“An Enemy hath done this…” (Mt 13:28)

“Electric Church”: 
Desecration of St. Peter’s in Vienna


This is gorgeous St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Vienna - it was desecrated by an “Electric Church” performance on December 20, 2013 with the full permission of the city’s “Cardinal Archbishop”, Mr. Christoph Schonborn

When it comes to profaning the sacred, the Novus Ordo Sect never runs out of ideas. Case in point: “Electric Church”, a religious-themed audiovisual performance that blends classical music with pop/rock music and visual effects inside gorgeous traditional Catholic church buildings and sacred spaces.

A shocking 20-minute video clip of the 2013 performance at Vienna’s Peterskirche (St. Peter’s Church) can be watched here:

Electric Church is based in Vienna, Austria, and has scheduled another such performance for this year, this time in the city’s beautiful Karlskirche (St. Charles’ Church), on November 27. The whole sacrilegious spectacle is advertized, “explained”, and endorsed at their web site, where people can also watch more videos:

Vienna’s Karlskirche, by the way, is the very place where “Cardinal” Raymond Burke, just fired from his top Vatican position by “Pope” Francis for suspicion of Catholicism, offered a “Pontifical Mass” earlier this month (see here).

The photo below is a stillshot taken from the above video of the profanation in Peterskirche, showing Pacman special effects as part of their presentation’s ‘Old Testament’ theme (which book in the Old Testament mentions Pacman again?):


Pacman runs across the sacred walls of St. Peter’s Church in Vienna, Austria
- courtesy of the ‘Fun & Games’ Vatican II Religion

The following image is taken from the same event and found on the
Electric Church web site:


By the way, the term “Electric Church” comes from Jimi Hendrix (1942-1970), that paragon of Faith, virtue, and decency who died of a drug overdose at age 27.

The one man ultimately responsible for this profane spectacle is the notorious Mr. Christoph Schonborn, the “Cardinal Archbishop” of Vienna, a suspected Freemason and known blasphemer, backstabber, and supporter of sodomites. Years ago he initiated the infamous and thankfully now-defunct Find-Fight-Follow Youth “Masses”, which featured everything from stage-diving to flame-throwers and pornography as part of its pseudo-liturgical circus.

And Francis? Don’t expect him to come to the rescue any time soon:

Had enough yet? 

Exit the Novus Ordo while you still can. See our article, “Now What?” for more information.


He’s baack!...


Silent No More: Benedict XVI Joins Debate over Communion for Adulterers

Approximately four weeks after the close of part one of the infamous Synod on the Family, the retired “Pope” Benedict XVI now adds some fuel to the inferno. Though he once promised to withdraw completely from ecclesiastical affairs, he somehow always manages to make himself heard whenever he so chooses, even if usually in an indirect or even cryptic way.

This time, Joseph Ratzinger has chosen to weigh in on the debate over whether public adulterers (the “divorced-and-remarried”) should be allowed to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments, which is one of the core issues currently under discussion in the Novus Ordo Sect’s ongoing synod of bishops, part two of which is scheduled to take place in October 2015.

Earlier this year, we had revealed that in 1972, the same Fr. Ratzinger had published an essay arguing that public adulterers could be admitted to the sacraments without giving up their adultery, under certain restrictive conditions:

In fact, “Cardinal” Walter Kasper, when addressing his fellow Novus Ordo “cardinals” in February of this year to kick off debate on this topic, made reference to this Ratzinger essay from 1972.

In Germany, the multi-volume Gesammelte Schriften (“Collected Works”) of Joseph Ratzinger are currently being published, and the most recent volume to be released is Vol. 4, which includes the infamous 1972 essay. But now it gets interesting: The essay has been revised from its original form and now draws a different conclusion, though leaving the original arguments the same.

The German Süddeutsche Zeitung has written an interesting article on Ratzinger’s reworking of his original essay. We present it in translation and also offer some more commentary, below.

The Opposing Pope

by Matthias Drobinski

[original: Der Dagegen-Papst]

It sounds as if one of those progressive theologians were writing about the Vatican’s 2014 synod on the family, where the bishops of the Catholic world just finished arguing about whether and under what conditions people who are divorced and have remarried can be admitted to the sacraments.

Yes, marriage remains indissoluble, the theologian writes. When, however, “a second marraige, over a longer period of time” has “proven itself as a moral reality” and been “lived in the spirit of the Faith”, when in the new relationship there are “moral obligations” towards the children and the wife, then “the admission to communion after a period of probation appears to be no less than just and fully in line with the Church’s Tradition.” Quite courageous, this Joseph Ratzinger from Regensburg. At least in 1972, when he wrote this essay.

Pope Benedict has revised his Conclusion


Now the article is in print again. Volume four has just been released of the collected works of the professor who became Archbishop, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and eventually Pope Benedict XVI. The essay begins on page 600 - and is completely different from the 1972 version. The Pope Emeritus has revised the conclusion, to now say the opposite, even though the preceding arguments have remained the same.

The sentence about the reception of communion by the divorced-and-remarried is gone. Instead, Benedict recommends that the Church expand the annulment process — which might determine that a marriage was invalid from the very beginning due to psychological immaturity; a second marriage would then no longer be a problem. Even without such a process the divorced should be allowed to take active roles in church committees and be permitted to become godparents.

Why Benedict’s Utterance is highly Political

Of course, Joseph Ratzinger is by no means the only person who sees things differently today than he did 40 years ago, so why shouldn’t he say so? In the case of the Pope Emeritus, however, the matter is highly political: Benedict XVI is getting involved in the present dispute about the question how the Catholic Church should deal with the faithful who have gotten a divorce. Because what he wrote in 1972 sounds almost like what Cardinal Walter Kasper, at the invitation of Pope Francis, submitted to the cardinals in the spring of 2014: In individual cases and after a period of penance, Catholics who live in a second marriage are to be admitted to the sacraments. The revision now reads like a response to his colleague and rival Walter Kasper.

This would mean that the Pope Emeritus has broken his promise not to meddle in church politics anymore. To draw a line for Pope Francis? The Freiburg theologian Eberhard Schockenhoff, who is analyzing Ratzinger’s revisions for the latest edition of the professional journal Herder-Korrespondenz, views Benedict as proposing a compromise: The admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments on a case-by-case basis does not stand “in contradiction to the general norm of the Church” for him; rather, he is merely drawing different conclusions as regards pastoral practice. This would serve to “de-amplify” the current debate.

One way or another, Benedict has discontinued his silence. The consequences remain to be seen.

Novus Ordo Watch Commentary:

Joseph Ratzinger has long been an extremely slick and sly enemy of the Catholic Faith. It was he who “consecrated” the hardcore liberal Bruno Forte a bishop in 2004, for which The Remnant denounced Ratzinger as “perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up” (Christopher A. Ferrara, “Ratzinger Personally Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop”, Feb. 2005). Forte has now played a crucial role in the synod, being the author of the controversial passages on homosexuals.

By using a veneer of orthodoxy, tradition, and intellectualism to inject the poison of Modernism into the veins of the unsuspecting, Benedict has impressed not a few well-meaning people who seek to be genuine, good, and faithful Catholics. What we see here in this latest move — the revision of his 1972 essay — is simply more of the same tactic that has proven so successful for him countless times in the past.

To revise the conclusion of his theological argumentation, without at the same time changing the arguments or the premises themselves, is disingenuous; for if the conclusion follows with necessity, it still follows, even if he tries to disguise it. On the other hand, if the conclusion does not follow with necessity but with some probability, then the conclusion is legitimate and people can still draw it today, regardless of his revision. And finally, if the conclusion does not follow at all from his arguments, he must repudiate it and explain why he made people believe for 42 years that it was an acceptable opinion.

In addition, just what is the revised conclusion Benedict now offers? According to the above article, he “recommends that the Church expand the annulment process — which might determine that a marriage was invalid from the very beginning due to psychological immaturity”! In other words, more annulments, easier annulments, are being offered as the “great solution” lest we admit adulterers to the sacraments?! This would only exacerbate the current epidemic of annulments, most of which are de facto divorces anyway, and therefore a de facto blessing of adultery. Clearly, this “solution” is no solution at all, and particularly odious to God as it seeks to cloak great evil (attacking the marriage bond) under a veil of justice and holiness (declaring the marriage bond to never have existed).

This latest maneuver on Ratzinger’s part — which is poised to get plenty of positive and one-sided coverage by the “Father” Zuhlsdorfs [ha! see here!] and Michael Vorises of the world — is yet another piece in the phony Francis-vs-Benedict war, which seems orchestrated by the Vatican II Sect in order to deliberately incite a schism or at least cause great confusion among its adherents. Somehow it appears that Benedict XVI always finds a way to make his voice heard in public at just the right time to add fuel to an already-all-consuming conflagration.

We have predicted a schism in the New Church for a while, and it seems to be coming closer to being realized with each day that passes. A “Francis Church” vs. a “Benedict Church” would lend itself to being an ideal scenario for such an intra-Novus-Ordo schism. The Bergoglian wing of the Novus Ordo Sect for the hardcore liberals; the Ratzingerian wing for the “conservative” and “Tradition-minded”. A shrewd plan, really: It would keep people inside the false Vatican II Church either way, for whether they choose the Francis or the Benedict version, they are guaranteed to unwittingly find themselves in the same anti-Catholic institution still.

In 1861, in a sermon on the deceptions of the Antichrist, the great Fr. Frederic Faber warned: 

We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.


This is why it is so absolutely essential to go by genuine Catholic principle and traditional Catholic teaching at all times, not by emotion, convenience, or wishful thinking. 

“Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation” (Mt 26:41).

UPDATE 19-NOV-2014: Publisher of Ratzinger’s Collected Works says the timing of the release of the revised 1972 essay is “pure coincidence” — see here (German)

See Also:

The “New Springtime” strikes again...

The Faithful Departed:


New Statistics show the Novus Ordo Church is collapsing — despite Mark Shea’s Blog

There comes a point when all the New Church’s smarty-pants apologists, bloggers, and commentators have to face reality: 
Beyond all the polemics and the verbal gymnastics, there will always be, eventually, the cold hard facts

On November 13, the Pew Research Center published the results of a survey conducted in Latin America to measure the growth — or decline — of (Novus Ordo) “Catholicism” in the region, also with a view to a possible “Francis Effect.” The results are in, and they are nothing short of devastating.

The indult Rorate Caeli blog has put together the highlights of the findings:

Commenting on the results of this survey, the Francis-adoring Crux web site is rather straightforward about admitting the sobering facts:

Harmonizing quite nicely with this latest evidence is another recent study on the state of “Catholicism” in the United States by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). The video below was produced by Mr. Joao Machado, who is a member of the Novus Ordo Church but has no illusions about what has happened and what is going to happen in terms of the state of his religion in the United States:

These statistics, as explained by Mr. Machado, speak for themselves; but especially when viewed within the context of all the heresies, errors, blasphemies, and impieties that have spewed forth from the Vatican since the election of the false “Pope” John XXIII in 1958, these stats are an absolutely damning indictment of the false new Vatican II Religion that was imposed on an unsuspecting Catholic populace and is still so happily advanced by Novus Ordo professionals, such as by people at Catholic Answers, EWTN, Catholic Culture, and similar organizations and web sites.


Not the Real Thing: The Vatican II Church may look Catholic on the outside but has Zero Catholicism inside

One of the biggest Novus Ordo loudmouths out there is the blogger, columnist, author, and EWTN personality Mark Shea. In an interview he granted to the über-Modernist Jesuit America magazine, Shea was asked to give his opinion of “Pope” Francis, to which he responded with a veritable waterfall of adulation:

I love the man. It’s almost inarticulate, but I have nothing but love for the guy. I think he’s the absolute real deal and I feel tremendous hope for the church. As I said before, I’ve loved every pope we’ve had, but I particularly have a soft spot for this man just as a human being apart from whatever he does as pope. I think the world of him. There are some people you just recognize as genuine people and I always respond really strongly to them. There’s no artifice about him and I really like that.

(Sean Salai, SJ, “Blogging Pope Francis: An Interview with Mark Shea”, America, Sep. 17, 2014)

Shea is a die-hard proponent of Francis’ soup-kitchen theology, and he has been using his cavalier “anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-just-a-colossal-idiot” attitude to advance Bergoglio’s agenda on his blog, where he likes to publish pseudo-theological posts that are all rhetoric but low on substance. Take as an example this scandalous post of July 25, 2014, in which Shea blasphemously tries to justify Francis’ Modernist gobbledygook (which is meant to attack well-established doctrines and sow doubt and confusion among the faithful) by insinuating that Francis’ heresies, errors, and blasphemies are similar to the Sacred Words of our Blessed Lord during the time of revelation!

The holy Words of our Lord, of course, were left to be interpreted, guarded, and transmitted by His infallible Church, the beacon of salvation, truth, and light (see 1 Tim 3:15), for which task the Savior appointed Apostles who would have successors until the end of time (see Acts 8:30-31; Mt 28:19-20; 2 Tim 4:1-5; cf. Mk 4:12). If you look at Shea’s post, notice that once you get through all the sarcasm, there is no theology there, no salutary doctrine, no quotes from traditional Catholic teachings, saints, or anything of the kind. There’s only Mark Shea, misusing the holy Words of our Savior Jesus Christ for his own purpose, which is that of exonerating the blaspheming heretic Jorge Bergoglio.

On the other hand, what has Holy Mother Church said about the danger of heretics and their deceptive, confusing, and ambiguous talk? Pope Clement XIII warned against “diabolical error [which] easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death” (Encyclical In Dominico Agro, n. 2). Pope Pius VI rebuked those who “by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation” (Bull Auctorem Fidei). And Pope St. Pius X pointed out that we can identify Modernists by “their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action” (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 3).

Mark Shea doesn’t tell you this. In his view, these Popes should have rejoiced at scandalous, confusing, and suspicious talk and compared it to the holy Words of Christ! What blasphemy! But it sure made for a great blog post for Shea, didn’t it?!

When Francis appointed Mr. Blase Cupich as the next “Archbishop” of Chicago, Shea found himself in somewhat of a bind, as he had previously published posts rather critical of Cupich. When people called him on the fact that his hero Bergoglio had now appointed such a lousy pseudo-Catholic to the all-important archdiocese of Chicago, Shea did respond, but once again only with a satirical quickie post in which his sarcasm was only trumped by his bad logic: He made it all a matter of whether the gates of hell could prevail against the Church (cf. Mt 16:18), and triumphantly pointed out that they could not. 

Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume for a minute that the Novus Ordo Sect were actually the Catholic Church against which the gates of hell truly cannot prevail. What does that have to do with anything? Should we not be concerned about bad episcopal appointments, simply because we know the Church can’t be destroyed? What Shea obviously missed is that even though the Church can’t be destroyed, nevertheless souls can and do go to hell in the meantime. That’s why a bad bishop is cause for great concern. Shea is obviously too blinded by his blog, his agenda, dumb memes, and an “I’m always right” attitude.

Mark Shea’s role in the Novus Ordo Sect can be likened to a passenger on the Titanic who, against all evidence, nevertheless tries to reassure the other guests that everything is just fine and that the captain should have their complete and total trust.


All is well on the Barque of Judas - Mark Shea guarantees it!

If you’re still a member of the Novus Ordo Church because you mistakenly believed it to be the Catholic Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ and legitimately last shepherded by Pope Pius XII (d. 1958), we urge you to
leave this sinking ship, which is not the Barque of St. Peter but the Barque of Judas.


It’s a Francis idea, that explains it...

Shower Power: St. Peter’s Colonnades to get Showers for Homeless


What Bernini missed in his colonnades: Showers!

[UPDATED 14-NOV-2014 03:48 GMT]

From our ever-expanding Believe It or Not stack, today comes this news from Vatican Insider and Crux:

It is, of course, a good and laudable thing to provide the homeless with food, clothing, shelter, and facilities for washing — such are corporal works of mercy. There is no doubt about that. But for goodness’ sake, showers inside the colonnades of St. Peter’s Square, right under the Apostolic Palace?! They can install showers and offer free haircuts and what not all throughout Rome, using the Vatican alms fund if they wish. But to install showers inside the colonnades of St. Peter’s Square?? Completely uncalled-for.

This move is obviously nothing more than a publicity stunt by Mr. Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”), and designed to get him plenty of additional applause from the world, such as he has been seeking from the beginning on a daily basis. Francis’ concern for matters of the body is only matched by his lack of concern for matters of the soul. He is a Naturalist, as are all Freemasons and like-minded fellows. Wonder if perhaps the money for the showers came from Porsche’s profane use of the Sistine Chapel that Francis so humbly granted to the automaker?

Francis is trying to turn his church into nothing more than a big humanitarian service organization that also mentions God. The great anti-Modernist Pope, Saint Pius X (d. 1914), had something to say on that idea:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. 

But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. 

Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. 

He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. 

Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism

(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique [“Our Apostolic Mandate”], 1910; underlining and pargraph breaks added.)

The errors of the Modernist/Sillonist position here identified and denounced by Pius X amount to a near-perfect description of the program of “Pope” Francis, who, while deceitfully paying lipservice to the Gospel, really advances an apostate one-world religion, sweetened with plenty of humanitarianism and an apparent concern for “peace” —  this helps to win over the gullible and distracts the attentive.

Yet, Francis’ Revolution pushes the Vatican II Church closer and closer to the brink of total collapse, as the further it removes itself from Catholicism, the more irrelevant it becomes to the world. No one needs a Salvation Army on Steroids — an NGO with high-profile hierarchs in fancy costumes — as people will always prefer the original to an imitation. (A November 13 story on the failure of the much-touted “Francis Effect” underscores this point.)

It seems that it won’t be too much longer now before the whole Novus Ordo Sect collapses. Let it. It can only hasten the restoration of the true Catholic Church of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ!

See Also:


     Published November 12, 2014
    Novus Ordo Watch Tip: Too much to read? Can't keep up? Use Readability!

Phonevergnügen: SmartPhone “Mass” in Germany!

Put on your Surprise Face...


Jorge Bergoglio is Honorary Member of Masonic Rotary Club in Buenos Aires

In 1999, the then-“Archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, was named an Honorary Member of the Buenos Aires Rotary Club, a service organization that embraces the heretical ideals of Freemasonry, Naturalism, and Secularism. On July 26 of that year, “Archbishop” Bergoglio sent a warm thank-you note to the club’s president, which has been posted online at the Rotary Club’s web site and can still be accessed there:

What follows is an English translation of this letter:

Archbishopric of Buenos Aires
Prot. Nº 753/99

Buenos Aires, July 26th, 1999


Buenos Aires Rotary Club
San Martín 969, P. 8º
1004 – Buenos Aires

Dear Sir,

I am particularly pleased to address Mr. President to acknowledge receipt of the kind note that you sent me together with the Honorary Secretary dated the 23rd of the current month, whereby you kindly confirm me as an Honorary Associate of this prestigious institution.

I thank you warmly for this kindness, and at the same time I congratulate you for the outstanding work that you perform for the good of the community.

I reiterate to you the expressions of my heartfelt appreciation.



When Bergoglio was elected “Pope” of the Vatican II Sect on March 13, 2013, the Buenos Aires Rotary Club posted the following note on its web site (click to enlarge; translation below):



The Buenos Aires Rotary Club asks the Creator to help and protect pope Francis, and manifests its joy because the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires received in 2005 the “Silver Laurel to the Personality of the Year” with which the Club distinguishes the most relevant personalities of the community.

So, what does the Catholic Church say about the Rotary Club and similar associations?

Reality Check: The Catholic Church condemns the Rotary Club

[The following is taken from Radio Cristiandad, with some adjustments; our translation]

The first condemnations of Rotarianism by the Roman Catholic Church took place in Spain in 1928, by the Bishops of Palencia, Orense, Tuy, Leon, and Almeria, who denounced the Rotarian movement as “a new satanic organization, close to Freemasonry, execrable and perverse”.

The Declaration of the Bishop of Palencia (August 28, 1928) warns among other things that “good Catholics cannot be part of the so-called Rotary Clubs [...]” and that “Rotarianism purports to be a moral and moralizing institution, that sets out to influence the lives of individuals, families, and peoples, while absolutely discarding, as an association, all religious ideas and all kinds of relations with God and Jesus Christ Our Redeemer”.

All this implies that “the Rotarian institution, as such, explicitly makes profession of an absolute secularism, a universal religious indifference, and tries to radically moralize individuals and societies by means of a naturalist, rationalist and even atheistic doctrine” [1].

The much shorter and more conclusive Warning of the Bishop of Orense to his faithful considers that the Rotary Clubs “are nothing short of new satanic organisms, equal to Freemasonry in spirit and origin, however they may try to disguise themselves and to appear with the mark of pure humanitarianism and even Christian charity and universal, generous, full, and legitimate brotherhood” [2].

The Sacred Pastoral Visit of the Bishop of Tuy (Vigo, October 8, 1928) warns that “for good Catholics there are and there can be no other means of improvement in the religious, moral, and social order than those that have as their foundation the principles of the religion, the morality, and the sociology of Christ, the one true Savior of mankind” [3].

The Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of Leon adds the Rotarians to the list of enemies of the Roman Catholic Church, which also includes Protestants, Indifferentists, and Freemasons, all of whom are “harmoniously associated” in scheming “against our holy religion, the Church, and her ministers” [4].

The Bishop of Almeria’s Pastoral Letter on the Occasion of the upcoming Season of Advent asks his faithful to separate themselves from whatever can jeopardize their souls, pointing out that Rotarianism, by possessing a “Rotarian code of ethics”, falls into “secularism” and “naturalism”, and does not confine itself “to the speculative, mercantile and economic profession”, but invades “the social and domestic life, friends, spouses, parents, brothers and citizens in general”, supposedly “making them better” [5].

The Roman Catholic Church censors the Rotarians’ grounding of morality without any reference to Christ and His only Church; this is not only because the Magisterium teaches that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”) [6] but also because “the Catholic religion, … as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions” (Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum Genus, 16).

Indeed, it is not possible for a Catholic Christian to live his relationship with God in a twofold manner, that is to say, dividing it into a humanitarian-supraconfessional form and an inward-Christian form. He cannot breed relations of two kinds with God, nor express his relation with the Creator by means of symbolic forms of two kinds. It would be something completely different, it is obvious, from that collaboration of all who are committed to the accomplishment of the good, although proceeding from different principles. On the other hand, a Catholic Christian cannot at the same time partake in the full communion of Christian brotherhood and yet look at his Christian brother from the Masonic or Rotarian perspective, as a “secularist”.

Though there be no explicit obligation [for Rotarians] to profess relativism as a doctrine — as has been stated — even so the relativizing force of such a [Rotarian] fraternity, by its own inner logic, has in itself the capacity of transforming the structure of the act of Faith in such a radical way that it is not acceptable on the part of a Christian “who loves his faith” (Leo XIII).

Moreover, this disturbance of the fundamental structure of the act of Faith usually occurs in a smooth and unnoticed way: The solid adhesion to the truth of God, revealed in the Church, becomes a simple affiliation to an institution, considered as a particular representative form, along with other representative forms, more or less possible and valid, of the way human beings are oriented towards matters of eternity.

In the Pastoral Admonition of the Cardinal Primate of Spain and Archbishop of Toledo (January 23, 1929), on “neutral institutions”, including the “International Rotary Club”, the Most Eminent and Right Reverend Dr. Pedro Segura y Sáenz (1880-1957) identifies as the intrinsic evil of so-called neutral institutions that “they conceal the denial of the true morality and the true Religion, which they attempt to replace with a morality and a religion that is not that of Jesus Christ”, “while preaching a morality without religion to achieve universal peace”, “under a commercial, recreational, educational, philanthropic, international, and neutral but always secular appearance”.

This leads without doubt to including the “Rotary Club” among those associations “suspectis aut quae se studeant sese a legitima Ecclesiae vigilantia subducere”, “suspect associations or those that seek to distance themselves from the legitimate vigilance of the Church” (Can. 684, 1917 Code of Canon Law; cf. Can. 336).

On February 4, 1929, the Holy See prohibited priests from participating in Rotarian meetings as members or as guests. This prohibition was reiterated by means of a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office of December 20, 1950.


[1] Cf. Boletín Eclesiástico del Obispado de Palencia, año LXXVIII, sábado, 1 de septiembre de 1928, nº 77, pág. 391 y ss.
[2] Cf.
Boletín Oficial Eclesiástico del Obispado de Orense, año XVC, nº 14, 7 de septiembre de 1928, págs. 223 y 224.
[3] Cf.
Boletín Oficial del Obispado de Tuy, octubre de 1928.
[4] Cf.
Boletín Oficial del Obispado de León, 26 de noviembre de 1928, pág. 500.
Boletín Eclesiástico de la Diócesis de Almería, 30 de noviembre de 1928, págs. 316-319.
[6] Cf. Sanctum Officium,
Epistula ad Archiepiscopum Bostoniensem (8 augusti 1949).


Mr. Jorge Bergoglio giving a Masonic handshake to Fr. Joseph Ratzinger,
himself an expert in Masonic handshakes (see below)

Related Links:

The Masonic Handshakes of Benedict XVI

This video gives convincing proof that Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, "Pope" Benedict XVI, routinely used Masonic handshakes when meeting certain high-profile individuals, while shaking hands normally with others. Though the creator of this video is an anti-Catholic Protestant (and therefore does not believe Benedict XVI to have been an Antipope of the False Vatican II Church but the true Pope of the Roman Catholic Church), this is not relevant to the evidence presented. The true Catholic Church has long condemned Freemasonry and forbidden Catholics from joining the Masons. This attitude did not change until the death of the last known true Pope, Pius XII (1958), after whom the first of the current Antipopes, John XXIII, took over and began the revolution ushered in with the Second Vatican Council.

Response to “The Remnant”

Is Francis a Valid Pope?
—Why It Does Matter


In a blog post published on October 25, 2014 by The Remnant, pseudonymous author ‘Megaera Erinyes’ tries a new approach to the issue of Sedevacantism, the question of whether Francis is in fact a valid Pope or an illicit usurper: She says it doesn’t matter.

Now that’s just rich for a publication that has spent considerable amounts of ink opposing Sedevacantism over the decades. What is going on here?

In what follows, we will look at some salient points made in the Erinyes article and contrast them with traditional Catholic teaching to explain why it really does matter if Francis is the Pope.

I suppose it is possible, and has probably happened in the past, that a pope has been brought out of illicit elections who really is pope, and has gone on to do his duty as perfectly as any pope. I don't think that the nature of the election process is so crucial, though given our situation I can see why it is an attractive answer. We have a serious problem with Bergoglio, and it is one that an irregular election would solve, if it could be proved. What a relief it would be to simply shrug off his strange speeches by saying, “Oh, just more anti-pope talk.” Tempting indeed.

But I think there is a more generally useful answer that can be taken on board by any Catholic who still believes: If the pope is not a Catholic, and is pursuing goals contrary to those of Christ, does it matter if he is canonically an anti-pope? Does it matter if the election process was violated in this or that way?

(Megaera Erinyes, "It Just Doesn't Matter Anymore”, The Remnant, Oct. 25, 2014)

While we can sympathize with people’s theological struggles and confusion in these difficult times, a response of “it doesn’t matter if so-and-so is the Pope” is simply absurd. Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, someone whose theological position of “recognize-but-resist” we most certainly do
not endorse but whom The Remnant holds in highest esteem, said: 

Now some priests ... say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church, it is the Pope. He is the centre of the Church and has a great influence on all Catholics by his attitudes, his words and his acts.

(Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, “On the Sede Vacante Thesis”, Address to Seminarians, March 30 & April 18, 1986)

Our Blessed Lord Himself rejected those who were apathetic towards Him. To the church in Laodicea, He said: “because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Apoc 3:16). If we cannot be indifferent towards Christ, why should we be indifferent towards His Vicar, even to the point of not caring who His Vicar is?

We often refer to those who espouse this “recognize-and-resist” position as Neo-Traditionalists. We do so because, while trying to remain faithful to the Tradition of Holy Mother Church, they are nevertheless introducing novel concepts, ideas that are unheard-of in Catholic history and theology, such as the notion that one can “resist” the teaching of the Pope in the exercise of his Magisterium, the idea that the Church can give us error, impiety, bad morals, and evil liturgical rites, or the claim that universality in time is a necessary precondition, carefully verified by each individual believer, for the Catholic Magisterium to be truly ordinary and universal and hence infallible.

It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss each of these Neo-Traditionalist errors in detail; we point them out only to show that these pseudo-traditionalists truly adhere to novel ideas, and that their motivation for doing so is only one: their unrelenting insistence on the Vatican II “Popes” and episcopal hierarchy as being the legitimate Catholic authorities. It is this factor alone which forces them to dream up these new ideas, these errors (errors at least bordering on heresy if not outright heretical), that completely twist and distort the true and traditional Catholic teaching on the Church and on the papacy.

The idea that it does not really matter if Francis is a valid Pope or not was already propagated by the former SSPX bishop Richard Williamson in early 2014. We soundly refuted him in a lengthy article here, but we shall gladly explain again why this is not an issue a Catholic can dismiss or be indifferent about.

The Significance of the Papacy

Quite simply, the traditional Catholic teaching on the papacy makes it easily apparent that it is of the utmost importance to know who is the Pope, and perhaps even more so, who isn’t:

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

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

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

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

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

(Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, June 17, 1885; underlining added.)

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

(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302; under-lining added.)

It should be immediately clear how absurd the idea is that it does not matter if Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope of the Catholic Church (or, by extension, his predecessors Benedict XVI, John Paul II, Paul VI, and John XXIII). In fact, we challenge any Neo-Traditionalist to produce a Catholic magisterial statement or an approved theologian or dogmatic manual stating that the identity of the Pope is of no great importance, or that the status of a particular claimant as either a valid Pope or an impostor need not really trouble us.

The Pope is the cornerstone of Catholic unity. No one is a Catholic who is not united to the See of Peter (insofar as it is validly occupied, of course), nor can anyone call himself a Catholic who does not hold the same Faith as that professed and taught by the Roman Pontiff. All Catholics must look to Rome, to the Holy See, as the beacon of orthodoxy and truth, and one cannot be misled if one adheres faithfully to this Roman See, which was established precisely for our salvation.

We’re not making this up. Pope Leo XIII taught forcefully: “Union with the Roman See of Peter is ... always the public criterion of a Catholic .... ‘You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held’” (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 13). The same Pope likewise taught  that "the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate” (Encyclical Annum Ingressi Sumus; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 353). Can the resisters at The RemnantThe Fatima CrusaderCatholic Family NewsThe Angelus, etc., say this of the Novus Ordo Vatican? Of course they can’t. (John Vennari has even stated that he wouldn’t let Francis teach religion to his children, and Michael Matt is on record saying he is now hiding ‘papal’ statements from his children.)

If John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis were true Popes, then Pope Leo's statement would be false, because since Vatican II, the "Roman Pontificate" has been nothing but a strong and effective instrument of damnation, disseminating the most noxious errors and heresies to the point where all of Christendom has virtually collapsed, all the while the “Pope” says things have never been better. It follows that if the Novus Ordo Sect is the true Catholic Church, then the Church established by Christ has failed and is a fraud and Christ a liar. But this is impossible!

On this point, we recommend everyone watch the excellent 2-hour conference given by Bp. Sanborn on the topic of the heresies of Vatican II, which you can watch free of charge here. His Excellency explains that while we know it is impossible for the Church to fail, nevertheless it is possible for individuals to defect and for false papal claimants to arise and deceive people. This is a crucial consideration in coming to understand why only Sedevacantism can be accepted as a Catholic position, not the resistance position of the Neo-Traditionalists. (See also the clip Historical Precedents of Papal Impostors.)

Only if we say that the Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors, and the papal claimants since 1958 have not been true Catholic Popes, only then can we say that the Catholic Church has not failed, because while the Church can be eclipsed, as Our Lady of La Salette said she would be, and while a true Pope can be prevented or delayed, we have the divine guarantee that the Church can never teach error or lead the faithful who adhere to her to damnation. That’s the whole point of the Church!

But instead of these thoroughly Catholic and commonsensical ideas, the resisters prefer to teach a different doctrine. Why? Because they do not want to embrace the conclusion that the papal claimants since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 have been fraudulent and the religion they have headed is not the Roman Catholic Church. Yet the decision to reject Sedevacantism in favor of a twisted and distorted doctrine on the Church and the papacy has come at a terrible price for souls, because, as it is woefully apparent now, the “recognize-and-resist” position is proving to be a dead-end.

All this terrible confusion, this distorted theology, would vanish completely if they would only agree to remove its sole cause: the tenaciously-held idea that the papal claimants after Pius XII are true Catholic Popes and the Vatican II Sect is the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ. Take this absurd idea away, and everything falls into place. There is no need at all to do such injury to Catholic doctrine as the resisters do; we must simply rid ourselves of this apriori rejection of the Sedevacantist conclusion, this frantic insistence, from the outset, that Sedevacantism is simply not allowed to be true, regardless of the evidence.

The Resistance Position contradicts Catholic Doctrine

One corollary of the resistance position has been the dissemination of another egregious but popular and widespread error, namely, the view that magisterial or papal teachings that are not proposed under the strict conditions of infallibility, are not binding on the faithful and can even contain the most outrageous heresies.

Yet, this is not at all pre-Vatican II traditional Catholic teaching. Rather, as Pius XII taught, when the Pope exercises his teaching office by issuing, for example, an encyclical letter, all the faithful have the obligation, under pain of mortal sin, to assent to the Pope's teaching:

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" [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 20; underlining added.)

This only stands to reason. What is the alternative, anyway? That the Pope can no longer really teach but only offer
opinions which the faithful are free to take or reject? (Imagine this scenario in a classroom at school.) Or that each time the Pope issues an encyclical, every Catholic gets out his copy of Denzinger to check and make sure the Pope is teaching the True Faith? (In that case — think about it — there would be no Denzinger.) Or, alternatively, each individual Catholic checks with “Fr.” Nicholas Gruner, Michael Matt, John Vennari, John Salza, or Chris Ferrara to see if they give their approval? In that case, who is really teaching whom? What kind of bizarre society is this, in which the student is the final arbiter of what to accept from the teacher?

So, let’s ask the obvious question: Do the resisters, whether clergy or laity, render the assent to Francis’ encyclicals that Pius XII required of all Catholics regarding papal teaching? Or to the encyclicals and other doctrinal documents of Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI? Obviously, the answer is no.

The whole point of the institution of the papacy is to provide Christ’s Church with a safeguard in matters of faith and morals, precisely so that the faithful are not “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14), as are the Protestants and other heretics and schismatics. In other words, our Lord endowed His Church with the institution of the papacy so that each Catholic does not have to watch Remnant TV instead of listening to the Church to understand what the true Catholic teaching is, or in order to be safely guided in all matters pertaining to the salvation of his soul.

Pope Pius IX emphasized that it was this unity of Faith throughout the whole Church, guaranteed and enforced by the Pope, that distinguishes the Catholic Church from Protestant sects:

Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity. 

For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever. No one, moreover, can be ignorant that from these discordant doctrines and opinions social schisms have arisen, and that these again have given birth to sects and communions without number, which spread themselves continually, to the increasing injury of Christian and civil society.

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes [1868]; underlining added.)

Do the Neo-Trads believe that the Vatican II Sect, which they acknowledge to be the Catholic Church, has continued “firm and ever inaccessible to all change”, integrally guarding the deposit of Faith with the “presence and aid of the Holy Ghost” until the end of time?

Of course they don’t. Yet, this is the true and traditional Catholic teaching on the Church and the papacy. Now you know why we sometimes call the resisters “Semi-Traditionalists”, because their adherence to Tradition is quite selective and does not embrace the whole of it but only a part.

The First Vatican Council, ratified by the same Pius IX, taught most eloquently:

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condi-tion of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God's help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, accord-ing to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" [Luke 22:32].

(Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, n. 4; Denz. 1836; underlining added.)

Which teaching shall we accept? That of the First Vatican Council, or that of The Remnant or the Society of St. Pius X?

The Catholic Church is spotless in her teachings. She is infallible and indefectible. In his beautiful encyclical on our Lord Jesus Christ the King, Pope Pius XI wrote in 1925: "Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy” (Encyclical Quas Primas, n. 22). Precisely how does the Neo-Trad position square with this papal teaching? It doesn’t. If their church were free from error and heresy, there would be nothing to resist.

The Sedevacantist Conclusion is Possible and Necessary

The only way to keep from endorsing the heretical idea that the Catholic Church has defected is to insist that the Vatican II Sect is not the Catholic Church. It is a necessary conclusion based upon divine revelation and the facts of history. True, this is a bewildering and perplexing conclusion, but surely no more bewildering or perplexing than the Crucifixion and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ after He had proven His claim to be divine. And though bewildering and perplexing it may be, it is at least possible that a usurper be sitting on the Chair of St. Peter and a foreign body be eclipsing the Catholic Church, whereas we know it is impossible that the Catholic Church should cease to be the beacon of truth and orthodoxy.

Let us take some instruction here from Fr. Edmund J. O’Reilly, who warned that any situation may arise in the Church, no matter how absurd or bewildering it may seem, that is not strictly excluded by Christ’s promises:

The great [14th-century] schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that Catholics should be divided on the question of who is Pontiff, that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.

(Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, SJ, The Relations of the Church to Society [1882], pp. 287-288; underlining added, italics given; available online here.)

There you have it, folks: It’s time to man up. Just because the situation in the Church today causes us physical, financial, spiritual, or emotional difficulty, doesn’t mean diddly-squat. It doesn’t permit us to twist Catholic teaching on the Church, the papacy, or the Magisterium, just so we can continue to live in a comfortable fantasy world.

Commenting on this most instructive passage for our times, sedevacantist author John Daly writes:

While Fr. O'Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O'Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” (Isaias 55:8)

(John S. Daly, “A Long-Term Vacancy of the Apostolic See”,; underlining added, italics removed.)

In fact, if we take into account the following divinely-inspired words of St. Paul, we can see quite clearly that such a frightening situation in which we find ourselves today, which can justly be named an “eclipse of the Church”, is not only
not excluded by a divine guarantee but virtually predicted to happen:

And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 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 Thess 2:6-11)

Here it is very apropos to point out that sundry biblical commentators identify the man described by St. Paul as “he who now holdeth” and will be “taken out of the way,” precisely as the Pope: It is the Pope who, being the Vicar of Christ, restrains “the wicked one”, the Antichrist, for as long as there is a Pope, Satan cannot work his final deception, the “operation of error”, to mislead the masses into apostasy, as beautifully expressed by Pope Pius IX:

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

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

Let’s be honest: Does the Novus Ordo Church represent and guarantee “the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion”? Can anyone truly say that the gates of hell have not prevailed against this sorry Modernist sect that spews blasphemy, heresy, and impiety throughout the globe? Dare anyone assert that under the Vatican II “Popes”, the true religion has neither “tottered” nor “fallen”? Would it be true to say that the Holy see is “intact” under Francis or any of his five ignominious predecessors? Do the Neo-Traditionalists believe this?

OF COURSE NOT! Erinyes herself suggests this: 

But apparently we look to Rome in vain, for we have now seen, before all the eyes of the world in the first two weeks of this month, that these [false] beliefs are not held only by the vast masses of Catholic laity, but are equally the belief of a plain majority of the men who attended the Synod as successors of the Apostles! What kind of precedent do we have for a Church, in the person of its most senior ministers, which has lost its own reason for existence, its own Faith? What does God say is to be done with salt that is no longer salty?

So Erinyes believes in a church that can lose “its own Faith” and “its own reason for existence.” There’s only one way to reconcile this with traditional Catholic teaching on the Church: The Vatican II Sect is not the Catholic Church because it
cannot be. Deal with it.

Which brings us to another popular argument advanced by Neo-Trad “resisters” — that of a lack of competence.

But who’s to say?

When it comes to the question of whether the “Popes” since Pius XII have been legitimate, the typical Neo-Trad will at some point assert that this is a matter beyond his competence to decide, all the while continuing to go about his “resistance” quite happily. In this way, he thinks himself justified in his refusal to embrace Sedevacantism. However, why is it that Neo-Trads consider themselves unable to determine whether someone is a true Pope who is manifestly not a Catholic, or who has done things a true Pope is divinely protected from doing, yet in the same breath have no doubts about their competence to sit in judgment on (putative) papal and conciliar teachings and papally-approved legislation, saints, and liturgical rites?

Which makes more sense? To say, “I cannot accept this man’s claim to be the Pope because, as far as I can tell, he has done and taught things a true Pope could not possibly do or teach”, or to say, “I acknowledge this man as the Vicar of Christ, but I refuse to adhere to the religion he professes, to the teachings he issues, to the saints he creates, to the liturgy he imposes, etc.”? Why is the question of “competence” being brought up only when it comes to embracing a conclusion that follows with logical necessity but not when it comes to rejecting the teachings, laws, and liturgy of a man recognized as the highest authority in the Church?

A Catholic is most certainly competent to tell a heretic from a Catholic — he is not, however, competent to sit in judgment on the Pope’s magisterium or question his jurisdiction, which is emphasized quite clearly in Canon Law: “The First See is judged by no one” (1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 1556). On the competence of any educated Catholic, even a layman, to determine who is a heretic, see Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany’s excellent treatment of this subject matter in his Vatican-endorsed book Liberalism is a Sin:

During the Great Western Schism in the fourteenth century, people had to make up their minds about which of the two (later three) papal claimants was the true Pope. If there was ever a time to question one’s competence, it was then. Yet while God obviously did not require people’s decision on this to be infallible, He most certainly did require each and every believer to act in accordance with his acceptance of whichever papal claimant he had chosen, in good faith, to adhere to. It was not an option to acknowledge one claimant as Pope but then refuse him submission, as the resisters habitually do.

At the Heart of the Resistance Position: The Sin of Schism

The only reason why “recognize-and-resist” traditionalists could even entertain the silly idea that it doesn’t matter if Francis is the Pope or not is because they do not submit to him anyway. As far as they are concerned, of course, Francis might as well not be Pope. It makes no difference to them because nothing Francis says or does determines anything for them: not what he teaches, not any rules or decisions he enacts, not saints he canonizes, not liturgical laws he puts in place, nothing. For the resisters, Novus Ordo “Popes” only exist for show — they only have as much authority as each individual believer is willing to concede to them at any point in time. Don’t like what the latest papal encyclical says? Not to worry — it’s “not infallible.” Is the Pope threatening an excommunication? Doesn’t matter, there’s this “diabolical disorientation” going around. Got a “saint” you know isn’t a saint? No big deal — it’s just a “Vatican II” canonization. Does the “Pope” impose a heretical or impious rite of Mass? Don’t get upset — just “resist”, read Michael Davies, and subscribe to Catholic Family News. Don’t have a “Latin Mass” offered in your diocese? No problem — just go to the unapproved Masses of the Society of St. Pius X instead and tune in to Remnant TV.

Such is the pathetic state of mainstream “Traditional Catholicism” in the United States.

For those who object that Sedevacantism has its own share of difficulties, we readily acknowledge that it is so, yet there is an essential difference: Our problems are due to the absence of a reigning Pope, whereas Neo-Trad problems exist in spite of a Pope and a functioning hierarchy. Sedevacantist difficulties exist because the authority that can resolve them and is acknowledged as valid is absent, whereas Neo-Trads oppose and contradict the authority they acknowledge as valid and functioning. All sedevacantist problems are resolved, in principle, as soon as a true Pope is once again reigning. On the other hand, the resisters’ difficulties can never really be resolved because any solution is dependent, in principle, upon each resister’s personal agreement with the resolution. (For more on this particular issue, please see our powerful response to Fr. Francois Chazal: “You Can’t Have It Your Way.”)

But such refusal of submission to the man one acknowledges as the true Pope of the Catholic Church should be a big problem for anyone who calls himself a Catholic, because it constitutes the sin of schism

What is schism exactly? Church law defines it as follows: "After the reception of baptism, if anyone ... refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic" (1917 Code of Canon Law,  can. 1325 §2). Some further light is shed on this definition by the canonist Fr. Ignatius Szal, who clarified that to be considered a true schismatic, the person in question “must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff” (Fr. Ignatius Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics [Catholic University of America, 1948], p. 2). 

This definition fits Neo-Trads to a tee, except that the person they publicly recognize as Pope is not in fact the Supreme Pontiff. This does not make a difference, however, to the fact that they become guilty of the sin of schism (even if not, technically, the ecclesiastical crime, since Francis is not in fact the Pope), inasmuch as they refuse submission to the person they believe to be the Roman Pontiff. Sin exists in the will, so the sin of schism is definitely there.

Now schism, as much as heresy and apostasy, expels one from the bosom of the Catholic Church; that is, one ceases to be a member of the Body of Christ if one is a schismatic. Pope Pius XII taught: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23; italics added). Schism is an offense against the unity of the Church and therefore in itself incompatible with membership in her. 

On this matter, let us recall the teaching of Pope Pius VI:

Our desire is to maintain unity in the bond of peace; and We have no other motive, in exposing the deceits of those who abuse the names of the [Church] Fathers to give false meaning to their words. Let all understand that there is no teaching which the Fathers have more at heart than that all should be kept in unity, attached to this Chair [of St. Peter] which alone Christ has made mother and mistress of all the others.

(Pope Pius VI, Decree Super Soliditate, Nov. 28, 1786; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 60; underlining added.)

So yes, it is of more than little consequence to know whether Jorge Bergoglio validly holds the office “which alone Christ has made mother and mistress” of all dioceses throughout the Catholic world. Obviously, t
his is all very serious business, and one can only shake one's head at this new position, enunciated now by The Remnant, that the validity of the occupant of the papal office is not important. To a real Catholic, it is important, because a real Catholic submits to the Pope, apart from which submission he cannot inherit Eternal Life. But the true Catholic position has long been jettisoned by the resisters who wanted to have their cake and eat it: They wanted no part in unpleasant Sedevacantism; they wanted it both ways, have their Pope and beat him too. Now they are reaping the fruits of their forlorn position, and the cop-out that “it doesn’t matter anymore” is not going to work if Catholic teaching has any meaning.

Let’s take a closer look one sentence Erinyes penned that we already quoted, that should make everyone scratch his head: “If the pope is not a Catholic, and is pursuing goals contrary to those of Christ, does it matter if he is canonically an anti-pope?” Yes, you read that right: “If the Pope is not a Catholic…” Could the Neo-Trads show us a single example from pre-Vatican II magisterial documents that speak of the possibility of a Pope not being a Catholic, or a non-Catholic being Pope, who then must be “resisted” by each believer?

If a papal claimant is manifestly not a Catholic, then we know his claim to being Pope is false. The reason is simple: Unity is one of the marks of the Church; that is, her unity in Faith and government is one of the infallible signs by which she can be recognized in the world. If the “Pope” publicly professes (in words or actions) a faith different from the Faith of the Church, that is, from the Catholic Faith, then he cannot be her head, for if he were, then the Church would not possess unity in Faith; but it is an infallible dogma that the Church is visibly one in Faith. On this matter, the First Vatican Council taught:

“The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls” [1 Pet. 2:25], in order to render the saving work of redemption perennial, willed to build a holy Church, in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful might be contained by the bond of one faith and charity. Therefore, before His glory was made manifest, “He asked the Father, not only for the Apostles but also for those who would believe through their word in Him, that all might be one, just as the Son Himself and the Father are one” [John 17:20 f.]. Thus, then, as He sent the apostles, whom He had selected from the world for Himself, as He himself had been sent by the Father [John 20:21], so in His Church He wished the pastors and the doctors to be “even to the consummation of the world” [Matt. 28:20]. But, that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing the blessed Peter over the other apostles He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose strength the eternal temple might be erected, and the sublimity of the Church to be raised to heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith. And, since the gates of hell, to overthrow the Church, if this were possible, arise from all sides with ever greater hatred against its divinely established foundation, We judge it to be necessary for the protection, safety, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approbation of the Council, to set forth the doctrine on the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the Sacred Apostolic Primacy, in which the strength and solidarity of the whole Church consist, to be believed and held by all the faithful, according to the ancient and continual faith of the universal Church, and to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, so pernicious to the Lord's flock.

(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus [1870]; Denz. 1821; underlining added.)

How can anyone read this exposition of Catholic dogma and say, “It doesn’t matter if Francis is the Pope”? Sorry, but if we’re going to be traditional Catholics, maybe we should actually believe what the Church has traditionally taught, and act accordingly. Try to re-read this quote from Vatican I and see if you can fit Erinyes’ idea of a “non-Catholic Pope” into it. 

...Didn’t think so. Of course, no public non-Catholic is a member of the Church, as Pope Pius XII, quoted above, taught authoritatively, and certainly he who is not a member of the Church cannot be the head of the Church. 

A true Pope is divinely guaranteed to shepherd the Catholic faithful according to the true doctrine, whereas an apostate usurper leads souls to hell — again, we see how crucial the question of the validity of anyone’s claim to the Catholic papacy is.

Our Blessed Lord’s metaphor of the shepherd and the sheep is also very instructive here:

Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers.


I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.

(John 10:1-5,11-14; underlining added.)

These are beautiful words. By contrast, Erinyes is telling us that it doesn’t matter if the shepherd is the hireling or if he is even the wolf, that there is not necessarily any real difference between them! How can anyone say something so outrageous? Notice that our Lord
doesn’t say: “Sometimes the sheep can’t follow the shepherd, or sometimes the shepherd will sound like the hireling, or sometimes the shepherd can be the wolf”, etc. This is what The Remnant may want you to believe, but it isn’t what our Lord taught, nor what Holy Mother Church teaches.

If you must have a bride for the wedding, but you cannot find her, it will not do to substitute a prostitute instead and try to make everyone believe she’s the bride, or declare that it “just doesn’t matter” if she’s the real bride or not.

Concluding Thoughts: Whither the “Resistance”?

In her post, Erinyes makes the question of Francis’ validity into a matter of (real or imagined) defects in an election procedure. However, this misses the point entirely. We’re not concerned here with conclave rules but with much more basic matters: There is a “Pope” in Rome who is an obvious non-Catholic, an apostate of the worst sort. We really don’t care how many votes he got in a conclave, because the conclave has nothing to do with the invalidity of his claim to being the Pope of the Catholic Church. The man isn’t a Catholic and he cannot be the head of the Catholic Church. He has declared a fellow-apostate (John Paul II) a “Catholic saint”, when we know that a true Pope would be divinely protected from doing such an evil thing, lest the whole church venerate and imitate a man who was a disciple of hell, as John Paul II most definitely was. Conclave rules have nothing to do with this, but Erinyes’ focus on this is a typical symptom of another malady often encountered among Neo-Traditionalists: the failure to distinguish knowledge of a fact from knowledge of the cause of that fact.

We must very much distinguish knowledge of the fact that Francis isn’t Pope, from knowledge of the reason why he is not the Pope. We can know the former even without the latter, just as we can know that the barn door won’t close even if we don’t know why it won’t close. Unfortunately, too often this distinction is overlooked, and people think that simply because they cannot figure out why Francis isn’t the Pope, they must accept him as a valid successor of St. Peter — all the while, however, conveniently refusing him submission.

This seems to be exactly the position Erinyes is taking, though adding to that the new-found idea that “it just doesn’t matter anymore”. None of this jibes with Catholic teaching, which is why none is cited.

Erinyes asks: “But if precedent is not helping us with any of the other strangenesses of the modern Church why do we look to it for the answer to this pope?” The question is fair enough as far as precedent is concerned — but here’s another suggestion: How about looking at and applying Church teaching, instead of coming up with false analogies totally devoid of any theology?

We cannot allow a desired conclusion to dictate our premises. We cannot start with a conclusion we like and then try to find arguments that lead to this conclusion. That’s what lawyers do, not followers of the Truth. We must begin with what we know and then embrace the conclusion that follows with necessity, whether we like it or not.

Erinyes asks further: "Do such canonically defined categories, dependent upon longstanding precedent, apply to this? How can they?” This has nothing to do with canon law or with precedent. This has to do with basic Catholic doctrine on the church, the papacy, and the Faith. Maybe we should just accept the Catholic truth and ditch Bergoglio? Just what is the problem? Francis cannot be the Pope. If this causes people great consternation and raises other questions, that’s fine, but we do not solve the conundrum by ignoring the facts and pretending that he is the Pope. It solves nothing, no matter how emotionally satisfying it may be. In fact, it makes everything worse because you are never farther from finding a cure than when you refuse to accept the correct diagnosis.

Considering all this evidence, how can Neo-Trads think of themselves as being faithful to Catholic Tradition? You cannot uphold Catholic Tradition if at the same time you are making up completely novel concepts that are at odds with that very Tradition. Sure, on occasion there are attempts at justification of this position, but they usually amount to no more than a false analogy (“a bad father is still your father”), or a quote here or there that supports their position but is taken from a single theologian, or an apparition, or a Doctor of the Church quoted out of context. John Vennari, for example, still has to explain why we should accept as dogma a statement of Cardinal de Torquemada when at the same time we’re being asked to reject an entire ecumenical council, papal encyclicals, canonizations, church law, liturgical rites, etc. Why is it that official teaching and universal disciplinary decrees are being junked, but then when there is one cardinal’s statement found that isn’t even part of the Magisterium, we are being asked to accept this as the great dogmatic refutation of Sedevacantism?

Catholicism has consequences, and one such consequence is that Jorge Bergoglio can be a lot of things but the head of the Catholic Church isn’t one of them.

We’ve said this before: Have no fear to investigate Sedevacantism. If the position is false, it doesn’t become true just because you’re looking into it. On the flip side, however, if it is true, then it doesn’t become false just because you refuse to investigate it. So what do you have to lose? Is the eternal salvation of your soul not worth this quest? Don’t be afraid of the consequences of this reality: Have trust in God — hope in Him firmly! He will give you all the graces you need to suffer through whatever you may have to endure as a result of the sede vacante state of our beloved Church (see 1 Tim 2:4).

To get started, watch this clear and calm presentation of why we must conclude that the Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church. Take it from there, see the related links at the bottom of this post, then get some helpful advice, and then contact us if you have questions.

The Remnant’s publication of the Erinyes post is a sign that they’re all freaking out in Resistance Land. As well they should, because they are now being faced with the fruits of their false position. A church in which the true teaching does not come from the Chair of St. Peter but from the desk chair of a lawyer in Virginia or a journalist in Minnesota is not the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Oh, how powerful a force we could be against the Novus Ordo Sect if only all who seek to be true, traditional Roman Catholics could unite in calling the Modernists’ bluff and openly profess that the Vatican II Church in Rome is not in fact the Church of Pope Pius XII, not the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ the Lord! We could put a huge dent in the credibility of the Modernist Sect and their apostate revolution.

Think about it. Why does anyone care, for example, what Mr. Timothy Dolan thinks about Catholicism and society? Because of his claim to being the “Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York”. No one would give a hoot about what he says on these matters if he were a mechanic, a barber, or an accounting clerk (no offense to these professions).

All the strength of the Modernist revolution lies in people’s acknowledgement of these charlatans as the legitimate Roman Catholic authorities. Take that away from them, and the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. It is their Achilles heel. They really do not care how many “traditionalists” try to “resist” them — it matters little to them, because, as is clearly visible now, the Revolution blasts ahead at full steam with or without “resistance” by a few on the side. Francis doesn’t care if 300 people come together for some “Conference for Tradition” once a year in New York, or if Michael Voris gives a few talks on a cruise ship to the Bahamas.

There is only one thing they care about: Whether you resist them or not, you must acknowledge them as the legitimate Catholic authorities. That’s why in any discussions and negotiations with the Society of St. Pius X, Rome has always insisted on them accepting all the papal claimants since 1958 — an odd requirement to begin with, since the SSPX has never taken the position that the papal claims of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis are of dubious validity. That is the cornerstone of the Modernist revolution, and we must kick it away as hard as we can, and then the whole thing will finally collapse. No matter how well-intentioned they may be, the resisters are only perpetuating the problem, are only keeping the Revolution alive and adding more fuel to it.

An immemorial Catholic rule of thumb is: Ubi petrus, ibi ecclesia. Where Peter is, that is, where the Pope is, there is the Church. But where Francis is, there is chaos. Where Francis is, there the Church is not. For she cannot be where the Faith is not, and Francis does not have the Faith.

It’s time for the Neo-Trads to stop complaining and instead man up and embrace the logical consequences of their practical Sedevacantism. Won’t you join us?

Megaera Erinyes asked if it still mattered whether Francis is the Pope. 

Let’s answer her this way: It matters to a Catholic.

Related Links:

“Madness” is right...

How Much Madness Is In You?
A Novus Ordo Altar Boy Advertisement

Whether it be tap-dancing priests, rocking nuns, happy-clappy religious, monks-gone-wild, outrageous “youth masses”, superman priests with holy-water guns, liturgical absurdistan, stupid and effeminate liturgical choreography, sacrilegious harlem shakes, show-your-tattoo masses, or any other sort of ridiculous, impious, or blasphemous aberration under the label of “Catholic”, the Novus Ordo Sect offers it with glee and impunity.

The following video shows what is supposed to be an advertisement for being an altar boy in a Novus Ordo parish in Germany (parish web site here).

The title of the advertisement is, “How much madness is in you?” Quite appropriate actually, since one does have to be mad to want to serve at or even attend the bogus ordo liturgy.

Surely further commentary is not needed.

See Also:

Finally, our big announcement...



The Novus Ordo Watch PODCAST

It’s Novus Ordo Watch for your Ears!

Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come to kick things up a notch: As more and more people are beginning to wake up to what has really happened to the Catholic Church since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, we have decided to meet the growing demand for genuine Catholic information and analysis in an exciting new way: In addition to the great informative content already being offered on the
Novus Ordo Wire blog and all throughout the Novus Ordo Watch web site, we will now be adding professional audio podcasts. 

“TRADCAST” — the name of our podcast program — will be the perfect companion to our blog posts, our articles, and our tweetsPlease watch the following promotional clip introducing “TRADCAST” and share it with friends and family:


Things in the Novus Ordo Church are deteriorating quickly: As “Pope” Francis’ Revolution picks up steam, more and more people who seek to be genuine Catholics are becoming confused and restless, and it is getting really difficult to keep up with the flood of information that emanates from the Vatican II Sect on a daily basis.

This is where TRADCAST comes in: TRADCAST will allow us to cover, dissect, refute, or comment on various news stories, events, articles, commentaries, blog posts, and video and audio programs that are difficult or too time-consuming to cover in our articles or Novus Ordo Wire posts. It will furthermore permit us to respond to our critics at lightning speed and give us an opportunity to address various concerns people have who are finding out about the true state of Holy Mother Church for the first time.

TRADCAST will be your “Novus Ordo Watch on the Go” because you will be able to easily take it with you using your smartphone, your tablet, or your laptop and listen at your own convenience — while exercising, while waiting at the doctor’s office, while driving, while walking your dog, while relaxing on your sofa… you name it!

Like all podcasts, TRADCAST will come to you via automatic subscription, if you so choose, or you can listen to it at as soon as each episode becomes available. TRADCAST will also be a welcome aid for all who have difficulty reading or simply prefer audio over text!

TRADCAST will be a refreshing mix of real Catholicism, sound philosophy, delightful humor, and intellectually challenging content. TRADCAST will be informative, insightful, smart, unyielding, sophisticated, interesting, witty, cool, and charitable… but above all, it will be Catholic! And of course, it will be absolutely free.

TRADCAST is the podcast for REAL Traditional Roman Catholics! The preliminary launch date for the first broadcast is December 2014. We have created a separate Twitter account just for TRADCAST — follow us at @TradcastNOW.

So, don’t keep this a secret: Spread the word about TRADCAST, say a prayer, and look forward to the first episode, which will be posted at So… are you ready?!

You can’t make this stuff up...

Mark Shea says Elton John’s Admiration for Francis shows he is “revisiting what the Gospel has to say”

The other day we
reported on Elton John’s admiration for “Pope” Francis, Jorge Bergoglio. In a fundraising event to fight AIDS, the British sodomite said he wants the putative Pope to be declared a “saint now”, and that he considers him his “hero.” While anyone who isn’t yet completely brain-dead would, in the context of who Elton John is and what has transpired so far with regard to “Pope” Francis, see this for yet another confirmation of what utter shame and disaster Bergoglio has brought on the name “Catholic”, the one American blogger who can always be counted on to come down on the wrong side of an issue (with very few exceptions), Mark Shea, sees this as proof that Elton John is opening himself up to the Gospel!

On his infamous Catholic and Enjoying It blog, the Protestant-to-Novus-Ordo convert Shea writes:

He [Elton John] joins a growing list of people (who represent millions more), hitherto disaffected from the Church, who find they trust and admire him and are revisiting what the gospel has to say because of him.

Meanwhile, it is the mark of the madness of our age that the Greatest Catholics of All Time [Shea’s moniker for traditionalists of all stripes —NOW] see this as an indictment of the Pope and not as an opportunity to evangelize.

When I made the remark on FB [Facebook] that the admiration of an Elton John for the pope represents an evangelistic opportunity, not a problem, for the Church, a depressing percentage of Catholics responded in ways best summed up by one reader: “Evangelism is Protestant, not Catholic.” 

Everything that is wrong with the Church today is summed up in those words. Everything.

(Mark Shea, "Elton John greatly admires Pope Francis”, Catholic and Enjoying It, Oct. 31, 2014)


Now obviously, the statement that “Evangelism is Protestant, not Catholic” is absolutely idiotic and totally antithetical to Catholicism. In condeming this, Shea is quite correct, but one will naturally always be able to find one person on the internet who, though considering himself a Catholic, nevertheless speaks nonsense. This is not exactly new, and Shea himself is a perfect example of this. But the irony is that it is precisely “Pope” Francis, Mark Shea’s hero and now also Elton John’s, who opposes evangelism, seeing it as “spiritual harassment” and denouncing it as “proselytism”, never preaching Jesus Christ to the unconverted, even going so far as hiding his pectoral cross in the presence of his Jewish buddies and confirming Muslims in their unbelief by telling them to adhere faithfully to the Koran and lauding Ramadan as being capable of producing “abundant spiritual fruit”. He does this, of course, while paying lipservice to the Gospel, telling people in sermons to “preach the Gospel always”, yet himself eschewing every opportunity to do so. Bergoglio has replaced the Gospel with a soup-kitchen humanitarianism bearing a cross — and even that cross has to go if the soup is being handed to Jewish people. (For a list of examples of this and other contradictions coming from the two-faced Jorge Bergoglio, click here.)

What Mr. Shea doesn’t understand — or refuses to acknowledge — is that Elton John is praising Francis not because the Argentinian Jesuit is such a wonderful Catholic but precisely because he isn’t. He extols him not because Francis practices the Gospel so well but because he doesn’t. Elton John is essentially saying, “Finally, there’s a man like me on the Chair of Peter, a man after my own heart. Finally, the church is starting to come around to my way of thinking! This deserves recognition! Long live Francis!” 

This, Mr. Shea, is why real Catholics rightly see Elton’s admiration of Francis as a further confirmation of the disaster that is Jorge Bergoglio and his anti-Catholic, impious, heretical Revolution. By way of analogy, this is like Judas praising St. Peter for his betrayal of Christ — not exactly an indication that Judas is getting closer to truth and holiness, even if he is “attracted by an Apostle”.

Shea’s brilliant analysis continues:

Our task is not to keep out the riff raff and repel boarders. It is to go out into the highways and byways and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame so that the wedding feast will be full.

Yes, yes, Mr. Shea, this is quite true, but there is one minor detail which, though you mention it later on, you nevertheless fail to grasp the import of: The wedding feast can only lawfully be attended by those who have on a wedding garment, the garment of sanctifying grace (see Mt 22:11-13). While we must go out into the streets to bring people in so as to clothe them in the wedding garment, this isn’t what Francis is doing. What he’s doing is going out to the “riffraff”, inviting them in, and then complimenting them on their beautiful clothes and assuring them that no wedding garment is needed but that this whole wedding garment business is, instead, only a sign of “narrow-minded rules” that leave out of account the “love of Jesus.” He’s made the wedding celebration into a brothel, where everyone is welcome except those with the wedding garment, where those who do wear it and take care to keep it unsullied are being castigated for insisting on having to wear it. That’s what’s going on here, Mr. Shea — and we have nearly twenty months of “Pope Francis”, and years of “Cardinal” Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, to prove it.

Let’s look at a little more of what Shea writes on this:

Will those attracted to Francis’ beautiful witness and obvious holiness [sic!!] need to repent of things? Of course. Don’t we all? But here’s the thing (and the point Francis tried to make last year in his America interview): You don’t start a life of discipleship with a set of moral precepts. You start it by an encounter with a person. The *real* magnetic force in Francis’ life is Jesus Christ. It is for us to introduce a person like Elton John (or whoever) to Jesus so that they can begin to grapple with his astonishing person. The changes in lifestyle *flow* from that encounter. They do not *precede* that encounter. If you march up to somebody and start demanding that they reorder their entire life because Sez You, you will have no success. If they have an encounter with Jesus, realize who he is and what he has done for them and the universe-shattering implications of that: they are the ones who conclude “I have to re-order my entire life.”

So then, apparently, for 1,900 years Holy Mother Church converted sinners the wrong way, using futile and insensitive tactics that only repel people instead of attracting them. Right? That’s what Shea wants you to believe.

Ah yes, that “encounter” stuff… Let’s see if we all remember our Catholic history: In the eighth century, St. Boniface Winfrid, Apostle of Germany, converted a number of pagans to Catholicism by means of the following somewhat insensitive “encounter”:

To show the heathens how utterly powerless were the gods in whom they placed their confidence, Boniface felled the oak sacred to the thunder-god Thor, at Geismar, near Fritzlar. He had a chapel built out of the wood and dedicated it to the prince of the Apostles. The heathens were astonished that no thunderbolt from the hand of Thor destroyed the offender, and many were converted. The fall of this oak marked the fall of heathenism.

(Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “St. Boniface”)

Even Mark Shea will have to admit that this isn’t exactly the type of “encounter” or “witness” you’ve heard about from Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis.

Of course there are different strategies to evangelization, as each person to be evangelized is different, and one has to take into consideration factors such as good will (that’s the most important), education, intelligence, temperament, social status and upbringing, current religious beliefs, etc. But that’s beside the point. Shea’s idea, based entirely on Vatican II theology, is that if only we are all like Francis, then people like Elton John will slowly be led to Christ and to conversion. This is not only preposterous but has also long proven itself to be unworkable — and that proof is in the pudding.

It’s the old “let’s open the windows” nonsense of “St.” John XXIII and his Modernist Second Vatican Council. When the Vatican II Church, in its very infancy, “opened itself to the world” beginning in 1962, what happened was not a conversion of the world to Catholicism but a conversion of Catholicism to the ways of the world. Not the Gospel was let loose on the world, but the world polluted and diluted the Gospel instead. And this isn’t just some “theory” or some “prediction” — this is historical fact. Just look at history. The Church of Vatican II has not produced massive conversions but massive apostasy, as documented in the book Index of Leading Catholic Indicators.

In his sermon of June 29, 1972, Antipope Paul VI complained that the “smoke of Satan” had entered his church — but somehow he couldn’t manage to trace this back to his predecessor John XXIII’s opening of the windows. How strange.

If we saw the mere smoke of Satan in 1972, at this point it’s a raging inferno. Besides Paul VI, the other individual who is singly most responsible for ensuring that the smoke would turn into a near-unquenchable conflagration is “Saint” John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla). He was very big on telling pagans how wonderful they were, not only they as human beings but also their false religions. The following two shocking articles give detailed accounts of what transpired in 1986 and 1993 when John Paul II traveled to India and Benin, respectively:

To comment on just one example, in Africa in 1993 John Paul II praised the satanic Voodoo cult in these words (quote found in the second article linked above):

You have a strong attachment to the traditions handed on by your ancestors. It is legitimate to be grateful to your forbears who passed on this sense of the sacred, belief in a single God who is good, a sense of celebration, esteem for the moral life and for harmony in society.

Sounds just like the kind of “encounter” Mark Shea has in mind, doesn’t it? So then, we ask: Where are the converts? Where is that flood of people abandoning the Voodoo religion and embracing Catholicism because of John Paul II’s “encounter” with them in 1993? And for every single person who did perhaps convert, how many abandoned the Faith because of Wojtyla’s scandalous praising of witchcraft and paganism? Do we really want to look at the numbers?

In India, John Paul II received the heathen Mark of Shiva, as proved beyond doubt in this video, which also includes a powerful refutation of Jimmy Akin’s attempt to spin it into something else. Wojtyla did not preach Jesus Christ to the pagans, but the “dignity of man”.

In 1985, the same John Paul II had gone to Togo, Africa, and was only too happy to explain in a General Audience following his trip, just what he had done there: “Particularly striking was the prayer meeting in the sanctuary of Our Lady of Mercy at Lake Togo, where I also prayed for the first time with animists" (General Audience, Aug. 21, 1985, n. 8; italics added).

Okay then: Where are the pagans that have converted and abandoned their paganism because of all the interreligious dialogue, the interreligious prayer, the peace initiatives, etc., since Vatican II? Where are the converts from Judaism that came as a result of Benedict XVI blaspheming Christ in a synagogue in Cologne in 2005? Where are the fruits we have been promised by the likes of Mark Shea for decades? Fruits we have seen indeed, but not the kind of fruits that Shea is still trying to convince people will eventually follow.


Elton John - Ready for Catholicism?
Only Mark Shea could come up with nonsense like that...

By the way, Elton John is by far not the only celebrity of the pagan left endorsing Francis. There’s another one who has said he is quite “impressed” with the Jesuit “Pope”: Barack Obama. According to Mark Shea’s reasoning, this shows that Obama is drawing closer to Catholicism and he is now more ready to be evangelized than before. Gee, look at all these “converts” Francis is making! A few more years of Bergoglio and his new-found “mercy”, and the whole world will be Catholic!

Get a different job, Mark Shea — one that has nothing to do with religion.

Related Links:

Time to catch up on the latest madness...

Francis’ Dogma Death Squad Strikes Again!


Listen on Demand at any time:

Link is fully functional now — in page that appears, scroll down to where it says “Podcast Player” and click to play or download to your computer:


Click to enlarge

Restoration Radio presents another episode of the “Francis Watch” series, a monthly show dedicated exclusively to all things Bergoglio. Tune in live each month or listen on demand at your convenience for a truly Catholic perspective on Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Anti-Catholic Modernist who falsely claims to be the Pope of the Catholic Church.

In this month's episode, host Justin Soeder covers the latest flood of Bergoglian errors, heresies, and impieties, with his guests Bp. Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada, who provide razor-sharp analysis and commentary from the perspective of the traditional and true Roman Catholic religion, the Faith as it was known and proclaimed by all Catholics until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

The show begins with a discussion of a couple of late breaking news stories that came out on October 28, 2014, including Francis saying that God is not “some magician with a wand able to do everything,” as he reconciled the evolutionary “big bang theory” with that of Divine Creation – saying the two are not incompatible. The host and guests also cover Francis’ October 10 meeting at Casa Santa Marta, where Francis conducted an ecumenical love fest with the Communion of Episcopal Evangelical churches.

Other Show Highlights:

  • Francis’ brilliant warning that a “God Spray” does not exist!
  • Bergoglio’s October buzzwords: “Theological Byzantisms” and “Graduality”
  • Francis’ claim that the Church should not retreat into dogmas
  • Bergoglio’s assertion that divisions in Christian unity are based upon pride & egoism
  • Francis’ “customs house” …. of Modernism!
  • Francis’ declaration on obsolete laws
  • Following Laws and Reciting Creeds are not enough
  • Kasper’s declaration that “You can’t just quote old texts”
  • Review of the October Synod documents on the Family
  • The Synod’s idea that elements of sanctification and truth are found in cohabitation and adultery
  • The backing of Sacraments for the divorced and remarried
  • The claim that the Church must learn from the “experience of the people”
  • Kasper’s marriage doctrine logic: “It does not change but can be made different”
  • Reactions to the Synod from the media and commentators
  • And much more!


Novus Ordo Watch is pleased to be the sponsor of this Francis Watch season on Restoration Radio. For a well-written summary of the first 11 months of the Revolution of “Pope Francis”, please see The Strange “Papacy” of Jorge Bergoglio.

Other select Restoration Radio Broadcasts and Related Links:

Gushes over his “hero”...

Elton John on Francis: 
“Make This Man a Saint now, okay!?”


Great Britain’s most famous “married”-with-kids sodomite, Reginald Kenneth Dwight, who goes by the stage name “Elton John”, has once again sung the praises of the head of the Vatican II Church, Jorge Bergoglio, who goes by the stage name “Pope Francis.” Echoing his words from earlier this year, Sir Elton John called Francis “my hero” at the annual fundraiser for his Elton John AIDS Foundation. He pleaded, “Make this man a saint now, OK?”, in reference to Bergoglio’s “new tone” of acceptance of unrepentant perverts in what the world believes to be the Catholic Church.

More details can be found at this article:

Since his election on March 13, 2013, Francis has distinguished himself for his openness, in words and actions, towards people who practice this particular sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. In 2013, he appointed the known sodomite “Mgr.” Battista Ricca head of the Vatican Bank. Even before his election as “Pope”, Bergoglio was instrumental, in various ways, in getting unnatural vice integrated and accepted in his archdiocese of Buenos Aires.

Related Links:

“Heresy” is soo yesterday...

Francis tells Protestants:
“We all have the Holy Spirit within us”

Earlier this month, the head of the Vatican II Sect, “Pope” Francis, met with members of the Ark Community, co-founded by the recently deceased Evangelical-Anglican “Bishop” Tony Palmer. A video clip (above) of some of the conversations has now been released. The following link has the background story: 

In addition, there is now a transcript available, as well as lots of photos, at the Call Me Jorge blog here. Remember, this is the same Francis who doesn’t care what religion you are and adheres to the heresy that faith without works is not true faith.


Francis and his fellow-Protestants

Reality Check:

“Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, ‘although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ.’ Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ's faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.”

—Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae (1944), n. 16; underlining added

“…[B]e on guard lest, on the false pretext that more attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be encouraged, especially among persons whose training in theology is not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong. For care must be taken lest, in the so-called ‘irenic’ spirit of today, through comparative study and the vain desire for a progressively closer mutual approach among the various professions of faith, Catholic doctrine — either in its dogmas or in the truths which are connected with them — be so conformed or in a way adapted to the doctrines of dissident sects, that the purity of Catholic doctrine be impaired, or its genuine and certain meaning be obscured.”

—Holy Office under Pope Pius XII, Instruction Ecclesia Catholica (1949), sec. II; underlining added

The Catholic Church against Ecumenism:


     Published October 28, 2014
    Novus Ordo Watch Tip: Too much to read? Can't keep up? Use Readability!

The world is laughing: Klemen Slakonja parodies Francis in “Modern Pope”

He who has eyes to see, let him see...

The Great Comparison:
The Traditional Latin Mass vs.
the New “Mass” of Paul VI (1969)

The following video provides an excellent 10-minute audio-visual comparison of the Holy Catholic Mass of the ages — aka the “Traditional Latin Mass” — with the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by the False Pope Paul VI, a rite that even then-“Cardinal” Ratzinger admitted was a “banal on-the-spot product” yet which he claimed later as “Pope” Benedict XVI was “one and the same rite” with its Traditional Latin counterpart.

Not only does Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae (“New Order of Mass”) represent a substantial change in Catholic belief and practice, it is also definitely invalid in most vernacular tongues, specifically in English, as was proved as early as 1968 — even one year before it was imposed as an official rite — by the late Patrick Henry Omlor (+2013).

On September 25, 1969, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Cardinal Antonio Bacci, and a group of Roman theologians wrote an open letter to “Pope” Paul VI to summarize the doctrinal and liturgical problems presented by the Novus Ordo rite, underscording that it “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent” (see “The Ottaviani Intervention”).

A helpful video that explains what takes place at the Traditional Latin Mass, and what the beautiful rite means, can be viewed here:

Many beautiful and liturgically significant gestures and details were eliminated from the Traditional Catholic Mass under the impious pretext of them being “useless”, and a lot of prayers were either removed altogether, or dumbed down, or rewritten in such a way that nothing distinctly Catholic remained in them. This accounts for the disastrous state of “Catholicism” in the United States today, and throughout the world at large.

So, for example, words such as “sacrifice,” “guilt,” “reparation,” “fires of hell,” “eternal punishment,” “true faith,” and “enemies” were systematically eradicated, as explained in our blog post “The Revised Prayers of the New Mass.” The main architect of this liturgical revolution, which was necessary to instill in people’s minds and souls the new religion of Vatican II, was Fr. Annibale Bugnini, whom “Pope” Paul VI rewarded for his liturgical destruction by making him an “archbishop” in 1972. Later it was proved that Bugnini was a member of the anti-Catholic sect of Freemasonry, and Paul VI had no choice, for the sake of appearance, to exile him to Iran, where he died in 1982. The facts on Bugnini are competently recounted in the article “The Bugnini File” by John Weiskittel (PDF).

For the most current, most complete historical study of the problems with the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI, see Fr. Anthony Cekada’s Work of Human Hands (2010). You can watch, free of charge, video overviews of the chapters of the book, at this link. This is a great way to get a summary of the contents of Work of Human Hands to understand why the “New Mass” is deadly and not Catholic. In addition, Restoration Radio provides numerous recorded radio broadcast episodes in which Fr. Cekada discusses the differences between the True Roman Catholic Mass and the Novus Ordo counterfeit. These episodes can be listened to at any time and are free of charge.

Lastly, please don’t let yourself be deluded by Benedict XVI’s machinations with his Motu Inapproprio Summorum Pontificum. Understand why this document is not a good thing at all and must be unacceptable to any Catholic. We offer a feature article on the subject here:

It’s time to look the facts in the eye and consider what has really happened to the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council, or, more precisely, since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 and the bizarre events that unfolded afterwards. If you’re wondering where to go and what to do, take heart. Do not be afraid. Our article “Now What?!” provides hope and consolation.

May God bless you.

See Also:

Looking for More? We only keep the 15 most recent blog posts on this page. For more, check the monthly Wire Archive... well as the News Archive, which we maintained before our Wire Blog:

2013: 01/1302/13
2012: 01-03/1204/1205/1206/1207/1208/1209/1210/1211/1212/12
2011: 02/1105/1108/1110/11
2010: 01/1002/1005/1006/1007/1008/1010/1012/10
2009: 01/0902/0903/0904/0905/0907/0911/09   
2008: 01/0802/0803/0804/0805/0806/0809/0810/0812/08

2007: 01/0706/0707/0708/0709/0710/0711/0712/07
2006: 01/0602/0603/0604/0605/0606/0607/0608/0609/0610/0611/0612/06
2005: 01/0502/0503/0504/0505/0506/0507/0508/0509/0510/0511/0512/05
2004: 01/0402/0403/0404/0405/0406/0407/0408/0409/0410/0411/0412/04
2003: 01-03/0304-05/0306/0307/0308/0309/0310/0311/0312/03

2002: 10-12/02

We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said content.

Fair Use Notice:

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.