Archive for December, 2019

Burke and Schneider – False Hopes

December 16th, 2019 by Vigilo

from In Veritate

There are many who are asking me if there is anything to hope for in Novus Ordo Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider. For those who do not know them, these are two vocal critics of Bergoglio among the Novus Ordo hierarchy.

My response is that for the moment there is nothing to hope for from them. Cardinal Burke has taken the position thus far that the way to solve the Bergoglio problem is (1) by making public corrections of his errors, or (2) by dismissing his errors as merely Bergoglio’s opinion.

Neither of these “solutions,” however, does anything to preserve the Church’s continuity of doctrine. The problem facing the Novus Ordo conservatives is how to preserve the seamless garment of continuity of dogmatic teaching, moral teaching, essential disciplines, and liturgical rites of the Catholic Church. The Church claims to be divinely assisted in these matters, in such a way that the universal teachings, disciplines, and liturgical rites of the Catholic Church would be free from any pernicious error.

Let me explain. The infallibility of the Church is restricted in this way: (1) the doctrine which is taught must be contained in revelation, either Scripture or Tradition, at least implicitly; (2) the doctrine must be taught as having been divinely revealed either by the pope speaking with his full authority or by all the bishops of the world, together with the pope, either in a general council or dispersed throughout the world.

Infallible teaching made by popes alone, what is commonly referred to as ex cathedra teachings, are very rare. General councils are very rare, as well, and not all things which a general council teaches qualify as infallible unless such language is used to indicate that the Church is declaring something to be divinely revealed. There are many explanations given in council documents which do not qualify as having been divinely revealed, or promulgated with supreme authority with the intention to define.

What is not rare is ordinary universal magisterium, which happens every day, according to Pope Pius XI. This is the common teaching of bishops in union with the pope, that is, in union with the pope who is also teaching the same doctrine. This teaching happens through preaching, through the creeds of the Catholic Church, through approved catechisms, through the general teaching of Catholic theologians, and through approved universal liturgical rites. Nearly all of the Church’s moral teaching is by means of universal ordinary magisterium. For example, I know of no document which solemnly teaches that adultery is wrong, or that fornication is wrong. These things are taught by the Church’s universal ordinary magisterium, and require the assent of faith. The same may be said concerning the doctrine of Guardian Angels. These are infallible teachings. To deny them would be heresy.

Apart from these teachings which I have already described, there are many doctrines, disciplines, and liturgical rites which are negatively infallible. This simply means that although they are subject to reform, even suppression or retraction, they nonetheless are free from anything that would be sinful to accept or observe. So, for example, a pope might increase or decrease the obligation of fasting. While one could argue about the prudence of his decision, we have the guarantee from the indefectibility of the Church that it would not be a sin to observe the law. The same would be true of what is known as pontifical magisterium, which is used very commonly by popes, in which they teach authoritatively, usually in encyclicals, but do not wish to make a definition of what they are teaching. They may be unwilling to define the doctrine for many reasons, for example, that they have not done sufficient research about the matter necessary for a definition. To these teachings of popes we owe something called religious assent, that is, not the assent of faith, which can never change, but an assent to the teaching based on the authority of the pope as universal teacher of the whole Church. It would be sinful to repudiate these teachings, although not the sin of heresy. An example of this would be the teaching concerning the Mystical Body of Christ contained in Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII. [1]

The universal disciplines of the Church, as well as her universal liturgical rites, also come under negative infallibility. This means that while they may be more or less good, more or less perfect, they nevertheless could never prescribe anything sinful or pernicious. The Chinese missal, approved in the seventeenth century, is an example of this. The approval was later rescinded as a bad idea, but the law did not prescribe something sinful. [2]

This infallibility of the Church in its solemn and universal ordinary magisterium, as well as its negative infallibility in its sacred rites, pontifical magisterium, and disciplines, is all the effect of a more general principle of its indefectibility. By indefectibility we mean that (1) the Church must continue as an institution until the end of time, and (2) must continue the same in all its essential elements, without deviation or corruption, until the end of time. The essential elements of any religion are threefold: (1) faith and morals; (2) laws and disciplines; (3) liturgical rites.

This indefectibility is based on Our Lord’s words: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.”

