Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

Talking Sedevacantism with an SSPX Lay Kahuna

from QuidlibetFather: Even though I’ve figured out that sedevacantism is the only possible theological explanation for Bergoglio and the whole Vatican II mess, I still have a lot of friends and acquaintances in SSPX circles. Word of my change of position has gotten around, so the topic now comes up in conversations. Lay SSPX-ers agree with my arguments … up to a point. Their priests respond like they are brain dead, and either have no answer at all or tell me to read the Salza-Siscoe book.

Recently, though, a layman who is a respected major player in the SSPX empire invited me over to talk with him about sedevacantism. He’s an intelligent guy, and probably hopes to “convert” me back to R&R from the “errors” of sedevacantism. Any ideas about how to handle him?

LOOK ON IT as an opportunity to get him thinking about some of the unquestioned “givens” the Society has handed him about “evil, schismatic, proud” sedevacantism.

Like the SSPX priest, your friend also probably told you to read the Salza-Siscoe book, which is like Ambien in print. Zzzz. Instead of sending him links to Dead on Arrival and A Dignified Burial, my two videos refuting the book’s arguments,  I’d recommend you point him to a big wave coming from another direction.

A SEDE behind that smile?

I. Abp. Lefebvre in Favor of Sedevacantism?

For any SSPX kahuna, clerical or lay, the gold standard for explaining the state of the Church after Vatican II is supposedly “the position of Archbishop Lefebvre,” as if this were some great body of fixed and consistent teaching — which, of course, it was not. (See a 1984 article here.)

But since the notion of Lefebvre’s supposed authority casts such a long shadow in SSPX-land, you should meet your friend’s suggestion that you read the Salza-Siscoe book with another suggestion to him: that he take a close look at the material found at these two links:

Chances are, the lay kahuna will run this rather surprising information by an SSPX priest, perhaps even the District Kahuna himself. These priests — unlike me — did not know Abp. Lefebvre personally or hear him say these things, and they will not have a convincing way to explain them away for your friend.

So, an intelligent and reasonable man, having been told for ages that “the archbishop’s thinking” on Vatican II mess was nearly divine revelation, may indeed rightly begin to question the SSPX party line that sedevacantism is “schismatic.”

How could it be, if the the Iron Bishop himself so repeatedly spoke in favor of it?

The only conclusion if you say “true popes.”

II. The Real Problem: A Defecting Church

But serving up Abp. Lefebvre’s pro-sede statements is just a little hors d’oeuvre.

The essential argument against R&R and for sedevacantism is based upon ironclad principles of Catholic (i.e. pre-Vatican II) dogmatic theology concerning the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church — n.b. not just the infallibility of Roman Pontiff alone in rare ex cathedra pronouncements. I have provided a summary and application of the teaching in Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Frankenchurch, and again in Section I of Sedevacantism: A Quick Primer.The logical corner to force intelligent SSPX-ers like your lay friend into is the defecting Church.

(1) If Vatican II is error and the new laws are evil — as SSPX and R&R firmly insist —and at the same time, and the men who promulgated them somehow still had authority from Christ, the Church herself has defected, and Christ’s promises have failed — especially, “I am with you always.”

(2) But faith tells us this is impossible.

(3) The only alternate solution consonant with the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility is that the men who promulgated these errors and evils never received authority from Christ in the first placethey defected — not the Church herself — and became incapable of being validly elected popes or of receiving authority from Jesus Christ.

(4) The judgement that the changes were errors and evils is thus implicitly a judgment that those who promulgated them had no authority.

In other words, the errors and evils of the officially-approved changes is the smoking gun which leads to an unassailable and ironclad verdict: No authority, fake popes.

III. Wait for the Lame Excuses…

Your friend will probably have heard the standard objections that SSPX has employed to get around this argument, and may repeat them to you:

  • Where would we get a true pope, then?
  • Vatican II is not universal ordinary magisterium because it is not in accord with previous “tradition,” so we’re not bound by it.
  • The pope is like a bad dad whom we can disobey.

All these have been answered over the years, and answered in spades:

(1) Not having absolute certitude how to get a pope does not make a heretic a true pope by default OR solve your defecting Church problem.

(2) ALL the bishops came home from the Vatican II and, in union with the Vatican II popes, taught the Council’s doctrines, which John Paul II then duly enshrined and imposed as obligatory in his universal catechism; so, if you believe the V2 popes are true popes, Vatican II is universal ordinary magisterium.

(3) The SSPX argument that universal ordinary magisterium, to be such and to be binding, must first be “in accord with tradition”

a. Erroneously turns a consequence into a condition. In fact, a teaching is “in accord with tradition” and infallible because a true pope and his bishops universally teach it — that’s how Christ’s promise works — not because you, Mr. Layman or Father SSPX, have checked out the hierarchy’s pronouncement and decided that it is consistent with “tradition.”

b. Was an argument of the anti-infallibilist “Old Catholic” party that was rejected by Vatican I.

(4) A bad dad’s authority is paternal, domestic, private and expressed in particular commands, whereas a pope’s authority is jurisdictional, universal, public and exercised through universal disciplinary laws, which are infallible. Sorry, there are no common points, making this old analogy particularly bone-headed and silly.

There are other equally worthless evasions that have likewise been answered again and again. (See section 3 of Sedevacantism: A Quick Primer.)

•  •  •  •  •

YOUR LAY FRIEND should have no difficulty understanding the argument: once you say that the officially-approved changes in doctrine and discipline are errors and are evil, you are logically stuck with one of two explanations: the Church has defected, or the individual or individuals who imposed them have defected.

Sedevacantists like Bp. Daniel Dolan, Bp. Donald Sanborn and myself have been making this same argument for decades, and no one — not Michael Davies, not The Remnant, not SSPX, not its SS shock troops, not anyone on the R&R side — has been able to come up with a convincing refutation for it based on the principles of pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology.

If the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical changes are error-ridden, evil and sacrilegious, the papacy of the Vatican II popes is toast. It is a straight-line argument to that inexorable conclusion.

Your lay friend may indeed be comfortably basking in the SSPX empire’s sunny climate at the moment. But forcing him to think logically about the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility may well lead him to say a final aloha to the R&R myths, and bid a new one to sedevacantism as his own wave of the future…

October Devotion to Honor St. Joseph

On this the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we should also recall another devotion for the month of October, that to blessed St. Joseph.

Pope Leo XIII ordered this prayer to St. Joseph to be said as a devotion after the rosary throughout October. It is a really good prayer, so remember to include it in your devotions.

Prayer to Saint Joseph for the October Devotions

Ordered by Pope Leo XIII to be set as part of the devotions for the Month of October

To thee, O blessed Joseph, do we fly in our tribulation, and having implored the help of thy most holy spouse, we confidently crave thy patronage also. Through that charity which bound thee to the immaculate, Virgin Mother of God, and through the paternal love with which thou didst embrace the Child Jesus, we humbly beseech thee graciously to regard the inheritance which Jesus Christ hath purchased by His blood, and with thy power and strength to aid us in our necessities.

O most watchful Guardian of the Divine Family, defend the chosen children of Jesus Christ; O most loving Father, ward off from us every contagion of error and corrupting influence; O our most mighty Protector, be propitious to us and from heaven assist us in this our struggle with the power of darkness: and, as once thou didst rescue the Child Jesus from deadly peril, so now protect God’s holy Church from the snares of the enemy and from all adversity: shield, too, each one of us by thy constant protection, so that, supported by thine example and thine aid, we may be able to live piously, to die holily, and to obtain eternal happiness in heaven. Amen.

Indulgences: I. Seven years and seven quarantines, if said after the Rosary in October. II. 300 days, once a day, at other times (and in this case the words in italics are omitted) – Leo XIII Enc., August 15th 1889; Indul., September 21, 1889.

Thoughts on Impeachment

from In Veritate

The recent decision to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Trump is a very troubling historical event.

The reason is that the government of the United States, in pursuing this path, is showing the telltale signs of decline, which will eventually lead to its downfall.

The strength of the United States of America, over the nearly 250 years of its existence, has been the stability of its government on the one hand, and the civility of its citizens, on the other. Both of these qualities are remarkable, given the fact that it is a federation of many states, covering a vast territory, and a people consisting of many differing cultures, backgrounds, races, and religions.

These disparate elements have managed to stay the course of unity through the determination of its citizens to make it work. Even the War Between the States was unable, in the long run, to reduce the nation to political rubble.

In the political world, there has always been a toleration and forbearance of the opposing party or parties, since there was a mechanism in place to peacefully replace the bearers of governmental power. The losers of an election, whether the liberals or the conservatives, simply had to bear up until the next election.

In the cultural and religious world, Americans always practiced a civility towards those who were not of your fold. America was a place in which you could make your own world, whether political, cultural or religious, while at the same time carefully observing a civil kindness and decency toward those who disagreed or who were different.

These factors are central and essential to America’s strength as a nation. They are disappearing.

Civil toleration of opposing political ideas has eroded very seriously.

In regard to the political situation, let us abstract for a moment from who is in the right in this impeachment controversy.

These troubling factors disquieted me very much in recent weeks:

• That the President of the United States could be spied upon in his own house in his private phone calls to foreign heads of State.
• That he would be accused by the Congress of serious (impeachable) wrongdoing on the word of one anonymous accuser.
• That the testimony of the “whistleblower” is based on second- and third-hand information, what is commonly known as hearsay evidence.
• That Mr. Schiff, who is effectively the prosecutor in this case, could so embroider the contents of the President’s conversation, that his rendering of it became an outright lie, although he himself dismissed it as a parody.
• That there was no outrage on the part of the members of Congress at this gross misrepresentation of the President’s words.

That these extremely grave violations of fundamental justice could take place at the highest levels of government is a very bad sign for the future of this country.

The fall of the Roman Empire was caused precisely by the uprising of various factions in the Roman government against the incumbent emperor, many times causing their untimely and violent deaths.

The Byzantine Empire also succumbed to the Mohammedans because of an interior weakness of warring factions in the government, which also resulted in the ousting of emperors, often with cruel tortures, such as having their eyes gouged out.

The Russian Empire fell to communism not only because of weakness of the Czarist government, but mostly because of strident factionalism within the Kerensky government.

France, since the Revolution of 1789, has changed constitutions and forms of government a dizzying amount of times, at least four times from 1789 to 1804, and then thirteen more times from 1804 to the present. Although it had a stable monarchy for one thousand years, from Charlemagne to Louis XVI, its course over the past 230 years has resembled more the government of a banana republic.

America, however, despite some fiery political oppositions, has managed to avoid up to now this instability of government through patience and civility.

The heat to impeach is so virulent that it reminds me of the Jacobins calling for the head of Louis XVI.

Impeachment of a president is so grave, and so dangerous to the general order of the nation, that it should be conducted with the utmost care, calm, and gravest respect for all of the standards of evidence and justice. But we have seen the precise opposite in recent weeks.

The very idea of an anonymous accuser is absolutely contrary to American culture and ideals. Who even knows if the “whistleblower” is a real person? The identity of the accuser is of supreme importance in any accusation, since his character and background are determining factors in his credibility. It is for this reason that they must appear in
court, and give their testimony in person.

Who ever heard of secret denunciations in the United States of America? And everyone knows that hearsay evidence is worthless in a court of law. Yet these are the very instruments being used to cut off the head of the President.

And how can can someone lie to Congress in a matter of so great moment as that of impeachment, and not be prosecuted for a crime?

For all of these reasons, the events of recent weeks are the sign of a deep political cancer in the organs of government, and are a portent of a fatal political instability and of a future weakness in the face of our enemies.

What I have said here could apply to any president, whether Republican or Democrat, whether liberal or conservative. For the stringent demands of justice, particularly in what concerns the impeachment of the Head of State, transcend political parties.

God have mercy on us.

Amazon Primed

from Introibo Ad Altare Dei

The Amazon Synod is approaching wherein the Argentinian apostate of the Vatican II sect, Jorge Bergoglio, looks primed and ready to decimate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It is widely believed that he will make de jure what has been the case de facto, namely, to allow those divorced and “remarried” adulterers to receive their invalid “communion” as long as the adulterer subjectively feels alright about it.  According to the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators authored by Kenneth C. Jones [pub. 2003], in 1968, the nascent Vatican II sect granted just 338 annulments to its U.S. members. Thirty years later, in 1998, there were 50,498 granted in the United States. (See pg.70). These were divorces euphemistically referred to as “annulments;” if  someone could pay the price you got the worthless piece of paper that declared a marriage null and void.

The reason behind the dramatic increase came especially after 1983, when the Vatican II sect’s “Code of Canon Law,” based on the heresies of the Robber Council, added “psychological immaturity” (whatever that means) as a reason to abandon your spouse and commit adultery. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, an approved pre-Vatican II canonist, sounded the alarm through the media (even making an appearance on NYC talk radio) that this would wreak havoc on the institution of marriage and cause many divorces in the name of “religion.” It happened exactly as he said it would. Not being content with phony annulments, which declare marriages as non-existent at the time of their inception, Bergoglio seeks to undermine marriage by allowing adulterers who don’t even pretend their first marriage was invalid to receive “communion.” He has already done so in Amoris Laetitia (2016), and that will most likely be “ratified,” so to speak, at the Amazon Synod; perhaps even made more radical.

The apologists for the Vatican II sect claim that this abandoning of Church teaching concerning the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is merely a “development of dogma.” On April 8, 2016, The Washington Post published an opinion piece by one Stephanie Coontz, who made the following ignorant and unsubstantiated claim:

The Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 13th century, and only began to enforce strict religious conformity in marriage in the 16th century — in part as a reaction to criticism from Protestants that Catholics were insufficiently enthusiastic about the institution. (See

While I understand this is an opinion, I also agree with a former New York politician who said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.” The article contains no citation to any relevant authority for the purpose of even attempting to make this lie seem plausible. It merely stands on the author’s own ipse dixit.

The purpose of this post is to explain what is (and what is not) a true development of dogma, showing the truly Catholic meaning with the heretical Modernist understanding which holds sway over most people today.

The “Evolution” of Dogma is Condemned by the ChurchWhat Vatican II apologists refer to as “development of dogma” is in actuality an “evolution” into something altogether different. One need only refer to what happened on August 2, 2018.  Bergoglio announced that he was changing the Vatican II sect’s stance on capital punishment. According to the Modernist Vatican’s Congregation for the [Destruction of the] Doctrine of the Faith:
Ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people.

Compare with the true teaching on capital punishment:

Theologians McHugh and Callan teach, “Killing human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment)” (See Moral Theology 2: 100). They also assert, “Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means.” (See Moral Theology, 2: 101).

Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas taught, “It is lawful to kill an evildoer insofar as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the communities welfare…[to] lawfully put evildoers to death.” (See ST II-II, 64, 3)

Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori taught, “…if it is necessary for the defense of the republic…[or] in order to preserve the order of law” the death penalty is licit.” (See Theologia Moralis III, 4, 1).

How is it possible to go from a position that capital punishment is in principle licit (although not mandatory to use), to a position where it is “inadmissible” in principle, and not call it a denial of Church teaching? This is not, in any way, a “development” of doctrine. If capital punishment really were, after all, always and intrinsically immoral, this would be an admission that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium can teach error and give evil—a denial of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church.

This is the most recent and concrete denial of dogma disguised under the Modernist conception of “development of dogma.”

The Church teaches:

From the letter Quantum presbyterorum of Pope St. Simplicius to Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, January 9, 476]:
Because, according to the extant doctrine of our predecessors of sacred memory, against which it is wrong to argue, whoever seems to understand rightly, does not desire to be taught by new assertions, but all [matters] in which either he who has been deceived by heretics can be instructed, or he who is about to be planted in the vineyard of the Lord can be trained, are clear and perfect; after imploring trust in your most merciful leader, have the request for calling a synod refused. I urge (therefore), dearest brother, that by every means resistance be offered to the efforts of the perverse to call a synod, which has not always been enjoined in other cases, unless something new arose in distorted minds or something ambiguous in a pronouncement so that, if there were any obscurity, the authority of sacerdotal deliberation might illumine those who were treating the ambiguous pronouncement in common, just as first the impiety of Arius and then that of Nestorius, lastly that of Dioscorus and also of Eutyches caused this to be done. And –may the mercy of Christ our God (and) Savior avert this–it must be made known, abominable [as it is], that [the purpose is] to restore [to their former positions] in opposition to the opinions of the priests of the Lord of the whole world and of the principal rulers of both [scil., worlds] those who have been condemned. . . .

This letter clearly instructs the bishop to oppose summoning a council on the grounds that said council was intended to teach new doctrine, whereas the Church already possessed all true doctrine in its entirety and used councils only for the condemnation of new heresies or for the clarification of ambiguities. Compare to Roncalli, Montini, and Vatican II.

From the Vatican Council of 1870, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:

 For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding “Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.” [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3]. (Emphasis mine)

Canon III: If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

From the Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (1910):
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

From Lamentabili Sane of Pope St. Pius X (1907):
CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 21: Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.

