Archive for October, 2019

from Novus Ordo Watch

With the recent idolatrous, heretical, and blasphemous circus surrounding the Amazon Synod, Novus Ordo and semi-traditionalist authorities and apologists are once again offering false solutions to their hapless followers, solutions aimed at mostly one thing: the continued acceptance of Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) as the Pope of the Catholic Church, no matter how absurd and indefensible the idea may be — for the only truly intolerable view for them is that of Sedevacantism.

One of the most common objections one hears against Sedevacantism is, “But we’ve had bad Popes before” or, “A bad father is still your father!” People who think that such arguments can legitimize Francis are either not familiar with, or incapable of grasping, the difference between, on the one hand, Catholics who lead immoral lives, and, on the other hand, heretics.

Francis isn’t a bad Catholic. He manifests day in and day out that he is a non-Catholic. That’s the crux. Therefore, saying that we’ve had bad Popes in the past and they were still valid Popes, is totally beside the point. A man who professes the Catholic Faith whole and entire, no matter how wicked he may be, remains a member of the Catholic Church. Even if he hate God. Even if he be a murderer. Even if he be a sodomite.

God forbid, of course! Such a man, if he does not repent, will have an eternity of suffering in hell. His Church membership will have profited him nothing; his Faith, entirely dead because without charity, will not save him in the least. His knowledge of the True Faith will merely add to his misery in hell because he will have sinned with full knowledge of the sinfulness of his deeds.

Yes, all this is true. But such a man, if elected to the papacy, would still be a valid Pope, because what keeps a man from being validly elected to the papacy is not a lack of holiness but the public profession of heresy (among other things). In other words, what keeps him from being a valid Pope is not the commission of sins against morals (otherwise no one could be Pope, since we are all sinners), no matter how many or how grievous, but the commission of certain sins against Faith.

That is standard Catholic teaching and not controversial. Pope Pius XII put it best when he taught authoritatively in his beautiful encyclical on the Church:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed….

Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 22-23; underlining added.)

Note well, ladies and gentlemen: The only sins that by their very nature sever a man from the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, are the sins of schism, heresy, and apostasy. What this means is that these sins are such that committing them renders one a non-Catholic. A heretic, after all, professes a different religion than a Catholic, and so he cannot be a member of the Church, because one cannot be a Catholic and a non-Catholic at the same time. (The same goes, even more so, for an apostate. Schism is slightly different because it is a sin against charity and not against Faith, but this need not concern us here.)

Therefore, a schismatic, a heretic, or an apostate could not be a valid Pope, for this would mean that a man who is not a member of the Mystical Body can nevertheless be the head of that Mystical Body, which is a contradiction. The Catholic Encyclopedia, compiled during the reign of Pope St. Pius X, states very plainly: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void” (s.v. “Papal Elections”).

To appreciate how important and serious this difference is between bad Catholic and non-Catholic, let us take a look at one of the most immoral Catholic Popes in history: Pope John XII, who reigned from 955 to 963. Prince Octavian (his birth name) was only 16 years of age when elected, and he was a complete moral reprobate:

Nothing in his life marked him for this office, and everything should have kept him from it. He was rarely seen in church. His days and nights were spent in the company of young men and of disreputable women, in the pleasures of the table and of amusements and of the hunt, or in even more sinful sensual enjoyments. It is related that sometimes, in the midst of dissolute revelry, the prince had been seen to drink to the health of the devil. Raised to the papal office, Octavian changed his name and took the name of John XII. He was the first pope thus to assume a new name. But his new dignity brought about no change in his morals, and merely added the guilt of sacrilege.

Divine providence, watching over the Church, miraculously preserved the deposit of faith, of which this young voluptuary was the guardian. This Pope’s life was a monstrous scandal, but his bullarium is faultless. We cannot sufficiently admire this prodigy. There is not a heretic or a schismatic who has not endeavored to legitimate his own conduct dogmatically: Photius tried to justify his pride, Luther his sensual passions, Calvin his cold cruelty. Neither Sergius III nor John XII nor Benedict IX nor Alexander VI, supreme pontiffs, definers of the faith, certain of being heard and obeyed by the whole Church, uttered, from the height of their apostolic pulpit, a single word that could be an approval of their disorders.

At times John XII even became the defender of the threatened social order, of offended canon law, and of the religious life exposed to danger.

(Rev. Fernand Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, Vol. 3 [St. Louis, MO: Herder Book Co., 1946], pp. 510-511; underlining added.)

BAM! Did you get that?

Yes, there can be bad Popes, indeed. But in the exercise of their office they will be as orthodox and as Catholic as any other. Christ promised as much: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). That is the Catholic doctrine on the Papacy, backed by God Himself:

…the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling? Blessed be the strength of his arm and the multitude of his mercies!

(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution to Cardinals, March 20, 1900; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 349.)

The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.

(Pope Pius XII, Address Ancora Una Volta, Feb. 20, 1949)

Thus, if one were to say that Francis is the Pope, one would have to conclude that all the Catholic teaching on the Papacy applies to him and that its guarantees are verified in him. To see how Bergoglio measures up, we have put together a handy little tool:

Unlike what so many prominent “traditionalists” have been spouting for decades, the Church is not guaranteed to have a Pope at all times; but when she has one, she is guaranteed to have one who’s Catholic. This is evident also because the Pope is the principle of unity in the Church and the proximate rule of Faith; he is the guarantor of orthodoxy and to him all must submit as a condition of their salvation (see Denz. 469). The idea that a public heretic could be Pope and teach in accordance with his heresies, would throw all of this completely out of sync.

