Blog arhiva

The Case Against Roncalli

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

2019 Statistics Show Newchurch Sinking Rapidly in the U.S. Novus Ordo Mess Attendance and Fake Sacraments Are Down by a Half to Two-thirds

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Newchurch Sinks

New 2019 Statistics from Newchurch Itself
Show that Its Mess and “Sacraments” Are Being Abandoned
By a Half to Two-Thirds
It Has Taken Fifty Years (1969-2019), but Now the Heretical Newpopes
Paul VI-Montini, JPII-Wojtyla, Benedict-Ratzinger, and Francis-Bergoglio
Who Swore Allegiance to the Blasphemous Vatican II Anti-council
Are Seeing Their Fake Newchurch Sect Crashing and Burning

2019 is the fiftieth anniversary of the full-blown, Protestant-Masonic-Pagan, invalid “New Mess,” which was generated from the Vatican II Anti-council (1962-1965) and was fabricated principally by the Chief Architect of the New Liturgy, the Freemason presbyter Hannibal Bugnini. Here are the statistics, just released for the Unioted States by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, seated at Newchurch’s own George Washington University in Washington, D.C.:

                                   1970          2018          Percentage
Infant "Initiations"               1,089,154     615,119       Down 43.5
Adult "Initiations"                84,534        39,660        Down 53.1
Weddings                           426,309       143,082       Down 66.4
Ordinations                        805           518           Down 35.7
Presbyters                         59,192        36,580        Down 61.8
Sisters                            160,931       44,117        Down 72.6
Percentage Attending Mess Weekly   54.9          21.1          Down 61.6

Even at that, Newchurch’s statistics are known to be notoriously “cooked.” For example, estimates of New Mess attendance are generally found by non-Newchurch sources to be closer to 10 per cent, half of what is reported by biased Newchurch sources.

It is clear that hatred of the “New Mess” is growing and that Newchurchers are simply refusing to go. Unfortunately, Newchurch and its heretical Newpopes Paul VI-Montini, JPII-Wojtyla, Benedict-Ratzinger, and Francis-Bergoglio have already so poisoned the minds of Newchurchers against the true Mass that most Newchurchers will simply drop out rather than return to the true Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass that is offered by bishops and priests independent of the Newchurch of the New Order.

In addition, Newchurch has sold out Catholic doctrine and morals, that is to say, Christ’s doctrine to appeal to “modernity,” just as many mainline (Leftist) Protestant denominations have, who approve of homosexuality, divorce, the oecumenical heresy (“we all worship the same god”; “all religions are equally true”), etc. As a result, both Newchurch and mainline Protestantism are sinking rapidly. Yet Christ Himself taught the truth regardless of how many people turned their back on his teaching. He did not water down his teaching, for example, on the Holy Eucharist. The Gospels tell us: “After this [teaching on the Holy Eucharist], many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him” (John 6:67).

True Catholics, criminals often think that they can “get away” with their crimes. In a minority of cases, some do escape justice in this world and have to face a worse judgment in the next. But in the majority of cases, criminals pay the price in this life. Thus is the case with the heretical Newpopes Paul VI-Montini, JPII-Wojtyla, Benedict-Ratzinger, and Francis-Bergoglio, who swore allegiance to the blasphemous Vatican II Anti-council. It has taken fifty years, but now they are feeling the judgment of God in this world against their fake Newchurch of the New Order, with its fake Mess, sacraments, doctrine, and morals.

The Open Letter accusing Francis of Heresy: A Sedevacantist Analysis

What to do with a “heretical Pope”?

The Open Letter accusing Francis of Heresy:
A Sedevacantist Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Introductory Comments

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

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

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

Addressed to the Wrong People

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

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

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

Heresy as Canonical Delict

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Heresy Trial for the Pope?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(“Open Letter”, p. 15)

This passage is fraught with problems.

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

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

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

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

A ‘Faithful Minority’ can depose a Pope?

The Open Letter gets more problematic still:

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

(“Open Letter”, pp. 15-16)

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

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

An Attempt at Theological Justification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information on this historical tidbit can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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

(“Open Letter”, pp. 18-19)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canonical Warnings needed to prevent Chaos?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When a Pope can — and cannot — become a Heretic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not always Infallible, but always Safe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


in Novus Ordo Wire    

“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!

Benedict XVI’s Letter on Sex Abuse Crisis: Highlights & Reaction Roundup

The “two Popes” circus continues…

Benedict XVI’s Letter on Sex Abuse Crisis:

Highlights & Reaction Roundup

On April 10, 2019, the “Pope Emeritus” Benedict XVI, with the prior permission of “Pope” Francis, published a 6000-word letter on the sexual abuse crisis in the German Klerusblatt (a regional periodical for clergy), which was released at the same time on the internet in various languages. The German original and the English translation of the missive are available here:

The editor of Inside the Vatican, Robert Moynihan, has opined that the letter is “absolutely the most important text Benedict has published since his resignation of the papacy in February 2013.”

In this post, we will first present what we believe to be the most significant quotes from the lengthy letter, followed by a reaction roundup from many different sources and perspectives.

Highlights of the Letter (all are direct quotations)

  • Since I myself had served in a position of responsibility as shepherd of the Church at the time of the public outbreak of the crisis, and during the run-up to it, I had to ask myself – even though, as emeritus, I am no longer directly responsible – what I could contribute to a new beginning.
  • Part of the physiognomy of the Revolution of ’68 was that pedophilia was then also diagnosed as allowed and appropriate.
  • At the same time, independently of this development, Catholic moral theology suffered a collapse that rendered the Church defenseless against these changes in society.
  • The crisis of the justification and presentation of Catholic morality reached dramatic proportions in the late ’80s and ’90s.
  • In moral theology, however, another question had meanwhile become pressing: The hypothesis that the Magisterium of the Church should have final competence (“infallibility”) only in matters concerning the faith itself gained widespread acceptance; (in this view) questions concerning morality should not fall within the scope of infallible decisions of the Magisterium of the Church. There is probably something right about this hypothesis that warrants further discussion. But there is a minimum set of morals which is indissolubly linked to the foundational principle of faith and which must be defended if faith is not to be reduced to a theory but rather to be recognized in its claim to concrete life.
  • As regards the problem of preparation for priestly ministry in seminaries, there is in fact a far-reaching breakdown of the previous form of this preparation. In various seminaries homosexual cliques were established, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in the seminaries.
  • One bishop, who had previously been seminary rector, had arranged for the seminarians to be shown pornographic films, allegedly with the intention of thus making them resistant to behavior contrary to the faith.
  • There were — not only in the United States of America — individual bishops who rejected the Catholic tradition as a whole and sought to bring about a kind of new, modern “Catholicity” in their dioceses. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in not a few seminaries, students caught reading my books were considered unsuitable for the priesthood. My books were hidden away, like bad literature, and only read under the desk.
  • The question of pedophilia, as I recall, did not become acute until the second half of the 1980s. In the meantime, it had already become a public issue in the U.S., such that the bishops in Rome sought help, since canon law, as it is written in the new (1983) Code, did not seem sufficient for taking the necessary measures.
  • In light of the scale of pedophilic misconduct, a word of Jesus has again come to attention which says: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42). The phrase “the little ones” in the language of Jesus means the common believers who can be confounded in their faith by the intellectual arrogance of those who think they are clever. So here Jesus protects the deposit of the faith with an emphatic threat of punishment to those who do it harm. The modern use of the sentence is not in itself wrong, but it must not obscure the original meaning.
  • In the general awareness of the law, the Faith no longer appears to have the rank of a good requiring protection. This is an alarming situation which must be considered and taken seriously by the pastors of the Church.
  • In fact, it is important to see that such misconduct by clerics ultimately damages the Faith. Only where Faith no longer determines the actions of man are such offenses possible.
  • What must be done? Perhaps we should create another Church for things to work out? Well, that experiment has already been undertaken and has already failed. Only obedience and love for our Lord Jesus Christ can point the way.
  • We might then say that the first fundamental gift that Faith offers us is the certainty that God exists.
  • A society without God — a society that does not know Him and treats Him as non-existent — is a society that loses its measure. In our day, the catchphrase of God’s death was coined. When God does die in a society, it becomes free, we were assured. In reality, the death of God in a society also means the end of freedom, because what dies is the purpose that provides orientation.
  • Why did pedophilia reach such proportions? Ultimately, the reason is the absence of God. We Christians and priests also prefer not to talk about God, because this speech does not seem to be practical.
  • Indeed, in theology God is often taken for granted as a matter of course, but concretely one does not deal with Him.
  • Our handling of the Eucharist can only arouse concern…. What predominates is not a new reverence for the presence of Christ’s death and resurrection, but a way of dealing with Him that destroys the greatness of the Mystery.
  • A young woman who was a [former] altar server told me that the chaplain, her superior as an altar server, always introduced the sexual abuse he was committing against her with the words: “This is my body which will be given up for you.”
  • Indeed, the Church today is widely regarded as just some kind of political apparatus. One speaks of it almost exclusively in political categories, and this applies even to bishops, who formulate their conception of the church of tomorrow almost exclusively in political terms. The crisis, caused by the many cases of clerical abuse, urges us to regard the Church as something almost unacceptable, which we must now take into our own hands and redesign. But a self-made Church cannot constitute hope.
  • Today, the accusation against God is, above all, about characterizing His Church as entirely bad, and thus dissuading us from it. The idea of a better Church, created by ourselves, is in fact a proposal of the devil, with which he wants to lead us away from the living God, through a deceitful logic by which we are too easily duped.
  • It is very important to oppose the lies and half-truths of the devil with the whole truth: Yes, there is sin in the Church and evil. But even today there is the Holy Church, which is indestructible.
  • At the end of my reflections I would like to thank Pope Francis for everything he does to show us, again and again, the light of God, which has not disappeared, even today. Thank you, Holy Father!

In sum, this text was a contribution typical for its author: Ratzinger has always been an academic know-it-all, totally incompetent in the practical order but always — or so he thinks — having all the answers in theory. He even introduces a new -ism into the controversy: guarantorism! (Garantismus). Apparently the perpetual professor still has not understood that the sex abuse epidemic in his Modernist sect does not need any more documents.

John Henry Westen, the editor-in-chief of Life Site, has produced a video clip with what he identifies as the top takeaways from the Emeritus letter:

Since the release of Benedict’s missive, a lot of reactions have poured in from all the different “wings” of the Novus Ordo Sect, as well as from some outside it. Most of the reactions can largely be sorted into three different categories, though not all to quite the same degree, of course: (1) Two thumbs up! (2) How dare he! and (3) Whatever!

We have collected many of the relevant links and presorted them by category for our readers:

(1) Two Thumbs Up! — And other mostly positive Reactions

(2) How Dare He! — And other mostly negative Reactions

(3) Whatever!

By the way: A sedevacantist critique of Ratzinger with regard to this letter has been penned by Dr. Thomas Droleskey:

On April 15, Francis paid a visit to the Emeritus to extend to him good wishes for his 92nd birthday the following day and for the upcoming feast of Easter, which they both claim to celebrate despite denying the dogma of Christ’s Resurrection (see here for Ratzinger and here for Bergoglio).

What will be the fallout of this letter? Ultimately, nothing. It is simply another flash in the pan: A big hullaballo is being made about it now, but give it two more weeks and no one will remember a thing about it. Francis will have moved on to 13 other things keeping all the journalists busy, and the Emeritus will once again be exercising his “contemplative” part of the “expanded ministry” he claims to share with Francis, until the whole circus starts over again about some other topic in a few months.

It’s getting old.


in Novus Ordo Wire     0

A Refutation of Athanasius Schneider on the Heretical Pope Question

The Theological Errors of “Bishop” Schneider

A Refutation of Athanasius Schneider on the Heretical Pope Question

On March 20 of this year, the Kazakh Novus Ordo auxiliary bishop Athanasius Schneider, immensely popular among semi-traditionalists, published a lengthy article entitled, “On the Question of a Heretical Pope” on the Rorate Caeli web site.

In face of the overwhelming evidence that Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) is not a Catholic but a public heretic, Schneider’s objective was to find a way to reconcile Bergoglio’s obvious stubborn adherence to heresy with his claim to the Papacy, the legitimacy of which Schneider refuses to question. In other words: Schneider couldn’t deny the obvious, yet somehow still needed to allow for Francis’ claim to the Papacy to be valid, since to him Sedevacantism must be avoided at all costs. The result was a theological trainwreck that relies on a skewed presentation of Church history and utilizes made-up concepts such as a “semi-heretical Pope” and “papal correctors”. (Schneider is no stranger to bizarre theological concepts and falsified history.)

Some of the usual suspects of semi-trad Resistance Land immediately jumped on Schneider’s piece and hailed it as an important theological contribution so needed in our day to bring clarity to the issues we are faced with. Thus, for example, Steve Skojec at One Peter Five, Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon in a video discussion, and, of course, Christopher Ferrara, who immediately touted Schneider’s piece as a capable refutation of Sedevacantism. Life Site didn’t take long to publish the obligatory interview that typically accompanies or follows such releases.

Of course the reason why these people were impressed with the “bishop’s” essay is not that they found its theological argumentation to be sound and verified in traditional Catholic doctrine. Rather, Schneider gave his co-religionists precisely what they enjoy hearing, and that’s what accounts for the euphoria and approval among them.

Not all semi-trads, however, joined the party. For example, Prof. Roberto de Mattei — himself a resistance propagandist who is usually on the same page with Schneider — and ResignationistLouie Verrecchio both found the piece to be troublesome. In an interview with Rorate Caeli, de Mattei stated that he cannot agree with Schneider’s idea that a Pope would not lose his office for heresy, and Verrecchio pointed out that “Bishop Schneider’s defense contains certain obvious errors and omissions, which suggest that the weakness of his response to the heretic Bergoglio is inspired not only by a lack of courage, but also, perhaps, by a deficit in right belief.”

But what about a sedevacantist response?

In a somewhat long but not long-winded rebuttal to Schneider’s argumentation, sedevacantist priest Fr. Anthony Cekada has now weighed in on the debate, calling the Kazakh Novus Ordo bishop’s essay “a 7000-word-long buffet table of factual errors, unproven theological claims, dumb analogies, and unconnected ideas, tossed together without any semblance of linear reasoning or evidence of serious research.”

The following is a complete reproduction of Fr. Cekada’s response to “Bishop” Schneider, which he published on his blog Quidlibet on Apr. 6, 2019. All formatting is given as in the original; only images and their captions have been removed and typos corrected. Reproduced here with permission.

The Errors of Athanasius Schneider

SIX YEARS’ WORTH of the antics of Jorge Mario Bergoglio (aka “Pope Francis”) have left a lot of previously clueless Catholics really shaken. The radical and destructive nature of the Vatican II doctrinal and moral revolution, kept discreetly masked to a large extent under the regimes of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, finally emerged into the light of day once Bergoglio took charge in March of 2013 and began to implement the Council at full speed and with a vengeance (often literally).

The “right” in the Conciliar Church — those we will here call “conservatives” or, in the case of those who promote the old Mass in the Novus Ordo system, “neo-trads” — were at first stunned, then outraged by the breadth, depth, and sheer volume of errors that Bergoglio began to crank out by word and deed.

Lengthy and open critiques of Bergoglio started appearing in conservative and neo-trad opinion outlets. Soon even the words “heretic” and “heresy” began to pop up. But since Bergoglio’s critics in these circles had long pronounced sedevacantism to be utterly unthinkable, they had to create some sort of plausible theological justification for their overall position. This “third way” would somehow need to allow them to continue to do two things:

  1. Utterly ignore the errors and heresies Bergoglio teaches and acts upon, and
  2. Still claim Bergoglio is a true pope, the Successor of St. Peter, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.

The justification the conservatives and neo-trads have come up with for squaring the circle is this: The theologians who taught that the pope receives some sort of special assistance from the Holy Ghost in his authentic magisterium — the teaching function that he exercises every day — were wrong. Similarly, theologians were likewise wrong in saying that Catholics must give “the assent of the intellect” to what the pope teaches through this authentic magisterium.

Poof — There you have it! Problem solved! The pope has no rights, and you have no obligations!

But this convenient theory not only ran afoul of the teachings of pre-Vatican II theologians (see, for instance Salaverri, De Ecclesia, 1:503ff), but also of the explicit teaching of the popes themselves.

[T]he teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact forever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, … is daily exercised[cotidie exerceturthrough the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him. (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928)

“[It]t is He who enriches pastors and teachers and above all His Vicar on earth [imprimisque suum in terris Vicariumwith the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that they may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain it and confirm it with reverence and devotion.” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943)

“As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm adherence of the mind [necesse est et tenere iudicio stabili comprehensa], and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed. (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885)

It becomes even more obvious why conservatives and neo-trads want to dump these established doctrines if we add still another passage on papal teaching authority, taken from Leo XIII’s 1890 Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, and intersperse it with a few of the more memorable teachings of “Pope Francis.”

“Hence, the Pontiff must have the power authoritatively… to declare what is virtuous [Adulterous second marriages after a discernment process!] and what is sinful [The death penalty! Harming the environment!], what it to be done [Open borders! LGBT accompaniment!] and what it to be avoided [“Below-the-waist” obsessions! Faith as adherence to doctrine! Proselytism! Conversions! Having all the answers!] in the work of salvation, for otherwise he could neither be a sure interpreter of the moral word of God nor a safe guide to man.”

No matter. Under the conservative/neo-trad theory, both papal teaching authority and its content are toast — recycled snacks for the Bergoglio peace pigeons.

You can have your pope — but he’s a cardboard-y one, like a WalMart display that automatically chatters at you as you walk by, but which you generally ignore. Such a pope is in some sense “Peter,” but with his he-who-hears-you-hears-me microchip removed.

In the process of promoting their theory of a denatured papacy, the conservatives and neo-cons then began to denigrate the traditional pre-Vatican II teaching on the papal office by employing terms like “papalotry” (idolatry of the pope), “Ultramontanism” (a 19th-century epithet invented by Gallicans, “Enlightenment” rationalists and other enemies of papal authority), and “the decadent theology of the manualists” (a 20th-century modernist slam against systematic neo-scholastic Thomism).

This disturbing phenomenon has now become quite widespread, but I will address it at some length in another article.

I. The Schneider Intervention

Here I will comment on one recent article that is most representative of this position, “On the Question of a Heretical Pope,” by the Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan. It appeared on the Rorate Caeli blog on March 20, 2019, and was the subject of an additional interview with Bp. Schneider that appeared March 25, 2019 on Life Site News.

We will have to discuss the bishop’s article in considerable detail, not only because he touches upon a wide variety of issues, but also because Bp. Schneider is regarded in conservative and neo-trad circles as a leading voice against the more outrageous Bergoglian errors. I know that longer articles are not to every reader’s taste, so I hope to produce another, shorter article to summarize what follows.

It is obvious from the title that Bp. Schneider intends to squelch any tendencies among conservatives and neo-trads to consider the possibility that in Francis, they are faced with a heretic who therefore could not possibly be a true pope — to embrace sedevacantism, in other words.

To preclude this, Bp. Schneider will attempt to destroy pre-Vatican II teaching on both the special or binding nature of ordinary papal magisterium and on the automatic loss of office by a heretical pope. This way, conservative and neo-trad readers will feel free to ignore Bergoglio’s heresies, while still entertaining the consoling fantasy that a public heresy-spewer can still be “Peter.”

One would think that a bishop who holds a doctorate in theology (albeit Patristics) would manage to present an at least superficially coherent argument for what is, on the face of it, such an outrageous attack on both papal teaching authority and a near-unanimous theological opinion.

But here, one would think wrong. Bp. Schneider’s article is a 7000-word-long buffet table of factual errors, unproven theological claims, dumb analogies, and unconnected ideas, tossed together without any semblance of linear reasoning or evidence of serious research. The style and construction of the article is so stream-of-consciousness and scattershot that one expects to find a note at the end stating: “Dictated but not read.”

The main offerings His Excellency has cooked up to support his position are:

  • Schneider’s own proposal to establish a sort of “papal corrector.”
  • The case of Pope Honorius as an analogical argument against sedevacantism.

These dishes are set among an odd assortment other garnishes on the buffet table that compliment neither the main fare nor each other — the theological equivalents, say, of marshmallow sushi and sardine cheesecake.

II. Bp. Schneider’s Ancillary Arguments

First, we turn to some of these ancillary arguments. Each one is aimed (and clumsily) at demonstrating that there is noobligation of internal assent to ordinary papal magisterium, and if a pope does spew heresy, well, we should just shrug, say “Meh,” and be “spiritual” about it.

  1. There is “no true consent” about how to handle a heretical pope. False. Didn’t the bishop do any research? Or doesn’t Google work in Kazakhstan? After St. Robert Bellarmine, dogmatic theologians and canonists all eventually settled upon Bellarmine’s teaching as the correct one: if a pope becomes a public heretic, he automatically loses office because he puts himself outside the Church. Even Dr. Roberto di Mattei calls Bp. Schneider out for cavalierly dismissing a fact that everyone seems to know. (See section V below)
  2. Pope John XXII (1316–1334) was considered “heretical or semi-heretical.” Distorted history and factually false. Countless pre-Vatican II dogmatic theologians refuted this claim. For a summary, see my article Dr. de Mattei Prescribes an Anti-Sede Tranquilizer.
  3. “The Church in the very rare concrete cases of a pope committing serious theological errors or heresies could definitely live with such a pope.” Only if, like Bp. Schneider and company, you think you can ignore what the Vicar of Christ teaches. But those of us who believe that Christ gave the pope real teaching authority and the special graces to exercise it would, like the pre-Vatican II canonist Maroto, hold that public heretics “must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici 2:784)
  4. The opinion of theologians erred on the matter for Holy Orders. False, and a truly pathetic analogical argument to attempt against Bellarmine. Theologians engaged in a dispute over what constituted the matter for Holy Orders — there were six different theological opinions — and Pius XII settled the dispute in Sacramentum Ordinis (1947).
  5. Since an excommunicated person can validly become a true pope, so can a heretic. False and a red herring. Excommunication is an impediment of ecclesiastical law from which papal conclave legislation can and did dispense. Heresy, on the other hand, is an impediment of divine law to obtaining the Pontificate, and as such, papal conclave legislation did not and indeed, could not dispense from it. This objection to sedevacantism has been repeatedly answered. See my 2007 article Can an Excommunicated Cardinal Be Elected Pope? [Novus Ordo Watch comment: On this topic, see also our own article, White Smoke, Anti-Pope: A Response to Rev. Brian Harrison.]
  6. The pope is like a bad dad; you cannot “disinherit him as the father of a family.” Stupid and inapposite analogy. The authority of the father of a family arises out of the natural law as the result of a physical fact, and consists in private dominative power over his subjects (wife and children); he can never cease to be a father. The authority of the Roman pontiff, on the contrary, is based on a divine power conferred upon him as the result of a juridical fact, and consists in public jurisdictional power over his subjects (the members of the Church); he was not always pope, and he can cease to be pope through heresy, insanity, resignation or death.The idiotic “bad dad” analogy is one of the most ancient of the many Recognize-and-Resist tribal myths. See my video Why Do Traditionalists Fear Sedevacantism? and my article The Tribal Myth-Keepers.
  7. The attempt to depose a heretical pope is “too human,” a refusal “to bear the Cross.” Hokey, theology-free, pseudo-spirituality. Tell that to St. Robert Bellarmine.
  8. Another error in the intention or in the attempt to depose a heretical pope consists in the indirect or subconscious identification of the Church with the pope.” Has our bishop/Patristics laureate ever stumbled across St. Ambrose’s dictum Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia — Where Peter is, there is the Church?
  9. The theory allowing a pope to lose office is a kind of “Donatism.” Another stupid and inapposite analogy. The Donatist heresy maintained, in effect, that the permanent power of the sacramental character received at ordination can be lost through the unworthiness of the minister. Papal loss of office, however, pertains to the loss of the power of jurisdiction, which is not permanent and can be lost for a variety of reasons — death, loss of reason, resignation, or heresy.
  10. When a pope is in heresy, he is “in spiritual chains,” just as St. Peter was in material chains.Another dumb analogy, and pseudo-piety. A pope who is a heretic is no longer “Peter.” And who put Bergoglio in his chains except for Bergoglio himself?
  11. St. Pius X was the first pope who made a “radical reform” in the order of psalms recited in the Divine Office. Hogwash, dreamed up and endlessly recycled by lay liturgy hobbyists. The primitive Roman arrangement of psalms was first altered by St. Gregory the Great (ca. 600) and then by St. Pius V (1568). See my article The Pius X Breviary Reforms: A Personal Appreciation.
  12. Pope Pius IX, when asked to put St. Joseph in the Canon, made the “impressive and thought-provoking” remark: “I cannot do this: I am only the Pope.” Oh really? Pius IX also said La tradizione sono io! — I am tradition! Also rather thought-provoking, especially if you engage in a day-to-day vetting of a pope’s teachings so you can decide which ones to accept “in light of tradition.” For a discussion, see my video The Pope Speaks: YOU Decide!
  13. The more a pope spreads doctrinal ambiguities, errors, or even heresies, the more luminously will shine the pure Catholic Faith of the little ones in the Church.” Is Bp. Schneider kidding? Was someone burning the Kazakh poppy crop outside his window when he typed that sentence? What happens when “the little ones” ask mom what the Holy Father meant by “sadomasochism” or “coprophilia”? Has His Excellency ever heard the bit in the Gospel about scandalizing the little ones and millstones?

But enough of these howlers. We now turn to the two principal issues to which Bp. Schneider wishes to draw his readers’ attention.

III. A Proposal for a “Papal Corrector”

This is what Bp. Schneider offers us as the antidote to future Bergoglios, a solution he claims is a “safer” alternative to the ultimately near-unanimous teachings of theologians and canonists that a heretical pope automatically loses his office.

“Binding canonical norms,” His Excellency says, could stipulate the procedure to follow in the case of a heretical or manifestly heterodox pope. The Dean of the College of Cardinals would be obliged to correct the pope privately, then publicly, if that fails. The Dean would then appeal for the whole Church to pray for the pope to confirm the Faith, and at the same time, publish a Profession of Faith rejecting the theological errors that the pope teaches or tolerates. If the Dean would fail to do this, any cardinal, bishop, group of bishops, or any group of the faithful could follow the same procedure. Any person involved, moreover, could not be subject to canonical sanctions.

My first reaction is that Cardinal Sodano, the current Dean of the College, might need to collect another fat envelope of cash from the Legionaries of Christ before getting the process going — to transform himself, as it were, from the “Cardinal Collector” into “Cardinal Corrector.”

That said, the proposal suffers from a number of other fatal flaws.

  1. It violates the general principle Prima sedes a nemine judicatur — the First See (the pope) is judged by no one. In Bp. Schneider’s plan, inferiors are allowed to sit in judgment on the teaching and authentic magisterium of a true pope, and if these, in their judgment, be found wanting, publicly condemn them as false.
  2. A true pope is not subject to canon law because, as Supreme Legislator, he is above it, and can modify and change any part of it. A heretic pope could therefore modify the “canonical norms” Bp. Schneider proposes or suppress them in their entirety.
  3. A true pope, likewise, has universal jurisdiction, which allows him untrammeled power to appoint or remove officeholders. A Cardinal Dean who would invoke the “correction” legislation Bp. Schneider proposes and decide to become Cardinal Corrector to a heretical pope could therefore find himself summarily removed and appointed as a sort of “Cardinal Neighbor” to Bp. Schneider — in nearby Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan.
  4. Who corrects the correctors? What guarantee does one have of their doctrinal orthodoxy, or even moral probity, in presuming to issue a correction? This, as I pointed out in my video Stuck in a Rut, was the problem with insisting that before heresy could exist in a pope or anyone else, the heretic first had to have three warnings from an “orthodoxy buddy.” (See here)
  5. And what is the endgame Bp. Schneider proposes if the correctee ignores the correctors? The bishop does not say. The pope-heretic continues to teach errors and heresies to the entire Church, I guess. I suppose in the Schneiderian/conservative/neo-trad revised theology of papal magisterium, thanks to the missing microchip, the pope would just continue to be ignored.
  6. Bp. Schneider, moreover, seems not to have considered that this do-it-yourself correction business could well cut both ways for a more “orthodox” successor to Francis. Disgruntled National Catholic Reporter progressives and the German bishops’ conference, say, could well decide to launch the “correction” torpedo against a future Pope Burke-olio, claiming that he is spreading errors that contradict his beloved predecessor’s teachings on contraception, adulterous second marriages, clericalism, immigration, the death penalty and plastic straws.
  7. And finally, one must add: “Oh, yes, Your Excellency. Nice to hear about the ‘public correction’ proposal. How has that been working out for you so far?”

In his “papal corrector” proposal, therefore, Bp. Schneider is grasping at straws — though not, one hopes, environmentally harmful plastic ones.

IV. The Honorius “Solution”

Here, Bp. Schneider proposes that we draw a principle for a course of action vis-à-vis Bergoglio from the controversy over Pope Honorius I (625–638). Before assessing the bishop’s reasons, though, we will need to provide the reader with some background information.

A. General Background. Honorius reigned during the great controversy over the Monothelite heresy (=Christ had only one will, the divine). Around 634, he was approached by Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was attempting to resolve the dispute and pacify all sides in order to please the emperor Heraclius. Honorius responded to Sergius with several letters dealing with the controversy. Their contents became public only after the death of Honorius, and led to his being accused, variously, of either being a heretic himself, or at least, of being soft on heresy.

In 681 the Third Council of Constantinople posthumously condemned and anathematized Honorius, together with several Monothelites, which condemnation was subsequently renewed by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870. The condemnation subsequently made its way into the texts of some ecclesiastical oaths, and the Roman Breviary prior to 1570 portrayed Honorius as having been condemned for heresy.

Nevertheless, despite these condemnations, the Church continued to recognize Honorius as having been a true pope and true successor (albeit perhaps weak) of St. Peter.

Thus the facts in the story of Honorius that everyone agrees upon.

B. Disputed Facts and Interpretations. But there are countless other facts and complications in this story that church historians and theologians do not agree upon, have interpreted in different ways and, generally, have been fighting over for centuries.

These disputed issues include: whether the texts themselves of Honorius’s letters really prove he was a heretic, or merely that he was “soft” in combatting heresy; how the term “heresy” is to be understood in the various conciliar condemnations, since at the time it did not always have the precise technical meaning it has today; whether the subsequent papal approval of the conciliar acts of Third Constantinople (necessary for their legal effect), approved the condemnation of Honorius for heresy properly speaking, or only cowardice; or whether some of the documents were or contained forgeries, a common problem during the era.

Countless other uncertainties like these muddy the waters, making it difficult not only to arrive at a clear and objective historical account of the Honorius affair, but also to tease out of these complicated events correct theological consequences.

Protestants, Gallicans, rationalists and others, especially in the 19th century, had no hesitations about their conclusions, of course, and they routinely trotted out the Honorius affair as one of their main arguments against papal authority in general, and papal infallibility in particular.

Over the centuries, however, the great Catholic dogmatic theologians, including St. Robert Bellarmine, while often disagreeing among themselves over facts and the documentation in the case, refuted at great length the repeated attempts to use Honorius as a cudgel to smash traditional Catholic teaching on the authority of the pope. Their arguments were so successful that by the twentieth century, the standard dogmatic theology manuals usually treated the case of Honorius summarily, in a sentence or two, among the minor objections to the pope’s authority.

(For an overview see The Case of Honorius I, together with a link to a nineteenth century work by Fr. [later Cardinal] Louis-Nazaire Bégin.)

C. Honorius and the Traditionalists. After Vatican II, nevertheless, traditionalist writers of the “recognize and resist” variety, such as Michael Davies and Christopher Ferrara — perhaps unaware that they were keeping some utterly disreputable theological company — tried to resurrect Honorius as a killer analogical argument against both sedevacantism and against the obligation to assent to ordinary papal teachingThe conclusion they wanted to be drawn was that since Honorius was a heretic and the Church still recognized him as a true pope, so too, a pope who is a heretic does not lose his office and may safely be ignored.

Nearly fifteen years ago, it took me only a few sentences to shoot down this shaky analogy in my article Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope (see #11).

D. Honorius in the Age of Bergoglio. Honorius, though, started surfacing again in conservative and neo-trad attempts to explain Bergoglio, such as Dr. Roberto di Mattei’s 2015 article Honorius I: The Controversial Case of a Heretic Pope. In these articles, wherever Catholic historians and dogmatic theologians in the past disagreed over facts, documentation, or the analyses thereof, these conservative and neo-trad polemicists always picked whichever position which seemed the most damaging to Honorius — and therefore the most favorable to their own anti-sedevacantist, ignore-the-pope position.

This is the same procedure that Bp. Schneider now follows with Honorius, in order to push readers to the following conclusion:

“Pope Honorius I was fallible, he was wrong, he was a heretic… [The three successive ecumenical councils, despite the fact that they] excommunicated Pope Honorius I because of heresy, … did not even implicitly declare that Honorius I had lost the papacy ipso facto because of heresy. In fact, the pontificate of Pope Honorius I was considered valid even after he had supported heresy in his letters to Patriarch Sergius in 634, since he reigned after that another four years until 638.”

I am sure that Bp. Schneider thought that this argument was really powerful and original (as, no doubt, did many of his conservative and neo-trad readers). But once again, had he done even a bit more research, he would have discovered that the argument had already been made and summarily shot down a long time ago.

E. Yes, Another Faulty Analogy. For like countless trad controversialists of the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and ’00s, His Excellency wishes us to derive by analogy from this complex series of events two general theological principles:

  • The Honorius case defeats Bellarmine’s teaching that a heretical pope automatically loses his office.
  • The Honorius case demonstrates that Catholics have no obligation to assent to ordinary papal magisterium.

Both of these analogical arguments and the principles derived therefrom are false, simply because the common properties needed for any analogy to “work” are completely absent from these analogies.

1. Catholic historians and dogmatic theologians hotly disputed factual issues in the Honorius case (whether the letters showed he was guilty of heresy or merely soft on it, the sense of the term “heresy,” the meaning of the conciliar condemnations, etc.); this renders the factual foundation of the analogies unreliable to begin with.

Why? Because one can have no certitude whatsoever about essential common properties between the two things we are comparing: the Honorius case and Bellarmine’s loss-of-papal-office teaching.

As regards questions of fact alone, therefore, the basis for the analogy simply disappears.

2. The disputed letters were NOT PUBLIC; and it is only PUBLIC heresy that prevents a heretic from obtaining or retaining papal office or authority.

The theologian Hurter and others say it is certain that: “the letters of Honorius were unknown [ignotae] until the death of the Pontiff and that of [the Patriarch] Sergius.” (Medulla Theologiae Dogmaticae, 360.)

This one fact alone destroys the Honorius case as an argument both against the theologians after Bellarmine and against sedevacantism, even if one were to concede that the contents of Honorius’s letters were heretical. For it is only public heresy that takes someone out of the body of Church, and in the case of the papacy, it is public heresy that prevents the heretic from obtaining or retaining papal authority. Private heresy in a pope, on the other hand, has no such effect.

The existence of public heresy in a pope is the very foundation for the principle Bellarmine lays down, and it is the existence of public heresy in the Vatican II popes to which sedevacantists apply Bellarmine’s principle and draw their conclusion.

So Bp. Schneider, like countless others before him, is offering an analogy that is not apposite — or in plain English, is just plain dumb — based as it is on a phony apples-to-oranges comparison.

3. The disputed letters were not public; they may not therefore be adduced as an analogical argument against the obligation of Catholics to give “the assent of the intellect” to what the pope teaches through his authentic ordinary magisterium.

Papal letters that remain hidden and unknown throughout the course of a pontificate and only surface after a pope dies are not magisterium at all. The “teacher” (magister) was dead for fifty years — in this case, until 680 — and there was no one in the classroom.

And in the present discussion, it is the public teachings (either by word or by deed) of the Vatican II popes that faithful Catholics object to as contrary to Catholic faith and morals — the errors and evils these men have openly and manifestly attempted to impose upon the universal Church in every part of the world. This they have done on thousands of occasions through their countless encyclicals, decrees, instructions, decrees, speeches, discourses and public acts.

So, as with the loss-of-papal-office argument, the Honorius analogy lacks yet another common property for the principle it attempts to prove.

4. The principle upon which Bellarmine and sedevacantists base their theological position is derived from the data of revelation — faith is necessary for membership in the Church — and on the face of it therefore offers a degree of theological certitude that cannot be obtained from a mere (and in this case, factually questionable) analogy.

The argument from analogy (comparing the common properties between two things) can never provide certitude, only probability. Only significant resemblances have value in an argument of this type (Bittle, Science of Correct Thinking, (1950), 348), and there are none here.

For in the case of Honorius, we have clearly demonstrated that the fundamental facts of the analogy are disputed, and that the requisite common properties do not exist. Moreover, even assuming that they were true, they could still not provide an even remotely credible analogical argument against Bellarmine, sedevacantism and the teaching authority of authentic papal magisterium.

V. De Mattei: “Somewhat Acceptable”

While the initial reaction among conservatives and neo-trads was to applaud Bp. Schneider’s article, the neo-trad historian Dr. de Roberto Mattei, as mentioned above, was less than enthusiastic, and indeed, adopted a damn-with-faint-praise tone in his March 22, 2019 Rorate Caeli interview

You can almost see il dottore professore cringe when he says that the bishop’s article is “somewhat acceptable [my emphasis] at the present time, in order to avoid that crypto-sedevacantism some traditionalists tend toward,” as he tries to work his away delicately around the Schneider error on the agreement of theologians about papal loss of office.

Apparently, though, Dr. de Mattei did not believe that the bishop’s article would be sufficient to stifle intrusive thoughts about sedevacantism among the conservative and neo-trad troops. The good doctor therefore felt compelled to do a three-paragraph riff on how, well, when Bellarmine or Cajetan were writing about a publicly heretical pope, they really mean “public” in the sense that heresy was evident to a society that was fully Catholic.

“I think that the errors or heresies of Pope Francis, even if professed publically, do not entail his loss of the papacy, since they are not known and manifest to the Catholic population. When I speak of the Catholic population, I’m not referring to the Catholic public opinion in the widest sense of the term, but to that restricted group of baptized who are today maintaining the Catholic faith in its integrity. Many of them  still interpret pro bono the words and actions of Pope Francis and do not perceive any malice. We cannot say then that his loss of faith is evident and manifest.”

Uh huh. So since, say, Catholic homeschoolers living off the grid in Hayden Lake, Idaho, haven’t noticed Bergoglio’s heresies, he is still home free as Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth? Or would ipso facto loss of office kick in only after the homeschoolers and others like them all get high scores on a faith-maintenance/Bergoglio-heresy-perception quiz?

But wait, there’s more! Not only do the small pockets of clueless but orthodox Catholics get Bergoglio off the hook, but also the great horde of heretical clergy and laity. They haven’t noticed the heresy either!

the large majority of the baptized, the priests, the bishops, even the Pope, are immersed in heresy and very few people can distinguish the true faith. So the correct indications by great classical theologians are difficult to follow in practice.

Got that? The millions of heretics that Vatican II has created cannot now recognize heresy as such, so papal heresy CANNOT really be public or manifest — so the heretic-in-chief gets another free pass from them!

Thus — despite the internet, all the blogs, mass media, Facebook, Twitter, etc., etc. — Dr. de Mattei would have us enter a world of make-believe where Bergoglio’s heresies are not reallypublic, not really notorious, not really manifest. And this, so conservatives and neo-trads need not worry that the teachings of Bellarmine and countless other Catholic theologians and canonists apply to Bergoglio and to the rest of the Vatican II popes, even though an undisputably “public” reality is staring them straight in the face.

Here we need add one more observation. Other anti-sedevacantist polemicists in the past have, like Dr. de Mattei, tried to find an escape route to get around Bellarmine and company’s teaching on a heretical pope (and thus around sedevacantism as well) by assigning fanciful technical meanings to the descriptors “public,” “manifest,” “openly divulged,” etc. as applied to the term “heresy.”

This door has already been shut, because the descriptors in question were used interchangeably before the 1917 Code to distinguish heresy circulated through public documents or speeches, say, from heresy that was occult or secret — written in a diary, or known to only a few discreet persons. See A Pope as a “Manifest” or a “Public” Heretic.

VI. But Finally: Not Just a “Bergoglio Problem”

“Bishop Schneider’s analysis on heretical popes,” enthused the conservative/neo-trad site One Peter 5, may be just the answer we’re looking for.”

No doubt — but it’s the wrong one, based as it is on dumb analogies, “facts” that are misstated or simply wrong, Never-Never Land canon law fantasies, and theological errors. As we’ve demonstrated at great length above, conservatives or neo-trads are kidding themselves if they still think the theological dog’s breakfast Bp. Schneider served up has solved their “Bergoglio problem.”

And indeed, they are kidding themselves even more if they think that what they have been facing since March 13, 2013 is just a Bergoglio problem. It is, in reality, a “Vatican II problem.”

Vatican II represented the triumph of the modernist heresy, dominated as it was by theologians who were, as the Louvain professor Jürgen Mettepennigen said, “inheritors of modernism.” The poisoned seeds of theological error were sown during the Council with all its yes/buts, existentialist blathering, equivocations, ambiguities, work-arounds, silences, poisoned neologisms, redefinitions, false equivalences, destroyed distinctions and the rest.

Bergoglio is nothing more than one more poisoned fruit from a thoroughly poisoned garden, and he has merely been applying the principles that Vatican II gave him. So don’t think that even by applying Bellarmine’s loss-of-office principle to him you could somehow get rid of the underlying problem that he embodies.

For does anyone seriously think that Bergoglio embraced and began to spread the theological errors and heresies he now spouts only after he showed up on the loggia of St. Peter’s six years ago, sans mozetta? Of course not — he was a heretic before he was elected, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, Bergoglio therefore really has nothing to lose.

The ultimate source of those errors, and the whole thought system that originated them and made implementing them possible, is the modernism of Vatican II. Unless conservatives and neo-trads admit that and act upon it, exchanging a Bergoglio for a Burke-olio and hoping for a restoration “from the top down” will be a fool’s dream, since the modernism of Vatican II has already cracked and destroyed all the foundations, smashed the builders’ tools, and carted the rubble off to an environmentalist landfill.

Admit it, folks. Except for a relatively small handful of Latin Mass safe houses, you’ve got nothing left. The whole lex credendibehind that lex orandi has disappeared. All around you, modernism has turned doctrine and morals into mush, translated its heresies into action, and institutionalized contempt for submission to the law and for the very notion of hierarchy.

So instead of continuing to rail ineffectually against the boogeymen of “papolatry,” “ultramontanism,” sedevacantism, and Honorius, conservatives and neo-trads who seek to preserve the faith should once and for all turn their fire on the real enemy — Vatican II — and thunder with one voice, “Anathema to the Robber Council! A thousand times anathema!”

Source: Rev. Anthony Cekada, Quidlibet blog; Apr. 6, 2019

We encourage all who believe Francis is Pope to take the Francis Papacy Test here and let us know what results they get.

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Naturalism at Full Blast: Francis on the Existence of All Religions

Naturalism at Full Blast:
Francis on the Existence of all Religions

None are so blind as those who refuse to see…

At today’s General Audience, the Jesuit apostate Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) reflected on the trip he took this past weekend to Rabat, Morocco, where he proclaimed that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine” and other heretical idiocies. Surprisingly, he did not comment on April 3 being the 50th anniversary of the Novus Ordo Missae (“New Order of the Mass”) of “Pope” Paul VI, the liturgical travesty that passes for the “Roman Catholic Mass” at your local Novus Ordo parish.

An English transcript of the audience has been provided by Zenit (video is available here):

It will be worth our while to go through that text and highlight some of the most egregious errors:

My pilgrimage followed in the footsteps of two Saints: Francis of Assisi and John Paul II. 800 years ago, Francis took the message of peace and fraternity to Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil; in 1985, Pope Wojtyla carried out [h]is memorable visit to Morocco, after having received in the Vatican — first among the Muslim Heads of State — King Hassan II.

No doubt Francis followed the behavior and teaching of his apostate predecessor John Paul II, but he most certainly did not follow “in the footsteps” of St. Francis of Assisi, as we have pointed out before. Far from preaching some interreligious creedless “peace and fraternity”, St. Francis had a distinctly supernatural message to share, one that pertained directly to the sultan’s salvation:

The Sultan Meledin asked him who sent them, and for what purpose they came? Francis answered with courageous firmness: “We are not sent by men, but it is the Most High who sends me, in order that I may teach you and your people the way of salvation, by pointing out to you the truths of the Gospel.” He immediately preached to him, with great fervor, the dogma of One God in Three Persons, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind.

(Congregation of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, The Life of S. Francis of Assisi [New York, NY: D. & J. Sandlier & Co., 1889], pp. 197-198)

“Pope” Francis can only claim to be following St. Francis of Assisi for as long as people don’t actually bother to look up the story. But then, that’s what Novus Ordo Watch is here for!

Francis continues:

However, some might ask: why does the Pope go to the Muslims and not just to Catholics? Why are there so many religions, and why ever are there so many religions? With the Muslims we are descendants of the same Father, Abraham[.]

Why are there so many religions? That’s easy: Because people have been deceived by Satan and/or have refused to listen to the truth and preferred their own ideas to the naturally knowable truth and to divine revelation.

Just think of the Israelites in the desert. Even a great many of them, for whom the true God had worked miracles to release them from bondage in Egypt, turned to idolatry, worshipping a molten calf (see Ex 32:1-6). Why did they do so? Because they had grown impatient while their leader, Moses, was on Mount Horeb speaking to that very God who had parted the Red Sea to save them from the Egyptians and had given them miraculous food from Heaven (see Ex 15:13-30 and Ex 16:11-15).

Francis’ comment that Muslims and Catholics “are descendants of the same Father, Abraham”, can be understood in two ways, but either way is false:

  • naturally: we are descended from the same biological ancestor through natural generation — this is false, for, although some Catholics are physically linked to Abraham, most of them are not, and the Church of Jesus Christ, in any case, makes no distinction between the two: “Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all, and in all” (Col 3:11). See also Jn 6:64.
  • supernaturally: we both share the same Faith of Abraham and thus have a spiritual link — this is false, too, for Muslims reject Christ, as do the Jews. They therefore cannot have the Faith of Abraham and therefore there is no spiritual connection: “Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. Therefore they that are of faith, shall be blessed with faithful Abraham. And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:7,9,29). See also Lk 3:8, Jn 8:39, and Rom 9:7.

Thus, it is easy to see that Francis’ statement about Muslims and Catholics having the same father, Abraham, is false and heretical on both counts.

The apostate Jesuit continues:

[W]hy does God permit so many religions? God willed to permit this: the theologians of Scholasticism referred to God’s permissive voluntas [will]He willed to permit this reality: there are so many religions; some are born of the culture, but always looking to Heaven, looking at God.

It’s interesting to see that Francis now suddenly brings up God’s permissive will, the very thing he denied in Abu Dhabi on Feb. 4, 2019, in which document on human fraternity he blasphemously affirmed that God willed different religions to exist in the same sense in whichHe also willed there to be different sexes, races, colors, and languages — and that is His activewill, not merely His permissive will.

Here we see Francis throwing a crumb to the likes of Athanasius Schneider, who is now happily telling the world that ‘Francis meant permissive will’, when it is clear that the text of the document does not permit such a reading at all:

Of course, Bergoglio’s claim that all religions — “so many”, as he says — are “always looking to Heaven, looking at God”, is erroneous as well, to say the least. Notice how the language Francis uses there is deliberately vague: Just what does “looking to Heaven” or “looking at God” mean? This lack of clarity is deliberate, of course. Why should he communicate clearly when he can do so obscurely and thus allow different people to understand his words in different ways?

Regardless of what exactly he intended by his words, however, it is clear that they are false. For there are many religions that most certainly do not “look at God” or Heaven. The most obvious counterexample to Francis’ claim would be Satanism. There are other religions, too, that deny the existence of a single God, such  as Hinduism, or of a personal God, as does Buddhism. Of course, none of that matters to Francis, who is on record stating that “the true religions are the development of the capacity that humanity has to transcend itself towards the absolute.” That is textbook Modernism!

So God “willed to permit this reality” of many different religions. That is true. But so what? It is irrelevant. God also willed to permit the fall of Lucifer (Satan), the fall of Adam and Eve, idolatry, heresy, blasphemy, murder, abortion, child abuse, adultery, wars, and every other evil that can be found in this world. What are we to conclude from that?

Chaos Frank continues:

However, what God wills is fraternity among us in a special way — here is the reason for this trip — with our brothers, children of Abraham like us, the Muslims. We must not be scared by the difference: God has permitted this.  We must be scared if we don’t act with fraternity, to walk together in life.

Ah! So there is the conclusion the Argentinian Jesuit wants us to draw: “We must not be scared by the difference [because] God has permitted this”. It’s too bad that this conclusion is a non sequitur — that is, it does not follow. As enumerated above, there are a great many things God permits that we must be afraid of, especially sin and other spiritual dangers, but also physical ones, of course.

Francis is introducing an extremely dangerous new idea into the minds of his sheeple here: He teaches that because God permits something, it need not be feared, that “it’s okay”. It should be obvious how spiritually ruinous such an idea is guaranteed to be. And what does Scripture say? “Pierce thou my flesh with thy fear: for I am afraid of thy judgments” (Ps 118:120); “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).

Ah, but now Francis contradicts himself, for he says: “We must be scared if we don’t act with fraternity, to walk together in life.” What? Does God not also permit us to act without“fraternity”? Logic is a dangerous enemy for theological shysters.

Back to the Jesuit’s audience text:

To serve hope, at a time like ours, means first of all to build bridges between the civilizations. And it was a joy and an honor for me to be able to do so with the noble Kingdom of Morocco, meeting its people and its rulers. Remembering some important international summits that in the last years have been held in that country; with King Mohammed VI we confirmed the essential role of religions in defending human dignity and promoting peace, justice, the care of Creation, that is, our common home. In this perspective, we also signed together with the King an Appeal for Jerusalem, so that the Holy City is preserved as patrimony of humanity and place of peaceful encounter, especially for the faithful of the three monotheist religions.

The “hope” Francis has in mind here is clearly of a Naturalist kind. He means by it the prospect of a better future, a more humane world, a world in which (at best) many natural virtues are to be found, but also, and especially, one in which all the Masonic ideals are upheld, especially freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, the dignity of man, and so forth. This, however, has nothing to do with the supernatural virtue of hope by which we are saved (see Rom 8:24), and to which Christ calls all men, and which all Catholics, especially the Pope, have a duty to proclaim (see 1 Pet 3:15).

Francis’ statement that all religions play an “essential role … in defending human dignity and promoting peace, justice, the care of Creation” is likewise false. The only true religion, the Catholic religion, does indeed play a role in that, but all other religions only have one legitimate role to play: to go away. Their existence is merely permitted by God (remember?!), not willed by Him. They ought not to exist and therefore have no role to play in anything.

Such a thing is entirely clear when one considers religion from the supernatural perspective, but of course Francis doesn’t do that because he is a Naturalist. For him, the purpose of religion is essentially a natural one, that is, focused on the temporal world as its proper end. The idea is to “make this world a better place”, according to Francis — for him, religion has nothing essentially or primarily to do with the worship of God, the acceptance of divine revelation, or the salvation of souls for a blessed eternity. The supernatural end of man is, to him, secondary at best, if it is acknowledged at all.

This explains why Francis was able to say, so nonchalantly, in Morocco that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine”. For him, it’s not about Faith but about experience, feeling. Hence he also condemns proselytism. Religion, in the Bergoglian mind, is first and foremost the means to making the world a better place, not to adore God or save one’s soul so as to reach the ultimate purpose for which one was created: eternal blessedness with God in Heaven.

After talking about his favorite worldly concern, that of helping migrants invade Europe, Bergoglio says:

I don’t like to say migrants; I prefer to say migrant persons. Do you know why? Because [the word] migrant is an adjective, whereas the term person is a subject. We have fallen into the culture of the adjective: we use so many adjectives and very often we forget the subjects, namely, the substance. An adjective is always linked to a subject, to a person; therefore, a migrant person. So there is respect and one doesn’t fall into this culture of the adjective, which is too liquid, too gaseous.

No doubt there is some gas here that needs to be relieved, and we can start with Francis’ butchering of grammar. “Migrant”, of course, is a noun, not an adjective, when referring to people. Perhaps it is derived from the adjective migrant, which, however, requires a noun it modifies, such as migrant birds. The word “person” is a noun, too, and whether or not it is a subject depends on how it is used in a sentence.

So Bergoglio doesn’t like using adjectives as nouns. In other words, no more Catholics — they will now be people who practice Catholicism. That is odd, given that he is the very one who constantly refers to the poor, the marginalized, the sick, and the elderly. Perhaps we will soon hear him talking about those who have littlethose who are not at the centerthose who do not enjoy good health, and those who have lived a long time already.

Enough already of the Bergoglian drivel! There is more that could be said about Francis’ words at his General Audience today, but we will end our analysis here.

Francis’ promotion of “human fraternity” is not the Christian charity to which we are called by God but a Modernist-Masonic counterfeit. It was rejected by Pope St. Pius X in his condemnation of Sillonism:

The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.

Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.

But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can.” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

(Pope Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique; underlining added.)

Any questions?

One final note: Our most recent podcast, TRADCAST EXPRESS 081, provides some insightful and entertaining commentary on Francis’ spiritual crimes in Morocco:

If denial of the known truth caused weight gain, this guy couldn’t fit into St. Peter’s Square.

Image source: (Vatican Media; screenshot)
License: fair use

The Lord of the Rings – Jorge Bergoglio

Francis-Bergoglio Jerks His Hand away from Those Wishing to Kiss His Ring
Then Lies to Cover up when there Was Worldwide Condemnation of Him

From: The TRADITIO Fathers


Francis-Bergoglio Jerks His Hand Away
From Those Wishing to Kiss His Ring at Loretto, Italy
It Seems that He Doesn’t Really Consider Himself a Pope —
At Least in the Traditional Sense
When He Received Worldwide Condemnation for His Action
He Lied and Said that He Had Jerked His Hand Away
Because of “Fear of Spreading Germs”
Yet He Has No Problem with People Breathing Directly into His Face
When He Breaks Tradition and Allows People to Hug Him

When Francis-Bergoglio jerked his hand away and refused to let Newchurchers kiss his Newpapal ring during his March 26, 2019, appearance at the Holy House in Loreto. Italy, severe condemnation came in from all around the world. People have no idea how theologically corrupt the Newchurch of the New Order is, how fake its Mess and “Sacraments” are, but this ring-kissing fiasco is something that the world could easily understand. Bergoglio was showing once again that he didn’t consider himself pope, at least not in any traditional sense. Newchurchers will go without protest to his fake Novus Ordo Messes, but they won’t give up kissing his ring. It doesn’t make any sense, but Newchurch and Newchurchers have never made any sense!

Kissing the ring of a pope, a cardinal, or a bishop traditionally carries with it an indulgence of 50 to 300 days’ worth of penance. But wait! Capitulating to the Arch-heretic Martin Luther and his Protestant followers, the Newchurch of the New Order, founded on November 21, 1964, by the Vatican II Anti-council to replace the Catholic Church as the “institutional” Church, did, under its Newpope Paul VI-Montini, gut on January 1, 1967, most of the traditional indulgences of the Catholic Church. This is just another feature of the Newchurch of the New Order — which is most certainly not the Catholic Church, — unknown to Newchurchers. Montini’s decree, like all those of the anti-Catholic Newchurch of the New Order, is, of course, null and void because violating Catholic doctrine, as explicated most clearly at the dogmatic Council of Trent. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by Vatican News.]

A bishop’s ring is a sign of his spiritual marriage to the diocese over which he rules. Priests are prohibited by traditional Canon Law from wearing rings, yet now Newchurch presbyters (who are not priests) violate this canon all the time. During the traditional Catholic rite of consecration (the invalid Protestantized Novus Ordo rite has modified some of the words), the episcopal ring is blessed and placed on the ring finger of the new bishop, the same finger upon which a wedding ring is worn, while the consecrating bishop recites the following words:

Accipe annulum, fidei scilicet signaculum: quatenus sponsam Dei, sanctam videlicet Ecclesiam, intemerata fide ornatus, illibate custodias.
Receive the ring, the seal indeed of your fidelity: insofar as you, equipped with the uncorrupted faith, may, without compromise, guard the bride of Christ, that is, the holy Church.

In fact, Francis-Bergoglio was never validly consecrated as a Catholic bishop in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but merely “installed” in 1992 under the invalid Protestantized New Ordinal of 1968. Nor is Bergoglio a Catholic priest, having been merely “installed” in the Protestant fashion in 1969. (Likewise, Benedict-Ratzinger was never consecrated as a valid Catholic bishop, but merely “installed” in the Protestant fashion in 1977. He was, however, validly ordained a priest in 1951.

After Bergoglio’s Catholicism was questioned worldwide, he attempted damage control by claiming that his actions arose “from fear of spreading germs.” This was a bald-faced lie. Unless he licked the ring, there would be virtually no hygienic problems. On the other hand, he doesn’t mind braking tradition and letting people hug him, where germs can easily be transferred by people breathing directly into his face. And if Bergoglio were so concerned about hygienic contamination, he could have acolytes unobtrusively given him a squirt of hand sanitizer from time to time. Or have them bring up a Lavabo dish and pour water over his hands, as is done at the Traditional Latin Mass.

Good Catholics, the truth is that again the world saw in Francis-Bergoglio’s act a rejection of the papacy. He had to put his tail between his legs and tell a lie to cover up the truth, just has he has repeatedly lied about his cover-up of rampant paedophile crimes perpetrated by Newchurch clergy from his Newcardinals on down.

The Schizophrenic Church Of Recognize & Resist

The Schizophrenic Church Of R & R

All Traditionalists believe what has been defined and taught by the Church. One of the most basic and ancient expressions of the Faith is the Nicene Creed, composed in part and adopted at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and revised with additions by the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Recited at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Church proclaims, “Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.” (I believe) in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” Do the “recognize and resisters” (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), or Bishop Richard Williamson’s St. Marcel Initiative, or their apologists (John Salza, Robert Siscoe, The Remnant, etc.) really believe it?

Of course they profess it, and would (correctly) state that the denial of such is heresy. However, upon closer inspection, their refusal to acknowledge sedevacantism has lead to a de facto ecclesiology (teaching on the nature of the Church) which denies the unity of the Church. They believe in a Schizophrenic “Church” whereby there are two distinct–and even contradictory– modes of belief and worship, yet they remain mysteriously unified. Don’t believe me? Let’s examine what the R&R camp says and see if it squares with authentic Church teaching.

The Church Teaching On Unity
 According to theologian Van Noort, “[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity…unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government.” (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original).
1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith
“The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office.” (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, “Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of Christ…Furthermore…it is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles” (Ibid:128).
2. Communion
“Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession.” (Ibid:128)
3. Government
“Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority.” (Ibid:130)
Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don’t have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order.
In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, “[During the Great Western Schism]…hierarchical unity was onlymaterially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance.” (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)
According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, “… [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned…” (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ.
R&R Ecclesiology
1. There exists “Eternal Rome” and “Modernist Rome,” of which the pope is the head of both. When he speaks for Eternal Rome, you obey. When he speaks for Modernist Rome, you resist.
The Society is fond of quoting from a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, which seems the starting point for their schizophrenic “Church:”

“We adhere, with all our heart, with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the preservation of that faith, to Eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendency that clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that resulted from it.”

They put this into practice with disastrous results.

From “Frequently Asked Questions About The SSPX” (“FAQ”)
 (available online at
“We are not to co-operate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion or by not doing what we can to defend the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here: No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for 19 centuries.”

How can a true pope “implement a new religion”? It’s one thing to say that a pope is not without sin and can do morally evil acts. This is true and in this he is to be resisted (e.g., the pope asks someone to “murder one of my enemies for me”). However, it is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible, i.e., She cannot give that which is false or evil to Her members, such as imposing a “new religion.”

Therefore, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments… If She [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in Her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, She would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

“[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

“Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”

Yet the SSPX and the other R&R recognize Bergoglio, a man they claim is “implementing a new religion” (along with the other post-Vatican II “popes” before him), can be pope over both Modernist Rome (new religion) and Eternal Rome (true religion) simultaneously. Moreover, the true and the false religion seem to “subsist” together in the same overarching “Church” (sound familiar?).

2. The Eternal Rome Can Refuse to Have Communion with Modernist Rome
The SSPX: “Now, the Novus Ordo Missae [New “mass”] assumes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness…If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).” (See FAQ cited above).

According to theologian Szal, to be schismatic, one must meet four requirements:

  • one must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by means of one’s actions) from obediance to the Roman Pontiff and separate oneself from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does not join a separate schismatic sect
  • one’s withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebellion
  • the withdrawal must be made in relation to such things by which the unity of the Church is constituted
  • despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff

(See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 2)

The Church is thereby in schism with itself. The SSPX is part of Eternal Rome with Bergoglio as “pope” and yet they cannot participate in public worship with Modernist Rome which also has Bergoglio as “pope” because their “mass” is Modernist and evil. The idea of an evil “mass” given by a real pope would contradict the dogma of Indefectibility as stated above, and in this case, they are refusing communion in worship with members alleged to be Catholic, just as they are. Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome form the same Church, but somehow have different religions and can’t have unity in communion with each other.
3. The Magisterium of Modernist Rome Needs to be Corrected by Eternal Rome 
The teaching authority of BOTH Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome resides in Bergoglio. However, if Bergoglio (or his “bishops”) make a decision regarding, e.g. annulments and canonizations, the members of Eternal Rome (SSPX) must “correct” his teaching authority.
 A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article “Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?” in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject.  Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:
“Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act.”
Father claims…”it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters.”
He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. To assert that canonizations may not be infallible due to some procedural misstep is to admit the possibility that the “saint” might actually be a damned soul held up to be emulated and venerated. That would mean the Church can give evil to its members, which is impossible.
R&R ecclesiology results in a schizophrenic “church,” with two separate faiths lead by the same “pope” in which you must decide for yourself what is good and bad, true and false. Bergoglio’s Vatican II ecclesiology just adds to the confusion by “giving jurisdiction” for SSPX priests to hear confessions and perform marriages for members of his sect. They’re in “partial communion,” after all. The SSPX bishops are also in some strange state with Bergoglio; neither excommunicated, yet without Sees or ordinary jurisdiction.
All of this cannot be reconciled with authentic Church teaching. How much longer before the SSPX seeks to go into “full communion” with Bergoglio, and end the self-created “church within a church”? How much longer can we assume good faith on the part of R&R clerics and their apologists before we can no longer look upon them as Catholics? The only way out is sedevacantism. Being a true Traditionalist means being in the ONE True Church, not some divided concoction that gives both good and evil with clerics speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

Proroštvo iz 1869.: “Sotona će voditi najgore napade kako bi pokušao uništiti Crkvu”

Upozoreni smo …

Proroštvo iz 1869 .: “Sotona će voditi najgore napade kako bi pokušao uništiti Crkvu”

Katolici se moraju čuvati privatnih objava: svakako onih koje Crkva nije odobrila, a koje treba izbjegavati, ali čak i onih objava koje su odobrene kako ne bi izostankom duhovnog vodstva svećenika došlo do zastranjenja nepoučene nejačadi, te ih one zamijenile umjesto Nauka Katoličke Crkve. Iako je Crkva proglasila kako su privatne objave koje su priznate od nje slobodne od hereza i zabluda u vjeri ili moralu i stoga sigurne da se s njima upozna, važno je da se ne vezujemo za ovu vrstu objave jer ona nije potrebna za naše spasenje i daje se samo određenim osobama, u određenom trenutku, za određenu svrhu.

Stoga rijetko zagovaramo ili promoviramo privatnu objavu na ovoj web stranici. Međutim, na ovom mjestu ćemo to učiniti jer postoji većinom nepoznato proroštvo koje potvrđuje ono što već znamo kroz proučavanje katoličke vjere i iskustva posljednjih 60 godina.

Godine 1928. sestre iz samostana u Chambéryju, Francuska, objavile su knjigu o vrlo posebnom članu njihovog reda, sestri Mary-Martha Chambon, koja je umrla prije 21 godinu. Naslov knjige bio je  Soeur Marie-Marthe Chambon: Religieuse de la Visitation Sainte-Marie de Chambéry, 1841.-1907 .prvi put još jednom (izvorni prijevod, bili smo obaviješteni, bio je neadekvatan i dugo je bio izvan tiska).

Prema službenom opisu knjige izdavača:

Sestra Mary Martha Chambon (1841.-1907.) bila je redovnica Reda Pohođenja u Chambéryju, u Francuskoj, kojem je Isus Krist otkrio moćna blaga predanosti Njegovim Svetim ranama. Nju je Gospodin podučio dvije molitve zaziva Svetim ranama koje je Katolička Crkva naknadno odobrila za molitvu vjernicima. Iako su izvanredni darovi milosti sestre Marije bile nepoznati, dok su bile žive vanjskom svijetu, pa čak i većini sestara u njezinoj zajednici, život ove duše žrtve bio je uronjen u nadnaravno: stalna ukazanja i poruke od Isusa, Blažene Djevice Marije i Svetaca Nebeskih; komunikacija sa svetim dušama u čistilištu; nositeljica stigmi; hranila se samo Euharistijom godinama; napadi od đavla; čudesni odgovori na molitvu; infundirano znanje o skrivenim i dalekim događajima; i proroštva koja se vjerojatno odnose na krizu bez presedana koju danas svjedočimo u Crkvi.

U poslušnosti svećenicima koji su služili kao duhovni voditelji u posjetu Chambéryu, te u skladu s izričitim željama samog Gospodina, Majka poglavarica nepismene sestre Marije Marte marljivo je zapisala božanske poruke prenesene njihovoj kćeri i čudesne događaje zaokružujući njezinu osobu. Pojedinosti koje su sastavili čine osnovu za ovu knjigu i nastoje ispuniti sljedeće riječi koje je Isus uputio sestri Mariji Marti: “Tvoj je put da me učini poznatim i voljenim, osobito u budućnosti.”

Velika je milost da je ova knjiga sada dostupna na engleskom jeziku. Može se naručiti izravno s Amazona ovdje:

Izvorno francusko izdanje ovog djela dolazi s potrebnim crkvenim odobrenjem: nosi nihil obstat (fr. Francois Bouchage, C.S.R.) i imprimatur ( Abp. Dominique Castellan ).

Sljedeća anegdota u knjizi ističe se kao vrlo relevantna za naše vrijeme. Sadrži proroštva koja su dana sestri Mariji Marti 1869. godine, koja je bila godina otvaranja I. vatikanskog sabora tijekom vladavine pape Pija IX. (1846-1878):

26. travnja 1869., tijekom zaziva Svetim ranama koje je Zajednica svakodnevno molila za potrebe Crkve, raspeti Isus se otkrio svojoj zaručnici. Božanska Krv izlivena je u velikom izobilju iz Njegovih Svetih Rana: “Ovo je za Mog vikara Pija IX.”, rekao je. I dok je Krv Spasitelja nastavila teći, dodao je: “Ovo je za moje svećenstvo!… Za sve, čak i za one koji ne traže svjetlo.

“Sotona će najžešće napasti da pokuša uništiti Crkvu.”

“Nekoliko će svjetala izgubiti svjetlost, a broj onih koji izgledaju kao stupovi će pasti.”

Početkom prosinca 1869. naš Gospodin je opet ponovio: “Kćeri moja, moraš se moliti za [Prvi Vatikanski] Sabor! … Moraš udvostručiti svoju gorljivost, jer kroz Sabor mora se dati svjetlo.”

(Sestre za posjete u Chambéryju, Mistik Svetih rana: Život i otkrivenje sestre Marije Chambon , prevedeno od Ryan P. Plummera [St. Louis, MO: Lambfount, 2019], str. 222)

Može li netko sumnjati da je proročanstvo Sotoninih “najžešćih napada pokušati uništiti Crkvu” ispunjeno u naše vrijeme, posebno nakon smrti pape Pija XII. 9. listopada 1958.?

Đavolski najokrutniji progon Crkve do kraja vremena nije nešto što se može naći samo u privatnom otkrivenju – ono je također dio Depozita [Pologa] Vjere, sadržanog u suštini u Novom zavjetu i objašnjeno u Svetoj tradiciji i crkvenoj doktrini. To su iznijeli teolozi prije II. Vatikanskog ‘sabora’ kao što su kardinal Henry Manning i Fr. Sylvester Berry:

Pape su također stalno iznova upozoravali na paklenu urotu protiv Crkve koja je stremila srušiti papinstvo:

Primjećujemo da u proroštvu za Mariju Martu naš Blaženi Gospodin posebno spominje (Prvi Vatikanski) Sabor kao sredstvo s kojim se mora dati “svjetlo”. Iako ne pretpostavljamo da možemo protumačiti ovo božansko proroštvo, jednostavno ćemo istaknuti da je Prvi Vatikanski sabor najpoznatiji po svom učenju o papinstvu, koje ni na koji način nije ograničeno samo na definiciju papinske nezabludivosti. Čak je i pitanje mogućnosti “heretičnog pape” došlo tijekom rasprave na I. Vatikanskom saboru, a na njega je odgovorila doktrinarna komisija .

Između ostalog, doktrina I. Vatikanskog sabora o Papi dokazuje da su Novus Ordo ‘pape’ bili varalice, osobito sadašnji Franjo. To se lako može vidjeti zamjenom izraza “rimski papa” s “papom Franjom” u eksperimentu koji smo ovdje proveli . Rezultati su groteskni.

Ostale relevantne poveznice na ovoj web stranici vezane uz temu progona Crkve uključuju sljedeće:

Isus je obećao da vrata pakla neće pobijediti Njegovu Crkvu i da je u tu svrhu ustanovio papinstvo . Ali dio Božanskog otkrivenja je da će Papa na kraju vremena biti “uklonjen s puta” kako bi se ispunio Božanski plan, baš kao što je Židovima bilo dopušteno, na kratko vrijeme, da prevladaju protiv našeg Gospodina. Sveti Pavao je o tome govorio Solunjanima:

Neka vas nitko ne zavede ni na koji način. Jer ako prije ne dođe onaj otpad pobune i ne otkrije se Čovjek bezakonja, Sin propasti, Protivnik, onaj koji uzdiže sebe protiv svega što se zove Bog ili svetinja, dotle da i u Božji hram zasjedne gradeći se Bogom, pokazujući se kao Bog. Ne sjećate li se, to sam vam govorio dok sam sam još bio među vama? I sada znate što ga zadržava da bi se pojavio tek u svoje vrijeme. Doista, otajstvo bezakonja već je na djelu, samo ima tko da ga sada zadržava dok ne bude uklonjen. Tada će se otkriti Bezakonik. Njega će Gospodin Isus pogubiti dahom usta i uništiti pojavkom Dolaska svoga — njega koji djelovanjem Sotoninim dolazi sa svom silom, lažnim znamenjima i čudesima i sa svim nepravednim zavaravanjem onih koji propadaju poradi toga što ne prihvatiše ljubavi prema istini kako bi se spasili. I zato im Bog šalje djelovanje zavodničko da povjeruju laži te budu osuđeni svi koji nisu povjerovali istini, nego su se odlučili na nepravednost.

(2. Solunjanima 2: 3-12)

Kardinal Manning je vrlo dobro objasnio ovaj odlomak u svom izlaganju o posljednjim vremenima .

Dakle, jasno je da vrata pakla ne mogu prevladati protiv Katoličke Crkve sve dok postoji Papa, a mi to potvrđujemo u crkvenoj doktrini:

Sada dobro znate da su najsmrtonosniji neprijatelji katoličke religije oduvijek vodili žestoki rat, ali bez uspjeha, protiv ove učiteljice; ni u kom slučaju ne poznaju činjenicu da sama religija nikada ne može zakazati i pasti dok ova Stolica ostaje netaknuta, Stolica koja počiva na stijeni koju ponosna vrata pakla ne mogu srušiti i u kojoj postoji cjelovita i savršena čistoća Kršćanske religije.

(Papa Pio IX,  enciklika  Inter Multiplices , br. 7)

Što se događa kada je istinski papa odsutan i kada je Stolica sv. Petra dugo prazna , upravo je ono čemu svjedočimo od 9. listopada 1958. godine.

Neka nam Bog da istinskog papu i ubrza punu i slavnu obnovu Svete Majke Crkve.


Lažna crkva koja oponaša Katoličku Crkvu

Upozorili smo:

Otac E. Sylvester Berry o progonu Crkve u posljednjim danima (2. dio)

Lažna crkva koja oponaša pravu Crkvu

Strašne su nevolje koje je trebala izdržati Sveta Majka Crkva od smrti pape Pija XII.  Predviđene su i prorokovane u katoličkoj tradiciji, na ovaj ili onaj način. U prvom dijelu ove serije postova, pogledali smo objašnjenje 12. poglavlja Apokalipse E. Sylvestera Berryja i kako je to proročanstvo o sotoninom progonu papinstva. U ovom trenutnom postu pogledat ćemo što je isti Fr. Berry rekao u vezi s đavlovim pokušajem da obmani izabrane s pomoću lažne crkve.

Profesor apologetike na bogosloviji Svete Marije u Marylandu, fr. Berry je napisao apologetsku i dogmatsku raspravu o katoličkoj ekleziologiji, grani teologije koja se bavi Crkvom. Knjiga nosi naslov Kristova crkva i prvi put je objavljena 1927. godine.

Obraćajući se na temu lažnih čuda za koje je naš blaženi Gospodin upozorio da će Sotona činiti (vidi Mt 24,24), fr. Berry je istaknuo da će ti lažni znakovi i lažna čuda potjecati od đavla koji će stvoriti lažnu crkvu koja će se prerušavati u Katoličku Crkvu i oponašati je, ali zapravo je ona djelo zloga.

Proročanstva Apokalipse [knjiga Otkrivenja] pokazuju da će Sotona oponašati Kristovu Crkvu kako bi prevario čovječanstvo; on će postaviti crkvu Sotone u suprotnosti s Kristovom Crkvom. Antikrist će preuzeti ulogu Mesije; njegov će prorok djelovati kao papa; i zavladat će imitacija sakramenata Crkve.

(Rev. E. Sylvester Berry,  Crkva Kristova: Apologetska i dogmatska rasprava  [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], str. 119;

Da bismo dokazali da je ovaj citat autentičan, pružamo skeniranje stvarne stranice:

Godine 1955. Berryjeva je knjiga ponovno objavljena, ali koristeći drugačiji slog, što je rezultiralo značajnom promjenom u numeriranju stranica. Izdanje iz 1955. jedino je u tisku i može se naručiti ovdje:

Budući da je tekst ponovno sastavljen za novo izdanje, gornji citat nije pronađen na istoj stranici: citat pronađen na str. 119 od izdanja iz 1927. nalazi se na str. 65-66 u izdanju iz 1955. godine.

U svjetlu onoga što se dogodilo Katoličkoj Crkvi od smrti pape Pija XII., ovo proročanstvo lažne crkve, lažnog pape i lažnih sakramenta poprima sve veći značaj. Nema sumnje u to: svjedočimo ispunjenju proročanstva.

To bi nas sve trebalo ispuniti nadom i utjehom, podsjećajući da je sve što je Majka Crkva pretrpjela u ovoj svojoj najvećoj kušnji, u potpunosti unutar Božanskog Plana i na kraju značilo da nam pomogne u našem posvećenju.

“Kazao sam vam to sada, prije nego li se dogodi, da vjerujete kad se dogodi.” (Iv 14,29).

Vidi također:

Bipolarni teološki položaj o Papinstvu


Na blogu O dosta toga i što dublje ( postavljena je izjava francuskog biskupa FSSPX-a Tissier de Malleraisa koja otkriva shizofreniju i bipolarnost teološkog položaja o Papinstvu.

Pitanja na koja FSSPX ne može pronaći katolički odgovor na problem koji se pojavio nakon odlaska pape Pija XII. svima iz navedenog položaja, upravo leži u jednostavnoj činjenici što se zanemaruje učenje Katoličke Crkve o Papinstvu i postavlja se konstrukt biskupa Marcela Lefebvrea na dvije fundamentalne poluge: “vječni Rim” i “modernistički Rim”, te se iz njega balansira i odlučuje što je katolicizam i hereze modernizma u jednoj osobi koju oni smatraju Papom.

Kako Papa “Vječnog Rima” istodobno može biti Papa lažnoj religiji “Modernističkog Rima” i obratno?

Zašto vjeruju da se pravovjerni “Vječni Rim” preobrazi u krivovjerni “Modernistički Rim” u jednoj te istoj osobi koju smatraju Papom?

Naravno, antikatolički položaj da Papa može naučavati hereze i zablude, biti Papa lažnoj religiji i propisivati štetnu crkvenu disciplinu i dalje ostati Papa, upravo leži u uskogrudnom pogledu u jednu središnju točku koja je poznata kao Ex Catedra naučavanje, odnosno proglašavanje dogme – a Učiteljstvo koje hijerarhijski proizlazi od Svete Stolice se može ignorirati neprihvaćanjem ili odbijanjem, velika je zabluda navedenog položaja.

Jedan od primjera su papinske enciklike koje su obvezne za vjerovanje svakom katoliku. FSSPX i ostatak R&R kampa upravo odbija priznati enciklike modernističkog Rima i sami upadaju u navedeni bipolarni poremećaj i raskol s modernistima, ali upadaju u raskol i s Katoličkom Crkvom jer priznavaju materijalne i formalne heretike i uzurpatore Svete Stolice Papama koji promiču lažnu religiju modernističkog Rima.

Ponovno obratite pažnju na izjavu francuskog biskupa i povežite stvari na katolički način.

Traži se katolička logika protiv logike FSSPX-a i ostatka R&R kampa!



Dijabolična teološka dezorijentiranost FSSPX-a o papinstvu otvara put mnogim zabludama i na koncu herezama pod utjecajem krivovjernog modernističkog Rima.

Shizofrena potreba za punim priznanjem i zajedništvom koje očekuju od ‘modernističkog pape’: upravitelja lažne Novus Ordo religije i ‘predstavnika’ “Vječnog Rima”. Razlog? Žele preobratiti Moderniste!

Modernisti žele preobratiti FSSPX!

Koplja se trenutno lome u pregovorima oko “doktrinarnih pitanja”. Netko će na kraju popustiti i napokon će zavladati kompromis i intimnije vječno zajedništvo s krivovjernim modernističkim Rimom, odnosno s Novus Ordo ‘papom’ poput onoga u Ecclesia Dei.

Tradicionalni katolički bloger i sedevakantist Introibo je temeljitije obradio temu opasnih zabluda R&R kampa o Papinstvu:

¿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: