Pian Masses? Have you dictated to the SSPV that they must use the 1958 Missal because you believe Pius XII was the last true Pope? If not, do you stay home alone?

    As for all the rest:

    Introibo: “A doubtful Sacrament is treated as no Sacrament in the practical order. Ditto for a dubiously elected pope. If there is no objective doubt, one must submit.”

    Excuse me, but you haven’t even proved he was a “dubiously elected pope.” Therefore it looks like you must submit. Time to dust off your copy of Theologian Kung’s manual?

    You’ve proved nothing other than Roncalli was a bad pope. (I wish you could prove otherwise.)

    Tell me Introibo, did Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD, approved theologian and canonist, ever write a formal theological opinion, laying down the proof that Roncalli was a false pope? Did he, perchance, use Roncalli’s poor taste in rehabilitated theologians as a reason why he ceased to be a Catholic? If he (your authority and spiritual father) didn’t, are you bound to accept Roncalli and his theologians? It works both ways. Btw, did Fr. DePauw even give an informal opinion on John XXIII? His informal opinion is as good as anyone else’s, so if he had one I’d like to hear it. By the way, was Fr. DePauw a sedevacantist? If so, when did he come to the sedevacantist conclusion?

    Last time we spoke, you said you were going to go away and do some research. This is what I was asking for this time: A minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    You haven’t supplied.

    I’m uncertain about John XXIII. I simply don’t know. I look for solid evidence. You’re certain without having solid evidence. That’s the difference between us.

    But only God knows for certain.

    On that basis I prefer not to definitively declare Roncalli was an usurper.

    P.S. One moment it’s high praise from you for Fr. Cekada, next moment it’s “Who cares about him!” Fr. Cekada is a prolific writer. It IS significant that he hasn’t written condemning John XXIII, whether you think so or not.

  24. You: We debated recently, about a year ago or so. I did argue successfully against your notion that Pacem in Terris contains heresy. You’ve forgotten. But it’s there in one of the threads.

    Reply: With a 90 hr. plus work week and a family, I have a hard time believing I can do this much, so please don’t expect me to go looking for an exchange a year ago. If you want to debate it hear fine. Roncalli took a line right from John Courtney Murray’s heretical religious freedom.

    You: Go read the NOW article again. There’s no probative value. It’s admitted that the information cannot be verified. For all we know it could’ve been completely fabricated. Therefore all else you say that flows from it (the report) is inadmissible.

    Reply: Did you read the following?
    Such are the claims of Paul Williams, former consultant of the FBI, researcher, and author. Despite Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made to the United States government, we have so far been unable to get copies of the cited declassified intelligence documents, and thus we cannot verify whether Williams’ claims about what these documents say are accurate. However, the mix-up in smoke signals of the conclave of 1958 is verifiable historical fact, recorded in the newspapers which reported on the conclave day of October 26, 1958, such as the New York Times and the Houston Post.

    As proof of this, we are producing below in PDF format the front pages of two American newspapers that reported on the conclave. Both of them mention the white smoke and the official announcement of a successful election on October 26 (two days before John XXIII), with everybody expecting the appearance of the new Pope, who, however, never did appear (keep in mind that white smoke is not produced until the Pope-elect has accepted his election):

    Download PDF: “New Pope: False Signals: [Vatican] Radio tells of election, bells sounded in error”, The Daily Gleaner, Oct. 27, 1958, p. 1
    Download PDF: “Cardinals Cast 8 Ballots Without Choosing Pope”, Newport Daily News, Oct. 27, 1958, p. 1
    So, at the very least we know that the conclave had indicated the election of a true Pope two days before Angelo Roncalli claimed the pontificate.

    Dr. Williams’ claims regarding the election of Cardinal Siri as Pope Gregory XVII and its subsequent suppression, are very significant for the Catholic Church because it is not possible for anyone, including “French cardinals,” to “annul” an accepted papal election. Nobody is able to take a valid papal election away from the Pope — only the Pope himself can resign, and even then there are restrictions as to the validity of a resignation: “Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185). It is not possible to validly elect another Pope if a true Pope is already reigning.

    If, then, a true Pope — whether Cardinal Siri or anyone else, for that matter — was already reigning when Cardinal Roncalli was chosen, this would guarantee, per divine law, the invalidity of the election of John XXIII, no matter how many people recognized him as the true Pope afterwards.

    To prevent any misunderstanding, please note that Novus Ordo Watch does not endorse or recommend Dr. Williams’ book The Vatican Exposed, which is anti-Catholic to a large extent. We make reference to it only because the information it shares regarding the conclave of 1958 appears to be based on the OBJECTIVE FINDINGS of the U.S. intelligence community and hence would seem to be sufficiently reliable. (Emphasis in Original)

    (Continued below)

  25. Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances. Even a 1L would concede reasonable suspicion under these facts and circumstances.

    You:Do you exclusively attend Pian Masses? Have you dictated to the SSPV that they must use the 1958 Missal because you believe Pius XII was the last true Pope? If not, do you stay home alone?

    Reply: Yes, Pian Masses ARE NORMATIVE. It should be followed, but it is not heretical to follow pre-1955. I asked if you believed they are normative. You deflected answering. Have I mentioned this to the SSPV. YES. To SEVERAL PRIESTS AND A BISHOP. I cannot “command them” into doing otherwise.

    You:Excuse me, but you haven’t even proved he was a “dubiously elected pope.” Therefore it looks like you must submit. Time to dust off your copy of Theologian Kung’s manual?

    You’ve proved nothing other than Roncalli was a bad pope. (I wish you could prove otherwise.)

    Reply: Your wish came true> I’ve proven reasonable suspicion. If you don’t think rehabilitating hard-core Modernists, combined with all the other articulated facts and circumstances raises a reasonable suspicion, you need to dust off a law book and some books on basic logic–Bayesian probability would be a good place to start.

    You: Tell me Introibo, did Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD, approved theologian and canonist, ever write a formal theological opinion, laying down the proof that Roncalli was a false pope? Did he, perchance, use Roncalli’s poor taste in rehabilitated theologians as a reason why he ceased to be a Catholic? If he (your authority and spiritual father) didn’t, are you bound to accept Roncalli and his theologians? It works both ways. Btw, did Fr. DePauw even give an informal opinion on John XXIII? His informal opinion is as good as anyone else’s, so if he had one I’d like to hear it. By the way, was Fr. DePauw a sedevacantist? If so, when did he come to the sedevacantist conclusion?

    Reply: You missed my point entirely (no surprise). Traditionalist clergy are not approved theologians or canonists. They have the minimum training, and no one has Ordinary Jurisdiction. Fr. DePauw’s was at least a canonist. There is currently no infallible head so don’t cite to e.g., Fr Cekada as a stand alone authority. Capiche?

    I submit he taught religious liberty, he was suspect of Modernism, he was removed from his teaching post, and we have strange circumstances surrounding his election (to say the least). All of this gives reasonable suspicion because the conclave gave the white signal, withdrew it, and the man who emerged wasted no time rehabilitating Modernist theologians along with other actions that a pope would not do. If you can cite another pope who rehabilitated large numbers of censured theologians in one fell swoop, I’d like to see it.

    You:You’re certain without having solid evidence. That’s the difference between us.

    Reply: I’m certain there is reasonable suspicion, that is enough.

    You: One moment it’s high praise from you for Fr. Cekada, next moment it’s “Who cares about him!” Fr. Cekada is a prolific writer. It IS significant that he hasn’t written condemning John XXIII, whether you think so or not.

    Reply: I give praise when it’s due, and castigate when necessary. He’s a prolific writer, conceded. He hasn’t written on Roncalli–that’s all it proves, unless you can read minds or he has told you otherwise. Interesting that what you find significant becomes so. but all the evidence surrounding Roncalli doesn’t even add up to reasonable suspicion. Hopefully, you’ll never need to sit on a jury.

    —Introibo

  26. Introibo,

    Thanks for all that.

    Introibo: “Could the Siri Theory be true? Possibly. I don’t buy it, but I try to follow the evidence where it leads.”

    Neither do I, and unlike you I don’t think it raises reasonable suspicion. The white smoke is mysterious but not enough to definitively declare Roncalli a papal usurper. But suddenly a theory you “don’t buy” is used to apply a secular law definition of “reasonable suspicion” to Roncalli’s election. Here are the FACTS -No one in the actual conclave raised the alarm at the time. None had a reasonable suspicion/raised doubts about the election result. We’re talking about Cardinals whom were actually present versus a lawyer from NY opining about “reasonable suspicion” decades later/second guessing these Cardinals and the election that not one of them raised the alarm about. Explain that?

    Of course I read the article. It’s full of the usual speculation, and it’s admitted that it’s not been verified. Anonymous sources told anonymous sources that Siri was elected. (Told the Americans fairytales for all we know).

    No deflection. You’re the one who ignores your opponents’ points. Let’s say I thought that the Mass of John XXIII was the normative Mass. (Btw, it may be.) I’d be in no position to force clergy into saying it. The Pian Mass is not heretical. Should I attend SSPV or CMRI or just stay home alone? You’re the one who misses points.

    I don’t have time to continue at the moment. I’ll get back to you later.

  27. The Siri Theory —-that Siri remained pope, and has a successor somewhere, I don’t buy. That he (or another) could have been elected and forced to resign is a possibility.

    No one raised the alarm as to Roncalli’s election. Explanation: it is possible that the one elected resigned under duress, but they thought it to be legitimate.

    Facts: Roncalli was under suspicion of Modernism, was a Socialist sympathizer, and was removed from his teaching position.

    Facts: There was a strange conclave where it seemed a pope was elected, then it changed, then Roncalli appears. There is evidence that American intelligence thought Siri had been elected.

    Fact: Roncalli begins to rehabilitate ALL THE MODERNIST AND CENSURED THEOLOGIANS. Something a real pope would not do. Combine that with Pacem in Terris and all the rest and you’ve got a reasonable suspicion.

    You don’t need a law degree to figure THAT ONE OUT.

    —-Introibo

  28. How is this passage from Pacem in Terris heretical: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”? Notice it says “right dictates”. This qualification of “right” saves it from heresy; if the passage had left “dictates” undefined then a case could be
    made against its orthodoxy. I have doubts about Roncalli’s being a pope; I have no doubts that Montini and successors were/are non-popes.

    Regarding Cardinal Siri: he openly accepted Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Wojtyła as Vicars of Christ as well as Vatican 2 and the Bogus Ordo, so, regardless of what happened at the 1958 conclave, he wasn’t a pope either.