True Development of DoctrineDogma cannot change. This is made absolutely clear by the Church, as cited in the section above. However, there is an authentic, Catholic, non-Modernist way in which doctrines can be said to “develop.” This will be outlined below.
1. A doctrine can be formulated more clearly than it had been previously. The term Transubstantiation was adopted by the Church in the Middle Ages as the most precise way of expressing the manner in which the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ during the Consecration at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 
2. A doctrine may be defined by the Church, which was part of the Deposit of Divine Revelation, but that was not recognized as such by all. Two such examples are the Immaculate Conception, and the Particular Judgement.
3. When heretics put forth statements incompatible with Catholic belief, the controversy that ensues exposes them as errors. Their solemn condemnation increases the number of beliefs Catholics are bound to accept. However, that simply means that the implications of the unchanging Deposit of Faith have been manifested by the Church; the infallible Guardian and Teacher of that Divine Deposit of Revelation. The condemnation of the errors of the Modernists by Pope St. Pius X is a good example of this type of development.
Notice that none of these three ways constitutes a change in doctrine. The first way is a linguistic improvement to make something more lucid. The second way gives a Divine guarantee as to their apodictic certainty. The third way establishes the logical consequences of doctrines. Notice it is not a true change in meaning, nor an addition or deletion of what has always been believed since public revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle in 100 A.D. 
The Spurious “Defense” of Giving “Communion” to Adulterers by the V2 Sect Given all the above, how can V2 sect apologists claim giving their “communion” to divorced and “remarried” adulterers is not a change in doctrine, but a permissible development? One such lofty sounding defense was offered by Paul Fahey on the blog Where Peter Is (See 
The article begins thus:
In chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis teaches that individuals in objective situations of sin (being divorced and remarried), but who are not subjectively culpable because of mitigating factors (insufficient knowledge and/or consent) may, in certain cases, receive Communion…This is entirely in line with the Church’s teaching concerning mortal sin. The [Vatican II sect] Catechism says that mortal sin prevents one from legitimately receiving Holy Communion (CCC 1415). However, the Catechism also says that “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” (CCC 1859). Further, the Catechism states that, “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735).
Here, Fahey is trying to circumvent the idea of a change by claiming that the Church forbids Her members in mortal sin from receiving Communion (this is true). He then reminds his readers that mortal sin requires full knowledge that the act is wrong (and the act must be a grave matter), as well as full consent of the will. (This also is true). From these starting principles he will try to make a case that in certain instances the necessary consent of the will to make living in adultery a mortal sin is absent. If there is no mortal sin, then there is nothing stopping that adulterous person from receiving Communion. I will demonstrate why his theory falls flat on its face. 
Someone who is divorced and contracts a second phony “marriage” is living in adultery, a mortal sin against the Sixth Commandment and may not be admitted to Communion. If they wish to be forgiven and admitted to the sacraments, the adulterer must separate bed and board from their partner. If, because of children and/or lack of financial ability to do so, they must live as brother and sister. In addition, the admission to Communion must avoid the appearance of scandal. It is thought that the Amazon Synod will allow those living in open adultery (having sexual relations) to receive Communion. Bergoglio allowed it in “certain cases” in Amoris Laetitiae (2016). Even if the Amazon Synod enshrines Amoris with the same qualifier of “certain cases” it cannot escape the charge of heresy. Amoris is a heretical change of doctrine. 
Fahey doesn’t claim the person living in adultery doesn’t have full knowledge. This is good because Amoris Laetitia talks about people no longer being barred from Vatican II sect “sacraments.” Hence, they had knowledge of the sinfulness of their living in adultery since they had been publicly denied the Novus Bogus “communion.” Fahey gives us two examples that center on “full consent of the will.” 
Say there’s a woman who is divorced and civilly remarried. She is Catholic and has recently gone through a personal conversion and wants to be reconciled to the Church. However, her “second husband” who is also the primary breadwinner for the family, threatens to leave her and the kids if she stops having sex with him for the twelve or more months it will take for their annulment to come through (this is assuming that they live in an area that has a functioning tribunal). Because of the threat to her and her children’s well being, she is not fully able to say no to the objectively sinful act of having sex with her civil husband…Another possible example could be a situation where there’s a Baptist couple who have been married several years and have multiple children. After attending Mass with a friend the husband finds himself intrigued and attracted to Catholicism and begins RCIA [Vatican II sect’s “Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults”] with the intention of joining the Church. During those classes he learns that he and his wife aren’t really married because she was previously married to someone else for six months when she was in his early 20s. Thus, in order for the husband to receive Communion, he and his wife must abstain from sex for the rest of their lives because they live in a diocese that does not have a tribunal. The wife simply refuses to submit to Catholic teaching on this matter and won’t accept living with her husband in total abstinence.

As we learned in law school, “hard cases make bad law.” In other words, trying to make a principle of general applicability based on difficult, rare cases, leads to a faulty principles. Here, when dealing with God’s Law, the cases are meant to (a) appeal to the emotions and (b) make “compulsion” reduce adultery from the status of mortal sin. As the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians tells us, there are five (5) factors that mitigate the seriousness of a sin: ignorance, concupiscence (or “passion”), fear, habit, and violence (See theologian Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], 1:11-16; See also theologian Davis [1934], Moral and Pastoral Theology, 1:16-30).  As already demonstrated, ignorance cannot be a mitigating factor

What about concupiscence? Theologian Slater says concupiscence “signifies the inclination to evil, which in human nature is a result of the Fall of our First Parents.” Further, it is a strong feeling and “movement of the sensitive appetite” towards some perceived object of desire. Concupiscence may be antecedent or consequent. Only antecedent concupiscence diminishes moral culpability. (See Slater, Ibid, pgs. 13-15). Example: A man find’s out his wife has been having an affair with his neighbor. He sees the neighbor, and in a fit of spontaneous rage, beats him severely. His passion (anger) temporarily deprived him of right reason. Nothing even remotely analogous applies to those persistently living in adultery.  Hence, concupiscence is not a mitigating factor.

What about habit? According to theologian Jone, a habit is “a facility and a readiness of acting in a certain manner acquired by repeated acts.” (See Moral Theology, [1962], pg. 10). A bad habit would be, e.g. consenting to impure thoughts. Habits mitigate culpability only if a person would “strive earnestly to rid himself of a bad habit,” and “does not sin in doing the evil deed by force of habit without advertence [full knowledge] to its sinful character.” (Ibid, pg. 10). Living in a state of adultery can in no way be deemed a “habit.”

What about violence? If you are violently compelled to do something evil, there is no culpability provided one offers as much resistance as possible externally, and does not consent internally. (See theologian Jone, Ibid, pg. 7). However, if one is not simply passive, but cooperation is offered (or no external resistance is given when possible), the action will be voluntary and imputable to that extent. (See Slater, Ibid, pg. 18). Therefore, as the adulterer chooses to stay in that situation and consent to an intrinsic evil, violence cannot be a mitigating factor. Here, you’d basically be discussing forcible rape. No one should stay in such a situation. Take the children (if any), go to a shelter, and have the perpetrator arrested and prosecuted. There are also people to help such victims get back on their feet.

What about fear? This is one of the driving factors used by Fahey in his hypotheticals quoted above.  According to theologian Davis, “Fear is defined as a shrinking from impending evil.” (Ibid, pg. 27). Fear, unless it “deprives a person of the use of reason” does not excuse from an intrinsically evil action. That’s why fear of death is not an excuse for apostasy. (Ibid, pgs. 27-28).

What about “…inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735)”? Pure Modernist claptrap that was never considered “mitigating factors” prior to Vatican II. Since it is Modernist drivel, it need not be considered.

Therefore, “communion” for divorced and remarried adulterers is not a “development of doctrine.” It is the heretical denial of the Indissolubility of marriage.