The central issue for the Catholic Church since Vatican II is this indefectibility. While there is no argument about the continuity of the Catholic Church as an institution, there is plenty of angst about its continuity in doctrine, disciplines, and liturgy.

There are three responses to this problem: (1) that of the sedevacantists, who hold that the Vatican II revolution was evil from the start, and that all those who have participated in it and promote it have lost their ability to rule the Church, or never had it to begin with; (2) that of the SSPX and similar organizations, which hold that many doctrines, disciplines, and liturgical practices of the Novus Ordo are indeed evil, but that Catholics can “sift” these things for what is Catholic, and reject what is non-Catholic; (3) that of the Novus Ordo conservatives, who, up to recently, have said that the changes of Vatican II are in themselves acceptable, if deficient, but involve nothing false or pernicious. The problems in the Church are caused by bad interpretation of the documents of Vatican II.

The preservation of indefectibility is absolutely central and essential to the Vatican II problem. If Vatican II involves defection from the faith, or has prescribed or even permitted pernicious errors or sinful practices, then the claim of the Catholic Church to be assisted by Christ until the end of time collapses in ashes. If Vatican II is defection, and has been promulgated by the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church is a big hoax.

The Novus Ordo conservatives are presently experiencing a meltdown, because they are no longer capable of making a credible argument that Bergoglio’s teachings are in accordance with the Catholic Faith. So they are turning toward one of the two other solutions, either that of sedevacantism or that of the SSPX, the “sifting solution.”

The Modernists, of course, have no care about continuity of doctrine, discipline, or liturgy. They believe in the evolution of all of these things. What they are very concerned about, however, is the continuity of the institution of the Catholic Church, since they want to use its credibility as a vehicle for their wicked doctrines and practices. It is similar to a bunch of thugs who have stolen your Rolls-Royce and are now taking it for a joy ride around town.

All of this brings us to the point: Is there hope in Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider? The answer is no, not at this point at least. They are abandoning the Novus Ordo conservative position (the “nothing-has-changed” solution), but they are embracing the SSPX “sifting” position. So Cardinal Burke has issued corrections of Bergoglio’s false doctrines, as if this fixes the problem.

It does not fix the problem. The very idea that a correction is necessary proves the fact that there has been a deviation in doctrine in the supreme teacher of the Church. The correction merely supports the accusation that the Church has defected. Then there is the problem: Who is right? the pope or the correctors? Would not a Catholic side with the pope? Who appointed the correctors anyway? What authority do they have? Maybe the self-appointed correctors need self-appointed correctors. And maybe the correctors’ correctors need self-appointed correctors. Does everyone see the absurdity of this? Why have a pope if all you need is self-appointed correctors?

Bishop Schneider has written a whole treatise addressing the heretical pope issue, in which he incorporates many Modernist ideas about the papacy, and advocates the recognize and resist (SSPX) approach to the problem. For example, he espouses the Modernist doctrine that the Church did not become “pope-centrist” until the late Middle Ages, as if up to that time the pope were merely one bishop among many. He also espouses the Modernist idea that the pope does not embody the whole Church. This is clearly false, since the pope is the vicar of Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the entire Mystical Body, the Roman Catholic Church. Consequently, as all the members of the Church are members of Christ’s Mystical Body, so does the pope represent in himself the entire Church. Saint Ambrose (fifth century) said it so succinctly: Where Peter is, there is the Church.

So there is no hope in these men. They are trying to save the Vatican II religion and its heresy-promulgating hierarchy by diminishing the authority of the pope, and by suggesting that issuing “corrections” will suffice to ensure the indefectibility of the Catholic Church. These are very serious errors.

I say, however, that there is no hope for the time being. For these men, and those like them, are obviously of good will, and desire to see doctrinal continuity in the Church. But we must understand that they have, for many decades, inhabited the same ecclesiastical nest together with the Modernists. As a result, they have lost their sense of outrage against heresy. They live in a church that has institutionalized heresy. It is a heretical flop-house, lodging in it all sorts of theological derelicts. It is akin to living in a slum, where there are rats and cockroaches crawling everywhere in the house, and stinking garbage cans overflowing with refuse. These men have lost all sense of the magnificence, the doctrinal purity, the integrity, the consistency, and the unity of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. Perhaps one day, by God’s grace, they will come to realize what they must do to solve the problem.