Thus St. Robert Bellarmine, the Doctor of the Papacy, taught:

The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.

Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.

On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err.

(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation; underlining added.)

Whereas certain self-appointed recognize-and-resist traditionalists want to “unite the clans” so as to mount a unified defense against their “Pope’s” open heterodoxy, the Catholic Magisterium is quite clear that the only principle that can produce the unity of the flock is the Pope, who alone possesses authority over all Christians and who cannot lead the flock astray in matters of Faith and morals:

The vigilance and the pastoral solicitude of the Roman Pontiff … according to the duties of his office, are principally and above all manifested in maintaining and conserving the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God. They strive also to the end that the faithful of Christ, not being like irresolute children, or carried about by every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men [Eph 4:14], may all come to the unity of faith and to the knowledge of the Son of God to form the perfect man, that they may not harm one another or offend against one another in the community and the society of this present life, but that rather, united in the bond of charity like members of a single body having Christ for head, and under the authority of his Vicar on earth, the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Blessed Peter, from whom is derived the unity of the entire Church, they may increase in number for the edification of the body, and with the assistance of divine grace, they may so enjoy tranquility in this life as to enjoy future beatitude.”

(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Pastoralis Romani Pontificis, March 30, 1741; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 31; underlining added.)

The Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy in the entire world. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, true Vicar of Christ, Head of the whole Church, Father and Teacher of all Christians.

(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 32; underlining added.)

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.

(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert; underlining added.)

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam)

Union with the Roman See of Peter is … always the public criterion of a Catholic…. ‘You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.’

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 13; underlining added.)

…[T]he strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate.

(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution of Feb. 20, 1903; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 353)

What? You haven’t heard these things lately from your favorite semi-trad newspaper, blog, or clergyman? You don’t say! Try applying the above quotes to the Vatican II Sect and its “Popes”, and you realize very quickly that their goose is cooked. Is Francis, even in his official acts, “the strong and effective instrument of salvation”? Hardly! If there’s anything he’s strong and effective in, it’s causing loss of Faith and thus damnation.

Take a good look also at the dogmatic teaching of the First Vatican Council on the connection between the Papacy and the True Faith, a connection which is not merely incidental but essential and necessary:

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. 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 Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, n. 4; Denz. 1836; underlining added.)

It’s time to change the channel, folks. It’s time to stop imbibing the semi-traditionalist propaganda produced by The Remnant and its theological cousins.

As Catholics, we can take a debauched but Catholic Pope John XII over a “nice” but heretical Francis any day. Pope Pius IX reminds us of this once more:

Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair [of St. Peter]; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7; underlining added.)

But the supposed “Chair of St. Peter” in the Vatican II Sect has tottered and fallen; it therefore cannot be the true and genuine Chair of St. Peter.

Where, then, is the true Pope? We do not know. For all we know, we do not have a Pope. The See of Peter has been either vacant or impeded since 1958. It has most definitely not been validly occupied by the impostors of the Vatican II Church (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis).

But keep in mind: Though the Church may not always have a Pope, she will always have the True Faith. And for this reason alone we know that the Vatican II Sect cannot be the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So… now what, you ask? Now go and be a real Catholic.

from In Veritate

[Taken from the September issue of the MHT Seminary Newsletter]

In a recent speech, reported by the website wherepeteris, Cardinal Burke proposed yet another episode of his curious manner of dealing with the heresies of Bergoglio.

He spoke about the change of the catechism, made by Bergoglio, which condemns the use of capital punishment. The Cardinal called this change the “personal opinion” of Francis. Although Francis called the use of the death penalty inadmissible, Cardinal Burke dismissed this term which Francis used as “a relative term” which has no doctrinal import. The Cardinal declared that the exclusion of the death penalty by Francis has no basis in doctrine, and concluded: “This is an opinion of Pope Francis as a man.” He continued: “Once in a while, a pope would express his personal opinion about something and generally caused a lot of confusion and turmoil. And so, but Pope Francis does this a lot, but you can’t – this, this kind of argumentation that’s given in this text – it simply won’t do it.”

These and similar statements of Cardinal Burke and other Novus Ordo conservative prelates have the single effect of degrading the papacy and the magisterium in an effort to preserve Bergoglio as a supposed pope.

Bergoglio’s insertion of the condemnation of capital punishment into the catechism is an act of authentic magisterium, assuming that he is the pope for a moment, and requires our religious assent. It is absurd, not to mention disrespectful, to characterize such an act on the part of the pope as “his opinion as a man.” This description of it would be true if Francis merely had written a book and expressed his ideas about it. To include it in the catechism, however, lifts it to the level of magisterium.

If we are free to reject the catechism of “Pope” Francis as merely his opinion, then we are also free to reject the catechism of Saint Pius V, namely the Catechism of the Council of Trent. We could also pooh-pooh the catechism of Saint Pius X.

Cardinal Burke is institutionalizing the very serious error of “recognize and resist,” the flagship doctrine of the Society of Saint Pius X. At bottom, this error does not differ from Protestantism, for it appeals to an authority — Tradition — over and above that of the pope. It differs from Protestantism only inasmuch as they appeal to Sacred Scripture over and above the pope. But just as the Church is the supreme interpreter of Sacred Scripture, so it is the supreme interpreter of Tradition. There would be no Tradition to appeal to if the Church, through its magisterium, had not proposed to us what the handed down word of God is.