    I read the following on Novus Ordo Watch some time back:
    “As we all struggle to explain fully what has happened to the Catholic Church since the death of Pope Pius XII, it would behoove us to acknowledge that we simply do not have all the facts; that is, we do not know everything that has transpired, for example, with regard to the conclave of 1958. This is where the whole Novus Ordo Sect mess started, and right from the beginning New York’s Cardinal Francis Spellman had a choice remark to make about the new “Pope”, Angelo Roncalli, who had assumed the name of John XXIII: “He’s no Pope. He should be selling bananas” (John Cooney, The American Pope: The Life and Times of Francis Cardinal Spellman [New York, NY: Times Books, 1984], p. 261). If only he had!

    Interestingly enough, Spellman “refused to place John XXIII’s coat of arms either at St. Patrick’s [cathedral] or the chancery” and instead “had a life-size wax figure made of Pius XII” (ibid.). Did Spellman, who of course had participated in the secret conclave, know something we can only speculate about? This is the same Cardinal Spellman about whom Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote in his personal diary that he was “coming out of the [1958] conclave looking white and shaken” (Fenton, Personal Diary: “My 1960 Trip to Rome”, entry for Nov. 2, 1960). Whatever transpired in that most fateful conclave, we know from the results that it was not of the Holy Ghost.”
    In connection with the above, see also https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/fatima-2018-like-sheep-without-shepherd-derksen.pdf .

    Reply

  29. Leo,
    I agree with much of what you say; you make salient points. As to Pacem in Terris, according to the Pontifical Academy Of Social Sciences, “Interestingly, it was along this latter front that the move was made directly toward the subject of religious liberty during the first session of the Council (11 October to 8 December 1962). Only eleven days after his opening al- locution, Pope John raised the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity to the same rank as the Council Commissions, thus empowering it to submit schemata. In the preparatory phase to the first session, two draft texts on the Church (Scheme Constitutionis de Ecclesia) included a chapter entitled ‘On the Relations Between Church and State’. Had the issue re- mained in that context, it would have been considered solely in the light of ecclesiastical public law. Now, having been empowered to submit schemata, Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat produced a document that was first en- titled ‘Freedom of Cult’, and a few months later,‘On Religious Freedom’.6
    Second, in December of 1962, shortly after learning from his physicians that he had a terminal cancer, Pope John instructed Msgr. Pietro Pavan of the Lateran to draft a new encyclical, which would be called Pacem in terris. The drafting committee understood that one sentence in particular would have a direct effect on the schemata being drawn by the commissioners – ‘Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public’.7 (§14) But, in order to allow the Council to exercise its full deliberative weight, these sentences on religious liberty were carefully, even somewhat ambiguously, written.
    Published on MaundyThursday,Pope John christened Pacem in terris his ‘Easter gift’.8 It was also called his ‘last will and testament’, because he died on 3 June 1963. For our purposes, it was his own, indirect schema for a number of issues that would come before the second session of the Council (29 September to 4 December 1963), including religious liberty. (See http://www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/acta17/acta17-hittinger.pdf).

    That encyclical helped the enemies of the Church and under Canon 2315, that puts one under suspicion of heresy. That’s my take. In any event I thank you for adding to the evidence that we have REASONABLE SUSPICION as regards Roncalli’s election—-and that’s good enough!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  30. Introibo,

    Introibo: “Your wish came true> I’ve proven reasonable suspicion. If you don’t think…”

    Wrong. You THINK my wish came true. Big difference. You’ve proven nothing. Every traditional Catholic ALREADY knows that Roncalli was a bad egg. We don’t need you to prove that. There are two aspects to this which you convenient leave enjoined. 1) Solid evidence that the election was invalid. 2) Solid evidence that Roncalli was a heretic/apostate/non-Catholic. As far as 1: You have confusing smoke signals at the beginning of the 1958 conclave followed by unfounded “possibilities.” That’s it. That’s the sole reason for your “unreasonable suspicion” regarding the legitimacy of the election. Confusing smoke signals and an unverified US intelligence report which, if it were verified, has every “possibilty” of being riddled with disinformation.

    But confusing smoke signals have apparently occurred previously.

    https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson

    “In the early 1990s, Gibson and Tom Costello hosted a video called Catholics, Where Has Our Church Gone?[26] which is critical of the changes made to the Catholic Church by the Second Vatican Council and espouses the Siri Thesis that in 1958, after the death of Pope Pius XII, the man originally elected pope was not Angelo Roncalli, but another cardinal, “probably Cardinal Siri of Genoa” (a staunch conservative candidate and first papabile). Gibson stated that the white smoke which emanated from a chimney in the Sistine Chapel to announce a new pope’s election was done in error; black smoke signifying that the papacy was still vacant was quickly created and the public was not informed of the reason for the initial white smoke. A still photograph of a newspaper story about this event is shown. “Had our church gone up in smoke”? asked Gibson. He stated that the new pope was forced to resign under duress and two days later, the “modernist Roncalli” was elected pope and took the name “John XXIII”. In 1962, Roncalli, as Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council.[26] In 2006, Hutton Gibson reversed his position on the Siri Thesis, asserting that this theory was based on a mistranslation of an article written on October 27, 1958 by Silvio Negro for the evening edition of the Milan-based Corriere della Sera.[27] A similar event also happened in 1939; in that case a confusing mixture of white and black smoke emanated from the Sistine Chapel chimney. In a note to Vatican Radio, the secretary of the Papal conclave at the time, a monsignor named Santoro said that a new pope, Eugenio Pacelli, had been properly elected regardless of the color of the smoke. Pacelli took the name Pius XII.[28]”

    As for 2: The Catholic Church doesn’t excommunicate people due to “reasonable suspicion.” One is not declared a heretic due to suspicions. We don’t decide that such and such a bidhop is a heretic based merely on a suspicion. There was plenty of opportunity to deal with Roncalli IF the Church had any real evidence against him. Instead, he ended up Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice under Pope Pius XII. By the way, Roncalli banished Bugnini. He didn’t resurface until after his death. The fact is that your secular law definition of “reasonable suspicion” (of Roncalli being a heretic) is NOT enough for you to definitively declare Roncalli an usurper. Thank God these matters don’t rely on secular lawyers arbitrarily deciding that there’s “reasonable suspicion,” and therefore “X bishop is no bishop at all!”

    To be continued…

    Reply

  31. Your ignorance shows. Reasonable suspicion regarding an election allows one to consider the one elected a dubious pope. You don’t need moral certitude.

    Hutton Gibson’s assertions do not jibe with the objective facts put forth since; and which I cited from NOW above.
    Let me give another example:
    if your neighbor had been Michael Jackson would you allow your child to spend the night there with a friend? Why not? He was never convicted of child molestation. However, he thought there was nothing wrong with a 44 year old sharing a bed with children because “nothing sexual went on” and all he does is give them hot milk and cookies before sleeping in the same bed with them, which he believed “the whole world should do.” Combine this with all his other bizarre behavior, and It would be reasonable to suspect he might be a child molester.

    Not enough to convict of anything but enough to be suspicious! That’s all I need and what I’ve got!

    —-Introibo

  32. Introibo,

    Your ignorance is astoumding.

    Your so-called “reasonable suspicion” is unfounded. Unfounded in terms of the election, as I’ve just shown, and unfounded as far as suspecting Roncalli and then using that to definitively declare him a heretic. Reasonable suspicion cannot be used to declare prelates heretics. That’s the point. What, precisely, don’t you understand about that? It’s not the principle that’s the problem, it’s your application of it that’s problematic. So spare me your recycled Michael Jackson examples. And for, I hope, the last time: the US security agency report is UNVERIFIED. Hutton Gibson’s presentation of FACTS obviously trumps your suite of “ifs,” “possibilities” and unverified reports which could be a whole lot of disinformation. See, it works both ways. Even if you can manage to dig up the report, I’ve already cast doubt on it due to it coming from an anonymous source/s to an anonymous sources/s in US intelligence; everyone knows that disinformation is a large part of spycraft.

    Btw, you missed my point when I referenced Fr. DrPauw. Am I surprised?

    1) I was not using Fr. Cekada as a Church authority.(I subsequently explained why I referenced him.) You assumed I was, then went on a little tear. But, oddly, you threw Fr. DePauw in as an example of a true canonist and theologian, so my questions relating to Fr. DePauw still stand. You deflected. Now, I’ve got another question re: Fr. DePauw.

    First. Do you now admit you were wrong about Roncalli preaching heresy in Pacem in Terris? If you still cling to your error, do you acknowledge that you are, stubbornly, almost on your own with that? But far more impottantly, DID Fr. DePauw object to Pacem in Terris at the time, declaring it was heretical? Did the learned theologian Guerard des Lauriers? How about Cardinal Ottaviani? Any of the distinguished, conservative churchmen of the time? Anyone? Anyone at all? (Why not? It’s obvious heresy, right?) Answer: No. Just the lawyer from NY in 2019.

    I rest my case.

    I’m uncertain about Roncalli. The difference between us is that you think you can definitively declare people to be heretics purely on your suspicions which you (erroneously) deem to be “reasonable.” I don’t.

    In charity. When you make comments along the lines of praising Fr. Cekada when it’s warranted and castigating him when necessary, you sound capricious, atbitrary and narcissistic. Just sayin’…

    And I noticed that your Lenten resolution went out the window. I was very polite, but you started to become rude, so I retaliated. Will you now go back to following your own rules, please?

    Reply

  33. 1. Hutton Gibson’s report is verified? Yeah. I suggest you reread NOW article. The papers reported FACTS about the conclave and the mix up. Gibson also has plenty of citations that Roncalli was a Freemason including Theologian Arriaga. But since it doesn’t meet you manufactured requirements for “proof” you will conveniently discount it.

    2. The facts remain that Roncalli was censured, there was a mix-up of smoke at the conclave, and Roncalli appears rehabilitating ALL the censured theologians alive from Pope Pius XII. Something unprecedented and no pope would do. Read the proof offered by Leo above regarding the actions and sayings of Cardinal Spellman WHO WAS THERE. Is that good enough for you? How about the fact that Cardinal Ottaviani was so sure of his election he even had his names picked out as Pope Pius XIII. Ottaviani told Fr. DePauw, “There was something seriously wrong.” (With the conclave).

    Did Fr object to Pacem at the time? Yes. He said it was “offensive to pious ears.” See also my reply to Leo.

    I’m glad you rested your case. I just wish you were a lawyer opposing me. You’d make my work so much easier and my lawsuits so much easier to win.

    Finally, how about this quote from Roncalli:
    “Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
    (See Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, 1998, pp. 18-19.)

    Do you believe that the Eastern Schismatics and the True Church have “the same Faith”?

    Is this not heresy? Or does it not constitute evidence?

    Finally, if you don’t like the way I come off sounding, please don’t interact with me and presume to tell me how to run my blog. I have been more than charitable.