The only solution to Vatican II is to dump it, that is, to recognize it as a modernist revolution in the Church, conceived by Modernists, used by Modernists, and directed by Modernists. Consequently, it has no value in the history of the Church, and the hierarchy which instigated it and promulgated it, from John XXIII on, have no legitimacy as rulers of the Catholic Church. In other words, it is not the Catholic Church which is the hoax; it is they who are the hoax.

But one or the other is the hoax. In other words, you cannot somehow bring together an infallible, divinely-assisted, indefectible Church, on the one hand, and the universal promulgation of condemned doctrines, heresies, evil laws, evil disciplines, and non-Catholic rites on the other hand. Logically this is impossible. Something must give.

We know by faith that the Church is divinely assisted, infallible, and indefectible. Consequently the necessary logical conclusion, required by faith, is that it is Vatican II, together with its subsequent reforms, which is the hoax.

[1] Pope Pius XII was explicit about the necessity to accept non-infallible papal teachings. In his encyclical Humani Generis of 1950, the Pope states: “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

[2] “From the extent of the infallible teaching authority to all questions of faith and morals it follows that the Church, and, consequently, the pope, is infallible also in decrees binding the whole Church in matters of divine worship and discipline, since these are in closest connection with faith and morals; that such decrees, therefore, can never contain anything contrary to faith or morals. The same infallibility extends to the canonization of saints.” (Rev. W. Wilmers, S.J., Handbook of the Christian Religion, New York: Benziger Brothers, 1891, no. 59.)

from Novus Ordo Watch

Yesterday, Dec. 8, Vatican News published a story entitled: “Pope entrusts sinners to Mary in prayer for Immaculate Conception”.

Clearly, it was time for Jorge Bergoglio (aka “Pope Francis”) to put on his Marian face again, for every so often this blaspheming apostate has to feign pious devotion to the Mother of God and other saints in order to help him keep the charade of being the Pope of the Catholic Church alive.

Are these words too harsh? By no means. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a good opportunity to review some instances where Francis has publicly attacked, denied, or otherwise dishonored the Immaculate Mother of God.

Example 1: Audience of September 11, 2013

We begin with his General Audience of Sep. 11, 2013. Francis compared the Catholic Church with the Blessed Mother — nothing wrong with that — but he put forward premises which, once they are connected, inevitably lead to the heretical and blasphemous conclusion that the Virgin Mary was not free from every stain of sin.

In order to give the full context of what he said, we will quote the entire relevant paragraph, underlining the portions that corroborate our thesis:

First of all a mother generates life, she carries her child in her womb for 9 months and then delivers him to life, giving birth to him. The Church is like this: she bears us in the faith, through the work of the Holy Spirit who makes her fertile, like the Virgin Mary. The Church and the Virgin Mary are mothers, both of them; what is said of the Church can be said also of Our Lady and what is said of Our Lady can also be said of the Church! Certainly faith is a personal act: “I believe”, I personally respond to God who makes himself known and wants to enter into friendship with me (cf. Lumen Fidei, n. 39). But the faith I receive from others, within a family, within a community that teaches me to say “I believe”, “we believe”. A Christian is not an island! We do not become Christians in a laboratory, we do not become Christians alone and by our own effort, since the faith is a gift, it is a gift from God given to us in the Church and through the Church. And the Church gives us the life of faith in Baptism: that is the moment in which she gives birth to us as children of God, the moment she gives us the life of God, she engenders us as a mother would. If you go to the Baptistery of St John Lateran, beside the Pope’s Cathedral, inside it there is an inscription in Latin which reads more or less: “Here is born a people of divine lineage, generated by the Holy Spirit who makes these waters life-giving; Mother Church gives birth to her children within these waves”. This makes us understand something important: our taking part in the Church is not an exterior or formal fact, it is not filling out a form they give us; it is an interior and vital act; one does not belong to the Church as one belongs to a society, to a party or to any other organization. The bond is vital, like the bond you have with your mother, because, as St Augustine says, “The Church is truly the mother of Christians” (De moribus Ecclesiae, I, 30, 62-63: PL 32, 1336). Let us ask ourselves: how do I see the Church? As I am grateful to my parents for giving me life, am I grateful to the Church for generating me in the faith through Baptism? How many Christians remember the date of their Baptism? I would like to ask you here, but each of you respond in you heart: how many of you remember the date of your Baptism? A few people raise their hands, but many others do not remember! But the date of your Baptism is the day of our birth in the Church, the date on which our mother Church gave us life! And now I leave you with some homework. When you go home today, go and find out what the date of your Baptism is, and then celebrate it, thank the Lord for this gift. Are you going to do it? Do we love the Church as we love our mothers, also taking into account her defects? All mothers have defects, we all have defects, but when we speak of our mother’s defects we gloss over them, we love her as she is. And the Church also has her defects: but we love her just as a mother. Do we help her to be more beautiful, more authentic, more in harmony with the Lord? I leave you with these questions, but don’t forget your homework: go find the date of your Baptism, carry it in your heart and celebrate it.