Of course Cardinal Burke is right in his assessment of Bergoglio’s error. The teaching of the Church concerning the lawfulness of the death penalty falls under its universal ordinary magisterium, for it is attested to in Sacred Scripture, and it has been everywhere taught by the hierarchy.

In his attempt to “save” the Catholic doctrine concerning the death penalty, the Cardinal is undermining the very foundation of all dogma, by destroying the teaching authority of the pope.

In his efforts, therefore, to save Bergoglio’s papacy, Cardinal Burke destroys the papacy itself.

The unfathomable mystery. What is most mysterious about these attempts to save Bergoglio is: “Why do they want to save Bergoglio?” What purpose does it serve for the Catholic Church to retain this man in his supposed office as pope?

The magisterium, Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and Catholic theology attest to the principle that there is an intimate, indeed inseparable, connection between

the Catholic Faith and the office of the papacy. No one could possibly err in saying that a man who had deviated from the Catholic Faith — and worse, who taught heresy — could not be the pope. Cardinal Burke himself made this point clear in an interview about two years ago. It is an ironclad Catholic principle.

Furthermore, the Church’s indefectibility is a dogma of faith, which requires that the Church remain the same throughout all of its existence until the end of time. If the Church were to change its dogmas or moral teaching, it would not remain the same, and would therefore be defective. So if a pope attempts to change Catholic dogma or moral teaching, the dogma of indefectibility demands that the Church reject him as pope.

Why do not these Novus Ordo conservatives invoke these certain principles against Bergoglio? Why preserve him? Why descend into a form of Protestantism in order to keep this man, supposedly, in the chair of Peter?

By analogy, if a toilet is clogged, it does not help in any way to merely announce that it is clogged, and should not be used. Instead one has recourse to a plunger in order to remove the problematic excrement.

from Novus Ordo Watch

Enough digital ink has been spilled on the Pachamama worship in and around the Vatican — it’s time we looked at what other idolatries the inglorious pack of Roman apostates likes to promote. Such as Hinduism, for example.

Frequent visitors to this blog will remember the following story we published this past summer:

Now the Vatican has doubled down. In its newly-released message to Hindus for the feast of Diwali (aka Deepavali), which is celebrated from Oct. 27-31 this year, the Modernists in Rome express their best wishes for a happy and fruitful celebration:

Dear Hindu Friends,

The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sends you cordial greetings and sincere good wishes as you celebrate Deepavali on 27 October this year. May this festival of lights illumine your hearts and homes and bring to your families and communities joy and happiness, peace and prosperity. At the same time, may it strengthen your spirit of fraternity with one another.

Alongside the experience of unprecedented advancement in many fields, we live at a time when, on the one hand, efforts are being made towards interreligious and intercultural dialogue, cooperation and fraternal solidarity. On the other hand, there is apathy, indifference and even hatred among some religious people towards others. This is often caused by a failure to recognize the ‘other’ as a brother or sister. Such an attitude can arise from misguided, ungenerous or unsympathetic sentiments, which upset and unsettle the very fabric of harmonious coexistence in society. It is with concern about this situation that we deem it fitting and beneficial to share with you some thoughts on the need for every individual, particularly Christians and Hindus, to be builders of fraternity and peaceful coexistence wherever they are.

Religion fundamentally inspires us “to see in the other a brother or sister to be supported and loved” (Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, co-signed by Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Abu Dhabi on 4 February 2019). It teaches us, moreover, to respect the inviolable dignity and the inalienable rights of others without any unwarranted bias towards their creed or culture. Only when adherents of religions demand of themselves a life consistent with their religious ethic will they be seen to fulfill their role as builders of peace and as witnesses to our shared humanity. For this reason, religions are to sustain the efforts their adherents make in leading an authentic life so as to “bring forth the fruits of peace and brotherhood, for it is in the nature of religion to foster… an increasingly fraternal relationship among people” (Pope John Paul II, Message for the World Day of Peace, 1992). As such, living in a spirit of fraternity and fellowship through constant dialogue should be a natural corollary of being a religious person, Hindu or Christian.

Though negative news dominates the headlines, this should not dampen our resolve to sow seeds of fraternity, for there is a hidden sea of goodness that is growing and leads us to hope in the possibility of building, together with the followers of other religions and all men and women of goodwill, a world of solidarity and peace. The conviction that building a world of fraternity is possible is reason enough for us to engage all the more in efforts towards building the edifice of fraternity and peaceful coexistence, keeping “the good of everyone at heart” (Pope Francis, Message for the Opening of the Annual Interreligious Prayer Meeting for Peace, “Bridges of Peace”, Bologna, 14 October 2018).

It is a happy coincidence that the beginning of this month marked the 150th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi, “an outstanding and courageous witness to truth, love and nonviolence” (Pope John Paul II, Prayer for Peace at the Conclusion of the Visit to Raj Ghat, Delhi, 1 February 1986) and a valiant protagonist of human fraternity and peaceful coexistence. We would do well to draw inspiration from his example in living peaceful coexistence.

As believers grounded in our own religious convictions and with shared concern for the welfare of the human family, may we join hands with those of different religious traditions and all people of goodwill, and strive to do all we can – with a sense of shared responsibility – to build a more fraternal and peaceful society!

Wishing all of you a joyful celebration of Deepavali!