    —-Introibo

  34. Introibo,

    1. I suggest you actually read the Gibson report again. It references an Italian newspaper report that rolled off the presses during the 1958 conclave. It’s verifiable history. It has far more credence than the fairytale you’re using to claim “reasonable suspicion” about the election. I haven’t manufactured any requirements for proof. The Church doesn’t allow one to declare prelates heretics based on reasonable suspicions which are based on fairytales. That’s what you’re doing. Yes, I’ll discount all hearsay or similiar evidence. This isn’t a cruddy, civil case in a New York court with low evidentiary requirements.

    2. So Roncalli was censured. That automatically makes him a heretic; but if it doesn’t, don’t worry, a mix up with the smoke – just like what happened at the election of Pius XII – is enough to reasonably suspect the election. Yeah. What Leo relayed was interesting, but in NO WAY DOES IT SUFFICE AS HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION. I wouldn’t even doubt it on the strength of that information.
    It’s merely stories from books written by people about other people using third hand information. Zero guarantee of accuracy. Do you believe every story you read? And Spellman’s banana remark sounds like it was made due to a personal dislike of Roncalli. Again, what’s missing are the firsthand accounts from those present that there was something seriously wrong with the election – threats, violence, coercion, duress. There’s none. Just unspecific “he said, she said” “evidence.” Cardinal Ottaviani seems very confident, but so were others, including Cardinal Siri, according to the popular stories. What a PITY that Ottaviani didn’t ELABORATE when he spoke to Fr. DePauw. It’s ALWAYS the way. No real evidence. But tell me, did Fr. DePauw opine that Roncalli was ipso facto excommunicated for “rehabilitating” those theologians, or is just you unsuccessfully trying to establish the false and novel corollary that no true pope would do that?

    3. You still haven’t answered my questions about Fr. DePauw. Did Fr. DePauw publicly or even privately state that Pacem in Terris was heretical, and as a result John XIII was a heretic and no pope at all?

    4. You reopened my case. I only wish I could oppose you in court. I’d never lose a case.

    5. Wow! I agree that that quote from Roncalli sounds bad. I found it on the Dimond Bros. Feeneyite website, along with all their hearsay “evidence” about Roncalli being a Freemason. Its authenticity is immediately dubious. Thing is, and what you can’t seem to grasp, Roncalli was never brought to trial for heresy, tried and convicted. He was “suspected of Modernism” in 1925, and then went on to become a Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice under Pope Pius XII.

    What I’m still after is a minimum of one example where it can be clearly shown what crime Roncalli committed, when he committed it, and how that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    Finally. No, I like interacting with you. I just thought you were sounding a bit unfriendly. I realize now that I was obviously just imagining it. My bad.

    Reply

  35. 1. Please read the newspaper reports embedded in the NOW report that is HISTORY. Not speculation.

    2. You’re conflating two separate issues. (A) Roncalli being a heretic and (b) being invalidly elected. If Siri had been elected and coerced into resigning and Ottaviani was elected, his election would be invalid, although he was definitely not a heretic.

    So, if we have reasonable suspicion that the election may be invalid that is enough to cast him a dubious pope. Remember that the standard is SUSPICION. That does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    2. Now let’s see what we have:
    A censured cleric removed from his teaching position. His friends are Socialists and Freemasons. There is suspicious smoke and reports from American intelligence that another cardinal was elected. There are two Cardinals present at the conclave who thought something was wrong. Roncalli begins rehabilitating all the censured heretics.

    Taken together, is there reason to suspect that Roncalli was not validly elected given the circumstances and his behavior—especially after he became “pope”? You bet.

    Consider reasonable doubt is a low standard of proof. It cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

    3. Fr DePauw was sede since at least 1999, and would not discuss details. I answered what he thought of Pacem at the time and the document was praised by the Masonic Lodge.

    4. Before you could even hope to compete you’d need to learn evidentiary standards and not conflate issues.

    5. I have the book. The quote is legitimate. This is the genetic fallacy, something is wrong or dubious because of its origin. The National Enquirer is a rag, but they correctly reported John Edwards was cheating on his wife. Interesting too, is that you don’t immediately find Hutton Gibson automatically suspect. Do you deny the Holocaust too? Not enough evidence? Everything bad in the world is the result of Jews?

    Never brought up on trial for heresy. Neither was de Lubac, or sodomite Baum. Neither was Montini. How did HE lose office if there was no trial?

    There is reasonable suspicion such that we may hold Roncalli as a dubious pope, which is no pope in the practical order.

    —-Introibo

  36. Introibo,

    Firstly. YOU, in fact, were the one who was conflating the two issues -election/heresy. I pulled you up on it in a previous post. I distincly separated the two because you were combining them.

    Did you carefully read anon @ 8:22’s post? I did. It confirms all I said about your use of a fairytale to claim reasonable suspicion. You can’t claim reasonable suspicion using the NOW fairytale about the FALSE story from the fraudulent anti-Catholic author about the supposed US intelligence reports claiming Siri was elected. Anon @ 8:22 put paid to your reasonable suspicion claims using that nonsense as a reason. NOW had old NEWS reports about the smoke confusion. So what? There were similiar reports in 1939 when there were similar problems with the smoke at the election of Pope Pius XII.

    I don’t have time at the moment to answer your entire post, but I will later.

    In the meantime, when fif you first formulate your “argument” about “reasonable suspicion” and put it in writing here?

  37. I want to thank you for inspiring me. If you would be so kind, I’m doing my next post on John XXIII, and we may pick up in the comments on Monday where we leave off today.

    I’ve always said I’ve learned a lot from my readers and I mean it. Had it not been for you coming back again about Roncalli, I wouldn’t have started my research into him again, and see things from a fresh perspective.

    Thank you my friend for challenging me. The unchallenged mind can’t grow. We may not agree, but I respect your intellectual pugnacious proclivity. It’s a good thing to have! Until Monday!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  38. Anonymous May 15, 2019 at 12:28 PM:
    You said: “Spellman’s banana remark sounds like it was made due to a personal dislike of Roncalli.” Note that Cardinal Spellman also stated: “He’s [Roncalli] no Pope.” This sounds more than an affirmation of a personal dislike. Pacem in Terris was an unfortunate encyclical, but it can’t be convicted of explicit heresy. What Roncalli said about the “Eastern Orthodox” looks heretical to me!
    By the way, when you said, “We know that John Salza demolished a facile argument put forth by Bp. Sanborn”, what were you referring to?

    Reply

  39. Hello Leo,

    Thanks for your post, but most of all for your correct assessment of Pacem in Terris not being heretical. Not unlike yourself I have my personal doubts about John XXIII, but they certainly don’t warrant me declaring he’s a heretic based on what’s in Pacem in Terris. That wouldn’t be just.

    Leo: ‘Note that Cardinal Spellman also stated: “He’s [Roncalli] no Pope.” This sounds more than an affirmation of a personal dislike.’

    I agree that it’s a positive assertion. It could easily be merely an affirmation of a personal dislike and distrust of Roncalli’s overall abilities. Just as is the following affirmation made by a sales manager of a car dealership: “He [Fred] is no car salesman. He should be on an assembly line in a cannery.” This speaks to Fred’s ability/suitability/skillset etc.

    But let’s say this [Spellman’s] comment was somehow meant to mean Roncalli wasn’t legitimate. Where’s the followup from Spellman? He was a Catholic Cardinal. If he had the solid evidence that Roncalli was an usurper – for whatever, legitimate reason – why did he just make a cryptic comment; an (alluring, nowadays) allusion to Roncalli being a fraud and then just leave it at that?
    Again, what’s missing are the firsthand accounts from those present that there was something seriously wrong with the election – threats, violence, coercion, duress. There’s none. Just assorted cryptic comments posing as evidence. But one thing seems to be beyond any doubt – Spellman was no fan of Roncalli. And unless or until we get a clarification of the statement, it must be interpreted as I’ve indicated, else we do gross INJUSTICE to both Spellman and Roncalli.

    I was referring to the article by Salza on their website. I assumed Introibo had seen it. Although Salza concludes correctly, he does it in his usual dodgy manner. From memory, Salza – big advocate of not using hearsay evidence to prove religious points (I agree) – ends with using the old, recycled statement Roncalli SUPPOSEDLY made on his deathbed when he SUPPOSEDLY learned that the Council was taking a wrong turn, to wit: “Stop the Council! Tell them to stop the Council!” – or words to that effect.

    Young Johnny Salza is an insufferable hypocrite, no doubt about that!

    Reply

  40. Knowing now what we know about Roncalli, would any of you let him teach the Faith to your children? I wouldn’t because from what I know about him now, he seems to have a different idea as to what the Catholic Faith entails then his predecessors. For that doubt alone, I would avoid any of his teachings.

    Reply

  41. PS-you can substitute any conciliar claimant to the Papacy in the place of Roncalli and you would get the same answer. NO

The Open Letter accusing Francis of Heresy: A Sedevacantist Analysis

What to do with a “heretical Pope”?

The Open Letter accusing Francis of Heresy:
A Sedevacantist Analysis

More than a week has now passed since the publication of the “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” released on Apr. 30 by nineteen Novus Ordo clergymen and academics accusing “Pope” Francis of being a pertinacious heretic and asking the addressees to declare him such and thereby remove him from office. Since then, many more academics and clerics have added their names to the Open Letter, and at the time of this writing, the total is up to 81 (see updates here).

While countless Novus Ordo web sites have covered the fallout from this so far and will continue to do so in the days to come, it is time for some sedevacantist analysis and commentary — the kind of assessment that you won’t get from most other sources, since Sedevacantism is the ugly duckling, the enfant terrible for those in the Vatican II Sect who consider themselves traditional Catholics. So far, only Fr. Anthony Cekada has weighed in briefly on the matter.

Before we begin, a clarifying reminder may be in order: We sedevacantists do not believe that Francis has lost the Papacy, either due to heresy or for any other reason. Rather, we believe that he never attained the Papacy in the first place, for the simple reason that, as a public heretic even before the 2013 conclave, he was simply not eligible for the Papacy or for any other office in the Catholic Church. That’s it in a nutshell.

There is another important point of which our readers should be aware: There are (at least) twoways to demonstrate that Francis is not a valid Pope: (a) by demonstrating he is not a Catholic and therefore cannot be the head of the Catholic Church — this is the argument from the cause(personal heresy); (b) by demonstrating that in his capacity as “Pope”, he has done things which, by divine law, are impossible for a Pope to do (for example, canonize notorious sinners as saints, establish disciplinary laws for the whole Church that are in themselves evil, heretical, impious, immoral, or otherwise harmful) — this is the argument from the effect (impossible actions).