(Antipope Francis, General, Sep. 11, 2013; italics given; underlining added.)

It doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together here: First Bergoglio tells us that what is said of the Church can also be said of Our Lady, and then he asserts that the Church has defects we must gloss over. The implication is obvious and inescapable — and it is heresy.

It is heresy not only against the Immaculate Conception (see Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus) but also against the Church, for God’s own Revelation tells us that God’s Church is “a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but … holy, and without blemish” (Eph 5:27). Besides, in the ancient Apostles’ Creed, we profess our belief in “the holy Catholic Church” (Denz. 1), and Pope Pius XI referred to her as “the immaculate spouse of Christ, and … perfect teacher” (Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, n. 101). Quotations to the same effect could be multiplied, but these suffice.

Thus far our first example of Francis’ diabolically clever attack against the Mother of God, subtly undermining belief in her Immaculate Conception. A most egregious and direct attack on Mary Most Pure, however, came later the same year.

Example 2: Homily of December 20, 2013

The next example comes from a homily he preached at his daily worship meal at the Casa Santa Marta on Dec. 20, 2013, right before Christmas. Vatican Radio presented a summary with copious quotations:

The Mother of Jesus was the perfect icon of silence. From the proclamation of her exceptional maternity at Calvary. The Pope said he thinks about “how many times she remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son,” up until the most raw silence “at the foot of the cross”.

“The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things [she] told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.”

(“Pope: Silence Guards one’s Relationship with God”Vatican Radio, Dec. 20, 2013; underlining added.)

What revolting blasphemy! Jorge Bergoglio is a son of Satan, a child from hell!

Interestingly enough, the report of this scandalous and blasphemous homily published by the Vatican’s own newspaper, Osservatore Romano, chose to omit this portion: “Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’” Why might that be?

Having been sinless throughout her entire life, it was of course wholly impossible for the Blessed Virgin Mary to have had the least voluntary thought or desire contrary to God’s Law, and accusing or even suspecting God of deceiving her would certainly fall into that category.

Likewise, it is utterly unthinkable that the Mother of Sorrows, who “has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption” (Pope Pius X, Encyclical Ad Diem Illum, n. 14), could have doubted that Calvary was the fulfillment of the mission of her Divine Son:

We must never forget that our Lady was a willing victim. Never was a murmur heard to fall from her lips. There was never a murmur in her heart. Her will was as perfectly at one with the Will of the Divine Victim dying upon the Cross, as it is possible for the will of the creature to be attuned in suffering to the Will of the Creator. She consented as freely, as fully on Calvary to the Passion of Christ, as at Nazareth she had consented to His Incarnation. During the three hours of the first Good Friday, our Lady never wavered. ‘Be it done unto me according to Thy Word’ still expressed all that she would say. Everything was left by her to God. For us men and for our salvation she offered her Son without reserve, and thus was granted to her that which shall be hers for ever, her special place, by itself apart, in the work of man’s Redemption.

(O. R. Vassall-Phillips, The Mother of Christ; Or, the Blessed Virgin Mary in Catholic Tradition, Theology, and Devotion, 2nd ed. [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD, 1922], pp. 121-122)

This is Catholicism, and not Bergoglio’s sickening drivel!

Francis’ idea of what the Blessed Virgin “perhaps desired to say” is eerily reminiscent of what Eve said to God after being called upon to give a reason for why she had eaten of the forbidden fruit: “The serpent deceived me, and I did eat” (Gen 3:13). But the Blessed Mother is the New Eve, that is, the Counter-Eve, the reverse of Eve, inasmuch as, unlike Eve, Mary was perfectly obedient to God, so much so that Eve’s “No” to God by eating the forbidden fruit was counteracted by Mary’s “Fiat Mihi” — “Let it be done unto me” (Lk 1:38). In fact, the name Eva (Latin for Eve) beautifully reverses as Ave, as in “Ave Maria” (Lk 1:28).

To say, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin could have even so much as entertained the thought of God having lied to her, when the devil is the Father of Lies (Jn 8:44) and God is the Source of all Truth (Jn 14:6), is beyond sickening. It is essentially putting in the mind of the Most Pure Mother of God what was in the mind of Eve when she doubted God’s Word and succumbed to the lies of the devil, thus committing the first sin (see Gen 3:1-6).

Example 3: Act of Dedication of July 10, 2015

Our next case in point is connected to Francis’ trip to Bolivia in the summer of 2015, when Socialist President Evo Morales gave Bergoglio a Marxist crucifix — Christ nailed to a hammer and sickle, the symbols of Communism — as a welcome gift. Francis happily received it and later clarified that he was not at all offended by it. Long-time readers may recall the outrage and controversy over Francis’ comments upon seeing the thing:

Nevertheless, Francis found a way to one-up the Communist head-of-state: He dedicated a pendant Morales had given him, which likewise included a depiction of Christ crucified on hammer and sickle, to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Vatican’s press office released the following remarks by Francis, including a prayer of dedication:

The President of the Nation, in a gesture of cordiality, was kind enough to offer me two honours on behalf of the people of Bolivia. I give thanks for the affection of the Bolivian people and I give thanks for the President’s kind gesture, and I would like to leave these two honours to the Patroness of Bolivia, the Mother of this noble Nation, that she may always remember her people, and that from Bolivia, from this Shrine where I would like them to remain, may she also remember the Successor of Peter and the whole Church, and from Bolivia may she care for them.

[Turning in prayer to the Virgin]

Mother of the Saviour, Our Mother, you, Queen of Bolivia, from the height of your Shrine in Copacabana, attend to the prayers and the needs of your children, especially the poor and abandoned, and protect them.

Receive as a gift from the heart of Bolivia and my filial affection the symbols of affection and closeness that — on behalf of the Bolivian people — Mr President Evo Morales Ayma presented to me with cordial and generous affection, on the occasion of this Apostolic Journey, which I entrusted to your solicitous intercession.

I ask that these honours, which I leave here in Bolivia at your feet, and which recall the nobility of the flight of the Condor in the skies of the Andes and the commemorated sacrifice of Father Luis Espinal, SJ, may be emblems of the everlasting love and persevering gratitude of the Bolivian people for your solicitous and intense tenderness. At this moment, Mother, I place in your heart my prayers for all the many petitions of your children, which I have received in these days: I beg you to hear them; give them your encouragement and protection, and manifest to the whole of Bolivia your tenderness as woman and Mother of God, who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.

(Antipope Francis, Remarks on the Occasion of the Presentation of Two Decorative Honors to Our Lady of, July 10, 2015)

Francis’ prayer may sound devout and sincere, but here the prophet Isaias’ warning comes to mind, quoted by our Blessed Lord: “This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me” (Mt 15:8; cf. Is 29:13). Far indeed, for what Francis here refers to as a great honor that recalls “the commemorated sacrifice of Father Luis Espinal, SJ” is a most disgusting insult to Jesus Christ our Lord, to His Sacred Passion and Death, and to His infinite Love. And with this sickening dedication, the same insult was extended also to the Blessed Mother herself. Now none other than the “Pope” has associated her and her Divine Son with the cruel and murderous scourge of Socialism and Communism, two systems condemned by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI (see, for example, the papal encyclicals Quod Apostolici MunerisRerum Novarum, and Divini Redemptoris), among others.

Example 4: Christmas Greetings of December 21, 2018

The final example of Francis’ attacks on the Virgin Mother of God we will look at is found in his Christmas greetings to Vatican City employees given on Dec. 21, 2018. The Argentinian apostate said:

Our Lady and Saint Joseph are full of joy: they look at the Child Jesus and they are happy because, after a thousand worries, they have accepted this gift of God, with so much faith and so much love. They are “overflowing” with holiness and therefore with joy. And you will tell me: of course! They are Our Lady and Saint Joseph! Yes, but let us not think it was easy for them: saints are not born, they become thus, and this is true for them too.

(Antipope Francis, Christmas Greetings to, Dec. 21, 2018; underlining added.)

The fact that Francis suggests that it wasn’t until after some kind of interior struggle that Holy Mary and St. Joseph (finally) “accepted this gift of God”, is troubling and blasphemous enough. This alone would probably suffice to accuse him of heresy. But he goes much further. He explicitly says that it was not easy for them to be joyful at the Birth of Christ because this required holiness that they had not received from birth but had to acquire over time!

Needless to say, it is most certainly generally true that saints are not born but made over time, with penance and prayer, enabled and aided by the grace of God (cf. Mt 11:30). However, the Blessed Virgin Mary is an exception in that she was perfectly holy from the very beginning of her existence due to her special fullness of grace (see Lk 1:28) given her by God as a singular privilege — and this is a dogma defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

So, not only was the Blessed Virgin Mary born a saint, she was conceived one, too. In other words, she has always been a saint, even from the very first moment of her existence. There was never an instant in which she existed without this fullness of grace; at no point was she ever under the dominion of the devil. This was already hinted at right after the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden: “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” (Gen 3:15).

But Francis has stated before that to him, “full of grace” does not mean “full of virtue” or holiness, but “full of beauty, gratuitousness” — whatever that is supposed to mean.

Before we conclude, we must note that it is certainly true that Francis has also said beautiful and orthodox things about the Blessed Mother and her Immaculate Conception. Of course he has — that’s precisely how the most insidious heretics like him operate.

Being a dangerous Modernist, Bergoglio is two-faced: He will affirm in one sentence what he denies in the next. The apostate from Buenos Aires is like the heretic Nestorius, who “expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed” (Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, preamble; cf. Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, nn. 4, 18).

Let no one, therefore, deceive you by appealing to Francis’ orthodox passages, claiming that they demonstrate him to be a Catholic. They do not.

They merely show that what we have here is a heretic of the most noxious sort.

from Novus Ordo Watch

Vatican II condemned in 1833…

The ideas of the Vatican II revolution weren’t new in the 1960s. In the post-Reformation period, various errors along the lines of Liberalism and Modernism had already infected sundry innovators who were trying to introduce these novelties into the Church. The errors manifested themselves in revolutionary movements to bring the Church “up to date”, introducing vernacular tongues into the sacred liturgy, changing the Mass to correspond more to the demands of modern man, adapting Church discipline to modernity, etc.

The Holy See, of course, always sternly and competently condemned these errors and defended the Immaculate Bride of Christ from the snares of the innovators. One of the greatest documents defending the Church against the “renewal” proposed by the Liberals of the time is the encyclical Quo Graviora of Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846), published in 1833, which we highly recommend you read in full, but from which we shall provide only a brief excerpt for purposes of this post.

The Holy Father instructed his bishops as follows:

You know, venerable brothers, on what erroneous principles the abovementioned men and their followers depend and where that desire which moves them to begin effecting a revolution in the Church has its origin. We do not think it superfluous to clarify many of those things and to explain them here. A false idea has for a long time grown stronger and spread widely through these regions. This idea is spread by an impious and absurd system of indifference toward religious matters which claims that the Christian religion can become perfect in time. While the patrons of such a false idea are afraid to adapt the shaky possibility of perfection to the truths of faith, they establish it in the external administration and discipline of the Church. Moreover, in order to bring about faith in their error, they wrongfully and deceitfully usurp the authority of Catholic theologians. These theologians propound here and there a distinction between the teaching and the discipline of the Church which underlies this change, that it will always stand firm and never be harmed by any alteration. Once this is established, they state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church in the present day, in its government, and in the form of its external worship which are not suited to the character of our time. These things, they say, should be changed, as they are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion, before the teaching of faith and morals suffers any harm from it. Therefore, showing a zeal for religion and showing themselves as an example of piety, they force reforms, conceive of changes, and pretend to renew the Church.

Truly such reformers use these principles. In addition, they disclose and propose them in many pamphlets…. While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). They also attacked the pure doctrine which they say they want to keep safe and sound; either they do not understand the situation or craftily pretend not to understand it. While they contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately, do they not subject to change even those items of discipline which have their basis in divine law and which are linked with the doctrine of faith in a close bond? Does not the law of the believer thus produce the law of the doer? Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?

(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Quo Graviora, nn. 4-5; underlining added.)

The underlined portions are typical errors spread by the Vatican II religion today and/or adhered to by a great number of people who believe themselves to be Roman Catholics. Yet, Holy Mother Church had long and frequently condemned these things as incompatible with and injurious to the true Faith. So much for that “hermeneutic of continuity”!

For example, in 1907, Pope Saint Pius X, quoting his predecessor Leo XIII, warned: “It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind” (Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 55; underlining added). Is this not essentially a condemnation of the entire Vatican II religion in its very foundations?

Many people do not realize that a lot of the Church’s disciplines and laws are so closely bound up with divine revelation and the truths of the Faith that to change them would be tantamount to changing the Faith itself. This is why Pope Gregory speaks of the “law of the believer” producing “the law of the doer.” It is natural for a man to act as he believes, and to believe as he acts. Should there temporarily be a difference between the two, resulting in what is today often called “cognitive dissonance”, it will resolve itself before long, either by the person changing what he believes to agree with his actions, or by changing his actions to agree with his beliefs.

This is where the New Church has been so successful in destroying the true Faith in millions upon millions: They have changed the disciplines (for example, and most especially, the Holy Mass) to agree with the New Faith, and by making people act in accordance with the new beliefs, they have ensured that they will, before long, also change what they believe, gradually and without even so much as noticing it.

Perfect cases in point: Mass facing the people. Communion in the hand. Reducing the Holy Mass from the August Sacrifice of the Altar to a communal meal. Talking and dancing in church. Absurd clown liturgies. Using churches for profane events. Marriage “annulments” handed out so lightly and numerously that they are now the de facto “Catholic” equivalent to secular divorce, having harmed thousands of families, esp. children. And so forth. The list is endless.

Who today in the Vatican II Church is still a Catholic in what he believes and professes? The message the changes since Vatican II have been sending is essentially: God is not to be taken seriously; the Catholic Church is not to be taken seriously. Everything changes with the times, including religious things. And that’s precisely the message that people understood, and they imbibed it deeply and acted accordingly.

In short, the Novus Ordo Church has made itself irrelevant, and that is exactly what it is today and why no one in the secular world really takes it seriously. All the crocodile tears now being shed about “abuses” and desired “continuity” with the past and lost influence with the secular governments of the world, are not going to change the fact that this Vatican II Revolution was begun by and imposed from the top. Never forget this. It all began with Angelo Roncalli, “Pope” John XXIII. And it went downhill from there.

All of this was no accident, however; it was by design. It had been planned by those whom the true Popes had always warned us about as conspiring against the very Body of Christ: the Freemasons. Is it any wonder that ever since the beginning of the Vatican II Church, Freemasonry was no longer considered a threat to the church?

For a clearer picture, be sure to read the 1993 essay “Freemasons and the Conciliar Church” (PDF), made available exclusively on this web site with the gracious permission of the author. Also, see our 2013 post “Freemasons Support ‘Pope’ Francis” for additional information.

Other Important Papal Condemnations of Modern Errors

Book Recommendations

from Novus Ordo Watch

Drag queen Wurst performs in St. Stephen’s Cathedral at the invitation of “Card.” Schonborn

It’s that time of the year again: “Cardinal” Christoph Schönborn, the pretend-Archbishop of Vienna, Austria, has once again invited representatives of the sodomite lobby and their abettors to desecrate the Cathedral of St. Stephen (Stephansdom) with “artistic performances” under the pretext of raising money for people who suffer from AIDS or are infected with HIV. He hosted this “charity” event together with his sidekick, the cathedral rector “Fr.” Anton “Toni” Faber, who is notorious for conferring blessings on “gay” couples on St. Valentine’s Day.

This latest abomination took place on Saturday, Nov. 30, 2019, the eve of World AIDS Day. One of the star performers was Thomas Neuwirth, the famous Austrian drag queen (transvestite) better known by his blasphemous pseudonym Conchita Wurst. The following video clips summarize what transpired in the cathedral, which, it bears repeating, is not a multipurpose event hall but an edifice built for, and consecrated exclusively to, the worship of the Most Holy Trinity:

As is evident in these videos, Schonborn was seated in the front pew, right next to Gery Keszler, organizer of the “Long Night of Solidarity” (Lange Nacht der Solidarität), of which the concert inside St. Stephen’s was the main event.

Keszler is himself an open sodomite. Last year, Keszler revealed in a public discussion that Schonborn had given him and his homosexual partner a blessing in private on Aug. 15, 2018. Schonborn never disputed the testimony and now invited Keszler back into his cathedral. That is a tacit admission that the claim is true, for keeping silence when one has an obligation to speak, implies consent.

Having a blast before going to hell: Schonborn, left, with Keszler (center) and singer Dorretta Carter

The Archdiocese of Vienna reported on this “charity event” on its web site, quoting Schonborn as saying during the Nov. 30 jamboree: “God wants no one to feel excluded; he wants all to feel safe.” To emphasize that he was turning St. Stephen’s Cathedral into a “safe space” for sexual perverts and those who support them, he added: “I want you to know that in this cathedral we are all at home” (our translation).

Unfortunately for Mr. Schonborn, God’s own Revelation regarding inclusion and exclusion says something different:

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without [i.e. outside] are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

(Apocalypse 22:14-15)

Of course, the Modernists have never let Divine Revelation get in the way of their heresies, so the Scriptural truth isn’t going to bother Schonborn or Faber very much.

Some people will object that there is nothing wrong with raising money to help AIDS victims. That may be true, but the end does not justify the means, and the means to do it was evil: the desecration of a Catholic cathedral and the celebration of unnatural vice. One is never permitted to commit or promote mortal sin — not for any reason!

“Archbishop” Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Vatican nuncio to the United States who is still in hiding after a series of public missives against “Pope” Francis, released a letter in which he condemned the profanation of Vienna’s glorious cathedral:

Once again Vienna, the glorious capital that was able to resist the advance of the Ottoman Horde with the weapons of light and faith, suffers — dismayed and scandalized — yet another homoerotic and blasphemous provocation. Gay activists, transvestites and transsexuals perform on the Cathedra of St. Stephen, when instead they should receive from the Catholic Church the proclamation of Christ’s liberating Truth and the gift of his saving Love, freely offered to all those who, from the depths of their wounds and repentance, dare to acknowledge their need for salvation.

(Carlo Maria Viganò, Letter to Alexander Tschugguel et al., Nov. 30, 2019; in “Archbishop Vigano Condemns Vienna Cathedral Pro-LGBT Concert as ‘Blasphemous’”Edward Pentin, Dec. 1, 2019; translation by Diane Montagna.)

Vigano continued with an interesting choice of words, saying: “I join with all my heart the little flock, who are perhaps without a Shepherd but are called to gather in the Heart of the Immaculata to implore from her, through the reparative prayer of the Holy Rosary, God’s forgiveness for the offenses and outrages that have been perpetrated” (underlining added).

Is Viganò hinting that Francis might not be the Pope (anymore)? If Vigano ever comes to that conclusion, it would make him the second Novus Ordo bishop to do so (that we know of), the first one being Fr. René Gracida.

As for Schonborn, this is nothing unusual for him. Quite possibly a Freemason, he has a long history of anti-Catholicism. He is known for his continued support of sexual perversion and for his repeated facilitation of blasphemy and sacrilege. The following posts make clear what kind of a man he is:

Schonborn, by the way, is a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Destruction of the Faith. He is the man Francis chose to explain his exhortation Amoris Laetitia to the public on Apr. 8, 2016. Schonborn is also one of the chief theologians behind the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, first published in 1992.

In other words: Schonborn is a man after Francis’ heart.

Watch out, he may just become his successor.