ConclusionBergoglio seems primed and ready to continue Modernist decimation of any last remnants of Catholic teaching from his sect. Holy Matrimony is under attack as never before from both the world and the Vatican II sect. Sodomite “marriage,” so-called domestic partnerships, no-fault divorce, easy to obtain phony annulments, and now “communion” for open adulterers, makes a sham of true marriage. There are more broken families than ever before, and the number of psychologically scarred children grows steadily. 
The Amazon Synod will attempt to portray any heresy, like the one in Amoris Laetitia, as another “development of doctrine.” It has been demonstrated that this idea of “development” is a heretical, Modernist concept solemnly condemned by the Church. One of the many sickening implications of this teaching in regards to marriage, is that King Henry VIII was right and St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher both died in vain. They didn’t realize that living in a persistent state of open adultery might not be seriously sinful if done for the social factor of wanting a male heir; it’s a doctrinal development. I’m sure it will be extra hot in the Amazon during the Synod–not to mention the stench of brimstone. 

Apostasy Unlimited: Francis’ Endorsement of “Peace With No Borders” in Madrid

from Novus Ordo Watch

It’s that time of the year again when representatives of all major religions of the world come together and pray for world peace “in the spirit of Assisi”.

Front and center is the Novus Ordo Sect, of course, because the pioneer of these annual interreligious prayer gatherings was the apostate Polish bishop Karol Wojtyla (aka “Pope Saint” John Paul II). He held the first such meeting on Oct. 27, 1986 in the Italian town of Assisi. The following video clip will bring back some unhappy memories:

Although these Assisi meetings have taken place annually since 1986, the “Pope” has only participated five times so far, namely, in 1986, in 1993, in 2002, in 2011, and in 2016.

The latest such gathering took place Sep. 15-17 in Madrid, Spain. The chief cleric representing the Vatican II religion was the local archlayman, “Cardinal” Carlos Osoro Sierra. The theme for the meeting was “peace with no borders”, an obvious allusion to the constant onslaught on the sovereignty of nations, whose borders are being condemned by globalists all around, especially by Jorge Bergoglio, aka “Pope” Francis.

The event was sponsored by the Sant’Egidio Community, a lay “Catholic” social service group founded in 1968 that is continually at the forefront of ecumenical and interreligious activities. The full program of the multi-day conference can be found here.

The prayers for peace, “[i]n the different locations, according to each religious tradition”, took place on the evening of the last day, followed by a peace procession and a closing ceremony (video). The prayer service of the “Christians” was held in a common ecumenical service, of course (video).

As a quick reality check, we recall that God has revealed to us that “all the gods of the Gentiles are devils” (Ps 95:5) and that idolaters “sacrificed to devils and not to God” (Deut 32:17). How much such idolatry is to be abhorred, even — and especially — in the New Covenant, is likewise clear from Sacred Scripture: “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, fly from the service of idols” (1 Cor 10:14); “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (2 Cor 6:16).

Strangely enough, he who likes to tell people that Faith “must be constantly nourished by the Word of God”, actually despises that very Word and only refers to It as he can misuse It to buttress and promote his own socio-political agenda.

Keeping all the foregoing in mind, we will now take a look at the Message from “Pope” Francis that was sent to the meeting, and which was presented to all participants at the opening conference on Sep. 15. The full text is posted here.

We will now dissect it by interspersing some critical commentary (all underlining added):

I greet with joy and gratitude Cardinal Carlos Osoro Sierra, Archbishop of Madrid, and all of you, representatives of the Christian Churches and Communities and of the World Religions, gathered in Madrid for the 33rd Prayer Meeting for Peace, organized jointly by Sant’Egidio Community and the Archdiocese of Madrid. It is a source of joy to see that this pilgrimage of peace, which began after the World Day of Prayer for Peace, convoked by Saint John Paul II in Assisi in October of 1986, has never been interrupted, but continues and grows in the number of participants and in fruits of goodness. It is a pilgrimage that has gone to towns and cities to give witness everywhere of the strength of that “Spirit of Assisi,” which is prayer to God and promotion of peace among peoples.

Here we notice straightaway that Francis considers the prayer of every religion under the sun to be “prayer to God.” This is not surprising, since Bergoglio is an apostate. What is surprising, on the other hand, is that he is willing to say it so openly — but then people are so misled in our day that no one would probably even so much as notice, much less actually object to it.

This year its itinerary reaches Madrid, to reflect on the theme ”Peace Without Borders.” The mind flies to the past, when, in the heart of Europe thirty years ago, the Berlin Wall, fell and an end was put to that lacerating division of the Continent, which caused so much suffering. That day, from Berlin to the whole of Eastern Europe, new hopes of peace were enkindled, which extended throughout the world. It was the prayer for peace of so many sons and daughters of God, which contributed to accelerate that fall. Moreover, the biblical story of Jericho reminds us that walls fall where they are “besieged” with prayer and not arms, with yearning for peace and not conquest, when we dream of a good future for all. Therefore, it’s necessary to pray always and to dialogue in the perspective of peace: the fruits will come! Let us not be afraid, because the Lord listens to the prayer of His faithful people.

Here we see the same theme recur: All the prayers offered are acceptable to God, no matter from what religion they proceed, or whether they are directed to the true God at all — or to a demon. Since Francis is addressing the interreligious prayer gathering as a whole and endorsing it and the “spirit of Assisi” per se, it is clear that where he mentions “the prayer of His faithful people,” he means to include not simply Catholics, who alone are faithful to God’s Revelation (cf. 1 Tim 3:15; 2 Jn 9; Gal 1:8-9), but all of the people who will be offering prayers at the interreligious event. That is what everyone who reads his message will understand him to be saying, and that is precisely what is intended.

But such a position is unacceptable for a Catholic, since it implies what Pope Pius XI denounced as “that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy” — an opinion by which anyone who holds it “is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion” (Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 2). In other words, we are talking about nothing less than apostasy.

Ironically, Francis enlists the Scriptural story of the fall of Jericho in support of his interreligious peace prayer initiative. One can only marvel at the shameless audacity of such a move, since if the battle of Jericho was anything, it was definitely not interreligious and it was not peaceful. The fall of Jericho marked the beginning of the conquest of the Promised Land by Josue (then the leader of the true religion, Old Testament Judaism, the forerunner of Catholicism), which was being given to the Chosen People by God and taken away from the Gentiles (the false religions):

Jericho was a strong city, but during the night an angel of the Lord with a drawn sword had appeared to Josue and had given him minute instructions as to how it was to be taken. Josue sent forty thousand fighting men to march around the walls of the city every day for six days. On the seventh day, the soldiers, the priests carrying the Ark of the Covenant, and all the Israelites marched around the walls seven times. At the end of the seventh trip, Josue gave the command, “Shout, for the Lord hath delivered the city to you.” The seven trumpets used at the jubilee sounded a continuous blast, the people gave a mighty shout, and the walls fell. Then the soldiers rushed into the city from wherever they stood and killed all the inhabitants except Rahab and her family.

(Rev. George Johnson, et. al., Bible History [New York, NY: Benziger Brothers, 1931], pp. 147-149)

And this is the story to which Francis refers in his advertisement for interreligious prayer for peace? What chutzpah! Yes, those walls tumbled with God’s help rather than with arms, but that was merely the prelude to a very bloody battle in which the Israelites killed the inhabitants of Jericho so they could take over the city. It certainly had nothing to do with a “yearning for peace and not conquest”, nor was it “a good future for all” but only for those who survived. Bergoglio must be counting on the ignorance of his hearers, or he has nothing but contempt for them.

The false pope continues:

Unfortunately, in these two first decades of the 21st century we have witnessed, with great sadness, the waste of that gift of God that peace is, dilapidated with new wars and the building of new walls and barriers. After all, we know well that peace must increase ceaselessly, from generation to generation, with dialogue, encounter and negotiation.

That course of action hasn’t been working out too well, has it? That’s because it is not “the peace of Christ”, which Pope Pius XI taught “is the only true peace” (Encyclical Ubi Arcano, n. 37). Our Blessed Lord Himself — the “Prince of Peace” (Is 9:6) — made clear that the peace He would give us is “not as the world giveth” (Jn 14:27). Yet faithless Francis and his henchmen continue to seek after precisely the peace that “the world giveth”, and they are surprised that it never works. A true Pope would promote “the peace of God, which surpasseth all understanding” and which “keep[s] your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:7). Not the Vatican II “popes”!

The reason why only the peace of Christ is genuine and true peace, and why it cannot be obtained in any other way except by submitting to the sweet yoke of His law and Gospel (cf. Mt 11:30), is that divine grace is needed to aid us in our human condition, to overcome our sins, perfect our nature, and make us virtuous so that we may bear wrongs patiently, forgive our enemies, and do good to those who hate us. Naturalists like Francis and the entire Modernist Vatican II crowd, however, do not believe this, because they deny original sin and its effects and therefore also its divine remedy. They believe that it is possible to eliminate strife and quarrels among individuals and nations by merely natural means, by dialoguing, by planting trees, by lighting candles, by interreligious “fraternity” — and not with the grace of Almighty God moving people to conversion and repentance.

If the good of peoples and of the world is sought, it is foolish to close areas, separate peoples or, even more so, confront one another, deny hospitality to those that need it. Thus, the world is “broken,” using the same violence with which the environment is ruined and our common home is damaged, and asking instead for love, care, respect, just as humanity invokes peace and fraternity.

This is cheap demagoguery — Bergoglio is shallowly appealing to the emotions of his hearers while ignoring Catholic morality. The principles he proposes for nations he would never apply to his own house. He would never say it is “foolish to close” the Casa Santa Marta in which he lives to unauthorized visitors and unexpected guests. He is very happy that there are walls around Vatican City to “separate peoples” and armed guards outside his door so he can safely continue to spread his poison while the leftists of the world adore him. Nor does he give a hoot about the environment as he wastes tons of jet fuel traveling around the globe promoting his toxic ideology.

Our common home cannot endure walls that separate and confront those that live there.

Why not? It’s been working great for the last few millennia.

Instead, it needs open doors that help to communicate with one another, to encounter one another, to cooperate to live together in peace, respecting the diversity and reinforcing the bonds of responsibility. Peace is like a house with many rooms, in which we are all called to dwell. Peace has no borders, always, without exceptions. Such was Saint John XXIII’s desire when, at a difficult moment, he wished to address all believers and men of good will, invoking “peace in all lands.”

The beautiful thing about borders is that they have an official port of entry. Borders do have doors, and attending those doors are security officers who vet each person who wishes to enter the country. It’s a clever way to ensure only those can proceed who actually have legitimate business doing so, and who are not a danger to the inhabitants of the country. Kind of like how you, Francis, do it with the Swiss Guard outside the Casa Santa Marta. Imagine if your conservative critics started flocking to your apartment looking for “open doors that help to communicate with one another, to encounter one another”! What a peaceful encounter that would be — no exceptions!

Distinguished representatives of the Christian Churches and Communities, and of the great Religions of the world, with this, my greeting, I want to say to you that I am at your side during these days and, with you, I pray for peace to the only One who can give it to us. In the tradition of these International Prayer Meetings for Peace — as that of Assisi in 2016, in which I also took part, the prayer that goes up to God occupies the most important and decisive place. It unites us all in a common sentiment, without any confusion — close but not confused! as the yearning for peace is common, in the variety of religious experiences and traditions.

There we see another endorsement of the idea that all of these religions are invoking the true God. Yet Hindus, for example, believe in many gods (they are polytheists), Shintoists believe in a sort of animistic pantheism, and Jains do not believe in a Creator God at all. Clearly, we need some more “interreligious dialogue” for better mutual understanding!

The truth is quite simply that far from happily receiving the prayers and other offerings of all religions indiscriminately, God abhors the stench of false worship: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship” (Lactantius, qtd. by Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 11; cf. Num 16; Jude 1:11). In particular, God detests idolatry (cf. Ex 20:1-6), in which adoration is given to the creature rather than the one true Creator, whose existence can be known even apart from supernatural revelation, simply by the things that are made: “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema” (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 2, Can. 1; Denz. 1806; cf. Rom 1:18-22; Ps 52:1).

As believers, we are conscious that prayer is the root of peace. One who practices it is a friend of God, as Abraham was, model of the man of faith and hope. Prayer for peace, in this time marked by so many conflicts and violence, unites us all even more, beyond the differences, in the common commitment for a more fraternal world.

Here again the true is lumped together with the false, that which is pleasing to God with what is loathed by Him, Christ is made equal to the devil, and truth and light are put on a footing with lies and darkness (cf. 2 Cor 6:15). Far from obtaining peace, such wickedness will only enrage the true God even more, and bring down upon us ever greater calamities and chastisements!

We know well that fraternity among believers, in addition to being a barrier to enmities and wars, is ferment of fraternity among peoples. In this connection, in February of last year I signed in Abu Dhabi, together with the Gran Imam of Al Azhar, the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” — an important step in the path to world peace. Together we said that “religions never incite to violence and do not foster sentiments of hatred, hostility, extremism, or invite to violence or the shedding of blood.” I wish also to entrust the objectives of that Document to all of you taking part in this Prayer Meeting for Peace. The Spirit of Assisi, 800 years after Saint Francis’ meeting with the Sultan, also inspired the work that led us to the act of Abu Dhabi.

The fraternity Francis is promoting is a blueprint for apostasy, for it is a Naturalist-Masonic fraternity, a notion quite opposed to genuine Christian fraternity, as explained by Pope St. Pius X:

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

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

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

As for Bergoglio’s claim that “religions … do not foster sentiments of hatred, hostility, extremism”, we need but recall the words of Jesus Christ: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household” (Mt 10:34-36). Our Lord made clear that if we truly wish to be His disciples, we must adhere loyally to Him, and this will bring conflicts potentially even in our own family and household because the Gospel is a sword that divides — it is an all-or-nothing Gospel: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26-27).

Francis, by contrast, preaches a false “I’m OK, you’re OK” gospel, whose essence is works of charity to benefit the needy while saying some prayers and following one’s conscience. His religion is all by man, for man, with man, and about man. God is invoked only to ratify, applaud, and assist in this gospel of man, and to provide forgiveness for failing to live it.

How far the “spirit of Assisi” is removed from the real St. Francis of Assisi can be seen in the very anecdote to which Francis alludes, when the saint went to see a Mohammedan sultan to convert him:

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

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

Thankfully St. Francis cared more about the sultan’s eternal salvation than about Bergoglio’s Masonic fraternity jazz!

The false pope continues:

We are living a difficult moment for the world. We must all unite — I would say with one same heart and one same voice –, to cry out that peace has no borders — a cry that rises from our heart. It is from there, in fact, from hearts where we must eradicate the borders that divide and confront; and it is in hearts where sentiments of peace and fraternity must be sown.

The truth is, of course, that secure borders around nations contribute immensely to a peaceful and tranquil society. Anyone who doesn’t believe it is invited to open the doors of his own home to anyone who wishes to come in, and then report back in the combox below how peaceful things have gotten. A nation that eliminates its borders will disintegrate, just as a cell in the human body can only exist for as long as it has boundaries that separate it from other cells.

Of course the goal in all this interreligious peace stuff — together with borderless nations that are dissolved into one big world community — is to prepare the way for the Antichrist. Once the true religion’s claims to exclusivity and superiority have been sufficiently muffled or muted and Faith has been reduced to subjective experience with no claim to objective truth or permanent validity, this wicked world will be ready to receive its false messiah: “I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive” (Jn 5:43).

Francis wraps up his message to the interfaith gathering in Madrid with one final paragraph:

Distinguished representative[s] of the Christian Churches and Communities and of the great Religions of the world, men and women of good will taking part in this Meeting, the great task of peace has also been put in our hands. May the God of peace give us abundance of wisdom, audacity, generosity and perseverance.

What Bergoglio has written is a clear abandonment of the religion revealed by God; it is apostasy. How far the Vatican II Sect has removed itself from the religion the entire world knew exclusively to be Roman Catholicism until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958!

There are probably no better magisterial documents condemning the ideas he puts forward than the following two:

Regarding true peace and how to obtain it, the following papal documents describe just that:

We are witnessing the “mystery of iniquity” referred to by St. Paul in full swing, the mystery that was held at bay by all true Popes, but only until it pleased God to take the Pope out of the way and allow the forces of evil to prevail for a short time, in punishment of our sins:

For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

(2 Thessalonians 2:7-11)

Can there be any doubt that the “operation of error” in question is the false church of the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo Sect?

“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”, real Catholics pray in the Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which was prescribed to be prayed in churches on the Feast of Christ the King by Pope Pius XI. That is clearly not a prayer in line with the religion of the Second Vatican Council or with the veritable “Church of Darkness” the council has generated.

By the way: Next year’s interreligious Assisi prayer meeting will be held in Rome.

Image source: (some cropped)
Licenses: fair use

Francis to Interreligious Youth in Mozambique: “Our Differences are Necessary”

from Novus Ordo Watch

The apostate from Buenos Aires has struck again.

A day after blowing countless tons of carbon dioxide into the air for his flight to Mozambique, “Pope” Francis spoke at an interreligious meeting with the youth in Maputo on Sep. 5. During his address he told his multi-religious audience: “Our differences are necessary.”

In what was little more than a lowest-common-denominator motivational speech using his usual Naturalist platitudes about hopes, dreams, roots, and horizons — completely devoid of anything supernatural, other than a generic “God loves you” at the end — Francis addressed an audience filled with mostly young people of all (and no) religions, especially “Christians, Muslims, and Hindus” (Rome Reports, Sep. 5, 2019).

Speaking from a script in Portuguese — the official language of Mozambique — Francis proclaimed:

I thank the members of different religious confessions who have joined us, and those who do not belong to any particular religious tradition. Thank you for encouraging one another to live and celebrate today the challenge of peace as the family that we are. You are experiencing that all of us are necessary: with our differences, we are all necessary. Our differences are necessary.

(Antipope Francis, Address at Interreligious Meeting with Youth in, Sep. 5, 2019; underlining added.)

The original Portuguese text says:

Obrigado por estarem aqui as diferentes confissões religiosas. Obrigado por vos animardes a viver o desafio da paz e a celebrá-la hoje como família que somos, incluindo aqueles que, não fazendo parte de nenhuma tradição religiosa, também estão a participar… Estais a fazer a experiência de que todos somos necessários: com as nossas diferenças, mas necessários. As nossas diferenças são necessárias.

(source; underlining added)

And indeed one can hear Francis pronounce these very words in the official video released by Vatican Media (starts at 38:00 min):

So Bergoglio proclaims to members of different religions that “our differences are necessary”, and no one bats an eye, except perhaps in utter euphoria and admiration.

This blasphemy is a clear restatement of the Abu Dhabi heresy Francis pronounced earlier this year in the United Arab Emirates, when he signed a joint declaration on Freemasonic “human fraternity” with a representative of Islam. The joint document states: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”

If anyone was so gullible as to believe the disingenuous remark Francis made later when challenged about the matter by “Bp.” Athanasius Schneider — that he meant God’s permissive Will rather than His active Will, though all the other items enumerated in the same sentence proceed from God’s active Will — he has definitely now been disabused of that illusion. We told you back in March that Francis lied to Schneider about this, and our claim has been vindicated: Bergoglio teaches, and fully means to teach, that false religions are positively willed by God, that their existence is a good thing.

But now the Argentinian apostate has gone a step further and declared this religious diversity to be not only good and desired by God, but necessary. Necessary! This is full-blown Modernism!

In 1907, Pope St. Pius X exposed and condemned the manifold errors of the Modernists, which are of such a nature that they undermine and destroy the very foundations of the Catholic religion. According to the Modernist system, the Pope explained,

…the need of the divine in a soul which is prone to religion excites … a certain special sense, and this sense possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sense to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this is what they hold to be the beginning of religion.

It is thus that the religious sense, which through the agency of vital immanence emerges from the lurking-places of the subconsciousness, is the germ of all religion, and the explanation of everything that has been or ever will be in any religion. This sense, which was at first only rudimentary and almost formless, under the influence of that mysterious principle from which it originated, gradually matured with the progress of human life, of which, as has been said, it is a certain form. This, then, is the origin of all, even of supernatural religion. For religions are mere developments of this religious sense.

[According to the Modernists,] every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such [personal religious] experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity.

(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, nn. 7,10,14; underlining added.)

Now you know what the Novus Ordo “fullness of truth” business is all about!

In 1928, Pope Pius XI quashed attempts to seek interreligious unity by means of a mutilated, lowest-common-denominator creed that would be shared by people of different religions. The Pope made clear that

…such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 2)

That is what is meant by the gradual Modernist descent into atheism:

(Descent of the Modernists by E. J. Pace, Christian Cartoons, 1922 / Alamy Stock Photo)

Francis’ latest blasphemy is a particularly heinous form of Indifferentism, a heresy condemned long ago by Pope Gregory XVI:

Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” [Eph 4:5] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him” [Lk 11:23], and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” [Athanasian Creed].

(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, n. 13; underlining added; bold and italics removed.)

What Bergoglio said during his interreligious pep rally is so monstrous that one shudders to think of the implications.

For example, saying that a diversity of religions is necessary undermines all evangelizing and missionary efforts. Not only does it make all evangelization irrelevant and pointless, nay dangerous, it also effectively outlaws it. For if religious differences are necessary, then some people must be and must remain non-Catholics. Then, instead of the whole world worshipping Jesus Christ in His true Church (cf. 1 Tim 3:15; Heb 2:12), a portion is required by God to adore “dumb idols” (1 Cor 12:2). Such evil blasphemy dovetails perfectly with the outrageous remark Francis made in Georgia on Oct. 1, 2016, when he declared attempts to convert the Eastern Orthodox to Catholicism a “great sin against ecumenism”.

Contrary to this iniquity, we know what the divinely-revealed and eternal Catholic truth is, namely:

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. (Jn 14:16)

He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. (Lk 11:23)

[God our Savior] will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4)

One Lord, one faith, one baptism. (Eph 4:5)

Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor 6:14-18)

Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. (2 Jn 9)

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Apoc 21:8)

Francis has put on full display what all that interreligious dialogue is really all about: certainly never conversion, which he has just outlawed in principle!

All those conservative Novus Ordos who were always telling you that interreligious dialogue aims at converting souls to Catholicism eventually, have just been refuted. No, not eventually, not ever! Because it is necessary, we have now been told, that false religions have adherents. It is necessary that some people be Muslims, some Hindus, some Jews, some Jains, some Zoroastrians. What will the Jesuit apostate come up with next? Will he establish quotas to tell us how many members each religion must have at a minimum at any given time?

Interestingly enough, Francis had started out his address by referring to all of the youngsters as his “flock” and himself as their “shepherd”: “You thanked me for having taken time to be with you. But what could be more important than [sic] for a shepherd than to be with his flock? What is more important for us pastors than to meet with our young people? You are important!” (source).

In the Catholic Church, the Pope is indeed the shepherd of his flock, but his flock is the world’s Catholics, not the members of all religions or even all of humanity. The task of the Catholic bishop, and above all the Roman Pontiff, is “to rule the church of God” (Acts 20:28), not to rule all of humanity. All of humanity is called to join the Church of God, of course (see Mk 16:15-16; 1 Tim 2:3-4), but until people do that, they are not part of God’s flock.

In fact, our Blessed Lord referred to His disciples as the “little flock” (Lk 12:32), precisely because it did not consist of all people but only of His chosen ones (cf. Jn 15:16), whom He contrasted with the rest of the world (see Jn 15:19). Is Francis perhaps beginning to set himself — or his successor — up for being accepted as the shepherd of the entire world? We know from divine revelation that there will come a false shepherd who will have power over the entire globe for a short while, and that is the Antichrist (see Apoc 13:7)!

Francis’ proclamation that the religious differences between people are necessary is an attack not only upon the very root of the true Faith but also upon the notion of revealed religion in general, as we have seen. As a genuine Modernist, Francis is now busily redefining the very nature and purpose of religion. The word “heresy” doesn’t cut it here — we are dealing with apostasy.

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines apostasy as

the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself, a sin which has always been looked upon as one of the most grievous.

(s.v. “Apostasy”)

This is serious business, and it is much worse than the usual topics that people rightly get upset about — abortion, adultery, sodomy, sacrilege, and abandonment of clerical celibacy, for example.

As he once declared adultery to be at times necessary and willed by God (see Amoris Laetitia, n. 303), so Bergoglio has now upped the ante and declared that religious infidelity, schism, heresy, and apostasy are necessary. The false pope has, once again, made all religions equal, the true one and the false ones. To him, God and Satan are the same!

Truly, carbon dioxide is the least worrisome gas that this man produces. He is vying for the hottest place in hell!

Image sources: (screenshot) /
Licenses: fair use / rights-managed