Between these two different lines of argumentation, the argument from the effect is by far the more compelling, as it totally avoids the thorny issue of having to “judge” that someone claiming to be Pope is guilty of the personal sin of pertinacious (=willful) heresy, which a lot of people are uncomfortable doing because they mistakenly fear that this would necessarily mean they are engaging in “private judgment” or that they would be usurping authority they do not have (this too is inaccurate because no one is asking them to make a legal judgment, which would bind other consciences, but only a cognitive judgment concerning a manifest state of affairs; cf. 1 Cor 2:15).

Introductory Comments

But now on to the Open Letter. Perhaps one can characterize it, first and foremost, as a sincere but desperate attempt by a number of conservative Novus Ordos who are at their wits’ end with Francis to do something — anything — about the pink elephant in St. Peter’s Basilica. However flawed or insufficient the document and the approach may be, there is at least this one thing one can definitely give them credit for: At least they’re trying to do something! They can see that the situation is intolerable and is threatening to gradually destroy even every bit of what they believe Catholicism to be (namely, the Vatican II religion with a conservative spin); and so, as a drowning man tries to hold on to anything within reach, they are trying in their anguish to do whatever appears to be within their means to get the ball rolling in order to put an end to this disaster.

As regards the evidence for heresy and pertinacity on Francis’ part that is presented in the Open Letter, it will not be evaluated or discussed in this post. In the last 6+ years, Jorge Bergoglio has proved himself a public pertinacious heretic in so many ways and on so many occasions, that one might as well ask for proof that McDonald’s sells French fries. Francis is not a Catholic and is guilty as sin of public heresy and apostasy, and this is objectively manifest. Readers who are not familiar with the evidence may wish to take a look at this page:

We will now proceed to analyze and comment on the salient points of the Apr. 30 letter accusing Bergoglio of being a pertinacious heretic.

Addressed to the Wrong People

The Open Letter is addressed to the “bishops of the Catholic Church”, in other words, to the world’s Novus Ordo bishops. This is puzzling already because it’s not like that college of Modernist pretend-bishops has recently distinguished itself as being particularly concerned about orthodoxy. In fact, only a handful of names come to mind when one thinks of who among “Catholic bishops” in the Vatican II religion shows any genuine concern for the importance of Catholic Faith and the purity of doctrine — even the Novus Ordo version thereof.

On the other hand, it does not take long to think of a whole list of pseudo-episcopal scoundrels who are infamous for working to undermine Catholic Faith or morals, or what’s left of either in the Vatican II Church. Names like Mahony, Tobin, Cupich, Maradiaga, Baldisseri, Woelki, Stowe, Paglia, Muller, Farrell, Schonborn, Tagle, Wuerl, Kasper, Gumbleton, Lynch, Nichols, Ravasi, Kohlgraf, Marx, and Favalora may be known for a lot of things, but concern for orthodoxy is not one of them. In fact, with very rare exceptions these people cannot even so much as refuse “Holy Communion” to scandalous politicians, which they are required to do by their own canon law; much less do they penalize them with an excommunication. Are these people now going to excommunicate, as it were, the man they believe to be the Pope? Fat chance!

Already at the outset, then, the authors’ endeavor is doomed to failure: They’re simply addressing the wrong people. Heretics don’t generally care much for orthodoxy. Then again, to whom were they going to appeal instead? Who else is there? And that is the crux of the matter: What recourse can be had concerning the problem of a “heretical Pope”, if such a thing can exist? Who can be appealed to? Thankfully, the question simply does not present itself, for a heretical Pope — that is, someone who is at the same time a public non-Catholic and also the head of the Catholic Church — is an impossibility. One might as well ask what to do about a four-sided triangle or how to cope with a married bachelor. But more on that later.

Heresy as Canonical Delict

In their first paragraph, the signatories of the Open Letter say they are writing “to accuse Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy”. Notice they are not accusing him simply of heresy but of “the canonical delict.” Heresy can be looked at from the moral point of view (as a sin against God, dealt with by moral theology), and it can be looked at from the canonical point of view (as a crime or delict against Church law, dealt with by canon law). Clearly, the authors are accusing Francis of the canonical crime, which, however, presumes the personal sin as well, according to the defintion given in canon law: “By the term delict in ecclesiastical law is understood an external and morally imputable violation of a law to which a canonical sanction, at least an indeterminate one, is attached” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2195 §1; underlining added).

By accusing Francis of the canonical delict rather than simply of the public sin, the authors have shot themselves in the foot. Canon law is absolutely clear — and this is really just a restatement of Catholic dogma — that the Pope cannot be judged by any mortal: “The First See is judged by no one” (Canon 1556).

Nor, in fact, can he incur any canonical penalty, for Canon 2227 states:

§1. A penalty cannot be imposed or declared against those mentioned in Canon 1557 §1, except by the Roman Pontiff.

§2. Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H. R. C. [Holy Roman Church] are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.

The people “mentioned in Canon 1557 §1” include all heads of state (n. 1), all cardinals (n. 2), all legates of the Holy See, and, “in criminal cases, Bishops, even titular ones” (n. 3). Since, then, even cardinals are exempt from the penalties of canon law and are judged by the Roman Pontiff directly, what were the authors of the Open Letter thinking in asking the “Pope’s” inferiors to apply canonical penalties against him who “is judged by no one”? (All this, by the way, is also contained in the Novus Ordo 1983 Code of Canon Law; see Canons 1321; 1404-1405.)

A Heresy Trial for the Pope?

After listing copious documentation to support their accusation that Francis denies Catholic dogma and does so pertinaciously, the accusers state: “Despite the evidence that we have put forward in this letter, we recognise that it does not belong to us to declare the pope guilty of the delict of heresy in a way that would have canonical consequences for Catholics” (p. 15).

This is an interesting admission. If Francis is Pope, then indeed they do not have the power to “declare the pope guilty of heresy” — because they are his inferiors, and an accused person can only be declared guilty in a legally valid and binding way by a superior whose subject he is:

The Supreme Pontiff has the highest legislative, administrative and judicial power in the Church. The Code [of Canon Law] states that the Roman Pontiff cannot be brought to trial by anyone. The very idea of the trial of a person supposes that the court conducting the trial has jurisdiction over the person, but the Pope has no superior, wherefore no court has power to subject him to judicial trial.

(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith [New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952], n. 1549, p. 225; underlining added.)

The Roman Pontiff has received from Christ supreme authority over the whole Church, and it follows from this very fact that he, in the direction of the faithful to eternal salvation, possesses full jurisdiction and all its attributes. He alone, or together with a Council called by him, can make laws for the universal Church, abrogate them or derogate from them, grant privileges, appoint, depose, judge or punish Bishops. He is the supreme judge by whom all causes are to be tried; he is the supreme judge whom no one may try.

…It is not becoming that the supreme legislator should be subject to other laws, except to those which emanate from the Sovereign Pontificate; it is not becoming that he who constitutes the tribunal of appeal for all men, rulers as well as subjects, should be judged by his inferiors.

…The reason why the Pope can be judged by no one is evident. No one can be judged by another unless he is subject to that person, at least with respect to the subject matter of the trial. Now, the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, who is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, and to him has been entrusted the commission to feed His lambs and His sheep. In no way, therefore, can he be subjected to any man or to any forum, but is entirely immune from any human judgment. This principle, whether taken juridically or dogmatically suffers no exception.

(Rev. Thomas Joseph Burke, Competence in Ecclesiastical Tribunals [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1922], pp. 85-87; underlining added.)

Strangely enough, however, although they recognize their own powerlessness to legally judge, convict, punish, or depose the “Pope” for heresy, the signatories have nevertheless decided that somehow the “bishops” they are addressing are competent to do these things, when they too, of course, are but Francis’ inferiors:

We therefore appeal to you as our spiritual fathers, vicars of Christ within your own jurisdictions and not vicars of the Roman pontiff, publicly to admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies that he has professed. Even prescinding from the question of his personal adherence to these heretical beliefs, the Pope’s behaviour in regard to the seven propositions contradicting divinely revealed truth, mentioned at the beginning of this Letter, justifies the accusation of the delict of heresy. It is beyond a doubt that he promotes and spreads heretical views on these points. Promoting and spreading heresy provides sufficient grounds in itself for an accusation of the delict of heresy. There is, therefore, superabundant reason for the bishops to take the accusation of heresy seriously and to try to remedy the situation.

(“Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church”, Easter Week, 2019, p. 15)

Here the authors state that they want the Novus Ordo bishops they are addressing to “admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies that he has professed.” In the very next paragraph, they elaborate:

Since Pope Francis has manifested heresy by his actions as well as by his words, any abjuration must involve repudiating and reversing these actions, including his nomination of bishops and cardinals who have supported these heresies by their words or actions. Such an admonition is a duty of fraternal charity to the Pope, as well as a duty to the Church. If – which God forbid! – Pope Francis does not bear the fruit of true repentance in response to these admonitions, we request that you carry out your duty of office to declare that he has committed the canonical delict of heresy and that he must suffer the canonical consequences of this crime.

(“Open Letter”, p. 15)

This passage is fraught with problems.

First, by what authority do the signatories think they can specify what the “bishops” must do, and even more so, how Francis must react, in order for him not to lose the pontificate they believe him to be holding? Second, what kind of theology underlies this demand? If the Pope has no superior and therefore cannot be tried or judged by anyone, then no one can threaten him with canonical consequences if he should fail to act in a certain way.

The only way bishops could declare that a Pope has lost his office is if he is already not Pope and this is manifest. What is impossible is that he should remain Pope until such time as a declaration should come. For if he is Pope before the declaration, then the declaration cannot be made, for it would amount to judging the Pope, which is impossible. But if a declaration can be issued, then it must be manifest that he is already not Pope even before the declaration, for which reasons the bishops can issue it.

Given these considerations, it simply makes no sense for the authors of the Letter to give Francis a chance to recant (abjure) in order for him not to cease to be Pope. The accusers have been very clear that Francis is already a manifest pertinacious heretic, on account of which they have taken the liberty of asking the Novus Ordo bishops to declare him to have forfeited his office. Their accusation is precisely that he professes heresy and is pertinacious in it, and that this is manifest.

What, then, would repentance accomplish as far as the papal office he supposedly holds is concerned? All it could do is make a heretical pseudo-Pope into a repentant and formerly heretical pseudo-Pope, nothing more. It could not prevent him from having committed pertinacious heresy already, nor could it keep him from losing the pontificate they believe him to hold, since that is lost by public pertinacious heresy alone, as we will see, and not by public-pertinacious-heresy-if-he-doesn’t-do-what-his-inferiors-tell-him-to.

A ‘Faithful Minority’ can depose a Pope?

The Open Letter gets more problematic still:

These actions do not need to be taken by all the bishops of the Catholic Church, or even by a majority of them. A substantial and representative part of the faithful bishops of the Church would have the power to take these actions. Given the open, comprehensive and devastating nature of the heresy of Pope Francis, willingness publicly to admonish Pope Francis for heresy appears now to be a necessary condition for being a faithful bishop of the Catholic Church.

