Archive for May, 2018

They Attempt to Destroy the Papacy

May 29th, 2018 by Vigilo

by Bishop Sanborn

In an interview about the Rome Conference, Roberto de Mattei, professor of history and well-known in Novus Ordo conservative circles, made this statement about the conference: “I appreciated the recent interview in which Raymond Cardinal Burke affirmed that we find ourselves faced with an intolerable situation, and it is licit to criticize the Pope when he propagates errors and heresies. [emphasis added] He also said:

Sacred Tradition remains the criterion for discerning that which is Catholic and that which is not, causing the visible marks of the Church to shine. Tradition is the faith of the Church that the Popes have maintained and transmitted throughout the course of the centuries. But Tradition comes before the Pope and not the Pope before Tradition.

What emerges from these statements is the intellectual disease that has infected most Catholics who want to resist Modernism. Their first false principle is it is possible for the supreme authority of the Church to promulgate to the whole Church doctrines or disciplines which are false and/or pernicious. This principle is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church, which teaches that the Catholic Church, by the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost, will always remain essentially the same in its doctrines and disciplines. In other words, the Catholic Church cannot become another religion in the course of time, or in any way deviate from the deposit of faith in its universal teachings and disciplines.

Their second false principle is that Tradition is higher than the pope. By Tradition is meant the handed down word of God, as opposed to the written word of God, which is Sacred Scripture. Martin Luther put Sacred Scripture on a higher level than the magisterium of the Church. It was central to his heresy. So the Novus Ordo conservative places Tradition on a higher level than the magisterium. This is a very grave error, and is equivalent to the heresy of Martin Luther.

The authentic interpreter of both Sacred Scripture and of Tradition is the magisterium of the Catholic Church. This magisterium is infallible. Therefore no authority is higher in the Catholic Church than the authority of the magisterium.

We do not ask, therefore, “Is Bergoglio’s teaching contrary to Tradition?” We ask instead, as Catholics, “Does Bergoglio’s teaching contradict the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church?” “Does it teach doctrines which have been condemned by the magisterium of the Catholic Church?” And if the answer is “yes” to these questions, then, by the doctrine of indefectibility, it is necessary, by faith, to conclude that Bergoglio is not the pope.

The Catholic cannot enshrine Tradition over the pope any more than Martin Luther can enshrine Scripture over him. For the individual Catholic cannot be his own pope, interpreting for himself either Scripture or Tradition. A condition of our act of faith is that the object of our faith — dogma — be proposed by the authority of the Catholic Church. Otherwise we become Protestants, placing our own interpretation of Scripture or Tradition above the magisterium.

The practical effect of what the professor is saying is that the Catholic Church can live with heretical popes, and more importantly, can live with popes promulgating false doctrines and evil disciplines. It is sufficient that the lay people and a few bishops issue “corrections” of the false doctrines or evil disciplines and that they “resist” these deviations.

Such a mentality absolutely destroys the Catholic notion of the papacy. Catholic doctrine teaches that the pope is the living rule of faith, that is, just as a yardstick determines what is truly a yard, so the orthodoxy of the reigning pope determines the orthodoxy of the whole Church. If he loses this orthodoxy, he loses his papacy, just as a yardstick would be useless if it were merely one inch off. By analogy, it would be like the hub of a wheel turning to mush. The Church cannot live with a “pope” promulgating heresies, condemned errors, or evil disciplines. The Church must make the accusation against such a “pope” that his intention to pervert the Church by these falsehoods makes it impossible that he be pope.

To his credit, Professor de Mattei did say these refreshing words:

Pope Francis is not its cause, but rather the product of a process of auto-demolition which has its roots in modernism, in the Nouvelle théologie, in the Second Vatican Council, and in the post-conciliar era.

I say this is refreshing, since most Novus Ordo conservatives are limiting the problem to Bergoglio, and do not see that the problem is Vatican II, the New Theology, and the reforms of the post-conciliar period. We must place the guilt, therefore, not merely upon Bergoglio, but upon John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. These are the destroyers of Roman Catholicism. [1]

Novus Ordo conservatives like Professor de Mattei and Cardinal Burke certainly mean well, but in their categorical refusal to accept the vacancy of the Roman See, they must seek “solutions” which contradict the Church’s infallibility, and indefectibility, and which are the same as Protestantism.

[1] Nonetheless, his use of the term auto-demolition is another gave error. The Church cannot destroy itself. It is protected by the Holy Ghost from any corruption. If souls are being drawn away from the faith, it is owing to the work of the intrusion of Modernist heretics, and not to some malfunction of the Church itself.

from Novus Ordo Watch

Chaos Frank kicks it up a notch…

Francis tells Homosexual: “God made you like that”

[UPDATE 22-MAY-2018: America publishes follow-up interview with Juan Carlos Cruz]

Get ready, folks! We have a new “Who am I to judge?” moment, except this time it’s worse: Francis has told a sodomite that God made him a homosexual.

The story broke on May 19, when the Spanish El País newspaper published an interview with Juan Carlos Cruz, one of the victims of the sex abuse perpetrated by Fr. Fernando Karadima in Chile, which was allegedly covered up by “Bp.” Juan Barros. In response to the recent fallout from these Chilean abuse scandals, Francis had decided to meet personally with three of the victims the week of Apr. 30.

The original story and some additional information can be found here:

Francis’ words as reported by Cruz are the following, verbatim: “Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter. God made you like that and he loves you like that and I do not care. The Pope loves you as you are, you have to be happy with who you are” (translation by The Telegraph; Spanish original as reported in El País: “Juan Carlos, que tú seas gay no importa. Dios te hizo así y te quiere así y a mí no me importa. El Papa te quiere así, tú tienes que estar feliz con quien tú eres”).

These words are seriously wrong on many different levels.

First, the very idea of being gay, as it is called, is flawed. Sexual orientation is a made-up notion that does not reflect any reality. We cannot provide an in-depth critique of this now, but suffice it to say that while it is clear that there can be an experience of sexual attraction between members of the same sex, all sexuality is, by its very nature, oriented towards the other sex. That is how God made it, and He did so for the sole primary purpose of procreation: “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it…” (Gen 1:27-28). Although there are many different kinds of sins against purity, any sexual act that defeats this procreative purpose is among the most heinous: “Worst among the sins of impurity, as such, are crimes of unnatural lust, for they exercise the sexual act, not only illicitly, but also in a manner that defeats its purpose of reproduction” (Rev. John A. McHugh & Rev. Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology, vol. 2 [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], n. 2534; available online here.)

Second, by saying that God is the cause of same-sex attraction in Juan Carlos Cruz, Francis is blaspheming the Creator, for God desires all to be saved (see 1 Tim 2:4) and is not the cause of sin, which He hates: “In the morning I will stand before thee, and will see: because thou art not a God that willest iniquity…” (Ps 5:5); “But to God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike” (Wis 14:9); “Say not: He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of wicked men. The Lord hateth all abomination of error, and they that fear him shall not love it” (Ecclus [Sir] 15:12-13). That God condemns sodomy as sinful should hardly require proof: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination” (Lev 18:22); “Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:10).

Third, by telling Cruz that God loves his being sexually attracted to men, Francis is saying that God loves homosexuality, another staggering blasphemy and heresy that surely needs no further comment.

Fourth, Francis says, “I do not care.” That is the only part of his remarks that one can believe wholeheartedly. When it comes to matters of Faith and morals and to the salvation of souls, we can be certain that Francis doesn’t give a hoot. Truer words have never been spoken.

Fifth, even if it were not sinful to hold that God is the cause of same-sex attraction in sodomites, there is simply no way Francis could possibly know that God “made” Juan Cruz this way. There is neither divine revelation nor empirical science to that effect. For example, consider the expert opinion of Dr. Rudolf Allers, M.D., Ph.D. (1883-1963): “Obviously it is not an innate perversion which is unavoidable and for which there is no remedy. In many cases the mental background is easily discovered; in others the task is extremely difficult” (Dr. Rudolf Allers, Sex Psychology [Fort Collins, CO: Roman Catholic Books, 2006], p. 163; imprimatur 1937). Allers taught psychology at the Catholic University of America and “acted for seven years as an expert in the Ecclesiastical Court especially in matrimonial cases” (Matthew Hoehn, ed., Catholic Authors: Contemporary Biographical Sketches 1930-1947 [Newark, NJ: St. Mary’s Abbey, 1948], p. 7).

The very fact that human beings have wicked desires does not mean they are allowed to indulge in them. All sins and sinful inclinations have their root in original sin. Concupiscence, which is the continual inclination to do what is wrong, is one of the effects of original sin, and it is not wiped out by baptism. We must continually struggle to overcome concupiscence; hence the need for penance, mortification, prayer, and good works, all made fruitful and meritorious by the help of God’s grace.

But Francis, being a Naturalist, denies original sin and/or its consequences. He may pay lipservice to the true Catholic teaching, but in practice he denies it. We see this in his claim that somebody’s same-sex attraction is not an evil that must be disapproved of and fought (as must other inclinations to evil, whether that be adultery, covetousness, blasphemy, pride, detraction, or anything else) but is a good that God has implanted in him and is no cause for concern, disapproval, or shame. In his comment to Cruz, Francis is explicitly encouraging those afflicted with same-sex attraction to embrace this inclination as good and desired, nay created, by God Himself, and that he should be happy in it! What an audacious blasphemy!

St. Paul the Apostle, inspired by God Himself, had a different take on this. In his letter to the Romans he put things in perspective:

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

(Rom 1:24-32)

We must be clear that merely experiencing same-sex attraction is not sinful — sin is an act of the will, not a feeling. What is sinful is consenting to it, approving of it, acting on it, and claiming that such attraction is normallegitimate, or healthy. It’s sinful because sexual attraction exists for sexual acts, and the primary purpose of sexuality is procreation, something that is intrinsically frustrated in unnatural acts.

Unnatural acts are, in the truest sense of the word, a perversion, meaning a turning away from the proper end (the Latin pervertere literally means “to turn to ill effect”). They are an abuse of the faculties God gave to man so he could produce offspring. As one moral theologian puts it: “The maliceof sodomy consists in the perverted affection towards the wrong sex or in the attraction towards the wrong method of sexual gratification” (Rev. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology [Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1962], n. 230.2; italic and bold print given).

By telling Cruz that his perverted inclinations are created by God and that he should happily embrace them, Francis is implicitly encouraging the man to act on them, for it makes no sense to say that such inclinations are good and God-given and a way to happiness, yet there is no licit way to act on them.

In many cases it may very well be true that people who find themselves sexually attracted to people of the same sex have felt this way from the beginning of their lives and through no fault of their own. But that doesn’t mean that such attraction to the same sex is not wrong. It is still wrong; it is still disordered; it must still be resisted with the help of divine grace. As long as there is no consent of the will, there is no sin. But the fact remains that sexual attraction to the same sex is an evil. By analogy, someone may have been afflicted with diabetes from birth, without any fault of his own; but this does not mean that diabetes is not a disease, that it need not be treated, or that certain foods or situations need not be avoided in order to prevent the condition from doing harm to body or soul.

In Cruz’s case, it seems plausible that his same-sex attraction affliction has its origin in the frightening abuse he suffered at the hands of Fr. Karadima. It is a great tragedy! By telling Cruz that God approves of his same-sex attraction, Francis does not only blaspheme God, he also does a great disservice to Cruz. The victim of sex abuse is affirmed in sin, in a lifestyle that will most certainly not lead to happiness, neither in this world nor in the eternal world to come: “As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7). Francis is thus once again scandalizing souls, leading them to eternal ruin under the mask of charity. In fact, one may truthfully say that Francis is thus “finishing the job” Karadima started, the job of destroying Cruz’s soul.

People who suffer from sexual attraction to members of their own sex ought to be helped overcome this inclination, which, especially with the help of divine grace, can certainly be accomplished. The Dutch psychologist Dr. Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg has written a practical guide that is very accessible to the average reader, entitled The Battle for Normality: A Guide for (Self-)Therapy for Homosexuality[San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1997]. (Disclaimer: Van den Aardweg is said to be linked to the Novus Ordo cult Opus Dei, so we urge caution in the reading of any of his works.)

To be reminded of how serious of an issue all this is, we need but have a look at Pope St. Peter’s summary of the consequences of persisting in sexual sin:

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented. And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government, audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming. Whereas angels who are greater in strength and power, bring not against themselves a railing judgment. But these men, as irrational beasts, naturally tending to the snare and to destruction, blaspheming those things which they know not, shall perish in their corruption, receiving the reward of their injustice, counting for a pleasure the delights of a day: stains and spots, sporting themselves to excess, rioting in their feasts with you: Having eyes full of adultery and of sin that ceaseth not: alluring unstable souls, having their heart exercised with covetousness, children of malediction: Leaving the right way they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam of Bosor, who loved the wages of iniquity, but had a check of his madness, the dumb beast used to the yoke, which speaking with man’s voice, forbade the folly of the prophet. These are fountains without water, and clouds tossed with whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved.

(2 Pet 2:9-17)

If God is the originator of homosexuality, as Francis maintains, then it follows either that God condones it, which is plainly contrary to Divine Revelation, or else that God is cruel and unjust, condemning people to hell for sins which He Himself approves of. Which of these two blasphemous ideas is the one Bergoglio desires to instill in souls, is obvious.

But there is more at stake here than “only” the immediate issue of whether God creates some people as being attracted to members of the same sex or not. By blasphemously making God the cause of homosexual attraction, Francis is providing the premise for all sorts of theological havoc that can — and will! — be exploited in due time by people seeking to advance the sodomite/LGBTQXYZ agenda. It is clear that his remarks legitimize, in principle, the entire absurd gender ideology which is currently making inroads into Western societies (for an overview of “genderism”, see here). Do not be misled: Although Francis has verbally condemned the gender madness as “demonic”, such rare reproofs will not be able to stop what follows logically from his erroneous premises. Ideas have consequences. Verbally complaining about such consequences does not deprive them of their force. Francis knows that, and counts on it.

This is a proven and effective method of spreading soul-destroying error: Instill dangerous and harmful premises in people’s minds, and let them draw the necessary conclusions. Once they are drawn, speak out against the conclusions while continuing, however, to affirm the premises that lead to them. Thus you will have firmly established false ideas in people’s minds and yet retain the semblance of opposing them. It is a masterful trick that allows the wolf to appear like a sheep while devouring the lambs.

For those who may think that we’re taking this all a bit too far or blowing it out of proportion, we would like to remind everyone of how much the Novus Ordo Sect has already conceded to the sodomite establishment and helped advance their cause: Simply peruse these posts on our blog, but be sure to keep a barf bag handy.

The ramifications this latest Bergoglian rubbish will have on the Novus Ordo Church and society cannot yet be estimated. If “Who am I to judge?” caused chaos, then this “God made you this way” remark will make the fit hit the shan.

The next few days should be interesting.

Image source: (Mazur/; cropped)
License: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

from Novus Ordo Watch

Heresy and blasphemy didn’t start with Francis…

The Day John Paul II blasphemed Jesus Christ and St. John the Baptist

A saint he ain’t: “Pope” John Paul II in a file photo dated Dec. 8, 2004

These days we hear a lot about blasphemy and heresy being committed by Jorge Bergoglio, the man better known by his stage name “Pope Francis”. Because of this, many good-willed but misled souls reminisce about Francis’ immediate predecessors, Benedict XVI (2005-2013) and John Paul II (1978-2005). The truth is, however, that when it comes to heresy and blasphemy, Francis is merely continuing a tradition begun by his Modernist forerunners.

On Dec. 16, 2016, we blasted Francis for outrageously claiming for a second time that St. John the Baptist, while he was imprisoned by Herod for denouncing his crime of adultery, doubted whether Jesus of Nazareth was truly the Messiah. (In March of this year, Francis admirer Mark Shea asserted the same nonsense.) It turns out this error is not new. As one of our readers pointed out to us, the very same affirmation had been made by “Pope” John Paul II (Bp. Karol Wojtyla) over 30 years ago while visiting a Lutheran church in Rome — but it was not the only outrageous statement he made on that occasion.

We are talking about an event that took place on Sunday, Dec. 11, 1983. John Paul II was visiting the Lutheran Christuskirche in Rome for a little ecumenical get-together when he delivered an Advent reflection in which he insulted both our Blessed Lord and His precursor, the Baptist. The text of this reflection is available at the Vatican web site in ItalianGerman, and Portuguese; an English translation was printed in the Jan. 9, 1984 edition of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano (p. 13).

The following is the relevant excerpt from the English translation of the address this “sainted Pope” gave to his ecumenical audience:

During this Advent time of salvation, our ears and our hearts are tense; they hear and perceive the good news of the one who has already come and who will return definitively. We experience often in our daily lives the anguishing truth of this transitory period. Do we not continually recall the situation of John the Baptist? As the Gospel tells us, he found himself in a decisive situation. He had to resolve the contradiction between the image that had been formed of the Messiah and his personal situation, determined by prison and the threat of death. John’s question was therefore serious, and was born from an emergency situation. “Are you ‘He who is to come’ or do we look for another”? (Mt 11,3)

Jesus reaches out to meet the anguished question of his precursor and brings his faith to certainty: the time of salvation, the kingdom of God has come. The Messiah is here. Without doubt the signs and wonders do not have a compelling nature. But whoever is able to understand the signs as an indication of the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies at the current moment can rejoice at being a citizen of God’s eschatological kingdom.

(Antipope John Paul II, Address during Ecumenical Meeting with Evangelical-Lutheran Community in, Dec. 11, 1983; translation: Osservatore Romano.)

In these two paragraphs are contained as many as three serious errors: (1) the claim that St. John the Baptist doubted that Jesus was truly the Messiah; (2) the implied claim that Faith is not certainty; and (3) the claim that the miracles worked by Christ are not compelling in themselves.

Let’s have a quick look at each of these in some greater detail.

(1) The claim that the Baptist doubted Jesus was the Messiah

Just how serious and outrageous of a claim this is against the Baptist may not be immediately apparent to all. We have explained this matter at length before and there is no need to repeat all the argumentation and documentation here. We recommend a review of our substantial post on this issue in refutation of Mark Shea:

St. John the Baptist would have failed abysmally in his prophetic mission, in his very reason for being chosen by God to be the Baptist, if he himself had been unsure about what he was to point out to everybody: “He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light… And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God” (Jn 1:8,34; cf. Mt 5:13).

What Wojtyla proposed to his Lutheran-“Catholic” audience is absurd and entirely without foundation.

(2) The claim that Faith is not certain

Here too John Paul II seems to foreshadow Francis, who constantly rails against those “rigid certainties” some of his people apparently still cling to. He wants everybody to leave “room for doubt”, as he blasphemously put it in a 2013 interview in America. Quite paradoxically, Bergoglio insists that doubt is an essential part of “genuine” Faith.

The true Catholic teaching is very much the opposite, and it is not difficult to understand: Doubt is incompatible with divine Faith — the two are mutually exclusive. He who doubts does not firmly believe what God has revealed, as he must; and he who firmly believes does not doubt: “Faith … must exclude not only all doubt, but all desire for demonstration”, the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches in Article I.

Because divine Faith comes with infallible certitude, Pope Leo X was able to declare:

And since truth never contradicts truth, we declare every assertion contrary to the truth of illumined faith to be altogether false; and, that it may not be permitted to dogmatize otherwise, we strictly forbid it, and we decree that all who adhere to errors of this kind are to be shunned and to be punished as detestable and abominable infidels who disseminate most damnable heresies and who weaken the Catholic faith.

(Fifth Lateran Council, Bull Apostolici RegiminisDenz. 738)

For the same reason, Pope Pius IX taught that Faith “frees reason from all errors and, by a knowledge of divine things, wonderfully elucidates it, confirms, and perfects it” (Encyclical Qui Pluribus, n. 6; Denz. 1635).

That St. John the Baptist, the last of the prophets of the Old Testament, had divine Faith is beyond question:

John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me…. The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. This is he, of whom I said: After me there cometh a man, who is preferred before me: because he was before me.

(Jn 1:15; 1:29-30,36)

Thus it is clear that Antipope John Paul II has blasphemed the Baptist, unjustly accusing him of a mortal sin against Faith in the very Savior it was His mission to testify to.

(3) The claim that Christ’s Miracles don’t prove anything

During his address in the Roman Lutheran church, Wojtyla audaciously maintained: “Without doubt the signs and wonders [of Christ] do not have a compelling nature.” Here too the Polish pretend-Pope reveals himself to be a beta version of his Argentine successor, for Francis is also on record claiming that the miracles of Christ do not of themselves prove His Divinity but require Faith. This is a Modernistic thesis that implies the heresy of Fideism, as we have demonstrated here:

From the beginning, Modernists and their precursors have had a problem with the miracles of Christ and specifically with His Resurrection, the ultimate and greatest proof of His divinity. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has roundly condemned such affronts to Faith and reason:

Proof drawn from the miracles of Jesus Christ, sensible and striking for eyewitnesses, has in no way lost its force and splendor as regards subsequent generations. We find this proof with all certitude in the authenticity of the New Testament, in the oral and written tradition of all Christians. By this double tradition we should demonstrate it (namely, revelation) to those who either reject it or, who, not having admitted it, are searching for it.

(Pope Gregory XVI, Theses against Louis Eugene Bautain; Denz. 1624)

But how many wonderful and shining proofs are ready at hand to convince the human reason in the clearest way that the religion of Christ is divine and that “the whole principle of our doctrines has taken root from the Lord of the heavens above”;[4] therefore nothing exists more definite, more settled or more holy than our faith, which rests on the strongest foundations. This faith, which teaches for life and points towards salvation, which casts out all vices and is the fruitful mother and nurse of the virtues, has been established by the birth, life, death, resurrection, wisdom, wonders and prophecies of Christ Jesus, its divine author and perfector! Shining forth in all directions with the light of teaching from on high and enriched with the treasures of heavenly wealth, this faith grew famed and notable by the foretellings of so many prophets, the lustre of so many miracles, the steadfastness of so many martyrs, and the glory of so many saints! It made known the saving laws of Christ and, gaining in strength daily even when it was most cruelly persecuted, it made its way over the whole world by land and sea, from the sun’s rising to its setting, under the single standard of the Cross! The deceit of idols was cast down and the mist of errors was scattered. By the defeat of all kinds of enemies, this faith enlightened with divine knowledge all peoples, races and nations, no matter how barbarous and savage, or how different in character, morals, laws and ways of life. It brought them under the sweet yoke of Christ Himself by proclaiming peace and good tidings to all men!

Now, surely all these events shine with such divine wisdom and power that anyone who considers them will easily understand that the Christian faith is the work of God. Human reason knows clearly from these striking and certain proofs that God is the author of this faith; therefore it is unable to advance further but should offer all obedience to this faith, casting aside completely every problem and hesitation. Human reason is convinced that it is God who has given everything the faith proposes to men for belief and behavior.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Qui Pluribus, nn. 8-9; Denz. 1638-1639)

Not only is John Paul II’s denial of the compelling nature of Christ’s miracles blasphemy, it is also heresy:

However, in order that the “obedience” of our faith should be “consonant with reason” [cf. Rom. 12:1], God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit there should be joined external proofs of His revelation, namely: divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies which, because they clearly show forth the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of a divine revelation, and are suited to the intelligence of all. Wherefore, not only Moses and the prophets, but especially Christ the Lord Himself, produced many genuine miracles and prophecies; and we read concerning the apostles: “But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal and confirming the word with signs that followed” [Mark 16:20]. And again it is written: “And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place” [2 Pet. 1:19].

[Canon 4] If anyone shall have said that miracles are not possible, and hence that all accounts of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be banished among the fables and myths; or, that miracles can never be known with certitude, and that the divine origin of the Christian religion cannot be correctly proved by them: let him be anathema.

(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 3; Denz. 1790, 1813)

In his Syllabus against Modernist Errors, Pope St. Pius X condemned the following proposition: “When Jesus was exercising His ministry, He did not speak with this purpose, to teach that He was the Messias, nor did His miracles have as their purpose to demonstrate this” (Decree Lamentabili Sane, Error no. 28; Denz. 2028). If our Lord’s miracles, then, had demonstrating His Messianic dignity as their purpose, then obvioulsy they also objectively accomplished that purpose: “So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it” (Is 55:11; cf. Jn 11:42).

It is precisely because Christ’s miracles were indeed compelling and proved Him to be truly the Son of God that the Pharisees had no excuse for rejecting Him. Our Lord Himself testified to the fact that His miracles prove His divinity and therefore demand an act of Faith in Him:

Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.

(Jn 10:25,37-38)

For this reason the Jews — no less today than at the time of Christ — have an obligation to accept the true Messiah, but they are blinded by a veil over their hearts:

Having therefore such hope, we use much confidence: And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void. But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. But when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.

(2 Cor 3:12-16)

In 2000, journalist Peter Seewald conducted one of his many interviews with “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (the future “Pope” Benedict XVI), then the head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Destruction of the Faith. During the conversation, Ratzinger blatantly defended the Jews’ blindness, claiming that the Old Testament can legitimately be interpreted in such a way that it does not point to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah:

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts — yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.

There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him — that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about….

(Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald, trans. by Henry Taylor [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2002], p. 209)

What a staggering blasphemy! Christ Himself scolded the Pharisees for their stubborn unbelief, for their refusal to accept the scriptural testimony concerning Him: “And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not. Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. And you will not come to me that you may have life” (Jn 5:38-40). His own disciples, too, our Lord rebuked for being slow in their understanding of the prophets: “Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken” (Lk 24:25).

And so in Ratzinger, like in Bergoglio, we see a kind of Fideism, a denial that Christ proved His Divinity and His Messianic Kingship with objective rational evidence. Take that away and what remains but emotion and whim? If there are “perfectly good reasons” to reject Jesus of Nazareth’s claim to fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, then the evidence is not objectively compelling and hence cannot demand Faith. And so we see that the Modernism of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and all the other false shepherds leads ultimately to atheism, exactly as predicted by Pope St. Pius X, who in his encyclical against Modernism pointed out that “these errors … open wide the way to Atheism” (Pascendi, n. 14).

In 1910, St. Pius X issued the famous Oath against Modernism, which was required to be sworn “by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries”. The people who take it swear, among other things:

…I admit and recognize the external arguments of revelation, that is, divine facts, and especially miracles and prophecies, as very certain signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion; and I hold that these same arguments have been especially accommodated to the intelligence of all ages and men, even of these times.

(Pope Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum AntistitumDenz. 2145)

Ordained a priest in 1946 and consecrated a bishop in 1958, Karol Wojtyla was required to take this oath.

We thus conclude that besides being a heretic and a blasphemer, the “great” John Paul II was also a perjurer.

Image sources: / Osservatore Romano (screenshot)
License: Paid / Fair use

from Novus Ordo Watch

Another week, another heresy…

HERESY: Francis claims the Baptized cannot lose their Status as Children of God

At the May 9, 2018 general audience, a true child of God gives testimony against the impostor

Barely a day goes by on which Francis doesn’t have something to say, but some days are worse than others.

This past Wednesday, May 9, the apostate pretend-Pope during his general audience gave what was supposed to be a catechesis on the sacrament of baptism. Placing heavy emphasis on the sacramental character — which is indelible and hence baptism can never be repeated once it has been validly administered — Francis proceeded to claim that it is this indelible character which makes us, irrevocably, children of God.

Here is the relevant portion of his catechesis. Note in particular the underlined parts:

If our parents have given us earthly life, the Church has regenerated us to eternal life. We have become children in His Son Jesus (Cf. Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5-7). On each one of us also, reborn of the water and of the Holy Spirit, the celestial Father has his voice resound with infinite love, which says: “You are my beloved son” (Cf. Matthew 3:17). This paternal voice, imperceptible to the ear but very audible to the heart of one who believes, accompanies us throughout our life, without ever abandoning us. Throughout life the Father says to us: “You are my beloved son, you are my beloved daughter.” God love[s] us so much, as a Father, and He doesn’t leave us alone [=doesn’t abandon us]. This <is true> from the moment of Baptism. Reborn as children of God, we are so forever!Baptism, in fact, isn’t repeated, because it imprints an indelible spiritual mark: “No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation” (CCC, 1272). The mark of Baptism is never lost! “Father, but if a person becomes a brigand, of the most famous, who kills people, who commits injustices, doesn’t the mark go away?” No. To his own shame that son of God does those things, but the mark doesn’t go away. And he continues to be a son of God who goes against God, but God never disowns His children. Have you understood this last thing? God never disowns His children. Shall we repeat it all together? “God never disowns His children.” A bit louder, as I’m deaf and I didn’t understand: [They repeat louder] “God never disowns His children.” There, that’s fine.

(Antipope Francis, in “GENERAL AUDIENCE: On Baptism (Part V): Regeneration”Zenit, May 9, 2018; underlining added; italics given.)

What Francis says here is an absolute theological mess. He deliberately mixes different concepts that need to be kept distinct, and here thereby achieves the desired effect of great confusion in the mind of the hearer. Ask yourself: Precisely what is Francis saying here regarding baptism, sin, sanctifying grace, and adoptive sonship?

The true Catholic position is that the sacrament of baptism has three distinct effects: “(1) the grace of justification…; (2) forgiveness of all the penalties of sin; and (3) the sacramental character” (Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 8, 4th ed., p. 228).

Adoptive sonship is one of the effects of the justification obtained in baptism, not of its sacramental character: “Besides forgiving sin and producing sanctifying grace, with all its formal effects — justice, supernatural beauty, the friendship of God, and His adoptive sonship — Baptism also effects the supernatural concomitants of sanctifying grace…” (ibid., p. 229; underlining added). “Another effect of baptism is the infusion of sanctifying grace and supernatural gifts and virtues. It is this sanctifying grace which renders men the adopted sons of God and confers the right to heavenly glory” (Catholic Encyclopedias.v. “Baptism”). Catholic teaching explicitly denies the idea, affirmed by Francis, that our adoptive sonship is the result of the indelible character of baptism:

The sacramental character may be in the soul without grace…. In contradistinction to sanctifying grace, the supernatural configuratio or assimilatio conferred by the sacramental character establishes a proper likeness to Christ, not indeed as if the soul participated in His Divine Sonship, but in the sense of sharing in His office of High Priest.

(Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 8, pp. 91-92; underlining added.)

The indelible character has its own specific purposes, but the bestowal of justification is not one of them.

When the grace of justification is lost through mortal sin, we cease being the adopted sons of the Most High God: “The just man, on the other hand, is a child of God merely by the possession of sanctifying grace, which can be lost by mortal sin and consequently is founded upon a free relation that may be terminated by man as freely as it was entered into between himself and God” (Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 7, 4th ed., pp. 358-359). “But since all mortal sins, even those of thought, make men children of wrath [Eph. 2:3] and enemies of God, it is necessary to ask pardon for all of them from God by an open and humble confession” (Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 5; Denz. 899).

All this is basic Catholic doctrine and not particularly difficult to understand. Francis could have simply taught this, but he chose not to. Since what he presented is fairly convoluted and could mean a number of different things, we will now look at various scenarios and show how they all involve serious errors against the Faith.

What did Francis “really” mean? Pick one of three

Depending on exactly how one wants to read what Francis is saying in his May 9, 2018 catechesis, the Jesuit antipope is affirming any one of the following three extremely serious errors:

  • Justification, once obtained through baptism, cannot be lost
  • Adoptive sonship does not entitle us to Heaven
  • Adoptive sonship is not had by grace

We will now proceed to refute each of these positions.

Error #1: Sanctifying grace, once obtained through baptism, cannot be lost

If Francis means that justification, once it has been obtained through baptism, cannot be lost by mortal sin, then he is teaching heresy, specifically, the heresy of Calvinism (although Calvinists do not believe that baptism causes justification).

Francis is definitely trying to create the impression in his hearers that the sanctifying grace of baptism cannot be lost, since he states that God calls us his sons or daughters “throughout life”, i.e. regardless of our sins. Furthermore, he claims that “we are so forever” with regard to our regeneration, “reborn as children of God” — a clear affirmation of the heresy of Calvinism — and blasphemously and no less heretically declares that “he continues to be a son of God who goes against God” (from the context, it is clear he is speaking about mortal sin, since he mentions being a brigand and even killing people). The emphasis he places on God not abandoning or disowning His children is intended to further cement the impression that baptismal grace cannot be lost.

How clearly this is contrary to the dogmas of the Church is evident from the following magisterial quotes:

Moreover, from this very multitude of the faithful and the redeemed some are preserved in eternal salvation, because through the grace of God they remain faithfully in their redemption, bearing in their hearts the voice of their God Himself: “Who . . . perseveres even unto the end, he will be saved” [Matt. 10:22 ; 24:13]; that others, because they were unwilling to remain in the safety of faith, which in the beginning they received, and because they choose by wrong teaching or by a wrong life to make void rather than to preserve the grace of redemption, came in no way to the fullness of salvation and to the reception of eternal beatitude.

(Pope St. Leo IV, Council of Valence; Denz. 324)

No one moreover, so long as he lives in this mortal state, ought so far to presume concerning the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to decide for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestined, as if it were true that he who is justified either cannot sin any more, or if he shall have sinned, that he ought to promise himself an assured reformation.

(Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 12; Denz. 805)

Against the crafty genius of certain men also, who “by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent” [Rom. 16:18], it must be maintained that the grace of justification, although received, is lost not only by infidelity, whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin, although faith be not lost, thereby defending the doctrine of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelievers, but also the faithful who are “fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners” [1 Cor. 6:9 ff.], and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the assistance of divine grace they can refrain and for which they are separated from the grace of God.

(Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 15; Denz. 808)

If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 23; Denz. 833)

If anyone shall say that there is no mortal sin except that of infidelity, or that grace once received is not lost by any other sin however grievous and enormous, except the sin of infidelity: let him be anathema

(Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 27; Denz. 837)

It’s not looking too good for the “Pope”, is it?

Some people will object and point to the quote Francis provides from the Catechism of the Conciliar Cult: “No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation” (n. 1272). Does this not show that Francis is not teaching the “eternal security” heresy of Calvinism? It might, and it might not — it depends on how we want to understand the other things Francis says.

On the face of it, it seems Francis has deliberately and strategically placed a contradiction to his affirmation that the baptized are reborn as children of God who continue in that state forever. We say this contradiction is strategic because it looks like he is only including it in order to give himself some room for plausible deniability — a theological get-out-of-jail-free card. He contradicts himself on purpose to make it look as if he is perhaps confused or not being understood correctly rather than pertinaciously clinging to what is contrary to Faith. This method of writing confusedly, even contradicting oneself on occasion, to facilitate the spread of heresy was denounced by Popes Pius VI and Pius X (see Bull Auctorem Fidei, introd., and Encyclical Pascendi, n. 4, respectively).

Another objection might be brought up: Could Bergoglio be using the term “children of God” in a merely natural sense according to which all men have been created by God the Father? In theory, this is possible, especially because, being a Naturalist, that is how he loves to use the term; as he recently did, for example, when he told children that members of the Mafia, criminals, are children of God: “Those of the mafia are also children of God but prefer to behave like children of the devil” (source).

However, this natural sense is simply not in which Francis is actually using the term “children of God” in his May 9 catechesis. We know this because he is speaking explicitly in the immediate context of regeneration, saying that that “the Church has regenerated us to eternal life. We have become children in His Son Jesus…. Reborn as children of God, we are so forever.” It is clear, therefore, that Francis is not talking about unregenerate human nature but about being children of God through supernatural adoptive sonship.

What, however, do we make of Bergoglio’s claims regarding God never disowning or abandoning His children?

Once again, we turn to the Council of Trent. Quoting St. Augustine, the holy synod declared that “God ‘does not forsake those who have once been justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them‘” (Session VI, Chapter 11; Denz. 804; italics added). Notice the caveat: “…unless He be first forsaken by them.” Francis doesn’t mention that part because he wants to create the impression that our friendship with God, once it has been obtained, can never be destroyed, which is heresy.

Error #2: Adoptive sonship does not entitle us to Heaven

Another way to understand Francis’ catechetical remarks is to say that he indeed believes that adoptive sonship can never be lost but that he denies that adoptive sonship entitles one to eternal beatitude in Heaven.

If he were to hold that, however, his catechesis would become utterly meaningless. For what would then be the point of being a son of God, of never being abandoned by the Father? No, he cannot mean that. In fact, this idea is contradicted in the opening sentences: “…the Church has regenerated us to eternal life. We have become children in His Son Jesus…. On each one of us also, reborn of the water and of the Holy Spirit, the celestial Father has his voice resound with infinite love, which says: ‘You are my beloved son’ (Cf. Matthew 3:17).”

In any case, the idea that adoptive sonship does not entitle one to the inheritance of Heaven is most certainly a heresy, for it directly contradicts Divine Revelation: “The formal effects of sanctifying grace culminate in the elevation of man to the rank of an adopted child of God…, with a claim to the paternal inheritance, i.e. the beatific vision in Heaven. This truth is so clearly stated in Scripture and Tradition that its denial would be heretical” (Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 7, p. 356).

Among the applicable Scripture passages are the following:

For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him. For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us.

(Rom 8:14-18)

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God.

(Gal 4:4-7)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ: As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity. Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will: Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace,

(Eph 1:3-7)

But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared: not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost; whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: that, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting.

(Titus 3:4-7)

Furthermore, the idea is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent:

For in those who are born again, God hates nothing, because “there is no condemnation, to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death” [Rom. 6:4], who do not “walk according to the flesh” [Rom 8:1], but putting off “the old man” and putting on the “new, who is created according to God” [Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:9 ff.], are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved sons of God, “heirs indeed of God, but co-heirs with Christ” [Rom. 8:17], so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven.

(Council of Trent, Session V, n. 5; Denz. 792)

Justification itself follows this disposition or preparation, which is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unjust man becomes a just man, and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be “an heir according to hope of life everlasting” [Tit. 3:7]. The causes of this justification are: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Christ and life eternal; the efficient cause is truly a merciful God who gratuitously “washes and sanctifies” [1 Cor. 6:11], “signing and anointing with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance” [Eph. 1:13f.]; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, “who when we were enemies” [cf. Rom. 5:10], “for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us” [Eph. 2:4], merited justification for us by His most holy passion on the wood of the Cross, and made satisfaction for us to God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the “sacrament of faith,” without which no one is ever justified. Finally the unique formal cause is the “justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but by which He makes us just”, that, namely, by which, when we are endowed with it by him, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed, but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the “Holy Spirit distributes to everyone as he wills” [1 Cor. 12:11], and according to each one’s own disposition and cooperation.

(Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 7; Denz. 799)

Therefore, if Error #2 is Bergoglio’s position, he is guilty of heresy.

Error #3: Adoptive sonship is not had by grace

Lastly, we could say that Francis means that adoptive sonship is not caused by sanctifying grace but by something else — for example, by the indelible sacramental character of baptism — and thus is not bound up with grace, so that one could be an adoptive son of God without being justified. But this too is directly contrary to the teaching of the Church, as we saw in the quote of Denz. 799 given just above, as well as in the following passages:

In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the “adoption of the sons” [Rom. 8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it, as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5].

(Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4; Denz. 796)

No one can express the greatness of this work of divine grace in the souls of men. Wherefore, both in Holy Scripture and in the writings of the fathers, men are styled regenerated, new creatures, partakers of the Divine Nature, children of God, god-like, and similar epithets.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Divinum Illud, n. 8)

Although denying the teaching that adoptive sonship is the result of sanctifying grace would be a mortal sin and close to heresy, it does not seem to constitute heresy in the strict sense. The Jesuit theologian Fr. Severinus Gonzalez Rivas, at least, leaves some doubt, saying the teaching in question is “at least Catholic doctrine, unless it may be regarded as of faith by the ordinary magisterium” (Sacrae Theologiae Summa, vol. III [Madrid: Biblioteca de Auctores Cristianos, 1961], n. 235; our translation. This sentence was mistakenly omitted from the English translation by Fr. Kenneth Baker).

To deny the essential and causal connection between sanctifying grace and adoptive sonship would also involve Bergoglio in Error #2 above, which is heretical.

So: Which of these three heretical or quasi-heretical errors does Francis actually hold? The preponderance of the evidence suggests it is the first one, although the question is probably misplaced since it is evident that the apostate antipope just doesn’t care about any of this. He doesn’t believe in the Catholic Faith, and it won’t matter to him whether one day he affirms Pelagianism and on another day Calvinism, then Gallicanism, and after that, Arianism. As long as Catholicism is denied and souls are harmed in some fashion, he has fulfilled his goal. The problem is not that he is a dictator — the problem is that he is an Anti-Catholic.

Further Consequences

Let us consider for a moment what Francis’ false ideas about baptism and adoptive sonship do to the dogma of the unity of the Church. If everyone who is validly baptized is irrevocably a son of God, regardless of what religion he professes, then the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, has no unity of Faith and extends to Catholics as well as to heretics and apostates — then the Church is not one but is divided into factions or parts. Not surprisingly, this is in perfect harmony with Vatican II and is entirely consistent with what Francis affirmed in late 2015:

Bergoglio’s theology is fundamentally the theology of Vatican II. Sometimes he draws novel conclusions, but his ideas are always rooted in that abominable council of the 1960s.

Contrary to all this Modernist junk, the true teaching is that the Catholic Church alone constitutes the Body of Christ, which is one by divine constitution and per se incapable of being split into parts. “The Catholic Church is one, she is neither torn nor divided”, said Pope Leo XII (Apostolic ExhortationPastoris Aeterni). Interestingly enough, the Italian (original?) version of this exhortation found on the Vatican web site has Pope Leo XII using the word lacerata — “lacerated”, “torn” — with regard to what the Catholic Church’s unity is not. This is precisely the same word Francis used in 2015, though he used it to affirm of ecclesiastical unity what Pope Leo denied: The divisions are “lacerations” that tear the Body of Christ, Francis asserted.

Since the Body of Christ is one and not divided, then, it becomes all the more important to understand where that Mystical Body is to be found in this world. The Catholic Church has always taught that she alone is the Mystical Body of Christ, and all other churches, sects, or communities, are thus cut offfrom the Body of Christ:

Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity. For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever.

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes)

Furthermore, the Son of God decreed that the Church should be His mystical body, with which He should be united as the Head, after the manner of the human body which He assumed, to which the natural head is physiologically united. As He took to Himself a mortal body, which He gave to suffering and death in order to pay the price of man’s redemption, so also He has one mystical body in which and through which He renders men partakers of holiness and of eternal salvation. God “hath made Him (Christ) head over all the Church, which is His body” (Eph. i., 22-23). Scattered and separated members cannot possibly cohere with the head so as to make one body. But St. Paul says: “All members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ” (I Cor. xii., 12). Wherefore this mystical body, he declares, is “compacted and fitly jointed together. The head, Christ: from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly jointed together, by what every joint supplieth according to the operation in the measure of every part” (Eph. iv., 15-16). And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. “There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 23). And to set forth more clearly the unity of the Church, he makes use of the illustration of a living body, the members of which cannot possibly live unless united to the head and drawing from it their vital force. Separated from the head they must of necessity die. “The Church,” he says, “cannot be divided into parts by the separation and cutting asunder of its members. What is cut away from the mother cannot live or breathe apart” (Ibid.). What similarity is there between a dead and a living body? “For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church: because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones” (Eph. v., 29-30).

Another head like to Christ must be invented – that is, another Christ if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. “See what you must beware of – see what you must avoid – see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member” (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).

The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord – leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ….He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 5)

That’s how true Popes speak — but a lot of water has run down the Tiber since we’ve had a true Pope in Rome (1958).


And so another week passes with another general audience and yet another Bergoglian heresy or quasi-heresy. Since the attack upon the Faith does not involve an affront to human life or sexual morality, however, do not expect the conservative Novus Ordo or even many semi-traditionalist organizations to get upset. It is “only” a denial of Catholic teaching on justification, “only” about the supernatural order; and for many, that’s just not something to get all worked up about, perhaps because they, thoroughly but unknowingly infected with Modernism, believe that revealed religion is ultimately just an opinion.

Tragically, even for many who consider themselves staunch defenders of the Catholic Faith, what pertains primarily to man is much more important than what primarily pertains to God (cf. 2 Thess 2:4). And thus the Vatican II religion has been extremely successful in deceiving so many souls (cf. Mt 24:24), for even those within its ranks who cannot stomach Francis, have fallen for the pernicious fruit offered by the toxic spiritual tree that is the Second Vatican Council.

Image source:
License: Fair use

from Novus Ordo Watch

Francis blasphemes again: “This Holy Spirit is a Disaster”!

When he’s not being his dictatorial self, Francis is a jolly old fellow. He loves to joke around with others and enjoys moments of levity — especially at the expense of the Most Holy Trinity. We need but recall a few recent examples:

Today “His Holiness” decided it was time for a new one and called the Holy Ghost a “disaster”. Too funny, eh?

Speaking to participants in the International Convention promoted by the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life, Francis tossed aside his prepared remarks because, so he said, he wanted “to say things suited to this moment.” Among the things “suited to this moment” was the following “witticism”:

Then, there is something else: this Holy Spirit is a disaster because He never tires of being creative! Now, with the new forms of consecrated life, He is truly creative, with the charisms… It is interesting: He is the Author of diversity but at the same time the Creator of unity. This is the Holy Spirit. And with this diversity of charisms and many things, He makes the unity of the Body of Christ, and also the unity of consecrated life. And this too is a challenge.

(Antipope Francis, in Jim Fair, “Pope Francis: Consecrated Need Authentic Guide”Zenit, May 4, 2018; underlining added.)

Jorge Bergoglio made his off-the-cuff remarks in Italian, and the Vatican web site has the original wording as follows:

Poi, c’è un’altra cosa: che questo Spirito Santo è una calamità, perché non si stanca mai di essere creativo! Adesso, con le nuove forme di vita consacrata, davvero è creativo, con i carismi… E’ interessante: è l’Autore della diversità, ma allo stesso tempo il Creatore dell’unità. Questo è lo Spirito Santo. E con questa diversità di carismi e tante cose, Lui fa l’unità del Corpo di Cristo, e anche l’unità della vita consacrata. E anche questa è una sfida.

(Antipope Francis, Address to Participants in the International Convention promoted by the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic, May 4, 2018; underlining added.)

The Italian word he used to refer to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity is word calamità, which corresponds to the English “calamity” or “disaster”. Hyperbole or not, joking or not, this is a blasphemy! Both the Zenit translation and the Vatican original, by the way, note that there was “laughter” when he thus insulted the Holy Ghost. This must be the “joy” he keeps droning on about!

Aside from the obvious direct insult to God, there is another matter to consider here. The Second Commandment states: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain” (Ex 20:7). Then again, since at least Amoris Laetitia, the Ten Commandments have been reduced by Bergoglio to the status of Ten Ideals or Ten Suggestions, to be relativized in accordance with the concrete circumstances of the situation and every sinner’s very own personal “limits”. In other words, the “god of surprises” has revealed to us now that the Ten Commandments really came with a footnote!

Francis had better be very careful, because he is placing himself in a position from which it is unlikely he will ever escape: “Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come” (Mt 12:31-32).

The Dominican moral theologians Fr. John McHugh and Fr. Charles Callan define blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as “contumely against God spoken out of sheer malice” (n. 898). They explain as follows:

899. To the Holy Ghost are appropriated the supernatural gifts of God that prevent or remove sin; and, as these can be reduced to six, there are also six sins against the Holy Ghost (i.e., six kinds of contemptuous disregard of spiritual life). The expression of this inner contempt is a blasphemy.

(a) Man is kept from sin by the hope mingled with fear which the thought of God, as both merciful and just, excites in him. Hence, despair and presumption which remove these divine preventives of sin are blasphemies against the Holy Ghost.

(b) Man is kept from sin, next, by the light God gives him to know the truth and by the grace He diffuses that all may perform good. Hence, resistance to the known truth and displeasure at the progress of God’s kingdom are also sins against the Spirit of truth and holiness.

(c) Man is kept from sin by the shamefulness of sin itself and the nothingness of the passing satisfaction it affords; for the former inclines him to be ashamed of sin committed, or to repent, while the latter tends to make him tire of sin and give it up. Hence, the resolve not to grieve over sin and obstinate adherence to such a resolve are also sins against the Holy Ghost.

900. There is no sin which, if repented of, cannot be forgiven in this life. How then does our Lord say that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come (Matt., xii. 31)?

(a) The sins against the Holy Ghost are unpardonable according to their nature, just as some diseases are incurable according to their nature, because not only do they set up an evil condition, but they also remove or resist those things that could lead to betterment. Thus, if one despairs, or presumes, or resists truth or good, or determines not to abandon error or evil, one shuts out the remedy of repentance, which is necessary for pardon; whereas, if one sins through passion or ignorance, faith and hope remain and help one to repentance.

(b) The sins against the Holy Ghost are not unpardonable, if we consider the omnipotence of God. Just as God can cure miraculously a disease that is humanly incurable, so can He pardon a sin which, according to its nature, is unpardonable; for He is able to bring hope and repentance to those who were in despair, for example. Hence, we repeat, there is no sin which, if repented of, cannot be forgiven in this life.

901. Does one arrive at the state of malicious sin or blasphemy suddenly or gradually? (a) Malice in sin (i.e., the willing choice of evil by one who is not weakened by ignorance or passion) is sometimes due to a disorder in the will itself which has a strong inclination towards wrong, as when long-continued habit has made sin attractive. It is clear that in such cases one does not arrive at blasphemy suddenly, Example: Titus blasphemes with readiness and without remorse. This argues that he is an adept and not a beginner, for readiness and strong attachment are signs of practice. (b) Malice in sin is sometimes due to the fact that the will has lost certain protections against sin, and hence chooses sin readily and gladly, as happens when a sin against the Holy Ghost has been committed. Generally, the contempt of God’s gifts contained in sins against the Holy Ghost does not come suddenly, but follows as the climax of a progressive deterioration (Prov., xviii. 3); but, since man is free and sin very alluring, it is not impossible that one should suddenly become a blasphemer, especially if one had not been careful before in other matters. It is next to impossible, however, that a religious-minded man should all at once become a blasphemer or malicious sinner.

(Rev. John A. McHugh & Rev. Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology, vol. 1 [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], nn. 899-901; available online here.)

The ease with which Francis cracks jokes about God Himself is extremely disturbing and reveals what a sick individual and dangerous wolf is hiding inside those shepherd’s clothes: “But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man…” (Mt 15:18-20).

Everybody can draw the obvious conclusion.

As far as disasters go, if Francis ever wants to truly encounter one, we suggest he take a good look in the mirror.

Image source: (cropped)
License: Fair use

Gaudete et Exsultate: A Brief Critique

May 11th, 2018 by Vigilo

from Novus Ordo Watch

Dismantling Bergoglian Baloney…

Gaudete et Exsultate: A Brief Critique

It has been over three weeks now since the release of the latest chaotic exhortation by Jorge Bergoglio, the one titled Gaudete et Exsultate, in which the Jesuit antipope pretends to be calling people to holiness in today’s world.

We had already published two blog posts on this document, one providing general information, reactions, and commentary, and one quoting the most notable passages:

We have since put together our own brief critique, touching on various (but by no means all) troublesome parts of the “papal” document. This critique we issued in three separate mini podcasts on our TRADCAST RSS feed over the last three weeks. For easier access and wider distribution, we are now presenting these audio files in this post. Simply click on each item below to listen for free.

TRADCAST EXPRESS – Episodes 052-054 on Gaudete et Exsultate:

For more information about our podcast program, which consists of two separate shows (the full-length but less frequent TRADCAST and the shorter but more frequent TRADCAST EXPRESS), please access our podcast home page:

This endeavor, like the rest of our apostolate, entirely depends on the financial support of people like you who are reading this. To make a supporting contribution (tax-deductible in the United States) to keep it going, please click here. Thank you.

Image source:
License: Fair use