(“Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue Greets Hindu Feast of Diwali”Zenit, Oct. 21, 2019; underlining added.)

There is much that could be said about this message, but we’ll focus only on one element: the expressed wish that the observance of this idolatrous feast would “illumine your hearts and homes and bring to your families and communities joy and happiness, peace and prosperity” and “strengthen your spirit of fraternity with one another.”

Notice that the Vatican is not saying anything about the conversion of the Hindus — which would be seeking their true happiness — nor are they merely wishing them well in some vague way, or wishing good things to them without reference to their idolatry. Rather, the Novus Ordo authorities are wishing that Hindus would receive the benefits enumerated precisely as the fruit of their observance of this pagan feast! It is precisely through this “festival of lights” that these blessings are to be received. That is the outrage; that is the apostasy!

That “Pope” Francis himself agrees wholeheartedly with that approach goes without saying, of course.

This year’s Vatican message to Hindus is entitled “Believers: Builders of Fraternity and Peaceful Coexistence”. To refer to Hindus as “believers” is apostasy already, since Hindus are unbelievers (infidels), that is, they do not have Faith — the virtue of Faith being the firm adherence of the mind, aided by grace, to what God has revealed because He, who cannot lie or be mistaken, has revealed it. Hindus have fallen for the lies of the devil and are therefore un-believers.

Wikipedia explains what Hindu gods are worshipped on Diwali: On the eve of the feast, “families offer prayers (puja) to Lakshmi and Ganesha, and lay offerings of puffed rice, candy toys, rice cakes and batashas (hollow sugar cakes)”. Ganesha is the Hindu god of beginnings, science, and wisdom; and Lakshmi is the goddess of wealth, fortune, and prosperity, according to their respective Wikipedia entries.

According to the Novus Ordo news org Zenit, Diwali is “based on ancient mythology, [and] it represents the victory of truth over lies, of light over darkness, of life over death, and of good over evil. The actual celebration lasts three days, marking the beginning of a new year, family reconciliation, especially between brothers and sisters, and worship of God [sic].”

Worship of God! No! The idols Ganesh and Lakshmi are not God, they are demons! “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…” (Ps 95:5). This is how low the Vatican II Sect has fallen! If there is one religion in the world that can be said to be truly and properly engaging in polytheistic idolatry, it’s Hinduism.

Polytheism is the belief that there are many gods, and idolatry, we recall, is a sin against the pre-Vatican II First Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” (Ex 20:2-5).

Unlike what “Pope” Francis would have the world believe, commandments are not mere suggestions. They are commandments, and if we break them without repenting of our sins before we die, we will be damned: “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 7:21; cf. Jn 14:15,21,24). This concept is not hard to grasp.

Ladies and gentlemen, they are clearly moving towards an “all religions worship the same God” doctrine. This idea, of course, is a necessary prelude to having peace between religions, which will presumably be the “peaceful” message of the Antichrist when he appears. Peace in the world cannot be had without peace between religions, said none other than hell’s apostle, Hans Kung. This peace will be a false peace, of course, because it will not be the peace only Christ can give — the kind that is “not as the world giveth” (Jn 14:27). It will be a “peace” based on lies, blasphemy, and apostasy. It will be premised on the outrageous lie that Christ is equal to the devil, that the Creator is equal to the creature, that good is equal to evil, that truth is falsehood, that wrong is equal to right (cf. 2 Cor 6:14-17).

The end result will be a one-world religion based on “unity in diversity”, where each religion retains certain outer trappings (“legitimate traditions”) but all share the same Masonic, Antichrist creed: peace, harmony, solidarity, human dignity, diversity, fraternity, dialogue, and helping the needy. Frankly, we’re almost there already, especially since Francis signed the Abu Dhabi declaration this past February, which states that God wills the diversity of religions just as He wills male and female. The premises are there — now someone just needs to draw the conclusion.

None of this wickedness would have been possible without Vatican II, the Second Vatican Council. Ever since that abominable assembly, the “Catholic Church” has been engaging in so-called “interreligious dialogue with non-Christian religions.” This always involves the Roman Modernists sending greetings to their dialogue partners, congratulating them for whatever feasts they happen to be celebrating; it also includes occasional visits to the houses of idolatrous or false worship, and sometimes it even includes celebrating the anti-Catholic feasts on Vatican property and joining in the festivities.

Long-time readers of this blog may recall that in January of 2014, Benedict XVI’s and Francis’ interreligious frontman “Cardinal” Jean-Louis Tauran happily visited a Hindu temple in London, where he paid homage to its false deities. On July 5, 2018, Tauran was summoned before the Judgment Seat of God to render an account of his works, and he received his just reward.

The current president of the so-called Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Interreligious Dialogue is 67-year-old “Cardinal” Miguel Ayuso Guixot. The fact that the man is a “missionary” shows how the concept of mission has been utterly subverted in the Vatican II religion. And no wonder.

The wicked Vatican II robber council taught that “in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry” (Decree Nostra Aetate, n. 2). It outrageously proclaimed, furthermore, that the “Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in [other] religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men” (ibid.).

How stark is the contrast of this to the truly missionary, true Catholic position, expressed in the beautiful Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, composed by Pope Pius XI, in which Catholics pray to Jesus Christ: “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God” (underlining added).

That is a truly Catholic prayer: It is not afraid to call idolatry by its name and to condemn it as spiritual darkness, for that it truly is; at the same time, it seeks not the destruction but the conversion and eternal happiness of those who are unhappily caught up in the service of idols. It thus reflects the Church’s divine mission to convert the nations to Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church (see Mk 16:15-16; 1 Cor 12:27; cf. 1 Tim 2:4).

To sum up: The true Catholic Church rejects Hinduism as being “the darkness of idolatry”, whereas the Vatican II Sect rejoices in Hinduism as representing “the victory … of light over darkness.” Yet our Blessed Lord said: “I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness” (Jn 14:56). Indeed, Jesus Christ alone is “the light [that] shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (Jn 1:5). He is “the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world” (Jn 1:9).

He who does not have Christ, necessarily has darkness. That goes for Hindus as much as it goes for the apostates in Vatican City.

No Fossil Record

October 23rd, 2019 by Vigilo

from In Veritate

[Taken from the September issue of the MHT Seminary Newsletter]

Recently a noted computer scientist at Yale University, by the name of David Gelernter, came out against Darwinism. He said that the fossil evidence just was not there to support it.

He explains that according to Darwin’s theory, the fossil evidence had to show fossils of very simple beings which eventually evolved into higher beings.

Darwin himself expressed concern about the absence of these fossils, but was sure that in the course of time (now about 150 years) the fossils which prove the theory would be found.

They have not been found.

This absence of evidence urged the professor to give more consideration to creation and to intelligent design. He calls intelligent design an “absolutely serious argument,” and cautions his peers not to dismiss it.

While I am not at all schooled in geology or archaeology, I am not in any way surprised to hear this secular scientist pronounce this judgement on Darwin.

Before even searching for fossils, however, it is clear that evolutionism is false. The reason is that it is based on the principle that something comes from nothing, or put another way, that something comes into being without a sufficient cause. Even common sense tells us that you can’t give what you haven’t got. Evolution sees lower forms of life evolving into higher forms of life, owing to various cosmic forces acting on the lower forms of life. So a fish, by undergoing mutations from cosmic rays or lightning, eventually develops legs and lungs. After billions of years, you get a frog.

While this might sound plausible to certain people, it is as absurd as a frog turning into a prince. The long passage of time is meaningless, since, whether a change should happen instantaneously or over time, it still requires a sufficient cause. In other words, you cannot “upgrade” in nature except by being caused by something which has that higher nature. Water, for example, cannot heat itself, but must be upgraded to hot water or steam by something which possesses heat.

So a fish cannot become a frog, or a frog a prince, except by receiving the upgrade by something which is capable of raising the nature of the thing to a higher level of being. This means that the upgrading cause must have control over the total being of the upgraded thing, in this case the frog. But the only Being which has such control is Being Itself, namely God. God received His being from no one nor any thing. He is the Uncaused Cause. He is existence itself, and has existed necessarily from all eternity.

If you have received being from something else, however, you could not possibly have the power over the total being of another thing. You may generate a being like unto yourself, but you cannot generate a higher being.
Anyone who still has his marbles knows that a prince is a higher creature than a frog. A prince has more being, greater perfection, than a frog. The jump between frog and prince could never be done except by the Author of being Himself. The same must be said about going from fish to amphibian.

Another intrinsic problem with evolutionism is that it must explain how everything came to exist in the first place. Evolutionists posit two possibilities: either that matter is eternal or that everything “poofed” into existence all at once, with no cause (Big Bang Theory).

An eternal being must be something which exists by its very nature, namely something which is existence itself, and thus could never lose being. We call this a necessary being, that is, something which must exist. Nor can it have received being from anything else. Because, furthermore, it is pure being, it is being without any limitations. From this we must conclude that it is all-perfect being and infinite being.

In summary, a being which is by its very nature eternal must be also necessary (it can never lose existence), infinite (no limitations), and all-perfect (containing everything that we consider to be good in creatures, and to an infinite degree).

Matter cannot be eternal for the very reason that it cannot be a necessary being. Matter is one of the elements of change. Matter can become anything: fire, water, gold, silver, in short, whatever you want to make it. Matter, therefore, is in need of some other element to make it this thing or that thing, e.g., gold or silver. It is therefore an imperfect being, always waiting to be formed into something. An example would be a lump of clay waiting to be made into a statue.

Obviously, then, matter cannot be the all-perfect, necessary and infinite Being which is required of something which is by its very nature eternal.

The other theory, namely that everything “poofed” into existence with no cause, is so crazy that anyone with a brain would find it totally absurd.

But evolution demands one or the other of these false theories. Otherwise it collapses.

Yet another problem of evolution is that it assigns chance as the cause of nature. Let me explain. Everything which exists has a certain nature, that is, an element in it which causes it to be what it is, and to act in a perfectly consistent manner. If this element were not there, the matter could not be this thing instead of that thing, and would not have a consistent manner of acting. For example, there is something in gold which makes gold to be gold, and something in silver which makes silver to be silver. Otherwise they would not be distinguished from each other, nor would they have distinct characteristics, nor would they act in a consistent manner.

So, for example, gold has always been gold, and has always acted in exactly the same manner, always with the same density, always with the same properties. The same is true for any element or compound you mention, for example, water. This stability and constancy requires a cause, since chance, by its very nature, is neither stable nor constant. In other words, you can’t give what you haven’t got. Chance cannot provide stability or constancy. If someone were to win the lottery every day, he would be considered a crook. Why? Because everyone knows that chance is something that comes and goes.

Thus chance cannot be the author of stable natures with constancy in their behavior. Evolutionists point to the billions of years of chance in order to explain the existence of the marvels of nature, such as the human body, but even if we admit the absurd notion that planet earth and its order proceed from a series of “winning tickets” of billions of years of lottery drawings, nothing on planet earth could remain the same from minute to minute or second to second, since there would be a constant flux.

Evolution was concocted by atheists in the nineteenth century who needed to destroy the Creator. The most fundamental religious truth is that of creation. It is the basis of all religion, since it is the basis of the relationship of creature to Creator, which includes adoration, submission to the Creator’s laws, external signs of dependence upon the Creator, reverence, and many other aspects of religion.

Evolution also destroys the notion of original sin, and thereby ultimately destroys the notion redemption from sin, and the need of a Savior of the human race.

It reduces mankind to being merely morality-free, advanced ape-like hominids, who may act as they please, just as the animals do.

What this system does not explain is how these sophisticated animals, advanced though they be, can understand immaterial things, such as beauty, art, proportion, justice, even the notion of immateriality itself. Nor does it explain why human beings crave immaterial things far more than material things: love, honor, respect, trust, justice, punishment of criminality, politics.

For example, if President Trump should win a second term in 2020, there will be a notable number of suicides among liberals, but the monkeys in the zoo will go on eating their bananas, as if just another day. Presidential authority is a thing which can only be known by reason, but can have a profound effect on your happiness or sadness.

One of the greatest boons to mankind would be the collapse of the evolution myth. Let us hope that the voice of science will call for its downfall.

Mother Earth, Father Satan

October 22nd, 2019 by Vigilo

from Introibo Ad Altare Dei

What do you think is the most important issue endangering the world? From a Traditionalist Catholic perspective, you could expect to hear issues like: the rise of militant Mohammedanism, the proliferation of false sects and beliefs [especially the Vatican II sect], the murder of innocent unborn children by abortion, advancing atheistic/secular ideologies which want believers marginalized/persecuted, and sexual perversion being accepted in society which will erode and destroy what’s left of traditional God-fearing families. I can only imagine what Pope St. Pius X would say today. I’m sure he would not only agree with the issues just cited, but have many more to condemn. Of paramount importance for a Traditionalist, are those things which imperil the eternal salvation of souls. As Our Lord Jesus Christ stated, “For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?” (St. Matthew 16:26).

The leader of the Vatican II sect, Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope” Francis), sees things very differently. He’s coming out with a book to be entitled Our Mother Earth. According to Zenit news service, the book will be published this coming October 24th and “With a Prologue written by the [Schismatic] Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, the work is a compilation of the addresses, messages and homilies in which Pope Francis refers to the defense of the environment and appeals for the promotion of a worthy life for all peoples.” The news agency also published an excerpt from Bergoglio’s book:
I sincerely hope for growth in awareness and true repentance on the part of us all, men and women of the 21st century, believers or not, and on the part of our societies, for allowing ourselves to be carried away by logics that divide, create hunger, isolate and condemn. It would be good to ask the poor and the excluded for forgiveness. Then we could repent sincerely, including for the harm done to the earth, the sea, the air, the animals . . .

What’s really important for His Wickedness is not the faith (“believers or not”), but to ask forgiveness of poor people (a “societal sin”) and “the excluded” (adulterers who don’t get “communion”; transgender perverts, etc) so we can “repent” for using Styrofoam cups. Bergoglio is not concerned with the salvation of souls because, like Freemasons, he’s an adherent of Naturalism, “the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.” A serious evil Naturalism engenders is Indifferentism. This is the heretical idea that one religion is as good as another (positive indifference) or the idea that one religion is just as bad as another (negative indifference). He adopts the pagan idea of deifying humans and nature with false and exaggerated claims of “human dignity” and “human rights.” There was even a pagan ritual held at the Amazon Synod. For the best and most accurate analysis of that event, See

In this post, I will expose the dangers of false environmentalism, the pagan connection, and the evil forces that promote it.

Global Warming or Hot Air? One of the most fraudulent ideas perpetrated by political agendas in the name of “science” is “global warming” or “climate change.” I remember as a 12 year old in 1977, the fear-mongers were warning of a “second ice age.” It was even the topic of a Time magazine cover story. Why do I call global warming fraudulent? There are several reasons:
First, the models used to predict Earth’s future under global warming are unreliable. While it is true that the sun, clouds, gases, glaciers and oceans are responsible for weather, so, too, are other factors, including some we don’t currently understand. If we can’t accurately predict the weather a week from now, how can we predict the global climate in 100 years?
Second, The annual temperature between 1998 and 2007 actually decreased, despite the 4 percent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during that same period. 
Third, although weather data, like temperature, have been actively collected since 1850, it wasn’t until the relatively recent access to detailed weather satellite photography that scientists were able to see changes in the Greenland ice shelf that global warming believers say is in such danger. So how do we know exactly how long the ice has been receding? 
Fourth, around the 9th to 14th centuries, regions around the world experienced an increase in temperatures, similar to what we see today. Following this period, the Earth experienced a Little Ice Age where global temperatures cooled. It is conceivable that the Earth is currently experiencing something similar. (See; for points one to four, culled from many sources, most especially See Dr. Robert Balling, The Heated Debate, [1992]). 
There have been past “chicken-little-the sky-is-falling” impeding ecological disasters predicted before:

  • By 1989, “contamination of the planet” will destroy the Earth
  • There will be an ice age by the year 2000, as reported in the Boston Globe
  • In the 1970s, “Ozone Depletion” would wreak havoc by the 1990s, now hardly discussed, See

Now, global warming is the latest “Eco-pocalypse” with a purpose; to bring all people into a worship of nature and a One World Religion.

“Eco-Theology”Carl Sagan (d. 1996), the famous astronomer, was also a pantheist; as his son Dorian said, “My father believed in the God of Spinoza and Einstein, God not behind nature but as nature, equivalent to it.” It was Sagan who helped to popularize nature worship. In his book, Cosmos (1980, pg. 243), he quipped, “If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars?” No, it doesn’t. We worship not some impersonal “power” but the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent Creator of the stars and all things. 
 In his book, Earth in the Balance, former Vice-President Al Gore suggests that we return to the worship of nature and upholds various nature worshiping sects and Native American religions as a model:“This pan-religious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization’s responsibility for the earth is concerned…Native American religions, for instance, offer a rich tapestry of ideas about our relationship to the earth…All things are connected like the blood that unites us all.” (Al Gore, Earth in the Balance – Ecology and the Human Spirit, 1992, p. 258-259).

Gore goes on to declare that we need to find a new nature-based religion and quotes New Age, censured theologian, Teilhard de Chardin, in support of the “new faith” of the future:

“This point was made by the Catholic (sic) theologian, Teilhard de Chardin, when he said, ‘The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.’ Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to re-sanctify the earth.” (Ibid, p. 263). Teilhard was born in south central France on May 1, 1881 and was censured by the Church in 1936. He died in 1955, still censured, but not excommunicated. His secret disciples, who praised him openly after Vatican II, included Karol Wojtyla (JPII) and Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI). His writings were considered so dangerous, even Roncalli (John XXIII) refused to allow any of his works to be used in the seminaries as late as 1962. Teilhard bragged about high ranking Modernists who were using their influence to prevent his excommunication, even though he could neither teach or write, and all his works were declared to contain errors.

Here are some interesting ideas of Teilhard that his proponents, like Al Gore, would like us to ignore:

“Rome does not want me to return to my professorship. They do not seem to have taken a dislike to me, far from it; but they want to save Religion…..I would take enormous delight in breaking all ties” (the reference here is to breaking all ties to traditional Catholic belief, and the Church as a whole – from letter written Feb. 14 1927)

“I do not think God should be worshiped” – from a conference given in 1947

“What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself, and to diffuse around me, a new religion (let’s call it an improved Christianity if you like) whose personal God is no longer the great neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the Soul of the world……”(Letter to Leontine Zanta, Jan 26, 1936; Emphasis mine)

“Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by evolution?” (Le Christique, 1955;Emphasis mine)

“Our century is probably more religious than any other. How could it fail to be, with such problems to be solved? The only trouble is that it has not yet found a God it can adore.” (The Phenomenon of Man; Emphasis mine).

“No humane hopes for an organized society must cause us to forget that the human stratum may not be homogeneous. If it were not, it would be necessary to find for the Chinese, as for the Negroes, their special function, which may not (by biological impossibility) be that of the whites.” (April 6, 1927 letter–pure racism).

Carl Sagan was a major proponent of Teilhardian ideas. Before his death in 1996, he quoted one religious leader quite favorably, “St.” John Paul the Great Apostate, a Teilhardian disciple. He quotes Wojtyla:  “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish….Such bridging ministries must be nurtured and encouraged. Nowhere is this more clear than in the current environmental crisis…. It has the potential to unify and renew religious life. ” (See Parade, March 1, 1992; Emphasis in original).

False ecological cataclysms have been manufactured to scare people into submitting to more government regulation in their lives, and worst of all, to adopt the false and pagan idea of nature worship and pantheism to unite the planet. The stage was set for Bergoglio to enter next.
“Eco-menism”At the end of his encyclical Laudato Si (“On Care of Our Common Home”) 2015, Bergoglio sets forth two prayers:At the conclusion of this lengthy reflection which has been both joyful and troubling, I propose that we offer two prayers. The first we can share with all who believe in a God who is the all-powerful Creator, while in the other we Christians ask for inspiration to take up the commitment to creation set before us by the Gospel of Jesus. (Emphasis mine). This shows his desire to have all religions, all beliefs, all opinions unite and mobilize against the “ecological threat” and engage in ecumenical prayer. 
Bergoglio has  done away with the First Commandment, the worship due to the true God. It started with Paul VI’s heretical ecclesiology, embodied in Vatican II. It continued with “Saint” John Paul the Great Apostate and his ecumenical abomination at Assisi, visiting Lutheran churches, praying in synagogues, and kissing the Koran. It progressed with “retired pope” Ratzinger’s statement that the papacy (which he never held anyway) was the greatest hindrance to “ecumenical progress.” It goes even further with Francis wanting all false sects to unite as one ecumenical denomination behind a one-world police state enforcing global ecological sanctions. Remember: Saving the environment, not your soul, is what really matters.Laudato Si also tells us “our common home” is the Earth. Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that our true home is Heaven, and while we must be good stewards of this planet, we must strive to get to humankind’s ultimate purpose–the Beatific Vision.The only way to do this is by being good members of the One True Church, and making as many converts as possible so they can hopefully join us there. Not so, saith “Pope” Francis. In paragraph #175, the false pope also tells us: The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. In other words, a One World Environmental “Police Force” putting us another step closer to a One World Government, with a One World Religion dedicated to recycling cans and praying to “Mother Earth.” 
ConclusionAnother false ecological doomsday is predicted, and being used to foster more governmental regulation of our lives. Simultaneously, the forces of evil are using it to further advance ecumenism and jettison Christ from society, replacing Him and His One True Church with a pagan One World Religion dedicated to “saving the planet,” while its members lose their souls. Don’t let Bergoglio and his false Vatican II sect lead you down that garden path; for those who worship “Mother Earth” would do well to remember the words of Christ, “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do.” (St. John 8:44)

from Novus Ordo Watch

While there is a perpetual debate raging on the precise identity of the bizarre carved image that was worshipped in the Vatican Gardens under Francis’ nose on Oct. 4 and keeps appearing at outrageous events (caution!) connected with the Amazon Synod in Rome, the Vatican has announced the release of a new book by their Dear Leader, the Jesuit apostate Jorge Bergoglio, also known by his stage name, “Pope Francis.”

The title of the book is: Our Mother Earth: A Christian Approach to the Environmental Challenge (original: Nostra Madre Terra: Una Lettura Cristiana della Sfide dell’Ambiente). The publisher is the Vatican publishing house Libreria Editrice Vaticana. The release date is Oct. 24, 2019, three days before the close of the scandalous synod. The book includes a prologue written by the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I.

Our latest podcast has a segment on this new publication:

According to Vaticanist Giuseppe NardiOur Mother Earth consists of 30 short meditations on the encyclical Laudato Si’, Francis’ environmentalist manifesto published in 2015. The Novus Ordo news agency Zenit says “the work is a compilation of the addresses, messages and homilies in which Pope Francis refers to the defense of the environment and appeals for the promotion of a worthy life for all peoples.” The article continues:

Among all the included documents, is an unpublished text of the Holy Father, in which he requests that we ask forgiveness for all the harm caused to our planet.

…the Holy Father says that without people’s true repentance about their lifestyle, the fight for the protection of the environment will be futile. “I sincerely hope for growth in awareness and true repentance on the part of us all, men and women of the 21st century, believers or not, and on the part of our societies, for allowing ourselves to be carried away by logics that divide, create hunger, isolate and condemn. It would be good to ask the poor [and] the excluded for forgiveness. Then we could repent sincerely, including for the harm done to the earth, the sea, the air, the animals . . . “

The Pontiff also points out the need to ask for forgiveness and to grant pardon, “actions that are only possible in the Holy Spirit, because He is the architect of communion, which opens the closures of individuals. And much love is needed to put aside one’s pride, to realize that one was mistaken and to have the hope that new paths are really possible.”

Repentance, indicates the Bishop of Rome, “is a grace to be humbly implored from the Lord Jesus Christ, so that our generation will be remembered in history not for its errors, but for [its] humility and wisdom to have been able to change direction.”

The Pope also points out that at present there is the awareness that phenomena, such as contamination, climate change, desertification, environmental migration, unsustainable consumption of the planet’s resources, acidification of the oceans and the decrease in biodiversity, “are inseparable aspects of social inequity.” …

(Larissa I. Lopez, “‘Our Mother Earth’: Pope Francis’ New Book”Zenit, Oct. 18, 2019; underlining added.)

Instead of calling the world to conversion to Jesus Christ and His holy Catholic Church — which is what a true Pope would do — Francis proselytizes everyone regarding the environment and all sorts of causes that may have merit in themselves but that have nothing to do with saving souls. In fact, one can say that Francis busies himself with just about anything that is not part of his job description — assuming he were what he claims to be.

Bergoglio uses religious terms such as “repentance” and “forgiveness” for non-religious matters. Here we are not talking about specific individuals who have to truly repent and ask God for forgiveness for poisoning a river, for example, or for destroying farmers’ livestock. That would indeed be a matter for the confessional — which would require conversion to Jesus Christ and His religion first, by the way — but this is not what Francis is talking about. He is talking about unspecified people collectively — all “men and women of the 21st century” except for “the poor and the excluded” — that are supposedly guilty of “logics that divide, create hunger, isolate and condemn” — whatever that is supposed to mean.

True, he does mention our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but only as a prop or gimmick to get his point heard. He is clearly not addressing a believing or unbelieving people to ask them to convert to a life of holiness, enabled by sanctifying grace in Faith, hope, and charity. Rather, his message is one of environmentalism, for “believers or not”. His concern is an earthly one, not a supernatural one; sanctifying grace is not part of it at all. We are witnessing the next step in the Bergoglian “gospel of man.”

It is a new eco-religion that is being set up in Vatican City before our very eyes, under the pretext of caring for God’s creation (look, God is mentioned!). “Ecological sins” are replacing true sins against Faith and morals, which, at least since Francis’ Amoris Laetitia, are no longer of any significance since God Himself, according to the blasphemous document, may desire us to commit them (see n. 303). In this new eco-religion, proselytism is suddenly allowed, probably obligatory. Dissent from this new creed is not only not “necessary” but greatly frowned upon.

For those wishing they could return to the “good old days” of John Paul II so as to escape all this neo-paganism, let’s remember that he laid the groundwork for all this garbage:

The following words of the Apostle and Evangelist St. John seem applicable here:

And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them.

(1 John 4:3-5)

Rejoice, everyone, for we are witnessing the fulfillment of Catholic prophecy, confirming us in “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

One of those prophecies is this one: “But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up” (2 Pet 3:10).

That’s bad news for Francis’ mother.