(“Open Letter”, pp. 15-16)

This is just indefensible. If the actions the authors believe their addressees must take need not be taken “by a majority of them”, much less all of them, then how is this supposed to work? What criterion will suffice then as having established that the “Pope” is a heretic and no longer holds his office? A minority of bishops? Then what about the majority that disagrees?

The authors offer a handy standard, though without any justification: The deed is to be done by a “substantial and representative part of the faithful bishops of the Church.” Note well — it’s not just a substantial and representative part of the bishops but of the faithful bishops! And you can probably guess who has already determined who counts as a faithful bishop — precisely, the authors of the Open Letter! And so in the same breath they offer yet another gratuitous criterion for identifying just who is faithful: why, those who are willing to do what they’re being told in the Letter, of course! By that definition, it looks like the verdict will be unanimous after all….

An Attempt at Theological Justification

On p. 16 of the document, the accusers maintain that their “course of action is supported and required by canon law and the tradition of the Church”, and they append an attempt at theological justification for it, entitled “Canon law and Catholic theology concerning the situation of a heretical pope”.

Of course the appendix begins by mentioning the seventh-century Pope Honorius I, a case concerning which enough has been written in the past so that there is no need to repeat it here. We simply ask our readers to review the following links:

Regarding the possibility of a “heretical Pope” (Papa haereticus), that is, the possibility of a true Pope becoming a heretic in his private capacity (as a private person and not as part the exercise of his magisterium, as will be explained later; cf. Denz. 1837) and what would have to be done in such a case, theologians are divided and the Church has never made a definitive pronouncement either way. Theologians have therefore addressed the question at least hypothetically.

After the First Vatican Council (1870), whose dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus contains copious teaching about the Papacy, we find theologians treating of the Papa haereticus scenario only minimally. The canonist Fr. Charles Augustine Bachofen, for example, considered it a “purely academical question”, that is, the question “whether a Pope coud be deposed if he became a heretic or a schismatic.” His response: “Nego suppositum“, meaning, “I deny the supposition” (Rev. Chas. Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, vol. II [London: B. Herder Book Co., 1918], p. 211).

The renowned canonist Fr. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata summarizes the state of the question thus:

…it cannot be proved that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher [!], cannot become a heretic, for example, if he contumaciously denies a dogma previously defined; this impeccability was nowhere promised to him by God. On the contrary, [Pope] Innocent III expressly admits that the case can be conceded. But if the case should take place, he falls from office by divine law, without any sentence, not even a declaratory one. For he who openly professes heresy places his very self outside the Church, and it is not probable that Christ preserves the Primacy of His Church with such an unworthy individual. Consequently, if the Roman Pontiff professes heresy, he is deprived of his authority before any whatsoever sentence, which [sentence] is impossible.

(Rev. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, vol. I, 4th ed. [Rome: Marietti, 1950], n. 316c; our translation; underlining added.)

Fr. Joachim Salaverri, in his comprehensive treatise on the Church of Christ, devotes only one short paragraph to the question of the heretical Pope:

Whether or not the Pope as a private person [!] can fall into heresy?Theologians dispute about this question. It seems to us “more pious and probable” to hold that God in his providence will see to it “that the Pope will never be a heretic.” For, this opinion, which was held by Bellarmine and Suarez, also was praised at Vatican Council I by Bishop Zinelli, Secretary for the Faith, when he said: “Because we rely on supernatural Providence, we think it is sufficiently probably that this will never happen. For God is not lacking in essentials, and therefore, if He were to permit such an evil, there would not be lacking the means to provide for it.”

(Rev. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ, trans. by Rev. Kenneth Baker [original Latin published by BAC, 1955; English published by Keep the Faith, 2015], n. 657; italics in original.)

The celebrated Cardinal Louis Billot treats of the question of the Papa haereticus more elaborately in Question XIV, Thesis XXIX of his Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi (“Treatise on the Church of Christ”), which is well worth a read. He concludes, similary to Fr. Augustine, that “although there is justification for the hypothesis of a Pontiff who might become notoriously heretical, God would never allow it even to be a-priori believable for the Church to land in so many troubles of such kind”.

The canonist Fr. Matthew Ramstein, too, does not have too much to say on the topic of a heretical Pope. His only paragraph dealing with the topic ends with the words: “How the fact of heresy and of consequent vacancy of the papal chair would be determined is difficult to understand” (A Manual of Canon Law [Hoboken, NJ: Terminal Printing & Publishing Co., 1948], p. 193).

Far from there being some “course of action [that] is supported and required by canon law and the tradition of the Church”, as the authors of the Open Letter would have it, the fact is that the consensus of theologians after Vatican I is that, since the Pope cannot be brought to trial by anyone, nor judged or deposed by anyone, if he ever should become a public heretic in his private capacity, he would immediately and by that fact alone cease to be Pope, having, as it were, removed himself from the Papacy. A declaratory sentence is neither required nor possiblefor such self-deposition to occur.

This is echoed by the Novus Ordo theologian “Abp.” John Michael Miller, who, after giving the historical background to the debate over the Papa haereticus, writes:

At present, the Church has no canonical norms for dealing with a heretical pope. On the one hand, the pope is obviously in the Church, belonging to the community of faith. Like any Catholic who publicly professes heresy, a pope would place himself outside her communion and by that very fact loses his ministry….

It is difficult to imagine what specific juridical procedures could be drawn up to deal with the situation should it arise…. Because it concerns a question of fact rather than law, there can be no set legal procedure for this process.

(J. Michael Miller, The Shepherd and the Rock [Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1995], p. 293)

Thus everyone can see that the position of the automatic and immediate self-deposition of a Pope who becomes a heretic is not some idea crazy sedevacantists have cooked up but is thoroughly grounded in Catholic theology as informed by the teachings of the First Vatican Council, and it is retained even in Novus Ordo theology.

Speaking of Vatican I, the question of what ought to be done with a Pope who defects into heresy actually came up during the proceedings of that council. Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati, United States, relates how it was answered by the doctrinal commission:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago; underlining added.)

More information on this historical tidbit can be found here.

The Pope is judged by No One — except in case of Heresy?

The authors of the Open Letter are quite aware, of course, that a true Pope cannot be judged or removed from office by anyone, even for heresy, and they state as much: “It is agreed that the Church does not have jurisdiction over the pope, and hence that the Church cannot remove a pope from office by an exercise of superior authority, even for the crime of heresy” (p. 17). And yet, they attempt to relativize this principle on the next page with specious argumentation:

The first canon to give explicit consideration to the possibility of papal heresy is found in the Decretum of Gratian. Distinctio XL, canon 6 of the Decretum states that the pope can be judged by no-one, unless he is found to have deviated from the faith…

The canonical assertion that the pope can be judged for heresy came into being as an explication of the canonical principle that the pope is judged by no-one. The statement in this canon is an enunciation of a privilege; its object is to assert that the pope has the widest possible exemption from judgement by others.

This canon was included, along with the rest of the Decretum of Gratian, in the Corpus iuris canonici, which formed the basis of canon law in the Latin Church until 1917. Its authority is supported by papal authority itself, since the canon law of the Church is upheld by papal authority. It was taught by Pope Innocent III, who asserted in his sermon on the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff that “God was his sole judge for other sins, and that he could be judged by the Church only for sins committed against the faith”…. Rejection of the canon in the Decretum would undermine the canonical foundation for papal primacy itself, since this canon forms part of the legal basis for the principle that the Pope is judged by no-one.

(“Open Letter”, pp. 18-19)

The signatories of the Open Letter seem to think that the expression that a Pope can be judged when it comes to heresy expresses a qualification, restriction, relativization, or exception to the general rule that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone, but this is not so. Rather, the simple truth is that the only reason why a Pope — so to speak — can be judged for heresy is that he is no longer Pope if he is a heretic. This fact alone explains why judgment is licit in that case.

This position was first enunciated, it seems, by Cardinal Juan de Torquemada and later adopted by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church:

In the Summa de Ecclesia, one of the earliest and most influential ecclesiological treatises of the late Middle Ages, John of Torquemada (+1468), for example, admitted that a heretical pope could, in a certain sense, be “judged” by a council. Even so, the council would not be judging a true pope. Precisely because he was heretical, he would already have ceased, by that very fact, to hold the papal office. Jesus’ words, “He who does not believe is condemned already” (Jn 3:18), provided a bilical proof text which justified the automatic loss of office if a pope fell into heresy.

After the Council of Trent, Robert Bellarmine (+1621) and others took up the theory of John of Torquemada: a pope who falls into heresy forfeits his office. No formal deposition is required since divine law already put the pope outside the Church. A kind of direct divine deposition took place, stripping the pope of his primacy. Whatever juridical body “judged” the pope would simply declare the fact of the pope’s heresy, making public that he was no longer in communion with the Church. Theologians frequently compared such a declaration to a death certificate, which publicly makes the death known but does not cause it. With regard to heresy, this judgment would, however, have legal consequences. The Church would be free to elect a new pope. Because these theologians did not give an ecumenical council the right to depose a pope, their theory avoids the pitfalls of [the heresy of] conciliarism.

(Miller, The Shepherd and the Rock, p. 292; underlining added.)

Thus, to say that the Pope cannot be judged “except in the case of heresy” is not to say that there is an exception to the impossibility of judging a Pope — rather, it is to say that a public heretic is already not Pope and therefore can be judged. This is the only way to understand this qualification in accordance with Church teaching.

In his treatise on the Church, Cardinal Billot addressed these very objections made by the signers of the Open Letter, as follows:

The authorities who object on the opposite side of the question do not prove anything. First they cite the statement of Innocent III, in his Sermon 2 on the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff, where, speaking about himself, he says: “Faith is necessary to me to such a degree that, although I have God alone as judge of [my] other sins, I could be judged by the Church only by reason of a sin that is committed in the faith.” But surely Innocent does not affirm the case as simply possible, but, praising the necessity of faith, he says that it is so great that if, whether or not it is in the realm of possibility, a Pontiff should be found deviant from the faith, he would already be subject to the judgment of the Church by the reason that was stated above. And indeed it is a manner of speaking similar to that which the Apostle uses when wishing to show the unalterable truth of the Gospel: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.For Innocent had said earlier: “If I were not made firm in the faith, how could I strengthen others in the faith? That is what is recognized as pertaining especially to my office, as the Lord witnesses: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. He prayed and He brought it to pass, since He was heard in all things out of reverence for Him. And therefore the faith of the apostolic see has never failed in any disturbance, but has always remained whole and unimpaired in order that the privilege of Peter should persist unshaken.” Consequently, that statement is rather in opposition to adversaries, unless they should say that by it Innocent actually means he can sometimes lack that which the Lord procured for Peter as necessary for the office to which he appointed him.

They also cite the statement of Hadrian II in the third address read in Ecumenical Council VIII, Action 7: “We read that the Roman Pontiff has judged the bishops of all the churches; but we do not read of anyone who has judged him. For although after his death the Eastern churches anathematized Honorius, nevertheless it must be recognized that he had been accused of heresy, by reason of which alone inferiors may resist the initiatives of their superiors or freely reject the wicked senses. Although even in that case it would not have been ever so much lawful for any of the patriarchs or other bishops to carry out the sentence against him unless the approval of the concurrence of the Pontiff of the same first see had preceded.” But what does this matter, since it is well known that Honorius by no means fell into heresy, but only negatively favored the same by not using the supreme authority to root out the incipient error, and in this sense he is said to have been accused in the matter of heresy?Accordingly, in the same Ecumenical Council VIII, Action 1, a formula sent by the same Hadrian had been appended, in which, with no restriction attached, one reads the following: “In view of the fact that the Catholic religion has always been preserved in the apostolic see, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed.” If on the other hand the sense of Hadrian is not that Honorius fell into heresy, those who use that statement to argue that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic have no ground to stand upon.

Lastly they advance a point of canon law, Distinction 40, canon 6 Si papa: “No mortal on earth presumes to prove the (pope) guilty of faults, since he who is to judge all men must not be judged by any man, unless he be discovered to be deviant from the faith.” But, above all else, one must bear in mind that this citation is taken from the Decretum of Gratian, in which there is no authority except the intrinsic authority of the documents that are found collected in it. Moreover, there is no one at all who would deny that those documents, some indeed authentic and others apocryphal, are of unequal value. Finally, it is more than highly likely that the previously cited canon under the name of the martyr Boniface must be considered to be included among the apocryphal documents. However, Bellarmine in this case also replies: “Those canons do not mean to say that the Pontiff as a private person can err (heretically), but only that the Pontiff cannot be judged. Nevertheless since it is not wholly certain whether a Pontiff can or cannot be a heretic, for this reason they add out of an abundance of caution [the following] condition: unless he become a heretic” [Bellarmine, Book 4, De Romano Pontifice, chapter 7].

(Cardinal Louis Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, 5th ed., q. XIV, th. XXIX [Rome: Gregorian Pontifical University, 1927], pp. 633-635; italics given; underlining added; our translation.)

It is unfortunate that the signatories of the Open Letter spent so much time worrying about theological opinions on these questions expressed before the First Vatican Council but not afterwards.

Canonical Warnings needed to prevent Chaos?

All the examples the signatories of the Open Letter give with regard to warnings having to be issued to the “heretical Pope” are irrelevant because, unlike what theological positions may have been permitted in “the early canonical tradition”, the Church has long clarified that the Pope cannot be brought to trial or judged by anyone, and warnings — if they are to be canonically significant — can only be issued by a human superior, of which the Pope has none.

The idea that inferiors could issue warnings that bind a Pope’s conscience is downright silly. How do the authors envision this in the case of Francis? Shall “Cardinals” Burke and Sarah together with “Bishops” Schneider and Gracida send a letter to Francis warning him that they will “remove the papacy” from him? Do they not think that Francis would respond by removing something from them? In any case, what will they do if “Cardinals” Maradiaga, Cupich, and Marx then join “Archbishops” Paglia and Wester in support of Bergoglio, denouncing his opponents? Which of these putative bishops would a Catholic then be obliged — or even permitted — to follow?

Alas, the Open Letter gets stranger still as it goes on. After pointing out that they disagree with “Sedevacantist authors” concerning this matter, the signatories declare that if it were true that “a pope automatically loses the papal office as the result of public heresy, with no intervention by the Church being required or permissible”, then this “would throw the Church into chaos in the event of a pope embracing heresy….”

Now this is just rich. Ladies and gentlemen, which creates the greater chaos? The idea that Francis is Pope or that he isn’t Pope? To ask the question is to answer it. It cannot and need not be denied that of course a Pope becoming a heretic and immediately/automatically ceasing to be Pope would create a chaotic scene and be a grave hardship for the Church — Cardinal Billot referred to “so many troubles of such kind” this would bring about — but by no means would it lead to more or even as much chaos as what the Novus Ordo Sect currently has on display. After all, Francis is able to do so much damage to souls precisely because he is accepted as Pope by practically the whole world.

Let’s have a look at how the canonist Fr. Gerald McDevitt assesses the issue of spiritual harm with regard to loss of office:

Since it is not only incongruous that one who has publicly defected from the faith should remain in an ecclesiastical office, but since such a condition might also be the source of serious spiritual harm when the care of souls in concerned, the Code [of Canon Law] prescribes [in Canon 188 n. 4] that a cleric tacitly renounces his office by public defection from the faith.

(Rev. Gerald V. McDevitt, The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1946], p. 136; underlining added.)

In other words, the immediate and automatic loss of office for heresy is precisely what prevents or at least lessens serious spiritual harm.

The idea that any bishop — not just the Pope — forfeits his office as soon as it becomes public that he is a pertinacious heretic, is easily confirmed just by consulting the pertinent literature on the question. Instead of digging up theories held by some in the early Church or in the eleventh century, the authors of the Open Letter should have simply looked more closely at the past century:

This crime [public heresy or apostasy] presupposes not an internal, or even external but occult act, but a public defection from the faith through formal heresy, or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society…. The public character of this crime must be understood in the light of canon 2197 n. 1. Hence, if a bishop were guilty of this violation and the fact were divulged to the greater part of the town or community, the crime would be public and the see ipso facto [by that very fact] becomes vacant.

(Rev. Leo Arnold Jaeger, The Administration of Vacant and Quasi-Vacant Dioceses in the United States [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1932], p. 82; underlining added.)

Note well: Even in the case of a simple bishop, who has a clear superior in the Pope and can easily be judged by him, the bishop loses his office for heresy as soon as that heresy and its pertinacity are public (defined in canon 2197 n. 1 as “already known or [committed] in such circumstances that it can be and must be prudently judged that it will easily become known”) — even before the judgment by the Holy See. This is confirmed even more explicitly by the same author a few pages later:

…when a bishop tacitly resigns, as in the case of apostacy [sic], heresy, etc., the see becomes fully vacant the moment the crime becomes public. According to a strict interpretation of the law, the jurisdiction of the bishop passes at that moment to the Board [of Diocesan Consultors], who may validly and licitly begin to exercise its power, as long as there is certainty that the crime has become public. In practice, however, it would probably be more prudent on the part of the Board, instead of assuming the governance of the see immediately, to notify the Holy See without delay, and await for such provisions which the Supreme Authority might choose to make.

(Jaeger, Administration, p. 98; underlining added.)

It is simply a matter of practical prudence that, ordinarily, it will probably be better to wait for the Apostolic See to issue a judgment against a manifestly heretical bishop — but this is not necessary, strictly speaking. And if this be so with the case of a mere bishop, who can easily be brought to trial and to whom warnings can be issued, etc. — how much more does this have to be true for the Pope himself, who has no superior and cannot be judged by any man?

Although the authors of the Open Letter go out of their way to assert that “the pope cannot fall from office without action by the bishops of the Church” (p. 19) — while at the same time maintaining, of course, that “the Church does not have jurisdiction over the pope, and hence … the Church cannot remove a pope from office by an exercise of superior authority, even for the crime of heresy” (p. 17) — they also add a little footnote to hedge their bet: “We do not reject the possibility that a pope who publicly rejected the Catholic faith and publicly converted to a non-Catholic religion could thereby lose the papal office.” But this disclaimer overturns their entire thesis because it admits in principle that the Pope does lose his pontificate automatically as soon as his rejection of the Catholic Faith is sufficiently manifest. The only question that remains, then, is one of degree — how manifest is manifest enough? — and not of kind.

When a Pope can — and cannot — become a Heretic

Another critical point to note — one that the Open Letter does not address at all — is that it is utterly impossible for a Pope to defect into heresy in his capacity as Pope, that is, in the exercise of his magisterium. All the controversy concerning the Papa haereticus that theologians even consider as a possiblity is that of a Pope becoming a public heretic in his private capacity, not as the head of the Church, as we have already seen in some of the quotes above. On this point, Fr. Ramstein is emphatic:

If the Pope should happen to fall into heresy, he is no longer a member of the Church, much less its head. It is understood that the Pope cannot be guilty of heresy when he speaks infallibly ex cathedra. The supposition is only possible should the Pope teach heretical doctrine in a private capacity.

(Ramstein, A Manual of Canon Law, p. 193; underlining added.)

But this distinction is not only not drawn by the signatories of the Open Letter; on the contrary, they maintain precisely that Francis has taught heresy in his magisterium, especially as found in the exhortation Amoris Laetitia but also in other Novus Ordo magisterial sources from which they draw data as evidence for his heretical depravity. Thus they have themselves violated Catholic dogma:

…in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated…. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” [Luke 22:32].

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1833, 1836; underlining added.)

…it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it”. Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 12)

Many more quotes on God’s guarantees for the Papacy can be found here.

The authors might respond to this argument by quoting from p. 1 of their Open Letter: “We do not claim that [Francis] has denied truths of the faith in pronouncements that satisfy the conditions for an infallible papal teaching. We assert that this would be impossible, since it would be incompatible with the guidance given to the Church by the Holy Spirit.”

But here the authors have misunderstood something: The Pope cannot be a heretic at all, not only not in his ex cathedra statements. Heresy is more than simple error — it is the denial of dogma, and willful public adherence to it makes one a non-Catholic, not just a bad Catholic. If the Pope could teach heresy in his non-infallible teachings, then he simply would and could not be the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail (cf. Mt 16:18).

Not always Infallible, but always Safe

A Pope’s non-infallible teaching, by definition, does not come with the guarantee of infallible truth, but it does come with the guarantee of infallible safety:

The Holy Apostolic See, to which the safeguarding of the deposit of faith and the attendant duty and office of feeding the universal Church for the salvation of souls have been divinely entrusted, can prescribe theological pronouncements — or even pronouncements to the extent they are connected with ones that are theological — as teachings to be followed, or it can censure them as teachings not to be followed, not solely with the intention of infallibly determining truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also necessarily and designedly apart from that aim, either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, to provide for the safety of Catholic doctrine (cf. Zaccaria, Antifebronius vindicatus, vol. II, diss. V, chap. 2, no. 1). Although infallible truth of doctrine may not be present in declarations of this kind (because, presumably, the intention of determining infallible truth is not present), nevertheless, infallible safety is present. I speak of both the objective safety of declared doctrine (either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, as mentioned) and the subjective safety of declared doctrine, insofar as it is safe for everyone to adopt it, and it is unsafe and impossible for anyone to refuse to adopt it without a violation of due submission towards the divinely established magisterium.

(Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin, Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed. [Rome: Ex Typ. S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1875], Thesis XII, Principle VII; our translation; italics removed; underlining added. The entire work is available in English, translated by Ryan Grant, as On Divine Tradition [Sensus Traditionis Press, 2016].)

This explains why the Church requires us to submit to all papal teaching, not just to that which is infallible. If it were not guaranteed to be safe, then submission would be downright dangerous — even if it were merely optional! Yes, Catholicism demands Faith (cf. 2 Cor 5:7), and here we can see who really believes in the Papacy — it is us sedevacantists!

That papal teaching is always perfectly safe also agrees with common sense: It is one thing for a non-infallible teaching to contain an innocuous error but quite another still for it to contain heresy, which is a very denial of the Faith, poison for souls! A simple analogy from daily life helps to illustrate that: It is one thing for the doctor not to be able to guarantee that the patient is in perfect health; but this does not imply that therefore the patient might be suffering from stage IV brain cancer.

For further details on this issue, please see the following links:

Quite simply, a Pope (or Church) who can teach heresy at any point except in rare ex cathedrapronouncements is not credible as a divinely instituted authority, one God Himself calls “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and against which He guarantees that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Mt 16:18).

Concluding Observations

Reading the Open Letter and the different reactions to it from the authors’ co-religionists — those that are sympathetic, those that are hostile, and those who fall in between — one will discover that each side makes some good points, and yet each side also says things that are unacceptable. There is one simple reason for that: It’s because each side is partially correct — and partically in error.

Those who denounce Francis as a manifest heretic are right in doing so; those who point out that a Pope cannot be judged or deposed, are correct as well; and so are those who say each believer has an obligation to assent even to a Pope’s non-infallible teaching. All this is true — but if you put it all together, you get the sedevacantist conclusion: There is no way Bergoglio could possibly be Pope. But because all sides are hell-bent on avoiding that very inference, they necessarily all err in some respect or another.

One thing is always important to keep in mind: The only — or at least the ultimate — reason why the signatories of the Open Letter take the luxury of still considering Francis to be a true Pope until the “bishops” — at least the faithful ones; wink, wink — declare otherwise, is that they reserve the right to simply refuse him submission in the meantime. It’s a kind of best-of-both-worlds scenario for them: It has all the advantages of Sedevacantism — the refusal of Bergoglian garbage — and none of the disadvantages. The only problem is: It runs afoul of Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Interestingly enough, however, this aspect of their position is never much dwelt upon or justified — it is always tacitly assumed that of course a heretical Pope need not or cannot be submitted to. After all, we are not permitted to submit to heresy. But then, by the same token, we are required to submit to any valid Pope — not just the “non-heretical” ones. How is this possible? It is possible because, at worst, the Pope can become a heretic in his capacity as a private individual — it is totally impossible that any such privately held heresy could infect his Magisterium (regardless of whether we’re talking about the infallible or fallible kind). We challenge the Novus Ordo scholars and clergy in question to produce even one approved Catholic theologian after the First Vatican Council who taught that a Pope can teach heresy in any of his magisterial acts. Good luck.

While we wait, all readers of this blog who have not done so already, are invited to take the Francis Papacy Test to verify for themselves the intrinsic impossibility of Francis being a true Pope, regardless of whether he is personally guilty of the sin or delict of heresy.

To sum up our assessment of the Open Letter in a single sentence: The signatories are using heretical theology to ask heretics to accuse their “Pope” of heresy.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict: This isn’t going to work, fellows.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire    

Traditional Catholicism’s First Pioneer, Founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement Gutsy Fr. Gommar DePauw Fought the Novus Ordo before Archbishop Lefebvre

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Ronald Reagan & Gommar DePauw

Fr. Gommar DePauw (1918-2005) (Right)
Founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement
This Combat Medic for Belgium in World War II and Naturalized U.S. Citizen
Viewed His Reception by U.S. President Reagan as a Highlight of His Life
In 1964 Fr. DePauw Went Independent from the Newchurch Structure
To Found the Catholic Traditionalist Movement
There Was Nothing Left for Traditional Catholics in the 1960s
After the Vatican II Anti-council
Except Fr. Depauw’s Traditional Latin Masses on Radio
And His Periodical, Sounds of Truth and Tradition

May 6, 2019 marks the fourteenth anniversary of the death of the gutsy Fr. Gommar DePauw, who in 1964 formed the first traditional Catholic organization in the United States. He had held the Chair of Moral Theology and Canon Law at Mount St. Mary’s Major Seminary, the seminary of the United States’s primatial see in Baltimore, Maryland. He had also been Professor of Fundamental Dogmatic Theology and Dean of Studies at the same institution and an Associate Professor of Philosophy. As a peritus at the first session of Vatican II in 1963, he was scandalized by the resurgence of the Modernist heresy that had taken hold there, culminating in Sacrosanctum concilium (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), which opened the way to the invalid New Mess and Sacraments. Fr. DePauw saw, before practically anyone else, clergy or lay, the devastation that this document would wreck upon the Church.

Setting an example for all true Catholics, Fr. DePauw did not excuse participating in the heresy by “obedience” to a bishop, but immediately stood with St. Peter, who commanded: “We ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts of the Apostles, 5:29/DRV). Fr. DePauw refused to accommodate the corruptions and continued to say his daily private (traditional Latin) Mass per usuale, even when the Cardinal of Baltimore. James Sheehan, tried to break his door in.

In 1964 Fr. DePauw left his professorship and began saying a public Traditional Latin Mass in the Pan American Building in New York, when the first group of changes to the Traditional Latin Mass were imposed by the Novus Ordo sect. Eventually, he purchased a beautiful Gothic-style Ave Maria Chapel in Westbury, New York, where he continued to offer the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively until his death in 2005 and continued to publish to the world his denunciations of the New Order by periodical, LP, CD, and internet.

It was due to Fr. DePauw originally that the Solemn Papal Bull Quo primum‘s prohibition in the Roman rite of any but the Traditional Latin Mass was brought to full public light in a series of publications entitled Sounds of Truth and Tradition, the only traditional periodical in print at that time. In those dark initial days of the New Order, Fr. DePauw was an inspiration for courage in the Faith, perhaps the only well-known one. While other priests and laymen pandered to the New Order, Fr. DePauw called the heretics publicly what they were: “LITURGIACS!” and “OECUMENIACS!,” words that he himself coined. For many years the Traditional Latin Mass was broadcast every Sunday on major radio stations around the United States and Canada from a tape he once recorded of a Marian Mass at his chapel.

True Catholics, John Paul I-Luciani, who lasted a mere 33 days in 1978, had summoned Fr. DePauw to Rome to work on a Vatican Commission to restore the Traditional Latin Mass to the Church. Unfortunately, that pope died (or was assassinated) before the Commission could be assembled. If Fr. DePauw had sat on such a commission, Newchurch might never have survived him! Surely, no bishop or cardinal, or even pope, would have intimidated Fr. DePauw where the truth of the Mass, the Sacraments, and the Roman Catholic Faith were concerned.

The Synagogue Of Satan

One of the most overlooked and underrated popes in the history of the Church was His Holiness Pope Leo XIII (reigned 1878-1903). He had the “misfortune” (if you can call it that), to have his papacy overshadowed by both his immediate predecessor (Pope Pius IX) and his immediate successor (Pope St. Pius X). Pope Pius IX had presided over the Vatican Ecumenical Council from 1869-1870, defined the dogma of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception in 1854, and condemned many propositions in his famous Syllabus of Errors. Pope St. Pius X was the quintessential “Foe of Modernism,” and beat back the most deadly partisans of evil and error ever unleashed by Hell.

In between these two giants was Vincenzo Cardinal Pecci, an approved theologian and canonist with a double doctorate, whose brilliance was exceeded only by his piety. He was elected pope on the third ballot of the conclave after the death of Pope Pius IX. As Pope Leo XIII, he accomplished much good. The true social teaching of the Church was magnificently expounded upon in Leo’s famous encyclical Rerum Novarum. With Aeterni Patris, he revived Thomism and enthusiastically ordered it promoted in all Catholic universities and seminaries. His tender devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary produced no less than eleven (11) encyclicals on the Rosary, and he approved the Scapular of Our Lady of Good Counsel. The ecclesiology in his encyclical Satis Cognitum is so clear, precise, and orthodox, it is (in my opinion) one of the greatest encyclicals of all time. He composed two of the prayers after Low Mass which he ordered to be instituted in 1884. Much more could be said of this illustrious pope, who was not expected to have a long reign. He was elected at the age of 68 (old for the time period), and was of slight stature, looking quite frail. Only God knows a life expectancy, and his pontificate lasted twenty-five (25) years until his death on July 20, 1903 at the age of 93. He was the last pope of the nineteenth century, as well as the first pope of the twentieth century, and his reign is the third longest behind Pope Pius IX at 32 years, and St. Peter at 34 years.

With all he did for the One True Church, Leo nevertheless did something most special, for which we all owe him a great debt of gratitude; he exposed the most wicked aims of Satan’s greatest allies–the Freemasons. To be certain, Leo was not the first pope to unambiguously condemn Freemasonry, the Church hurled anathemas against that wicked organization that plots against the Church many times before. Yet Pope Leo’s encyclical Humanum Genus, lays out the nefarious plot of Satan’s kingdom on Earth with a surgical precision one could only expect from a Vicar of Christ who was both a theologian and canonist. In this post, the truths about Masons will be set forth, as well as the most popular misconception in our day; that sacraments conferred by Masons are to be considered “dubious.”

The “Kingdom of Satan”
 
 On April 20, 1884, Pope Leo penned Humanum Genus, and compared the Masonic sect founded in 1717 to the “kingdom of Satan:”
The race of man, after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of heavenly gifts, “through the envy of the devil,” separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth.The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation, must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God. (para. #1; Emphasis mine)
The pontiff goes on to tell us that the Masonic Lodge tries hard to conceal itself. Most low ranking Freemasons think they belong to a charitable organization which is a good place to play cards with the guys once a week and leave the wives at home.

There are several organized bodies which, though differing in name, in ceremonial, in form and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions, as to make in fact one thing with the sect of the Freemasons, which is a kind of center whence they all go forth, and whither they all return. Now, these no longer show a desire to remain concealed; for they hold their meetings in the daylight and before the public eye, and publish their own newspaper organs; and yet, when thoroughly understood, they are found still to retain the nature and the habits of secret societies. There are many things like mysteries which it is the fixed rule to hide with extreme care, not only from strangers, but from very many members, also; such as their secret and final designs, the names of the chief leaders, and certain secret and inner meetings, as well as their decisions, and the ways and means of carrying them out. This is, no doubt, the object of the manifold difference among the members as to right, office, and privilege, of the received distinction of orders and grades, and of that severe discipline which is maintained.

Candidates are generally commanded to promise – nay, with a special oath, to swear – that they will never, to any person, at any time or in any way, make known the members, the passes, or the subjects discussed. Thus, with a fraudulent external appearance, and with a style of simulation which is always the same, the Freemasons, like the Manichees of old, strive, as far as possible, to conceal themselves, and to admit no witnesses but their own members…Moreover, to be enrolled, it is necessary that the candidates promise and undertake to be thenceforward strictly obedient to their leaders and masters with the utmost submission and fidelity, and to be in readiness to do their bidding upon the slightest expression of their will; or, if disobedient, to submit to the direst penalties and death itself. As a fact, if any are judged to have betrayed the doings of the sect or to have resisted commands given, punishment is inflicted on them not infrequently, and with so much audacity and dexterity that the assassin very often escapes the detection and penalty of his crime. (para. #9; Emphasis mine)

Interestingly, while I conceal my identity to prevent any negative repercussions to my family and friends for speaking out about the Faith, John Salza, who claims to have been a 32nd degree Mason (ruling class elite), has had no major setbacks to the best of my knowledge and belief. He even goes about “exposing” Masonry and profits off the sale of his books. Am I the only one who thinks Salza may not be an “EX-Mason”?

 Masonry: Founded Upon Naturalism
 
Naturalism is the philosophy that human reason is supreme and nothing exists beyond nature; therefore there is no supernatural order. It is upon this false system that Masonry was developed. From this flows grave heresy. One consequence is the idea of separation of Church and State, the ideal in the United States, since the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution were mostly Masons and Deists (those who believe in an impersonal “god” who started the universe, but does not care about it, nor intervene in it).
 In those matters which regard religion let it be seen how the sect of the Freemasons acts, especially where it is more free to act without restraint, and then let any one judge whether in fact it does not wish to carry out the policy of the naturalists. By a long and persevering labor, they endeavor to bring about this result – namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may become of no account in the civil State; and for this same reason they declare to the people and contend that Church and State ought to be altogether disunited. By this means they reject from the laws and from the commonwealth the wholesome influence of the Catholic religion; and they consequently imagine that States ought to be constituted without any regard for the laws and precepts of the Church. (para. #13; Emphasis mine)
Another serious evil Naturalism engenders is Indifferentism. This is the heretical idea that one religion is as good as another (positive indifference) or the idea that one religion is just as bad as another (negative indifference). As Masons eschew the supernatural, they believe there is no true religion.
If those who are admitted as members[to the Masonic Lodge] are not commanded to abjure by any form of words the Catholic doctrines, this omission, so far from being adverse to the designs of the Freemasons, is more useful for their purposes. First, in this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless, and can induce a far greater number to become members. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age-that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions. (para. #16; Emphasis mine)
Masonry Seeks to Corrupt Morality and Enslave Humanity
 
 As Fyodor Dostoyevsky astutely observed, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” By banishing the supernatural order and giving people a false confidence in fallen human nature, immorality of the worst kind surely follows, just as it did in godless Communist governments.
 Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions…For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring. (para. #20; Emphasis mine)
With God forsaken, and the State made secular, it will be easy to control the masses when the State takes over education and marriage.
 What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract – that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. (para. #21; Emphasis mine)
Masonic Ties to Other Evils
 
 Masons are “fellow-travelers” with Socialists and Communists (as well as Modernists).
Now, from the disturbing errors which We have described the greatest dangers to States are to be feared. For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists; and to their undertakings the sect of Freemasons is not hostile, but greatly favors their designs, and holds in common with them their chief opinions. And if these men do not at once and everywhere endeavor to carry out their extreme views, it is not to be attributed to their teaching and their will, but to the virtue of that divine religion which cannot be destroyed; and also because the sounder part of men, refusing to be enslaved to secret societies, vigorously resist their insane attempts. (para #27; Emphasis mine)

 

Does Masonic Membership = Dubious Sacraments?
 
Having shown the evil of Masonry, some wrongfully assert that if a clergyman is a Freemason (like Bugnini), the sacraments he attempts to confer must be considered dubious at best. This is because they allegedly “withhold their intention” when performing the sacraments. Having the intention to “do what the Church does” in administering the Sacraments is necessary for validity. Since Cardinal Lienart, the prelate who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest, and later consecrated him a bishop, is rumored to have been a Mason, Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders are called into doubt–and with him all the Traditionalist clergy he ordained.
Assuming, ad arguendo, Lienart was a Freemason, it does nothing to impugn the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders.

I have written on this topic in depth, and I invite all interested readers who want to know the reasons Masonic membership does nothing to cast doubt on the validity of the sacraments, to read my post: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/05/intent-on-causing-harm.html

The Vatican II Sect: Promoting the Masonic Ideals of Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity
 
 The Masonic inspired French Revolution had as its motto, “Equality, Liberty, Fraternity.” It sounds good until you realized they corrupted the meaning of the words. Equality came to mean an absolute equality wherein there is no rightful authority appointed by God over men; all people being “equal” in all aspects. Liberty now meant the “right to do wrong and believe in anything.” Fraternity devolved into unity between believers and unbelievers, as God is not acknowledged. A perfect example is the heretical Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (hereinafter GS), the “Constitution of the Church (sic) in the Modern World.” While the True Church always acknowledged the world (along with the devil and the flesh) to be Her enemies, the Vatican II sect seeks to unite itself with it. While not all Modernists are Masons, all Masons are Modernists. They were working together for the destruction of the True Church and society.

On Equality:
GS, Ch. II, para. 29: Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent. (Emphasis mine)
The True Religion cannot be given preference over false sects. That would be “discrimination.”
On Liberty:

GS, Ch. I, para. 21: Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person.(Emphasis mine).
What “fundamental rights of the person” prevents the State from making distinctions between those who profess the Truth, and those who are partisans of error?
On Fraternity:

GS, Ch. V, para. 91: Drawn from the treasures of Church teaching, the proposals of this sacred synod look to the assistance of every man of our time, whether he believes in God, or does not explicitly recognize Him. If adopted, they will promote among men a sharper insight into their full destiny, and thereby lead them to fashion the world more to man’s surpassing dignity, to search for a brotherhood which is universal and more deeply rooted, and to meet the urgencies of our ages with a gallant and unified effort born of love. (Emphasis mine)
Atheists, agnostics, and members of the Church can “fashion the world more to man’s surpassing dignity” and achieve “universal brotherhood” in which God is irrelevant at best. Pure Masonic poison.
Conclusion
Masonry continues to be one of the deadliest foes of God and humanity. Working with the other enemies of the Church, they engineered the creation of the Vatican II sect, a counterfeit Catholicism based on Modernism. As Pope Leo advised, we must expose these enemies, and seek the supernatural aids (which Traditionalists still possess) to combat them (e.g., Mass, sacraments, true doctrine,etc.) Many Masonic ideals are identical to the ideology of the Modernists. Naturalism seeks to banish God from society and deify humans with false and exaggerated claims of “human dignity” and “human rights.” Pope Leo XIII said it best, “About the ‘rights of man,’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God.” (See Tametsi November 1, 1900).

Father Joseph Collins, R.I.P.

Beloved sedevacantist priest

Father Joseph Collins, R.I.P.

It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that we announce the death of Fr. Joseph F. Collins. Fr. Collins died today, April 27, at 11:54 am in Albany, New York, after a battle with cancer. For many years, he was the pastor at St. Michael Chapel & Shrine in Glenmont, New York.

Originally ordained by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Fr. Collins had been among the sedevacantist “Nine” who were expelled from the Society of St. Pius X in April of 1983, after they had sent a letter to Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX General Council concerning serious problems with regard to the SSPX’s theology and internal policies. The other eight priests who also signed the letter were Fathers Clarence Kelly, Donald Sanborn, Daniel Dolan, Anthony Cekada, William Jenkins, Eugene Berry, Martin Skierka, and Thomas Zapp. (The whole story of “The Nine” is told by three of the clerics involved in this free Restoration Radio broadcast.)

We thank Fr. Collins for his many years of working for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, and we pray that he will enjoy a happy eternity with God.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

TRADCAST 024 is here

Novus Ordo Watch for your ears…

TRADCAST 024 Now Available 

TRADCAST — The Traditional Catholic Podcast

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION
AND TO LISTEN TO ALL EPISODES

In case you missed our initial announcement on April 12: We have published another full-length episode of our popular TRADCAST podcast program. As always, it is loaded with realtraditional Catholicism, hard-hitting refutations of various errors, and razor-sharp analysis. Our content is typically challenging but is always delivered with a relieving touch of humor.

TRADCAST 024 consists of two separate segments. After a few introductory comments, at listener request we offer specific book recommendations for (former) Novus Ordos interested in learning the real Catholicism of the past (you know, the one from 33-1958). We then take a critical look at some recent Bergoglian utterances in our From the Jorge’s Mouth special section, followed by an encouragement to women to dress in accordance with their dignity.

The second segment of this latest podcast is dedicated to refuting the “pop traditionalism” and drive-by theology of the recognize-and-resist camp and some of its chief representatives and thought leaders: Steve Skojec, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, and Roberto de Mattei. An excursion into the charge of “Ultramontanism” is also included.

If you are new to the program, you will find that listening to TRADCAST is like drinking from a firehose of information. As always, the podcast is interlaced with important insights, quotes from solid Catholic sources, and some much-needed humor! The total run time of TRADCAST 024 is 1 hour and 24 minutes.

You can listen free of charge by playing the YouTube video above, or you can go to our TRADCAST 024 page, where you will find all the information you need for this show, including links to all the articles, books, blog posts, etc., mentioned in the podcast, and where you will also find ways to download this episode to your computer and sign up to be notified of new episodes by email.

Here’s an idea: Why not invite some friends, neighbors, or family members and listen to the show together and discuss it over pizza? Or how about hosting a virtual discussion with traditionalist or non-traditionalist friends using Google Hangouts or a similar conference tool?

If you are interested in listening to older shows, you can do so using our complete episodes list; or listen to a sermon or an apologetics/catechism class with your friends and family as well. This makes for great conversation — much more important than the usual family discussions — and will open people’s eyes about Francis and the Novus Ordo Sect! It’s one way you can do evangelization the easy way. In any case, don’t miss this TRADCAST and spread the word!

As always, TRADCAST is entirely free of charge. Listeners who would like to support this podcast with a tax-deductible donation, may do so here.

Annoy Francis — listen to TRADCAST!

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

%d bloggers like this: