Blog arhiva

“Jesus becomes Bread”, “God contained in a Piece of Bread”: Francis’ Lutheran Corpus Christi

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

God in migrants, God in the poor, God in bread!

“Jesus becomes Bread”, “God contained in a Piece of Bread”: Francis’ Lutheran Corpus Christi 

[UPDATE: See our Rejoinder to Dave Armstrong’s Rebuttal here]

This past Thursday was the Feast of Corpus Christi, the annual festival on the Roman calendar that celebrates the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, the Holy Eucharist. In this sacrament, which is the literal and true Body, Blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, our Blessed Lord remains with us unto the end of time under the appearance of bread and wine. This sacrament is confected during the Holy Catholic Mass, when the priest consecrates bread and wine. The process whereby this unique and miraculous conversion takes place is called Transubstantiation. This is the Catholic dogma, and it is well known to any Catholic who takes his Faith seriously.

Oftentimes the Feast of Corpus Christi cannot solemnly be observed on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday and so the celebration with its outdoor procession is transferred to the following Sunday. Beginning last year, “Pope” Francis (Jorge Bergoglio) has made the decision for the diocese of Rome to transfer the observance to Sunday, and so the solemnities for Corpus Christitook place there today.

Based on his past behavior since at least 2014, it is clear that Francis is highly uncomfortable with Corpus Christi, which is also called the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ in the English-speaking world. This was evident once again today.

Vatican News has released the following video:

Having led the Novus Ordo worship service outside Santa Maria Consolatrice in the Roman district of Casal Bertone, when it came time for the solemn procession, as is his custom, Francis outsourced the carrying of the monstrance to “Cardinal” Angelo de Donatis, the Vicar General of the diocese.

Francis himself did not join the procession at all; as always, he quietly disappeared, only to pop up again at the endpoint of the procession, where an altar had been set up in a soccer field for Benediction of the (invalid Novus Ordo version of the) Blessed Sacrament. Presumably, Bergoglio had been driven there while everyone else followed the procession on foot.

Mr. de Donatis takes over while the “Pope” heads to his Ford Focus…

Once the entire procession arrived in the incredibly ugly surroundings of its destination — a place Francis himself had picked, according to Sr. Bernadette Reis of Vatican Media, so that he could be close to the “peripheries” –, when it came time to kneel, Bergoglio kept standing before the monstrance although a large, gorgeous, and comfortable kneeler had been conspicuously placed before the altar for him to use:

As is well known, standing is Francis’ custom — he practically never kneels before what he claims to believe is the Real Presence of God Himself in the Most Holy Eucharist (with only some very rare exceptions).

The only way to explain the continued presence of an eye-catching kneeler when it is clear that he will not use it, is that Francis himself insists on having it. That, in turn, can only reasonably be explained by the supposition that he wants to demonstrate as blatantly as possible his proud contempt and hatred for the Real Presence of Christ ostensibly contained in the monstrance.

The Vatican has never given an official explanation for Francis’ refusal to kneel or genuflect, but as he likes to demonstrate every year on Holy Thursday for the washing of twelve people’s feet, a physical inability to kneel is not the reason:

This past April 11, Francis also showed how well and quickly — even though not unassisted — he is able to get on his knees when it really matters to him. Remember?

We covered that calculated humiliation of the papacy here.

But not only did Francis engage in his usual contemptible Corpus Christi behavior today, he also uttered clear and unmistakable heresy against the Holy Eucharist in his sermon. The Vatican has provided the Italian original here, and Zenit has released a complete English translation.

The sermon’s main emphasis was clearly not on the miraculous presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist or even on the miracle of the loaves and fishes which had been read during the Gospel (see Lk 9:11-17). Rather, the emphasis was excessively on sharing, blessing, giving, etc. — all things having to do with our fellow man and nothing a Protestant would have a problem with. It was the usual attempt to redirect the focus from the supernatural to the natural, taking a vertical truth and converting it into something horizontal. It was the usual Bergoglian theme of, “OK, so there is this divinely-revealed truth, fine; but now what about the poor, the suffering, and the elderly?”

However, all this is not even our concern now. Bergoglio’s sermon for Corpus Christi did not just have the wrong emphasis, it was explicitly heretical. He said:

In the presence of the Eucharist, Jesus who becomes bread, this simple bread that contains the entire reality of the Church, let us learn to bless all that we have, to praise God, to bless and not curse all that has led us to this moment, and to speak words of encouragement to others.

…The Lord does great things with our littleness, as he did with the five loaves. He does not work spectacular miracles [!], but uses simple things, breaking bread in his hands, giving, distributing and sharing it. God’s omnipotence is lowly, made up of love alone. And love can accomplish great things with little. The Eucharist teaches us this: for there we find God himself contained in a piece of bread.Being simple and essential, bread broken and shared, the Eucharist we receive allows us to see things as God does.

(Antipope Francis, Homily for Corpus ChristiZenit, June 23, 2019; italics removed; underlining added.)

Any child who wants to make his First Holy Communion would not be admitted if this were his understanding of the Eucharist. It is heresy!

The only correct understanding of what happens to the bread and wine when they are consecrated by a priest during Holy Mass is the dogma of Transubstantiation, nothing else. What Bergoglio puts forward in today’s homily is, at best, the Lutheran heresy of Consubstantiation, also called Impanation, according to which “the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine” (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Consubstantiation”). This heresy was condemned at the Council of Trent in the 16th century:

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema.

If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session 13, Canons 1, 2; Denz. 883-884)

Of course there will not be lacking now Novus Ordo apologists who will try to argue that Francis didn’t mean what he said in a heretical sense. But at this point, only a fool would still be swayed by the constant hermeneutical acrobatics that people like Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, or Dave Armstrong come up with to keep people chained to the illusion that this Argentinian apostate is the Pope of the Catholic Church, who is keeping the gates of hell from prevailing.

It’s not as if Francis were somehow incapable of speaking clearly and in an orthodox fashion. A man who constantly speaks in such a way that heresy is easily and naturally understood from his words, and does not lift a finger to do anything about it — one, in fact, who continually pushes the envelope further and further –, is quite clearly a heretic.

In Bergoglio’s case, his heresy on the Holy Eucharist is expressed not only in his words but is confirmed also by the bodily contempt he shows on the Feast of Corpus Christi, year after year.

[See our Rejoinder to Dave Armstrong’s Rebuttal here]

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 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,,, and 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 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
  3. 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, “Rebel Pope” – National Geographic documentary,,, History Channel,, Examples from the latter category include,,, Chiesa Viva,,,, and
  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 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    

“We Are The World” and other Blasphemies at Francis’ Interreligious Peace Meeting in Bulgaria

The Francis Show in Bulgaria…

“We Are The World” and other Blasphemies at Francis’ Interreligious Peace Meeting in Sofia

[UPDATE 07-MAY-2019: Prelates of the Orthodox religion refused to attend the meeting.]

On Apr. 10, 2015, we told you that Jorge Bergoglio’s religion is basically a theological version of the famous song We Are The World, although the word “theological” was perhaps too generous.

The Jesuit pretend-pope is currently in the middle of a blather tour “Apostolic journey” to Bulgaria and North Macedonia. Today, May 6, he participated in an interreligious prayer meeting for peace in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, together with Orthodox, Armenians, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims (see photos here). At the beginning of the event, as he and his entourage entered the stage, a children’s choir began singing the 1985 USA for Africa hit We Are The World.

For those not familiar with it, let’s review the original for a minute.

Written by American pop icons Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie, We Are The World was an immensely successful song featuring a choir of roughly three dozen famous musicians, many of whom chimed in for a quick solo performance of a line or two of text. The lyrics of We Are The World are problematic throughout, but one line in particular takes the cake. The text is entirely Naturalist — it pretends that natural life is the greatest good and that human happiness can be procured by merely natural means. This alone makes the song highly unfit to be used for any occasion, but especially in a supposedly Catholic setting.

In the first verse, Paul Simon and Kenny Rogers proclaim that “life [is] the greatest gift of all” before Billy Joel and Tina Turner inform us that “love is all we need.” Filled with all sorts of sentimental platitudes, this kind of song is right up Francis’ alley.

But then it gets more serious. Generously granting God a cameo appearance for the second verse, Willie Nelson sings: “As God has shown us, by turning stone to bread”, and Al Jarreau finishes the sentence with: “and so we all must lend a helping hand” (at 2:00 min mark here).

Yeah, that’s a great example: God turned stones into bread. Remember? Wait, how did that go again? Let’s see:

And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the desert, for the space of forty days; and was tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, he was hungry. And the devil said to him: If thou be the Son of God, say to this stone that it be made bread. And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God. …And all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from him for a time.

(Luke 4:1-4,13)

We have news for the singers of We Are The World: God did not turn stone into bread, either to feed Himself or to feed others. He once turned water into wine and fed thousands of people with only a few loaves, but never did He turn rocks into bread. It was Satan’s temptation of Christ that He should do so, but our Lord refused and would rather go hungry, for man does not live by bread alone. The popular hit, then, contains a frightful blasphemy: It proclaims that God listened to the counsel of the devil, gave in to his temptation, and turned stone to bread.

Further on in the song, two singers express one of the main errors of Naturalism, namely, that our success depends on our own natural strength: Michael Jackson warns that “when you’re down and out, there seems no hope at all” before Huey Lewis exhorts: “But if you just believe, there’s no way we can fall.” Yes, man believes in himself, tries to fix the mess he’s made all by himself, and is presumptuous enough to think that he cannot fail if he just tries hard enough. At the same time, he refuses to accept Christ the King, whose “yoke is sweet” and “burden light” (Mt 11:30), and in Whom we can do all things (see Phil 4:13; Mt 21:22). The result is precisely the world we live in today. Congratulations.

So, what is a song like that doing at a “papal” event that supposedly asks God for peace?

Alas, the choir at the event in Sofia used the exact English lyrics of the original, and you can hear the blasphemous line being sung at the 2:18 min mark:

Obviously, the children are not to blame here — they are victims in all of this, more than anyone else.

We Are The World is one of those schmaltzy “let’s all hold hands and make this world a better place” hymns that the rotten music industry manufactures every so many years, where artists worth untold millions express their sadness at how bad humanity has become before they go back to their blasphemies, their drugs, their impurities, their greed, their divorces, and their abortions. Similar such tunes include Band Aid’s Do They Know It’s Christmas? (1984), Koreana’s Hand In Hand (1988), and Michael Jackson’s Heal the World (1992).

That was then, and this is now. And guess what: The world still hasn’t become a better place. Why not? Because merely natural means — singing songs, holding hands, dialoguing, playing soccer, lighting candles, and practicing “encounter” with “open hearts” — cannot possibly work. They cannot work because real and lasting peace requires grace, which is a supernatural created gift from God. Divine grace can move souls, who are affected by concupiscence as a result of original sin, to practice love of God and neighbor. Loving God and our fellow-men means obeying the Divine Law and obeying all legitimate human laws, as well as forgiving one another for wrongs committed.

Only Jesus Christ can give this supernatural means of obtaining peace, and therefore only the peace of Christ is true and lasting: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as theworld giveth, do I give unto you” (Jn 14:27). We have explained this at length before, showing the true Catholic position directly from the Church’s own magisterial documents, so we will not repeat it here:

Some will object that Francis has not used merely natural means — after all, he prayed for peace today in Sofia, and surely prayer is a supernatural means. Indeed it is, but it goes without saying — or should, anyway — that if our prayer is odious to God, as joint prayer with people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity certainly is, then obviously the intention prayed for will certainly not be granted (see Mich 3:4; Jn 9:31; Jas 4:3). Besides, what Francis is seeking divine assistance for is not the supernatural peace of Jesus Christ but rather the Naturalist multi-religious “peace” and “human fraternity” of Freemasonry, precisely “as the world giveth”.

The interfaith meeting for peace today consisted of a mix of songs, invocations, and prayers, from each of the six different religions represented on stage. The Muslim imam, pictured above, chanted “Allah is great” and “There is no other god besides Allah” and “Mohammed is his servant and envoy”, thus explicitly attacking the Most Holy Trinity. Needless to say, no “Catholic” on stage was fazed, least of all Francis, who worships the same god as the imam anyway:

Three Jewish children sang the 1995 Liora song Amen, which, although focused on the natural, at least appears to contain no blasphemy.

Francis himself recited the Prayer of St. Francis and afterwards made some brief remarks in which he proclaimed his belief that for peace it is necessary “that we adopt dialogue as our path, mutual [collaboration] as our code of conduct, and reciprocal understanding as our method and standard”. In other words, whoever refuses to dialogue with other religions, collaborate with them, or understand them, is an enemy of peace.

We sum up: All religions are put on the same level and thus tacitly declared to be fundamentally equal. In the words of Pope Pius VII, “truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself” (Apostolic Letter Post Tam Diuturnas). The Christ-denying chant of the Muslim imam, which asserted there to be no god but Allah, was set next to Handel’s glorious Hallelujah chorus, in which Jesus Christ is rightly acknowledged to be “King of kings and Lord of lords”, who “shall reign forever and ever.” What an absurd and blasphemous spectacle!

This abominable event was perfectly in line with Bergoglian “theology”: Each group gets to do its thing, and then we all sing We Are The World.

Peace can’t be far now!

Like Jesus or like Judas? A quick Refutation of Austen Ivereigh’s Tweet defending Francis

Debunking a blasphemous tweet…

Like Jesus or like Judas?

A quick Refutation of Austen Ivereigh’s outrageous Tweet defending Francis

It does not happen too often that we publish an entire blog post criticizing a single tweet, but this is one of those times.

Austen Ivereigh is a British writer who has been one of Francis’ admirers and cheerleaders from the very beginning. In 2014, he published a comprehensive biography of the man otherwise known as Jorge Bergoglio entitled, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.

In late 2016, Ivereigh attempted to vindicate Francis’ apostatic execration Amoris Laetitia by looking at “concrete cases.” We say attempted, because a few days later we thoroughly mopped the floor with him.

The left-leaning Ivereigh routinely defends Francis from his conservative critics, and so it is not surprising that with regard to that Apr. 30 Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Churchaccusing Francis of heresy, Ivereigh should once again come to the defense of his man.

He did so on May 1 by sending the following tweet (keep in mind that the Open Letter was signed by 19 scholars and published by Life Site):

In case the picture will not display for some readers, the text of the tweet says the following:

A group of 19 concerned Scribes have written to the Sanhedrin urging them to act to condemn a Galilee preacher who has stopped the stoning of an adulterer, lunched with tax collectors and welcomed sinners. LifeSite News has published their letter.

(sent from Twitter account @austeni on May 1, 2019, 1:29 pm ET)

The actual tweet can be accessed here.

No doubt Ivereigh thinks himself awfully clever in tweeting this, and indeed drawing parallels between Francis and our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is attempted time and again by Bergoglio’s cheerleaders. It is the great injustice and staggering blasphemy inherent in such comparisons that compel us to issue this blog post, in order to set the record straight, vindicate our Blessed Lord, condemn Antipope Francis, and refute Austen Ivereigh.

We therefore issue the following correction of the offensive Ivereigh tweet, revising the text to make it align with reality. In order to do this effectively, we’re going to pretend, for the sake of argument, that the Novus Ordo bishops are legitime Catholic bishops and that all of the 19 signatories are are genuine Catholics (which no doubt they, despite their adherence to the Vatican II Sect, at least all mean to be):

REVISED TWEET (corrections by Novus Ordo Watch)

A group of 19 concerned Scribes baptized disciples of Jesus Christhave written to the Sanhedrin Apostles urging them to act to condemn a Galilee preacher the Christ-betraying Judas Iscariotwho has stopped the stoning of an adulterer told an adulteress that God wants her to keep committing adultery, lunched with tax collectors Pharisees who reject the Master and told them not to worry about it because they’re the Chosen People and welcomed sinners the baby-killing Herod to chat about sustainable agriculture, calling him one Galilee’s “forgotten greats”. LifeSite News has published their letter.

There, that fixes it. But now that the tweet has been revised in accordance with reality, of course it just doesn’t quite read the same anymore, does it?

Since some of our readers may not be all that familiar with Francis’ shenanigans, they might be shocked at this correction and will want to see some justification for it, so here we go:

  • the authors of the Open Letter all profess adherence to Jesus Christ, therefore they cannot be compared to the “scribes” of the Gospel, who did not believe in but opposed Christ
  • the addressees of the Open Letter are the world’s Novus Ordo bishops, thus, from the perspective of the authors and of Dr. Ivereigh, they are the Catholic bishops of the world and, as such, are successors of the Apostles; therefore they cannot be compared to the Sanhedrin in the Gospel analogy but must be the Apostles
  • judging by his teachings and his actions, Francis resembles Judas rather than our Blessed Lord, and hence it is right to call him “Christ-betraying Judas Iscariot” rather than “Galilee preacher”; this is underscored further by Francis’ outspoken sympathy for Judas
  • Francis does not teach the doctrine of Christ, according to which any properly contrite adulterer can receive the pardon of his sins; rather, Bergoglio teaches the doctrine of the Pharisees (!), according to which divorce and “remarriage” are permissible (see Mt 19:7-8); and thus he blasphemously teaches in Amoris Laetitia that at times God may actually desire for an adulterous couple to persist in their adultery: “[Conscience] can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal” (Amoris Laetitia, n. 303)
  • Francis has lunched with the real descendants of the Pharisees of old — Jewish rabbis — in the Vatican, serving them a kosher meal and legitimizing their false religion, and he continually says that the apostate Jews are the “Chosen People” in our day, in defiance of Catholic dogma
  • The “baby-killing Herod” (cf. Mt 2:16) Francis has welcomed on more than one occasionand called him a “forgotten great” is Emma Bonino, a fierce defender of abortion rights and a former abortionist herself on whose personal initiative Italy ended up legalizing abortion
  • The reference to chatting with Herod about “sustainable agriculture” is a reference to Francis’ chat with Bonino about migrants, a topic just as irrelevant and inexcusable as sustainable agriculture would have been at the time of the Gospel in the face of infanticide (and it’s a topic near and dear to Francis’ heart anyway)

Thus far our revision of Ivereigh’s tweet and the justification for it. Dr. Ivereigh, please correct your tweet accordingly.

You’re welcome.

Francis Accused: Open Letter to World’s Novus Ordo Bishops seeks Remedy to ‘Heretical Pope’

Bergoglio accused of heresy and pertinacity…

Francis Accused: Open Letter to World’s Novus Ordo Bishops seeks Remedy to ‘Heretical Pope’

The internet is abuzz again after the latest attempt by conservative Novus Ordos to do something about the pink elephant in St. Peter’s Basilica: Their “Pope” is a blatant pertinacious heretic.

Yesterday, April 30, the feast of St. Catherine of Siena (in the traditional Roman calendar), a document entitled “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” was released simultaneously in six different languages:

The English version was introduced by Maike Hickson at LifeSite, and its release is accompanied by a one-and-a-half-page summary and a select bibliography for further reading. In addition, an online petition has been started that seeks public support for the letter.

The contents of the letter can be outlined as follows:

  • Introductory comments
  • Listing of seven heretical propositions Francis is accused of holding, and their condemnation by the Magisterium
  • Evidence that Francis holds these heresies
    • Listing of public heretical statements
    • Listing of public heretical actions
  • Evidence that Francis is pertinacious (=aware of and obstinate) in these heresies
  • Specific request made of “bishops”
  • Appendix: theological justification for request

In her piece for Life Site, Hickson refers to the 19 signatories as “prominent clergymen and scholars”, though just how prominent each one of them is, may be disputed. Most of the names will not be familiar to even the average conservative Novus Ordo who is interested in theology. Here is a list of the names together with each person’s academic credentials, in alphabetical order:

  • Georges Buscemi, President of Campagne Québec-Vie, member of the John-Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family
  • Robert Cassidy, STL
  • Fr Thomas Crean, OP
  • Matteo d’Amico, Professor of History and Philosophy, Senior High School of Ancona
  • Deacon Nick Donnelly, MA
  • Maria Guarini STB, Pontificia Università Seraphicum, Rome; editor of the website Chiesa e postconcilio
  • Prof. Robert Hickson, PhD, Retired Professor of Literature and of Strategic-Cultural Studies
  • Fr John Hunwicke, former Senior Research Fellow, Pusey House, Oxford
  • Peter Kwasniewski, PhD
  • John Lamont, DPhil (Oxon.)
  • Brian M. McCall, Orpha and Maurice Merrill Professor in Law; Editor-in-Chief of Catholic Family News
  • Fr Cor Mennen, JCL, diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), canon of the cathedral Chapter. lecturer at de diocesan Seminary of ‘s-Hertogenbosch
  • Stéphane Mercier, STB, PhD, Former Lecturer at the Catholic University of Louvain
  • Fr Aidan Nichols, OP
  • Paolo Pasqualucci, Professor of Philosophy (retired), University of Perugia
  • Dr. Claudio Pierantoni, Professor of Medieval Philosophy, University of Chile; former Professor of Church History and Patrology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile
  • Professor John Rist
  • Dr. Anna Silvas, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Education, University of New England
  • Prof. dr. W.J. Witteman, physicist, emeritus professor, University of Twente

The only names that will jump out at most people are probably those of Nick Donnelly, John Hunwicke, Peter Kwasniewski, John Lamont, Brian McCall, and perhaps Aidan Nichols. We note the complete absence of any Novus Ordo clergy of higher rank than priest, and even the ubiquitous Prof. Roberto de Mattei did not sign this letter. How “Fr.” John Hunwicke‘s academic claim to fame — having once been, in his Anglican days, a researcher at a heretical house of studies — is helpful in lending credible support to accusing the “Pope” of heresy, is not immediately clear.

In any case, the seven specific heresies the authors are accusing Francis of are very well researched, well argued, and well presented, and there is no question that he is guilty as sin of pertinaciously holding and spreading these denials of dogma. That part of the Open Letter is commendable. As far as the theological justification for “bishops” declaring the “Pope” a heretic so he will lose his office, and related issues — that is an absolute disaster. However, our commentary on that will have to wait for a separate post.

Meanwhile, you can get our initial reaction to the letter in a brief podcast we put together last night:

What will this latest effort, this “measure [taken] as a last resort to respond to the accumulating harm caused by Pope Francis’s words and actions over several years” accomplish? We predict that it will accomplish absolutley nothing in terms of real, long-term effect. It will simply generate headlines for the next few days, keep journalists and bloggers busy, (re-)trigger theological discussions, and ultimately have no effect whatsoever on Francis or his pseudo-Catholic hierarchy.

We’ve seen this all before, and more than once. Remember?


in Novus Ordo Wire     0

The Passion of Man: Francis’ Anthropocentric Stations of the Cross

A Bergoglian Good Friday…

The Passion of Man:
Francis’ Anthropocentric Stations of the Cross

On Good Friday, Catholics commemorate the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, the only Way by which salvation can be obtained (see Jn 3:16-18; Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12).

One of the most salutary and beautiful acts of devotion in which to engage on Good Friday is the richly-indulgenced Stations of the Cross (also called the Way of the Cross, Via Crucis, or Via Dolorosa), which consists of prayers and meditations on each of the fourteen stations of Christ’s holy Passion, beginning with the unjust sentence of death rendered by Pontius Pilate and concluding with the placing of the Body of Jesus in the sepulcher.

Unlike the Holy Rosary, for example, there are no particular prayers that must be prayed as one meditates on each station (whether in a church or at home); however, the method of St. Francis of Assisi and the method of St. Alphonsus Liguori are among the most popular ways to pray the Stations. The following video is a full presentation of the St. Francis method:

In the Vatican II Sect, it has long been Good Friday practice to have the Stations of the Cross with the “Pope” at the Colosseum in Rome. So too this year. Alternating cross and torch bearers led a procession inside and outside the ancient amphitheatre as presider Francis made himself comfortable on a throne placed on a raised platform with canopy, putting on a somber face of profound meditation throughout.

The heart of the Way of the Cross is the meditations, and since it wouldn’t be “cool” enough to use the traditional, tried-and-true methods by canonized saints, the custom in the Vatican II Church has been to have new meditations drawn up every year by someone chosen by the “Pope”.

This year Jorge Bergoglio picked Sister Eugenia Bonetti (pictured right), an 80-year-old missionary from Italy who works to combat prostitution and human trafficking, to write the prayers for the Way of the Cross at the Colosseum. The result can be found here:

The very introductory paragraph of her contribution makes clear in what direction her meditations are headed: “We want to walk this via dolorosa in union with the poor, the outcast of our societies and all those who even now are enduring crucifixion as victims of our narrowmindedness, our institutions and our laws, our blindness and selfishness, but especially our indifference and hardness of heart.”

In other words, we’re going to use the sufferings of Christ as an excuse to focus on the sufferings of our fellow men. But then that is business as usual for the Bergoglian sect. And this is just the beginning.

Let’s briefly review Sr. Bonetti’s “Stations”, each of which consists of a meditation and then a prayer.

First Station: Jesus is condemned to Death

After a brief meditation on how the Blessed Mother accompanied Christ throughout His life, Sister uses the opportunity to focus on all other mothers who “weep for the fate of their daughters and sons” who “die from disease, malnutrition and lack of water, medical care and hope for the future.” The “cry of the poor” also makes an appearance, as does “the indifference born of selfish and discriminatory political policies.” A petition for 0% unemployment is included as well.

Second Station: Jesus takes up His Cross

A quick reference to the Christian crucifix is immediately followed by mention of “today’s newly crucified: the homeless; the young deprived of hope, without work, and without prospects; the immigrants relegated to slums at the fringe of our societies after having endured untold suffering.” The “marginalized, exploited and forgotten” then also get a mention, and discrimination is denounced. Thus far the meditation. The prayer that follows mentions Christ as our model for living and ends with the petition “that we may put our lives always at the service of others.”

Third Station: Jesus falls the First Time

Sister does not say a single word about what this Third Station actually commemorates: Christ falling to the ground with the Cross for the first time. Our suffering Savior gets a single mention in a brief sentence that immediately connects Him to man: “Lord Jesus, on the steep path leading to Calvary, you chose to experience our human frailty and weakness.” That’s it. The rest is about “the presence and generosity of so many volunteers, the new Samaritans of the third millennium”, a terrible crime committed against three African women, “the terror of darkness, loneliness, and indifference”, the “last in line”, and the ever-present “encounter Jesus in the suffering” theme. What this has to do with Christ falling on His way to Calvary, is anyone’s guess.

Fourth Station: Jesus meets His Sorrowful Mother

The Blessed Mother at least gets as many as two unobjectionable sentences concerning her meeting her Son on His Via Dolorosa, but this quick reflection is then used to launch into a prop for migrants, specifically “mothers who have allowed their young children to depart for Europe in the hope of helping their poverty-stricken families, only to meet with humiliation, contempt and at times even death.” The indigenous Europeans who have been raped and killed in Europe as a result of the uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration, on the other hand, do not get a mention from Sister Solicitous.

Fifth Station: Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus to carry His Cross

This station is described accurately at first, but once again the thought quickly turns to where Sister’s attention really is (cf. Lk 6:45): “Where are the new Cyreneans of the third millennium? Where do we find them today? I think of the experience of a group of religious women of different nationalities, places of origin and communities with whom, for more than seventeen years, every Saturday, we visit a center for undocumented immigrant women.” Got it. The subsequent prayer regurgitates the fundamental dogma this liberation theology is grounded in: “For all the Cyreneans of our history, that they may never falter in their desire to welcome you in the least of our brothers and sisters, in the knowledge that in welcoming the poorest members of our society, we welcome you.” Yes, it is true that Christ is presented, as He said, in “these my least brethren” (Mt 25:40), but the liberation theology of “Pope” Francis and his ilk grossly distorts and exaggerates the meaning of this passage and places one-sided emphasis on it, as explained here.

Sixth Station: Veronica wipes the Face of Jesus

For the Sixth Station, Sr. Eugenia doesn’t even pretend. She wastes no word on Veronica wiping the Holy Face of our Blessed Lord with her veil, and instead begins her meditation by thinking of “all those children in various parts of the world who cannot go to school but are instead exploited in mines, fields, and fisheries, bought and sold by human traffickers for organ harvesting, used and abused on our streets by many, including Christians, who have lost the sense of their own and others’ sacredness.” Of course it is right and necessary to deplore such horrific crimes and to work to put an end to them, but this simply has no place in the Via Crucis. What will we get next year? Hijacking the Sixth Station to deplore the use of paper napkins? In the prayer that follows, Sister does finally mention the Holy Face, but only, of course, as It is encountered in man: “Lord Jesus, cleanse our eyes so that we can see your face in our brothers and sisters, especially in all those children who, in many parts of the world, are living in poverty and squalor.”

Seventh Station: Jesus falls the Second Time

Again we are not told at all about Jesus’ fall to the ground, a second time. Instead, Sister focuses on forgiveness as a remedy to vengeance and mentions that Christ offers “forgiveness, love and hope to those who today, like [Him], walk the same path of ridicule, contempt, mockery, abandonment, betrayal, and loneliness.” Once more we see man being made the victim, when in actual fact man is the perpetrator with regard to Christ’s Passion.

Eighth Station: The Women of Jerusalem weep over Jesus

“The social, economic and political situation of migrants and the victims of human trafficking challenges and disturbs us”, Sister opens her meditation, and the remainder continues accordingly. In the prayer, she asks God to “teach us to see with [His] eyes” so that we would “imitate [Him] in how we regard different ideas, behaviors, and points of view.” And by that she means, of course, not God’s hatred for, and rejection of, false ideas and doctrines (see Mk 7:7; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 13:9; 2 Jn 1:9-11), but rather “accepting diversity.” Pathetic.

Ninth Station: Jesus falls the Third Time

Finally, Sister deigns to mention that our Blessed Lord fell to the ground carrying His heavy Cross. But she adds right away: “Like all those girls forced onto the streets by groups of traffickers in human slavery. Like you, they cannot hold up under the exhaustion and humiliation of seeing their young bodies manipulated, abused and ruined, together with their hope and dreams.” No further thought is given to Christ — He is merely addressed one more time in the subsequent prayer, where she asks Him to “[h]elp us to share the sufferings of all those treated as refuse.”

Tenth Station: Jesus is stripped of His Garments

For the Tenth Station, Sister starts out with the mention of three nouns: “Money, comfort, power. These are the idols of every age.” Here it apparently does not occur to her that perhaps she too must “regard different ideas, behaviors, and points of view”, but logic tends to work rather selectively with Novus Ordos. Spending absolutely no thought on Christ and His Sacred Passion in this meditation, she reflects: “We have forgotten the centrality of the human being, the dignity, beauty, and strength of each man and woman. Even as the world is building walls and barriers, we want to recognize and thank all those who in various ways during these past months have risked their own lives, especially in the Mediterranean, to save the lives of so many families in search of safety and opportunity. Human beings fleeing poverty, dictatorships, corruption, and slavery.” Sr. Eugenia knows how to make Bergoglio’s heart beat faster. For the prayer that follows, Christ is invoked only as justification to focus on man: “Lord, help us to rediscover the beauty and richness present in every person and people as your unique gift, to be placed at the service of society as a whole and not used for our personal profit or gain.”

Eleventh Station: Jesus is nailed to the Cross

We know not to expect from Sister any reflection on the particular station in Christ’s Sacred Passion anymore, and so her redirection to other topics does not come as a surprise: “Our society proclaims equal rights and dignity for all human beings. Yet it practices and tolerates inequality” — and then she talks about human trafficking again. Further on, as though she had suddenly remembered what the Eleventh Station is about, she prays: “Lord, how many men and women even today are nailed to a cross, victims of brutal exploitation, stripped of dignity, freedom, and hope for the future!” Once again the Suffering Christ is not meditated upon for His own sake, but only insofar as He can be used as an incentive to talk about man.

Twelfth Station: Jesus is raised upon the Cross and Dies

Even for the station that commemorates Christ’s last three agonizing hours, culminating in His redemptive Death, Sister will not change her pattern. Yes, she acknowledges that Christ “bore the weight of scorn, mockery, insults, violence, abandonment, and indifference”, but she does not say why He did so, and she notes that Christ did so “too”, as though He were merely One of many who suffer, One who simply shared in our suffering. Thus she blasphemously speaks of “all those dying today on Calvaries throughout the world: in transit camps, on boats denied entry to safe ports, in shelters, hot spots, and camps for seasonal workers”! What incredible blasphemy! What an insult to the Cross of Christ, which has redeemed mankind (see Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7; 1 Tim 2:6; Heb 9:12)! What more proof is needed that these people believe man is God?! Migrants are now held up as quasi-divine martyrs “dying … on Calvaries throughout the world”! Words fail at such despicable blasphemy!

Thirteenth Station: Jesus is taken down from the Cross

Sister Eugenia continues in the same vein. For the Thireenth Station, she talks about “twenty-six young Nigerian women who drowned”, whose “Calvary was lengthy and difficult.” But, she assures us, “their death, like that of Jesus taken down from the Cross, was not in vain.” And there we have it: Anyone’s death, at least if caused unjustly, is another instance of the Death of Christ! Man is Christ, and his deathbed, too, is Calvary. It is a blasphemy too frightful to contemplate! In the prayer that follows, Sister asks: “Has anyone wept?” before migrants who have died, as she forgets to weep over the death of Jesus, who was taken down from the Cross in this station so that she might live.

Fourteenth Station: Jesus is laid in the Sepulcher

The final station is, naturally, more of the same. Instead of meditating on Christ being placed in the tomb, from which He will rise again gloriously on Easter Sunday, Sister is interested only in one thing: man. “The desert and the seas have become the new cemeteries of our world”, she opens her meditation. Similarly, the prayer that follows gives consideration to our Blessed Lord only insofar as the station can be used to advance the Naturalist, humanist agenda: “Lord, make us realize that we are all children of one Father. May the death of your Son Jesus grant to the leaders of nations and lawmakers consciousness of the role they must play in the defense of every person created in your image and likeness.”

Francis’ Concluding Prayer

After a concluding prayer by Sr. Bonetti, Francis also contributes a concluding prayer of his own, one entirely in line with the foregoing reflections and prayers.

He begins thus: “Lord Jesus, help us to see in your Cross all the crosses of the world.” No! We must see in the Cross of Christ the great love God has for sinners, even to the point of exhausting Himself to offer proof of His infinite Love and to obtain our love in return, because it is only by loving Him for His own sake that we will be eternally happy! But this truth was utterly absent from the “papal” Good Friday Stations this year. What then followed as part of Francis’ prayer was what Vatican News calls “a litany of present-day crosses, representing various forms of suffering in the world today.” We will spare you the details.

Final Thoughts

Thus far the “papal” and very political Way of the Cross of Good Friday 2019. It is hard to see what, in essence, the Dalai Lama, the Masonic Grand Master, or the Secretary of the United Nations would object to. At best, the theme found throughout these reflections was Christ not as Redeemer of the world or as the Sacrifice of Calvary but as the Perfect Man who suffers in solidarity with His creatures. The meditations and prayers by Eugenia Bonetti were entirely horizontal in character; the seriousness of sin was reflected upon only in terms of what it does to our fellow man. God did receive an honorable mention on the side, but the focus clearly lay elsewhere.

The video of the whole spectacle can be watched here:

Did Sr. Eugenia mention anything supernatural? All we heard was concern for the temporal welfare of bodies. What about souls? Did Christ not say: “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt 10:28)?

It is clear that the participants in this travesty of a Via Crucis meditated on a lot of things, but the Passion of Jesus Christ wasn’t one of them. We recall what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about the Stations of the Cross:

The object of the Stations is to help the faithful to make in spirit, as it were, a pilgrimage to the chief scenes of Christ’s sufferings and death, and this has become one of the most popular of Catholic devotions. It is carried out by passing from Station to Station, with certain prayers at each and devout meditation on the various incidents in turn. It is very usual, when the devotion is performed publicly, to sing a stanza of the “Stabat Mater” while passing from one Station to the next.

(s.v. “Way of the Cross”; underlining added.)

During the Stations of the Cross, we are to meditate on the sufferings of Jesus Christ, not on everyone else’s sufferings. That doesn’t mean that we ought not or need not have sincere compassion for the sufferings of our fellow men and try to alleviate them as much as possible, in genuine Christian charity; but that is not the object of the Way of the Cross nor is it the focus of Good Friday.

Besides, the only true and lasting way to put an end to all those evils and injustices rightly deplored in these Novus Ordo “Stations of the Cross” is to preach the true, supernatural Gospel, for only the grace of God can enable man to live a holy life and resist all temptation to sin: “…for without me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5; cf. Jn 6:64; 1 Cor 10:13).

Sr. Bonetti’s anthropocentric (man-centered) Stations are perfect for Bergoglio because they express the entirety of his Naturalist program in a nutshell, in accordance with the abominable Second Vatican Council’s declaration that “all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown” (Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, n. 12; cf. Jn 2:24-25). It’s all about man, so much so that God and religion are used merely as bait to direct one’s focus on man and his temporal needs. This is a perversion of the true Gospel (see Lk 12:31; Phil 3:18-19) — it is Freemasonry in Catholic wrapping paper!

The natural world and the well-being of the body is all Bergoglio cares about, and he and his ilk will reap precisely what that world ultimately has to offer — death: “For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting” (Gal 6:8).

In his inaugural encyclical over 115 years ago, Pope St. Pius X warned that

this according to the same apostle [St. Paul] is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, [that] man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. ii., 2).

(Pope Pius X, Encyclical E Supremi, n. 5)

Francis adores man, not God; and in this year’s Good Friday Stations at the Colosseum, he has made it obvious to anyone willing to look.


in Novus Ordo Wire     0

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


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

Justification and Salvation: What did Fr. Leonard Feeney teach?

Bizarre theology alert…

Justification and Salvation:
What did Fr. Leonard Feeney teach?

Original caption: “UNITED STATES – CIRCA 1949: Rev. Leonard Feeney of the Jesuit order engaging in controversy with his superiors regarding teaching of Catholic doctrine.” (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images)

On April 12, Michael Voris of Church Militant stunned his fan base as he suddenly began promoting the person and theology of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J. (1897-1978) and the St. Benedict Center he helped shape (at least the one in New Hampshire — there is another one in Massachusetts). Two more similar articles and Vortex episodes followed, as well as a full interview with the prior of the NH St. Benedict Center and a direct call to give financial support to the group, which is not in “full communion” with the Novus Ordo diocese. On April 23, however, Church Militant released an article against Feeneyism, probably confusing its readership even more. Written by Jim Russell, it is entitled “Fr. Feeney’s Strange Doctrine” and expresses criticism of the theological position of today’s St. Benedict Center as well.

The case of Leonard Feeney is a truly tragic one in Church history, but it exemplifies how heresies and false teachings often arise as an excessive or false reaction to another heresy or error they are trying to combat. There is no question that the Church’s dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or EENS; see Denz. 430) was more and more being effectively undermined and attacked in the 1940s and ’50s, not simply by people outside the Church but also by many within. In his 1950 landmark encyclical against the renascent Modernism of his day, Pope Pius XII warned: “Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation” (Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 27). It was this trend that Feeney sought to remedy, but he did so by distorting the Church’s teaching in the opposite direction. In 1947, he began preaching bizarre ideas about justification, salvation, and the necessity of the Church and thus got himself in trouble with the authorities of his order (Jesuits) as well as the diocese in which he was functioning (Archdiocese of Boston).

Another Catholic priest who was conscious of the dire need to counteract the dangerous subversion of EENS but who did so using sound Catholic theology was Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America and editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review (1943-63). A former student of the legendary Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Fenton was an expert in the field of ecclesiology. Pope Pius XII recognized Fenton’s theological achievements and bestowed upon him the medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice in 1954. In 1958, Fenton published the magnificent work The Catholic Church and Salvation in the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See. An assortment of his numerous articles on the Church was recently published as The Church of Christ: A Collection of Essays by Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton.

Alas, despite correction from the Holy Office (Decree Suprema Haec Sacra of Aug. 8, 1949), Feeney persisted in his errors, and in 1953 he was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII ferendae sententiae for grave disobedience, as he obstinately refused to obey the order to appear at the Vatican to explain his doctrine, even under pain of excommunication. (The false pope Paul VI eventually rescinded the excommunication, at least putatively.)

But just what strange doctrines did Fr. Feeney teach?

To answer this question, we present an article written by Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI, which was published in The Reign of Mary two years ago. In it, Fr. Benedict presents direct quotations from Feeney’s own 1952 book The Bread of Life and critiques it in light of genuine Catholic doctrine: “My purpose will be to present the teachings of Father Feeney and allow the reader to see how these contradict Church teaching”, the author states.

Other resources to help provide clarity with regard to EENS include the new book Contra Crawford, Bp. Donald Sanborn’s Anti-Feeneyite Catechism, our TRADCAST 004, and the web site A simple slogan by which to remember the orthodox Catholic attitude in the EENS debate would be: “Fenton, not Feeney.”

For this post, we will not enable the combox because this topic always triggers endless heated discussion that would tie us up in moderating user contributions all day long.

Justification and Salvation: What did Fr. Leonard Feeney teach?

By Rev. Father Benedict Hughes, CMRI

First published in The Reign of Mary, no. 164 (Summer 2017)
Reprinted here with permission. All formatting as in original.

Cornelius was a good man. Devout and God-fearing, he was known for his almsgiving. In fact, Holy Scripture tells us that he prayed to God “continually”—no small praise coming, as it does, from the Holy Ghost Himself. There was, however, one major problem with Cornelius—he was a pagan.

The fascinating story of this Roman centurion is narrated in the 10th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. One day, while Cornelius was at prayer, an angel appeared to him and instructed him to send messengers to Joppa, a city by the sea, to ask Saint Peter to come to him. Three messengers were dispatched, and they arrived in Joppa the next day. Meanwhile, Saint Peter was instructed by the Holy Ghost to accompany these men back to their city. So the following day he departed with them for Caesarea.

Peter arrived with his companions to find a houseful, for Cornelius, in his enthusiasm, had invited his friends and relatives. After hearing Cornelius tell of the message of the angel who had instructed him to send for Peter, the latter replied, “Now I really understand that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation he who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts, 10:34-5). He then went on to explain that Jesus is truly the Messias predicted by the prophets. And, “while Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came upon all who were listening to this message” (Acts, 10:44). Peter and his companions were amazed that the Holy Ghost had come upon these Gentiles, “for they heard them speaking in tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter answered, ‘Can anyone refuse the water to baptize these, seeing that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?’” (Acts, 10: 46-7). He then ordered them to be baptized.

This marvelous story shows the wonderful effects of cooperation with grace. It is particularly of interest to see that the Holy Ghost came upon these souls before they were baptized. This fact brings up an interesting question: What would have become of their souls, had they died before they were baptized? In other words, how do we describe the state of their souls during the interval when they listened to and accepted Peter’s teaching, but had not yet been baptized? To answer this question, we need first to understand what is meant by justification, and what the Church teaches in this regard.

What is Justification?

In the Gospel we read the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke, 18:9-14). Our Lord tells us that this man (the publican) went away from the temple justified, rather than the other. Of course, there are many other places in Scripture where the word justification, or its derivatives, are used. So what exactly does it mean? Simply put, one who is in the state of sanctifying grace is in the state of justification. In other words, his soul is in a state in which it is pleasing to God, who looks upon that soul and sees therein the life of grace, which is a sharing in His own life. He cannot but be pleased at this. As the catechism puts it, “by sanctifying grace we become holy and pleasing to God.”

In the 16th century, the Council of Trent was convoked to respond to the various erroneous teachings of Martin Luther, which had been leading so many souls out of the Church. Primary among his heretical notions was the idea that justification is obtained by faith alone, without any need for good works. The Catholic Church condemned this teaching and explained that justification requires both faith and good works. Moreover, it is a gratuitous gift of God that we cannot merit. It is only by the death of Christ on the cross that we are able to obtain this precious gift of grace, for which we ought always to joyfully render “thanks to the Father, who has made us worthy to share the lot of the saints in light. He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have our redemption, the remission of our sins” (Col, 1:12-14).

Without this state of justification, of sanctifying grace, it is impossible to attain salvation. Simply put, at the moment of death, a soul in the state of sanctifying grace is saved, but one who dies deprived of the precious gift of God’s grace is lost. Of course, it is necessary that one also be baptized, but what if a person dies in the state of grace without having received this sacrament? The Church teaches that such a person can be incorporated into the Church and thus can be saved through what is called “Baptism of Desire.” This teaching of the Church, however, has been bitterly opposed by Father Leonard Feeney and his followers. In this article, I do not intend to repeat the same material that has already been covered so many times in various articles, which cite the teachings of the Church and theologians. My purpose will be to present the teachings of Father Feeney and allow the reader to see how these contradict Church teaching.

What Did Father Feeney Teach?

In order to fairly and accurately represent the teachings of Father Leonard Feeney, I decided to read the book which he published in 1952 titled The Bread of Life. In the introduction he states: “I have been persuaded by the members of my Order, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to publish some of the talks I have been giving on Thursday evenings at Saint Benedict Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, during the past ten years.” So we see that this book is a compilation of lectures he had given in the 1940s and early 1950s. Throughout the remainder of this article I will be quoting from the 1974 edition of this book.

In the book Father Feeney correctly explains what is meant by justification. He also correctly makes the distinction between justification and salvation: “Justification is of our entrance into the state of sanctifying grace. Salvation is our reward for persevering in grace” (pp. 39-40). On the other hand, he claims that “it is a lack of knowledge of this most important and basic distinction (between justification and salvation)… that has led the Liberal theologians of our day to keep on saying that all you need to do to be saved is to be justified, and that you can be justified without the waters of Redemption….” (pp. 14-15).

So what about a person, like Cornelius before his baptism, who receives the grace of God into his soul through supernatural faith and charity, but who dies before he can be baptized? Father Feeney teaches that he cannot be saved. In a question and answer format, he states as follows:

“Question: Can Baptism of Desire save you?

Answer: Never.

Question: Could Baptism of Desire save you if you really believed it could?

Answer: It could not.

Question: Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?

Answer: It could.

Question: If you got into the state of justification with the aid of Baptism of Desire, and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?

Answer: Never (p. 121).

In another place he is even more emphatic: “Unbaptized adults who die go to Hell” (p. 128).

So there you have it. No baptism with water—no salvation, even though the departed was in the state of justification at his death. That would mean that there are souls in hell who are in the state of sanctifying grace. This is not only erroneous, it is blasphemous. To say that a person who loves God and is in the state of sanctifying grace would be damned to hell for all eternity would, in my opinion be a blasphemy. For it would join God (who lives in the soul that is in the state of grace) with the devil in hell. That cannot be.

Imagining a conversation with a theologian who believes in Baptism of Desire, Father Feeney instructs his adherents as follows: If the theologian asks, “‘If you die in the state of justification, without yet being baptized, are you not saved?’ You must answer him, ‘No, you are not.’ … ‘And if he persists in saying, ‘Well, where does one go who dies in the state of justification which has been achieved without Baptism?’—insist that he does not go to Heaven” (p. 135).

In another place he repeats this teaching, once again in a question and answer format:

“Question: Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water? Answer: No. They are not saved” (p. 137).

As you can see, this would mean that there is no hope for one who has not been baptized. Father Feeney even says, “When you go to Heaven, most of the Americans you meet will be under seven years of age!” (p. 23). Think about that for a minute!

It’s Just Too Bad!

Father Feeney realizes that his teaching is harsh, to the point of being cruel: “If I seem to be cruel in this matter…” (p. 136). In another place he states that “the Holy Spirit is not interested in our love until the waters of regeneration have flowed on us” (p. 138).

But what if one is unable to receive the sacrament of baptism, through no fault of his own? Father Feeney would say that it is just too bad: “If you do not receive Baptism of Water, you cannot be saved, whether you were guilty or not guilty of not having received it” (p. 126). Again, he says, “And now let me go back to what is called necessity of means in a sacramental requirement. Necessity of means means, if you have not got the requirement, it is just too bad for you, whether you are to blame or whether you are not to blame. If you are not to blame, it is just too bad” (p. 128).

So it is just too bad! If you have not been baptized with water, you are lost—period. What does this say of our understanding of God’s mercy? In fact, it seems rather to be similar to the teachings of John Calvin, John Knox and Cornelius Jansen on predestination—that God created some souls to damn them, and there is nothing they can do about it. Fr. Feeney even says, “I myself would say, my dear children, that a catechumen who dies before Baptism, is punished” (p. 125). Again, “it is just too bad”! How does this square with that doctrine set forth in Scripture, that God desires the salvation of all men: “Who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Tim., 2:4)?

Disparaging the Pope

One important point of doctrine—which Father Feeney taught correctly—is the absolute necessity of submission to the successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth. To quote again from his book: “No one can possibly enter the Kingdom of Heaven without personal submission to our Holy Father the Pope” (p. 186). The irony, however, is that Father Feeney himself did not submit to the true Pope. For one thing, he published his book without an imprimatur, in violation of Canon law, which was promulgated by the Pope. He continued to operate apart, and in defiance of, the local magisterium, for which he was finally excommunicated by the Holy Office on February 13, 1953.

He also spoke in a disparaging way about papal teaching. For instance, he refers to the teaching of Pope Pius IX as follows: “And this false reasoning is built up from an interpretation of a couple of sentences of Pope Pius IX… two carelessly worded sentences in an encyclical of Pope Pius IX, on which the Liberals base their teaching…” (p. 53). In this statement he is referring to the allocution Singulari Quadam (12/9/1854; Denzinger #1647) and to the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (8/10/1863; Denzinger #1677). We will not reproduce the actual quotes here, which can be read at The point to be made is the hubris and condescension with which Father Feeney refers to papal teaching—an attitude that is shocking and scandalous to any serious-minded Catholic.

He also ignores the fact that the doctrine of Baptism of Desire has been clearly taught by the Church for many centuries. The Council of Trent taught, in referring to the translation of the sinner from the state of sin into the state of grace: “This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire….” (Session VI, Chapter 4). This same teaching has consistently been taught by the Church and her theologians, both before and after the Council of Trent.

Yet, Father Feeney claims that the teaching of Baptism of Desire originated with the Baltimore Catechism in the 19th century: “The crucial point, then at which heresy entered the Catholic Church in the United States and backwashed to the dying Faith of Europe and the rest of the world, was through the teaching of the doctrine known as ‘Baptism of Desire’ in the Baltimore Catechism” (p. 118). As you can see, he completely ignores what was taught by Popes and theologians long before there ever was a Baltimore Catechism. For instance, Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, who lived in the 18th century, taught as follows:

“Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment… Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam de presbytero non baptizato and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it’” (Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II, p. 310, no. 96).

This is just one example of pre-19th century teaching, which completely destroys Father Feeney’s claim that the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism “backwashed” to Europe and the rest of the world. There was no Baltimore Catechism when Saint Alphonsus wrote these words.

There are other strange things to be found in The Bread of Life. For example, Fr. Feeney says the following concerning infants who die after baptism: “They go to the Beatific Vision. They are of the kingdom of Mary; but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother.” (p. 98). It is indeed a strange notion that Mary is not the Mother of infants who die in the grace of God. But the following notion is even more bizarre: “If a child dies after having received Baptism, he dies as the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary. When he gets his body back, at the end of the world, he has to drink of the Chalice in the Kingdom of his Father in order to be incorporated in flesh and blood with Jesus—and so become Mary’s child. There is no other way!” (p. 98). So does this mean that it is possible to receive the Holy Eucharist in heaven? What else could he mean by “drink the Chalice”?


In this article I have quoted from Fr. Feeney’s own book, in order to be able to explain his teaching in his own words. I certainly do not advocate anyone reading the book by Father Feeney, filled as it is with error and having been published contrary to the requirements of Canon law. I am merely quoting from it in order to demonstrate clearly what Father Feeney taught—to get it straight from the horse’s mouth, as the saying goes.

The story of Father Leonard Feeney is indeed a tragic one. Born in Lynn, Massachusetts in 1897, he entered the Jesuit novitiate in 1914 and was ordained in 1928. After holding several different teaching positions, he became chaplain of the Saint Benedict Center at Harvard Square in 1945. Due to concerns over his teachings, he was ordered by his Jesuit superiors to go to College of the Holy Cross in Worcester. At first he complied with this order and went to Holy Cross, but later, under the influence of two laymen affiliated with Saint Benedict Center, he returned there, in defiance of his superior’s orders.

Eventually, he was summoned to Rome but refused to go. His refusal ultimately led to his excommunication by the Holy Office in 1953. Fr. Feeney was defiant, claiming that the excommunication against him was not valid. He moved his Saint Benedict Center to Still River, Massachusetts, and operated there without subjecting himself to the legitimate authority of the bishop of Worcester. His group purchased a large commune and begin to live a life separated from other Catholics and from the hierarchy of the Church. This group began to engage in bizarre practices such as breaking up families (taking the children from their parents, whom they were not allowed to see except on certain feast days) and brutal punishments imposed on the children for minor infractions.

Fr. Feeney eventually submitted to the local bishop in 1972 and sought to have his excommunication lifted. Although this was well after Vatican II, and therefore the legitimacy of the local bishop is questionable, we can nevertheless hope that his submission was sincere. Father Feeney died in 1978, but, sadly, his followers have continued to spread his errors far and wide. It is high time that they humbly submit to the teachings of Holy Mother Church, the “pillar and ground of truth” [1 Tim 3:15], for indeed, one who rejects the Church Christ founded by rejecting her teachings, will certainly not be able to save his soul.

Jorge Bergoglio: “I like the Lutherans who follow the True Faith of Jesus Christ”

And four-sided triangles, too?

Jorge Bergoglio: “I like the Lutherans who follow the True Faith of Jesus Christ”

Jorge Bergoglio says the darndest things, most of them incompatible with Catholicism.

After the Jesuit pretend-pope gave an address to a mixed audience consisting mostly of young Novus Ordos and Lutherans on Oct. 13, 2016 in the Vatican, he engaged in a question-and-answer session with the youngsters. It was on that occasion that he pronounced one of his many condemnations of “proselytism”, telling a girl who had asked whether she should try to convert her non-religious friends: “It is not licit to convince them of your faith; proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path” (source). We covered this in a blog post at the time:

However, there was another thing Francis said during his audience with these hapless youths, something that escaped not only us but, it seems, just about everyone else too. Asked about what he likes and dislikes about the Lutheran church, he answered: “I really like the good Lutherans, the Lutherans who follow the true faith of Jesus Christ. However, I do not like lukewarm Catholics and I do not like lukewarm Lutherans” (“Pope jokes in ecumenical meeting: Who is better – Catholics or Lutherans?”Rome Reports, Oct. 13, 2016; underlining added.)

A video report by Rome Reports has captured the moment he said this and provided English subtitles. The fun begins at the 1:09 min mark:

The heresy implied in these words is so blatant that it defies belief that Francis actually said this so openly.

As far as a refutation of this outrageous Bergoglian remark goes, it shouldn’t be necessary to point out the obvious, but we might as well: There can be, and is, only true religion, one true Faith. God has revealed only one truth, one set of revealed teachings, contained in the Deposit of Faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles (see Jn 1:17; Jn 16:12-13; Heb 1:1-3), passed on through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (see 2 Th 2:14; 2 Tim 3:15-16). He established the Church to be the infallible and indestructible guardian of that truth, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), “that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:14). Any deviation from this true Gospel is necessarily a falsegospel, one that leads to eternal damnation (see Gal 1:8-9; 2 Jn 1:9). Lutheranism is a set of heresies invented and/or propagated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. It is a perversion of the Gospel.

It is therefore clear that it is absolutely impossible for someone to adhere to Lutheranism and to “the true Faith of Jesus Christ” at the same time. The one excludes the other. That is not to say that there aren’t many Lutherans who are sincere in their errors, but sincerity in error is still sincerity in error — it does not change the fact that the doctrines of Lutheranism are not the teachings of Jesus Christ but “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim 4:1; cf. Heb 13:9). That many Lutherans mean to adhere to the true Faith of Jesus Christ can readily be assumed but is irrelevant with regard to the fact that they do not in fact adhere to it.

What Francis did in this ecumenical audience on Oct. 13, 2016, is confirm Lutherans in their errors (something he habitually does also with Jews and Muslims). He told them, essentially, that their heresies are the true Faith of Jesus Christ. That is a complete denial of the Catholic Faith. By contrast, Pope Leo XIII didn’t exactly share Francis’ belief that Lutheranism is just as much “the true Faith of Jesus Christ” as Catholicism is, as is evident from this Apostolic Letter to Cardinal Pietro Respighi.

Francis has long had a love affair with Lutheranism:

Thus, it is clear that what the Frankster said in that ecumenical audience regarding there being “good Lutherans” who “follow the true Faith of Jesus Christ” is not at all out of character for him.

Here is a small sampler of what real Catholic Popes have said about the only true Faith, the only true religion.

Addressing dissidents, Pope Leo XII exhorted “all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation”, hoping they would “sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation” (Encyclical Quod Hoc Ineunte, n. 9).

Pope Pius IX condemned those who claim that “[t]he Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion” (Syllabus of Errors, n. 21) and warned against them who make no distinction “between the true religion and false ones” (Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 3). Indeed, in his encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, he rebuked those who try to draw Catholics into “Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ, thereby just as pleasing to God” (n. 6). That applies to Bergoglio to a tee!

Upon convoking the (First) Vatican Council, the same Pope Pius IX addressed an apostolic letter to Protestants and other non-Catholics who, “whilst they acknowledge the same Jesus Christ as the Redeemer, and glory in the name of Christian, yet do not profess the true faith of Christ, nor hold to and follow the Communion of the Catholic Church” (Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes; underlining added).

Pope Leo XIII noted that “French Catholics … have the happiness of belonging to the true religion” (Encyclical Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes, n. 7) and, in another document, emphasized the exclusivity of Catholicism as the only religion revealed by God: “…the Catholic religion … is alone the true religion” (Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 34; underlining added).

Pope Pius XI, too, referred to Catholicism as “the true religion of Christ” (Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 115). In another place he stated clearly: “The Church is indeed conscious of her divine mission to all mankind, and of the obligation which all men have to practice the one true religion…” (Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, n. 39).

Pope Pius XII called “the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church” nothing less than the “true Church of Jesus Christ” and warned that “grave errors … are being spread among those outside the true Church” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 13, 8).

Bergoglio is a Modernist and an an adherent of Vatican II ecclesiology, and so he considers Protestantism to be simply a different “expression” of the same Christian religion. He recently admitted that for him, Christianity is really not about adherence to doctrine, and shortly before he had proclaimed in Abu Dhabi that God positively wills the diversity of religions!

“Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true”, wrote Pope St. Pius X in his landmark encyclical Pascendi (n. 14). His successor, Pope Pius XI, condemned “that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule” (Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 2).

Thus we see once again the stark contrast between the true Catholic religion of the ages and the Novus Ordo counterfeit that began with the false pope John XXIII (1958-63) and has reached its present zenith in the man the world calls “Pope Francis.”

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


IGLESIA CATÓLICA igual en 2000 años hasta la muerte de Pío XII

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine


Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


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

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


IGLESIA CATÓLICA igual en 2000 años hasta la muerte de Pío XII

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine


Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


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

%d blogeri kao ovaj: