The Hermeneutic of Continuity...


Ratzinger 1972: Communion for “Divorced-and-Remarried” Not Impossible

At a time when sparks are flying ahead of the controversial Synod on the Family that “Pope” Francis has scheduled to begin on October 5, 2014, we thought it would be a good idea to share once more with our readers — as we already did in March of this year — the little-known fact that among the very first “Catholic” theologians to try to find a way to permit public adulterers (the “divorced-and-remarried” in the Vatican II Church that didn’t manage to get an annulment) to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments was none other than the suit-and-tie Modernist Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, suspected of heresy under Pope Pius XII, who became “Pope” Benedict XVI in 2005.

About six years after the close of the the Second Vatican Council, at which he helped direct the Modernist revolutionary program, Fr. Ratzinger wrote an essay on this topic that was published in a book on holy matrimony and divorce.

The book in question is Ehe und Ehescheidung: Diskussion unter Christen [Marriage and Divorce: A Discussion among Christians], edited by Franz Henrich and Volker Eid, published in Munich in 1972 by Kösel-Verlag.


Ratzinger's essay is entitled 
Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe: Bemerkungen zum dogmengeschichtlichen Befund und zu seiner gegenwärtigen Bedeutung [On the Question of the Indissolubility of Marriage: Remarks on the Dogmatic-Historical Facts and their Present-Day Significance] and is printed on pp. 35-56.


In his article, Ratzinger argues for an admittance of public adulterers to “Holy Communion” and other Novus Ordo sacraments under certain limited and restrictive conditions. An English translation of the text has been published by Mr. Joseph Bolin and can be accessed here:

Joseph Ratzinger 1972:
“On the Question of the Indissolubility of Marriage”
(click to access)

Note of Caution: Catholics are not permitted to read writings by Modernists because
of the danger to the Faith they present; we are merely providing this link to prove the fact that
Fr. Ratzinger supports the idea of allowing non-repentant adulterers to be admitted to Holy Communion

In a nutshell, the Modernist Ratzinger argues that "limited exceptions" to the general prohibition against reception of sacraments by public adulterers can be granted in individual cases (though not as a general norm), under the following conditions:

  • The exception cannot "call into question the fundamental form [of the sacrament of matrimony] from which the Church lives" (whatever that means - typical Modernist claptrap)
  • The first (and only valid) marriage must have broken up "a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way"
  • The second (and adulterous) union "has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality [sic] and has been filled with the spirit of the faith [sic], especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage [sic] would destroy a moral greatness [sic] and cause moral harm)"
  • This is testified to by the "pastor and church members" but "in a non-judicial way"

Of course, Ratzinger gives specious justifications for his thesis, which he claims to find in Christian tradition. While it is not the purpose of this post to now provide a theological critique of Ratzinger's essay, a few simple observations are nevertheless in order.

When it comes to the question of second "marriages" after divorce or separation, we need but look at various examples from Church history to remind us of how uncompromising our stance must be. St. John the Baptist was imprisoned for denouncing the illicit union of King Herod, and his imprisonment ultimately led to his cruel death (Mt 14:1-11). The fate of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher is well-known too: Almost alone among the English in opposing the adultery of King Henry VIII, they were executed and died as martyrs. Practically everyone else in England decided their bodies were more important than their souls, and followed Henry into schism and heresy, which continue to this day.

Our Lord Himself addressed adulterers, quite mercifully and yet without compromise. He bluntly told the Samaritan woman at the well, "He whom thou now hast, is not thy husband" (Jn 4:18); and the woman caught in adultery He admonished: "now sin no more" (Jn 8:11), making the firm resolution to amend her life the condition of His merciful forgiveness.

What a pity that Joseph Ratzinger wasn't around back then to offer his "pastoral solution."

As we said in our post on "Cardinal" Walter Kasper’s infamous proposal for admitting public adulterers to the sacraments, the idea of allowing the "divorced-and-remarried" to receive Holy Communion (not that it's actually valid in the Novus Ordo Church) is also absurd on another level: Anyone in the state of mortal sin (not only those living in adultery) cannot benefit from Holy Communion, which would be necessarily sacrilegious. Far from providing them with grace, any such reception would add the terrible sin of sacrilege to their souls and so put them at an even greater distance from Almighty God, the life of grace, and His mercy.

For those who are living in an adulterous union which they cannot abandon because they have children under their care, the traditional Catholic requirement has always been that they live in celibacy with their "spouse", as brother and sister. While this can be a very heavy cross to bear, it is a most necessary one, if one wishes to love God and be admitted to an eternity of bliss in Heaven, rather than face the eternal fires of hell (see Lk 14:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9). The way to the Resurrection is necessarily the Way of the Cross — no Resurrection without Calvary, no Easter Sunday without Good Friday!

Yet it is also important not to despair, for God will surely provide the grace to keep that which He enjoins (cf. Mt 11:30; 19:26; 1 Jn 5:3); and if the sinner is willing to live in celibacy, God lovingly offers the abundant remission of sin in confession, and this makes a worthy reception of the sacraments then possible, sacraments all of us need but especially those who have to bear the heavy cross of living in celibacy, of having the duties of the married state without being allowed to enjoy its privileges. People in such situations who cooperate with God's grace and live chastely can attain to great sanctity in their heroic observance of all God demands of them; they should not in any way feel as though they were mere "second-class" Catholics.

In his Modernist screed, by contrast, Fr. Ratzinger dismisses the traditional Catholic requirement of celibacy as unrealistic and only for "heroes." Instead he conveniently mentions situations in which "practically speaking abstinence is not really possible", as though the requirement to abstain from the sin of adultery were only a theoretical angelic ideal and people practically just couldn't help but commit it. Ratzinger here sneers at the assistance of God's grace and also at the heroically sacrificial lives of countless individuals who have lived in celibacy under the most difficult circumstances, out of love for God, their children, and their own souls.

Aside from the theological impossibility of the "solution" proposed by Fr. Ratzinger (and now also by "Cardinal" Kasper, who claims “Pope” Francis agrees with him), there is another objection to be made: We all know that even were such a proposal in accord with sound Catholic teaching and right morals, in practice it would open the floodgates and essentially legitimize adultery, that is, divorce and "remarriage." Things like this always begin with "very strict conditions" that are allowable only in "very limited situations", etc., but then quickly degenerate into a free-for-all where all these "limited circumstances" and "strict conditions" are relegated to the state of mere theoretical ideals and ignored in practice. Just think of divorce, abortion, and birth control. In Western society, these all began to be allowed in only "very limited cases." Or think of “Pope” Paul VI's conditional abrogation of meatless Fridays. Who actually knows that if meat is had on a Friday, Novus Ordo law obliges one to do some other kind of penance (see "Apostolic Constitution" Paenitemini)?

For those in the Novus Ordo Sect who still cannot manage to get an annulment for their marriage, when they're offered now for a dime a dozen, it looks like they will soon have their "sacramental" free-for-all. And one man will have been very instrumental in bringing it about: Joseph Ratzinger, a.k.a. Benedict XVI, that great "Restorer of Tradition" (wink).

See Also:

Don’t you hate it when that happens?


Demotion & Exile for “Cardinal” Burke 
— Neo-Traditionalists in Shock

Apparently the Neo-Traditionalists in the Vatican II Sect are just now beginning to wake up to the fact that when you accept a Modernist as Pope, you also have to accept the Modernist consequences. The well-informed and reliable Vaticanist Sandro Magister reports on September 17 that “Pope” Francis is going to severely demote the American “Cardinal” Raymond Burke from his post of Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the ecclesiastical Supreme Court) to being the Cardinal Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Magister rightly calls this a “decapitation” and an “exile” for Burke, as his new post is merely honorary and practically irrelevant. At age 66, such a transfer from judge of the church’s supreme court to that of “cardinal patron” of a military order is a real slap in the face.

Magister writes:

If confirmed, Burke’s exile would be even more drastic than the one inflicted on Cardinal Piacenza, who, transferred from the important congregation for the clergy to the marginal apostolic penitentiary, nevertheless remained in the leadership of a curial dicastery.

With the shakeup on the way, Burke would instead be completely removed from the curia and employed in a purely honorary position without any influence on the governance of the universal Church.

This would be a move that seems to have no precedent.

In the past, in fact, the title of “cardinalis patronus” of the knights of Malta, in existence since 1961, like the previous one of Grand Prior of Rome, has always been assigned to the highest ranking cardinals as an extra position in addition to the main one.


Burke is 66 years old, and therefore still in his ecclesiastical prime. Ordained a priest by Paul VI in 1975, he worked at the apostolic signatura as an ordinary priest with John Paul II, who made him bishop of his native diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin in 1993. It was again pope Karol Wojtyla who in 2003 promoted him as archbishop of the prestigious see, once cardinalate, of St. Louis, Missouri. Benedict XVI called him back to Rome in 2008, and made him a cardinal in 2010.

(Sandro Magister, “Exile to Malta for Cardinal BurkeChiesa, Sep. 17, 2014)

For more information and full context, be sure to read Magister’s entire piece.

As of right now, Burke has not been removed yet from his position as head of the Apostolic Signatura — in fact, the Vatican has yet to announce or confirm Magister’s report, which, however, should only be a matter of time, given Magister’s connections and reliability. In fact, about 18 hours after Magister posted his article, the U.S.-based reported that “sources in Rome have confirmed” to them that Burke’s removal is indeed forthcoming.

What remains to be seen at this point is whether the demotion will be effective before or after the upcoming Synod on the Family, which would make a considerable difference to the influence Burke would have over its proceedings. As the head honcho of the Knights of Malta, he probably wouldn’t even be invited to attend.


Bye, bye, Raymond!

Reaction from the Neo-Traditionalist camp is mostly one of shock and outrage, as can be seen from various blog posts, tweets, and articles that have appeared since Magister broke the story. For example, the popular “buy-me-something-from-my-Amazon-wishlist” blogger
John Zuhlsdorf (“Fr. Z”) has a spittle-flecked nutty in his commentary on the matter (but not without an AmaZon sales link!):

Apparently even Mr. Zuhlsdorf has now given up on “reading Francis through Benedict”, which was his mantra for over a year. Now that’s really saying something!

To give you more of a sample of how “conservative” Novus Ordos and Semi-Traditionalists in the Vatican II Sect are trying to cope with this news of Bergoglio vs. Burke, here are further interesting links to various bloggers and commentators sounding off:

The expected removal of Mr. Burke — “ordained” to the priesthood in the invalid Paul VI rite in 1975 — comes as no susprise to those who have been paying attention and actually adhere to traditional Catholic principles. The real story here is not that Burke has been exiled, but that many Neo-Trads are shocked about it. Have they been living under a rock? Do they not understand how a hierarchical church works (which they claim to believe in)? Do they not realize that the Pope, who Francis purports to be, can promote and demote people as he sees fit, and doesn’t care about silly democratic petitions or what internet pundits think?

Ah, but of course they know that a Pope has such power, they just didn’t think Francis would use it in this way. But why shouldn’t he? He’s a Modernist to the core, and Modernist thought leads to Modernist action. Besides, he knows he can do as he pleases, for many people have long made up their minds they will never be sedevacantists, no matter what the evidence. So what would be stopping him from going full-steam ahead with the next phase of the apostasy?

The Semi-Traditionalists live in a fantasy world. The church they believe in does not exist, that is, it does not exist with Francis as Pope. The church they believe in is a church that is identical to the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors, but one in which the true Pope is now Jorge Bergoglio, in which some ecumenical councils can be ignored by the faithful, and in which papal teaching and disciplinary decisions are subject to review by a lawyer from Virginia or a journalist from Minnesota. We hate to break it to them, but such a church does not exist, and the sooner they realize it, the better.

Perhaps it has not occurred to them yet that Francis is simply now doing for the Vatican II Liberals and Modernists what Benedict XVI did for the Neo-Trads when he was in charge. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: The Recognize-and-Resist traditionalists had their field day with Ratzinger in 2005-2013, and now it’s the liberals’ turn. Did Ratzinger fans not realize that what one “Pope” can institute, another can take away? That what one can permit, another can forbid? That a person one Pope can appoint, another can remove? That if they can have a field day, so can their liberal counterparts?

We remember very well when, after Benedict’s election in 2005, The Remnant and many like-minded people switched into “It’s the Restoration of Tradition - Go, Benny, go!” mode, and praised the old Modernist Ratzinger to the skies, spinning him as a great defender of Catholic Tradition, when he was nothing of the sort. But he used the traditional externals they like so much, so that all reason, all cool analysis, and all Catholic principle went out the window for a great many “traditionalists”, who lost themselves in the puffs of sweet-smelling incense that now billowed forth from the German “Pope’s” Modernist thurible.

It just had to be the Great Restoration of Tradition now, and facts to the contrary just weren’t supposed to get in the way. And so they began to interpret all the news and facts through that dogmatic and irrevocable narrative, and they ignored, minimized, distorted, under-reported, or otherwise dismissed typical Modernist shenanigans in Benedict’s reign, such as his visit to the Blue Mosque in Turkey, his claim in a Jewish synagogue that whoever meets Christ meets Judaism, his new Good Friday prayer composed at the behest of the Talmudists, his Assisi interfaith prayer event, his blasphemous declaration that the Novus Ordo Missae constituted “the same rite” as the Traditional Catholic Mass, and so forth. These things weren’t supposed to get in the way of the great “Restoration of Tradition”, so they dealt with them accordingly. They even came up with a long-running “Benedict vs. the Vatican” narrative, in which a super-orthodox Ratzinger was the poor, innocent victim of evil Vatican bishops hell-bent on preventing his defeat of Modernism and his planned restoration of all things Catholic.

Here are a few essays we published during this time, trying to make people realize that their beloved Benedict was neither a Pope nor a Catholic, and the fabled “Restoration of Tradition” was nothing but a speed bump on the way to hell:

What has changed since then is that Jorge Bergoglio now sits in the Vatican claiming to be the Pope, and though he is very different from his immediate predecessor, the two are also very much the same. Both are Modernists in essence, differing only perhaps in degree, but definitely not in kind. What distinguishes them is how openly and brazenly they are willing to display their Modernism. Benedict XVI preferred to be sly and hidden about it, using the trappings of traditional externals to get good-willed souls to swallow his anti-Catholic poison, whereas Francis is in-your-face about it and openly flaunts his hatred for Catholicism. This difference in the external display is what causes the public perception of there being such a stark contrast between the two, but as far as their Modernism goes, they are both identical.

The great nineteenth-century Spanish priest Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany wrote about the different “classes” of Modernists, who were called simply “Liberals” in his day:

We are surrounded by Liberalism in all its shapes and varieties, and it behooves us to be on our guard against its subtle dangers. To lay down special rules by which we may detect it in its shadings and minutiae is neither practical nor necessary. But some general directions may be given. Their application must be left to each one's proper discretion.

To facilitate the matter, we will divide Liberals, whether persons or writings, into three classes:

1) Extreme Liberals; 2) Moderate Liberals; 3) Quasi Liberals, or those only tainted with Liberalism.

We will essay a description of each of these types. The study of their physiognomy will not be without interest and profit, for in the types we shall find a rule for our guidance in distinguishing Liberalism in its practical details.

The Extreme Liberal is easily recognized; he does not attempt to deny or conceal his perversity. He is the declared enemy of the Pope, of priests, of everything ecclesiastical; a thing has only to be sacred to rouse his implacable wrath; "priestcraft" is his favorite shibboleth. He subscribes to all the most violent and incendiary journals, the more impious and blasphemous, the better to his liking. He is ready to go to the furthermost conclusions of his baneful system. His premise of destruction once laid down, his conclusion of nihilism is a mere matter of logic. He would put it into practical execution with pleasure and exultation if circumstances permitted. He is a revolutionist, socialist, anarchist. He glories in living a life devoid of all religion. He belongs to secret societies, dies in their embrace and is buried by their ritual. He has always defied religion and dies in his defiance.

The moderate Liberal is just as bad as his extreme confrere, but he takes good care not to appear so. Social conventionalities and good manners are everything to him; these points secured, the rest is of little importance. Provided his iniquity is kid-gloved, it finds ready extenuation in his own mind. The niceties of polite society preserved, his Liberalism knows no bounds. He would not burn a convent — that would appear too brutal, but the convent once burned, he has no scruple in seizing upon the outraged property. The cheap impiety of a penny paper grates on his well-bred nerves; the vulgar blasphemy of Ingersoll he deprecates; but let the same impiety and the same blasphemy appear in the columns of a so-called reputable journal, or be couched in the silken phraseology of a Huxley in the name of science, and he applauds the polished sin. It is with him a question of manner, not matter. At the mere mention of the name of a nihilistic or socialistic club, he is thrown into a cold sweat, for there, he declares, the masses are seduced into principles which lead to the destruction of the foundations of society; yet, according to him, there is no danger, no inconvenience in a free lyceum where the same principles are elegantly debated and sympathetically applauded; for who could dare to condemn the scientific discussion of social problems? The moderate Liberal does not detest the Pope; he may even express admiration for his sagacity; he only blames certain pretensions of the Roman Curia and certain exaggerations of Ultramontanism, which do not fall in with the trend of modern thought. He may even like priests, above all, those who are enlightened, that is, such as have caught the twang of modern progress; as for fanatics and reactionaries, he simply avoids or pities them. He may even go to Church and, stranger still, sometimes approach the Sacraments; but his maxim is, in the Church to live as a Christian, outside of the Church to live as the world lives, according to the times in which one is born and not obstinately to swim against the stream. He dies with the priest on one side, his infidel literature on the other and imagines that his Creator will applaud his breadth of mind.

The Catholic simply tainted with Liberalism is generally a good man and sincerely pious; he exhales nevertheless an odor of Liberalism in everything he says, writes, or takes up. Like Madame de Sevigne, he can say, "I am not the rose, but standing by it, I have caught some of its perfume" This courageous man reasons, speaks, and acts as a Liberal without knowing it. His strong point is charity; he is charity itself. What horror fills his soul at the exaggerations of the Ultramontane press! To treat as a liar the man who propagates false ideas is, in the eyes of this singular theologian, to sin against the Holy Spirit. To him the falsifier is simply misguided; it is not the poor fellow's fault; he has, simple soul, been misled. We ought neither to resist nor combat him; we must strive to attract him by soft words and pretty compliments. 

(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 16)

With just some little adaptation to the circumstances of our own times and applying it to the heresy of Neo-Modernism that rules our day, we can quickly recognize that Fr. Sarda’s definition of the “Extreme Liberal” describes,
mutatis mutandis, the man Jorge Bergoglio, whereas his description of the “Moderate Liberal” fits the man Joseph Ratzinger. (The “Catholic simply tainted with Liberalism” accurately describes many good-willed Novus Ordos.)

Which of these three is the most dangerous one? It is the Moderate Liberal, of course, because he is secretive and dishonest about his real beliefs, whereas the Extreme Liberal shouts his Modernism from the rooftops. Fr. Sarda explains: 

The extreme Liberal roars his Liberalism; the moderate Liberal mouths it; the tainted Catholic whispers and sighs it. All are bad enough and serve the devil well. Nevertheless, the extreme Liberal overreaches himself by his violence; the fecundity of the tainted Catholic is partially sterilized by his hybrid nature; but the moderate is the real Satanic type; his is the masked evil, which in our times is the chief cause of the ravages of Liberalism

(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 16; underlining added.)

For those who are not familiar with Fr. Sarda’s work, not only does it bear the obligatory imprimatur, it was actually examined by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of the Index under Pope Leo XIII and received the Holy See’s direct approval and recommendation, as noted in the preface of the work. The text is available online for free (click here); if you prefer to purchase a paperback copy, you can do so at a very low cost
through this link.

The point here is simply this: All who are shocked or outraged at Francis’ demotion of “Cardinal” Burke seem not to understand that as long as they accept a Modernist as Pope, they will always be at the mercy of a Modernist, for what one Pope can graciously concede, another can stubbornly deny; what one Pope can give, another can take away. That’s how the papacy works in the Catholic Church. This is never a problem for a Catholic, however, who can rest assured that no Modernist will ever validly occupy the Holy See — the Pope will always be Catholic, or else cease to be Pope. And when a true Pope does make a decision we disagree with or we think is imprudent, there is only one way: that of submission and obedience (not to a sinful command, of course, but to one we don’t think is a good idea). Remember Pope Clement XIV’s suppression of the Jesuits in 1773? If you were a Jesuit, you had to comply, whether you liked it or not (note well, SSPXers!).

Those in the Vatican II Church during the Ratzinger years who rested in great confidence that all was going to be well now because Benedict XVI had granted them this or that permission, or promoted this or that supposedly wonderful cleric to an influential position, etc., obviously did not understand that in essence, nothing had changed: A Modernist had simply chosen to grant their wishes on a particular matter; there was absolutely no reason to think that another Modernist — or even the same one — could not later rescind it all again. In other words, the principle hadn’t changed at all, only a particular instance of the exercise of this principle was different. (As someone once said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day, it’s still a pig.”)

With Francis, we see the same principle at work, but this time favoring the other side. By 2012, the Neo-Trads were on cloud nine, so to speak — but when Bergoglio came on the scene in 2013, suddenly it became apparent that despite eight years of Benedict XVI, they were quickly headed back to 1971 all over again. Déjà vu!


That Seventies Show: Directed by “Pope” Francis, since 2013

In the 1880s, Pope Leo XIII penned two important Apostolic Letters that we have made available in their entirey for all to read, in English translation. In these two documents, both of which appeared in the official collection of the Holy See’s documents (the 
Acta Sanctae Sedis at the time), the Pope teaches clearly what the obligation is on the part of the faithful to submit to and obey their rightful bishops and the Pope, who possesses the divine mission to keep watch over the flock entrusted to him:

This is the true teaching on the necessary subjection to the Pope. You won’t see any of those Neo-Traditionalist pundits apply it to Francis, however, we guarantee you! It’s so much easier to say Francis is the Pope than to act like it! (John Vennari, for example, is on record stating that he would not even so much as permit Francis to teach religion to his children!)

It is high time that all who accept Francis’ claim to be the Vicar of Christ actually put their money where their mouth is and acted in accordance with it. Francis doesn’t like “Cardinal” Burke, so he has to go. By contrast, take a look at some high-profile clerics Francis will not demote or exile:


To be exiled by Francis: “Cardinal” Raymond Burke

Considering the prelude so far, the upcoming Synod on the Family promises to be spectacular. Francis’ true colors are so obvious at this point, and the deception of his false pontificate so easily visible and out in the open, that one begins to wonder: Who benefits from this deception? For one thing, of course, Francis and his gang of theological thugs. But in addition to that, there is another one benefiting, perhaps not so much from the deception itself as from its gradual and clear disclosure: the “Pope Emeritus”, Benedict XVI. He looks like a super-Catholic hero now. Neo-Trads in the Novus Ordo are falling down before him, and some even claim his resignation wasn’t valid and he is still Pope.

We predict that if the outcome of the synod is revolutionary enough, a schism will emerge within the Vatican II Church: It will be Bergoglio followers vs. Ratzinger followers. A lot of people have long been restless over the Argentine apostate and his openly Modernist program, and no doubt many are waiting for “just one more thing” before definitively abandoning his claim to be Pope. The speculations about the validity of Ratzinger’s resignation will come in real handy for these people then, because when the truth is inconvenient enough, it is easier to replace one lie with another.

Hold on to your hats, folks: The Synod is right around the corner. It’s going to be a wild October!

See Also:

As long as you’re not Catholic, that is...

Francis Doesn’t Care What Religion You Are

The following clip has recently been making the rounds. It is a brief excerpt from a video made in 2013 when Francis visited Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for World Youth Day. In it, he declares that it is not important to him whether someone lacking food and education receives a Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Jewish education, as long as he is fed and gets educated. We provide an English translation and a link to the full interview below.

The entire interview, which was broadcast on Brazilian television at the time, can be watched at this link (with English subtitles); the so-called Catholic News Agency has a summary of the conversation posted here. The part excerpted in the video above occurs at the very end of the interview. Let’s take a closer look at what Francis says (note in particular the words underlined):


I think we need to foster a culture of encounter all around the world… all around the world, where everyone feels the need to give to mankind the ethical values that humanity needs and to defend this human reality.


In this regard, I think it’s important that we all work for each other, to eradicate egoism… work for each other according to the values of one’s own faith. Each faith has its own beliefs, but according to the values of one’s own faith, work for the other people. Let’s all get together to work for the others.


If there is a child that is hungry and has no education, what should matter to us is that he gets food and education. I don’t care if this education is given by Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox or Jews. What matters is that this child receives an education and ceases to be hungry. We all have to agree on that.


Nowadays the urgency is such that we cannot fight among ourselves at the expense of the other people.


First we have to work for our neighbor, and then we can have discussions about higher principles where each one of us expresses the reasons of our faiths, trying to reach mutual understanding.


But, especially nowadays, [helping our] neighbor is more urgent. Come out of one’s self to solve the great problems of the world.


I believe that religions... the many confessions — as I prefer to call them — cannot have peace of mind while there is a single child dying of starvation, a single child without education, a single young or old person without health care.


However, it is true that the purpose of religion — of the many confessions — is not charity, but at least in our Catholic faith, in our Christian faith, we are going to be judged by these works of mercy. 

The humanist indifferentism Francis unashamedly displays here is breathtaking. It is very apparent that the man sees Catholicism as simply one religion among many, one which he “believes in” and “prefers” perhaps (wink, wink), but one that objectively has no greater status or value than any other religion. Indeed, he encourages people to “work for each other according to the values of one’s own faith”, which “has its own beliefs”. 

He then explains what he means: As long as we feed poor hungry children and give them some sort of education, “I don’t care if this education is given by Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, or Jews”. Hey, who cares if a child’s soul is put on the path of eternal perdition through the heresies of the Lutherans, the false teachings of the Orthodox, or the frightening Christ-rejecting blasphemies of the Talmudists, right? After all, the body is so much more important than the soul, right?! Let’s see what Holy Scripture has to say about this:

And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

(Mt 10:28)

For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. 

(2 Jn 1:7-10)

Now, before the usual Novus Ordo loudmouth bloggers start complaining, let’s be very clear about something:
Of course we must feed the hungry. Of course a child who is hungry must first be fed before you instruct him in the Gospel and give him a sound education. Our Blessed Lord did the same thing — He first attended to people’s bodily needs, then taught them (e.g., see Jn 6, esp. Jn 6:26). The bodily need of food, though in itself not as important as the spiritual needs of the soul, is nevertheless often more urgent.

We’re not disputing this. What we have a problem with is Francis’ cavalier and indifferentist assertion that he does not care (“no me interesa”) whether a person receives a Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish education. He casually shrugs off the differences between the religions as mere “fight[s] among ourselves”, as though the difference between the true religion established by Almighty God and the diabolical sects that oppose this true religion were merely an academic dispute (“discussions about higher principles”) that is of much lesser importance than charitable deeds. (Can you imagine what he would have said about the Church’s fight against the Semi-Arians over — literally — one iota of doctrine [homoousion vs. homoiousion]?)

Let’s remember the salutary words of Pope Clement XIII at this point, as a stark little reality check:

In the Lord's field, for the tending of which Divine Providence placed Us as overseer, there is nothing which demands as much vigilant care and unremitting labor in its cultivation than guarding the good seed of Catholic teaching which the Apostles received from Jesus Christ and handed on to Us. If in laziness this is neglected, the enemy of the human race will sow weeds while the workers sleep. Then weeds will be found which should be committed to the flames rather than good grain to store in the barns. However, St. Paul strongly encourages Us to protect the faith that the saints handed on to Us. He told Timothy to preserve the sacred trust because dangerous times were coming when evil and deceitful men would exist in the Church of God. The insidious tempters would use their work to try to infect unwary minds with errors which are hostile to evangelical truth.

It often happens that certain unworthy ideas come forth in the Church of God which, although they directly contradict each other, plot together to undermine the purity of the Catholic faith in some way. It is very difficult to cautiously balance our speech between both enemies in such a way that We seem to turn Our backs on none of them, but to shun and condemn both enemies of Christ equally. Meanwhile the matter is such that diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, 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.

The faithful — especially those who are simple or uncultivated — should be kept away from dangerous and narrow paths upon which they can hardly set foot without faltering. The sheep should not be led to pasture through trackless places….

(Pope Clement XIII, Encyclical In Dominico Agro [1761], nn. 1-3)

Oops — looks like Pope Clement didn’t exactly share the Bergoglian indifferentism regarding doctrine as more or less “internal disputes between friends.” St. Paul, too, must not have known about Bergoglio’s soup-kitchen gospel when he wrote, “But without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6).

Francis reveals that he believes in some sort of “ethical values that humanity needs” that can be given by any religion and are thus independent of Catholicism, that can be said to “transcend” all religions. That’s why to him it does not matter whether these values are instilled by “Catholics”, Protestants, Jews, etc.

But of course this is utter nonsense, condemned by the Church long before Vatican II. The same God who created humanity also established Catholicism. The same God who made all people in His image also wills them all to attain eternal salvation in and through the true Roman Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation (not to be confused with the sorry pseudo-Catholic sect headed by Francis). This the true Church has always preached. Francis, on the other hand, preaches the Masonic doctrine of a brotherhood of man that is to be attained through a “culture of encounter” and that is intrinsically divorced from the true religion and religious truth. It is a prelude, no doubt, to the one-world religion that will at some point be presided over by the antichrist, seeking to “reconcile all religions” on the outrageous but immensely popular lie that ultimately all religions teach the same thing.

Let’s review how Pope St. Pius X condemned similar errors that were already rearing their ugly head in his own day, roughly 100 years ago:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.


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.)

This really speaks for itself. Francis preaches a false gospel, that very “impotent humanitarianism” condemned by Pope Pius X.

Nor will it do to point out that at the end of the interview, Bergoglio concedes that “the purpose of religion … is not charity” because he does not say what, then, the purpose of religion (true religion, we might add) is instead. In fact, he adds: “but at least in our Catholic faith, in our Christian faith, we are going to be judged by these works of mercy”, an allusion to Mt 25:31-46. While it is true that we will be judged based on the works of mercy we have shown, this is by no means the only criterion by which we will be judged, as though all that mattered in the end is how many hungry mouths we’ve fed and how much money we’ve given to charity: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk 16:16; see also Rom 1:17; Rom 3:26). Francis here seems to endorse the heresy of Pelagianism, which taught salvation by works and denied the absolute necessity of grace.


click to enlarge

What Francis says in this 2013 interview jibes entirely with the many other things he’s said since, such as when he told Protestants he’s not interested in converting them to Catholicism, when said that today’s Jews have a valid covenant with God, or when he said that Muslims can obtain “abundant spiritual fruit” through the observance of Ramadan and ought to share their “faith” using the Koran.

Furthermore, Bergoglio’s statement that in interreligious dialogue each of the parties “expresses the reasons of our faiths, trying to reach mutual understanding” is perfectly in line with his brilliant claim that “no one owns the truth,” as though divine truth were merely a matter of “opinion”, concerning which the purpose of doctrinal discussions is not the conversion of the other but merely that of “mutual understanding.” (Sound familiar?)

Ultimately, no one will take a “Pope” seriously who is so unimpressed by his own (supposed) religious convictions that he doesn’t really care if anyone else shares them. Obviously his religion isn’t worth looking into if he himself takes a “take-it-or-leave-it” approach.

Under the guise of love, brotherhood, peace, and harmony, and the corporal works of mercy, this bold heretic Jorge Bergoglio promotes a most dangerous indifferentism, which always leads to apostasy.

The danger to souls “Pope Francis” represents cannot be overestimated. He is a honey-mouthed spreader of pernicious poison that will cause unspeakable ruin to souls!

See Also:

Sign of things to come at the Synod?


Francis Presides over Weddings: Some Couples Lived Together Beforehand, Some with Child, Some with Prior Annulments

[Revised and updated Sep. 14, 2014]

You can’t make this stuff up; you just can’t. Take a look at this news piece released by a Novus Ordo news service on September 11:

Among the men and women Pope Francis was set to unite in marriage were Catholics who have been living together as well as couples who already have children.

The pope, who is the bishop of Rome, will preside over his first wedding ceremony as pontiff during a nuptial Mass in St. Peter's Basilica Sept. 14.


"Those who will get married Sunday are couples like many others," the diocese said in a press release Sept. 10.


It said the couples also come from all kinds of situations with some "who have been engaged for a long period of time or for not as long; there are those who are already cohabitating; who already have children; who got to know each other in church," it said.

While cohabitation is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, it is contrary to the church's teaching on marriage and sexual love. The church urges that pastoral ministers help couples preparing for marriage by showing them the witness of Christian family life in such a way as they may regularize their situation before their wedding ceremony.

One of the brides, identified only as Gabriella, has never been married, but she had a daughter when she was quite young, she told the Italian daily La Repubblica Sept. 9. Her grown daughter will also attend the ceremony at the Vatican, Gabriella said.

Gabriella's fiance, Guido, has had an annulment, the newspaper said.

"We've known each other for five years and our wanting to get married in the church stems from no longer wanting to live in a union and with feelings that are deprived of some of the sacraments," the couple said.


(Carol Glatz, “Couples with kids, cohabitating are among those marrying at papal Mass, Catholic News Service, Sep. 11, 2014)

“Pope” Francis — or “Chaos Frank”, as we like to call him — simply cannot refrain from upsetting everything and causing scandal. He must introduce his novelties at every step, no doubt another sign of his profound “humility.” He cannot even officiate at weddings without offending Catholic teaching and practice — without causing chaos, in other words.

The weddings occurred as planned on September 14, the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, at St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Here is a video of the exchange of vows:

Take a look at how the brides are dressed. Many of them are quite immodest (sleeveless or even strapless dresses, low-cut tops) — things that often occasion sin in men, especially in youths. But then again, Francis doesn’t take sin all that seriously. He keeps saying “God never tires of forgiving” and always only talks “mercy”, never judgment or damnation (except for the Mafia!) and even went so far as to state that Christians need not worry about the Last Judgment! This one-sided overemphasis on mercy has the effect of encouraging people to continue in sin, under the guise of “mercy.” Contrast this with the words of our holy Lord Jesus Christ, who, when forgiving the woman caught in adultery, admonished her: “Go, and now sin no more” (Jn 8:11). 

What’s also curious is that all of the brides at this wedding are wearing white, including the one(s) who have cohabitated with their boyfriends beforehand. But the white bridal dress is supposed to signify purity and virginity — making, again, a mockery of Catholic morals under the supervision of Francis.

The fact that chaste couples are mixed together with couples who have been living in sin in this ceremony is also a great affront to the virtuous partners, who remained pure and faithful to our Lord in their engagement. This is so not only because they are in the same ceremony as the public sinners are but also because people will always ask themselves, “I wonder which of these people were the ones living together?” What a sad spectacle! No one can ruin a beautiful thing like Francis can.

Needless to say, we wish all the best to these 20 newly-weds (assuming all of them were validly married). However, given the Novus Ordo Sect’s track record, how many of these do you think will petition for an annulment before too long, insisting that their exchange of vows today was not valid before God?

Here are some news reports about the weddings that took place on Sep. 14:

Now let’s analyze and clarify this a bit more, because we can already hear typical Novus Ordo objections being hurled at us from the blogosphere and the Twitterverse, along the lines of, “Oh, so you’re against people getting married? Isn’t that what cohabitating couples are supposed to do — get married? Who are you to cast the first stone? You self-righteous pharisees!” So let’s address this before Mark Shea & Co. can open their mouths (and already we find a clueless “Catholic” blogger dismissing the scandal on the grounds that “Nobody’s perfect” — such deep understanding of Catholic theology & canon law characterizes many a Patheos contributor):

First of all, anyone who does not have an invalidating impediment can enter into a valid marital union; there is no question about that. However, there is much more to all this than merely the contracting of a valid union.

Second, though cohabitation before marriage is not an impediment to validity, it is nevertheless forbidden for married couples to confer on each other the sacrament of holy matrimony because they are living in mortal sin and would be committing a sacrilege. Though it is a good thing they seek a valid marital union, they are obliged by the divine law to quit living in sin first. Besides, if they are so desirous of a valid marriage, why are they living together without being married? You cannot on the one hand say, “We recognize we ought to be married; living together without marriage isn’t right” and then on the other hand add, “However, until we get married, we’ll be happy to continue living in sin.” It is akin to a thief saying to himself, “I have stolen money, which isn’t right, so I will go to confession. However, until I do, I will steal some more.” There is no genuine repentance here; he is not fit to receive the sacrament of penance. Likewise, a couple that insists on continuing to live in sin is not fit to receive the sacrament of holy matrimony, and it is a sacrilege for them to get married without first abandoning their sin.

Third, though we are all sinners, not everyone is a public sinner, in the technical sense of the term: The Catholic Church very much distinguishes private sin from public sin. Being a public sinner actually bars one from reception of the sacraments, including that of holy matrimony:

If a public sinner or one notoriously under censure, refuses to go to Confession beforehand or to be reconciled with the Church, the pastor shall not assist at his marriage, except for grave reasons, about which he shall, if possible, consult the Ordinary [i.e. the bishop of the diocese].

(Code of Canon Law [1917], Book III, Canon 1066)

A good commentary on this law is found in the work of Fr. Henry Ayrinhac, who writes:

The priest who assists at the unworthy reception of the sacrament of marriage co-operates, although remotely, in the sacrilege thereby committed, and this is to be avoided except for proportionately grave causes. A sin is public de jure when it has been proved juridically, in court; de facto when it has been committed in public or has become known to a large number of people… As in those cases the guilt is public, the reparation ought to be also of a public character, before the pastor may, in the name of the Church, openly sanction by his presence the marriage of the party.

(Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac, Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law [New York, NY: Benziger Brothers, 1920], n. 132; pp. 132-133.)

The author, Fr. Ayrinhac, then goes into some examples of what would constitute a grave reason, but it is certainly clear that even if we were to grant that in the case of the 20 couples to be married by Francis, there is even one couple whose sacrilegious exchange of vows would fulfill the conditions of “grave reason,” there is absolutely no grave reason that their wedding be officiated by the “Pope” himself as a public spectacle.

Which brings us to our fourth consideration: Everything done by the Pope, which Francis claims to be, ought to set a good example, in fact, the best example possible, for obvious reasons. Hence even things that are not bad in themselves and are ordinarily permitted — such as the marriage between two parties who have legitimately and validly obtained a declaration of nullity of a prior union (i.e., an annulment of a prior “marriage”) — should be avoided by the Pope if they look bad or give rise to unnecessary suspicions, gossip, etc. Since there is no necessity whatsoever that the Pope himself officiate at a wedding, when he nevertheless decides to do so, it really isn’t prudent to choose people who have had a civil union before that was not valid, simply because in the eyes of the public it will always, to some extent, come across as a “second marriage” after a divorce, especially since this usually involves a civil divorce.

What Francis is doing is once again causing scandal: He is officiating the marriages of spouses who have persisted in sin beforehand and/or who have received an annulment (most of which in the Novus Ordo Sect are invalid anyway, but we’ll let that slide this time). This is a grave scandal to Catholics and to the world.

Here it is important to understand what is meant by the concept of “scandal”, which has very precise meaning in Catholic morality. By “scandal” we do not simply mean “bewilderment” or “outrage.” Rather: “Scandal in its theological sense is any word or action which has at least the appearance of evil and is the occasion of sin to another” (Rev. Thomas Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, 5th ed., vol. 1 [1925], p. 129). Notice that even the appearance of doing something evil suffices for scandal, even if one is not actually doing anything wrong. Sometimes, engaging in an action that is not wrong but has the appearance of being wrong is permissible, but only under certain circumstances, as any pre-Vatican II manual of Catholic moral theology, such as Fr. Slater’s, will explain, but which we need not get into here.

Clearly, for Francis to preside over weddings is needless as it is; but since he has chosen to do it, he has the obligation of ensuring that no scandal is given. Yet, scandal is most certainly given by allowing couples to marry who are living in sin; and scandal is also given through the appearance of doing something wrong by officiating the weddings of people who had prior unions even if these were invalid, because (1) to many people, it will appear to be a sanction of divorce and “remarriage”, and (2) there is no need for the “Pope” himself to preside, which necessarily gives great publicity to these weddings, when there is absolutely no necessity to do so. 

The second component to scandal is that of occasioning sin in another, and this too is entirely verified here: For the “Pope” to preside over weddings of couples who lived together during their engagement, sends a clear message: Fornication is no big deal — it could even get you married by the “Pope” if you’re lucky! We can already hear young adult children tell their parents who have been desperately trying to get them to be celibate before holy matrimony: “But Mom! Dad! Don’t be so old-fashioned! Even the Pope would marry us!” Not to mention how Novus Ordo pastors now look who have been trying to tell young couples they cannot be living together and have refused to witness their marriages should they not comply.

Once more, Francis has stabbed those trying to be good, faithful Catholics in the back. The last bit of Catholic influence that may still exist in Novus Ordo parishes and families is being snuffed out by His Phoniness himself. He sure knows how to cause chaos. But then again, it is undoubtedly Francis’ deliberate and full intent to cause scandal, something he has accomplished with indefatigable zeal since his election. 

In our opinion, all this is simply a prelude to the Synod of Bishops that will begin in about three weeks. In recent days, Francis has been preparing, or so it seems, his faithful to embrace significant change. Will the synod permit public adulterers to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments? Quite possibly so — after all, they know it still won’t make most people conclude that Francis is not a true Pope. The Vatican II Sect has been getting away with the Modernist Revolution for so many decades because most people have let them. 

As one real Catholic priest recently remarked on Twitter: “Two things will increase with the October Synod: the number of [Sedevacantists], and the voluntariness of the error of [Non-Sedevacantists].”

Which camp will you be in?

See Also:

In-Your-Face Apostasy...


McCarrick the Muslim: Washington “Cardinal” Lauds the “Holy Koran” and “Muhammad the Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him”

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, Washington’s retired “Cardinal” Theodore McCarrick opens his mouth at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and essentially endorses the Muslim religion. Read the following highlights from an article in The Daily Caller (red print added by us for special emphasis):

Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick offered Islamic religious phrases and insisted that Islam shares foundational rules with Christianity, during a Sept. 10 press conference in D.C.

“In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate,” McCarrick said as he introduced himself to the audience at a meeting arranged by the Muslim Public Affairs Council. That praise of the Islamic deity is an important phrase in Islam, is found more than 100 times in the Koran, and is akin to the Catholic prayer, ”In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

McCarrick next claimed that “Catholic social teaching is based on the dignity of the human person… [and] as you study the holy Koran, as you study Islam, basically, this is what Muhammad the prophet, peace be upon him, has been teaching.”

“We believe that Islam is a religion which helps people, not kills them… the Muslim community has always taught this,” McCarrick said.


(Neil Munro, “Catholic Cardinal McCarrick Embraces Islam”, The Daily Caller, Sep. 11, 2014)

What can one say? The apostasy is full-blown at this point — the Modernists of the Vatican II Sect are no longer ashamed to openly praise the Islamic deity and use Muslim theological phrases in their public statements. 

All of this, of course, is based upon the Novus Ordo Church’s false teaching that Catholics worship the same God as Muslims do, just “differently.” It is all a prelude to the one-world religion, in which all religions are combined into one humanistic “peace” religion, while each “faith tradition” will be allowed to retain its “customs.”

Pope St. Pius X sternly warned against a “great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer” (Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique [“Our Apostolic Mandate”], 1910).

The apostasy propagated by the Novus Ordo Sect is getting worse by the day. But don’t think McCarrick is alone in propagating this nonsense. His boss, “Pope” Francis, has given plenty of credence to Islam, as you can see in the following posts:

And please don’t think that everything would be fine if only Benedict XVI hadn’t resigned. Here are some sobering links regarding Benedict’s position on Islam:

Have you ever wondered how these endorsements of the Muslim religion must make Novus-Ordos-trying-to-be-Catholics in Iraq feel who are being threatened with a cruel death should they refuse to convert to Islam? Would you be encouraged to endure the most cruel tortures for the sake of the Catholic Faith and your dear Lord Jesus Christ when the “Pope” is at the same time stabbing you in the back and telling the world that it’s really the same God and that one can grow in holiness through the practice of this false religion, which supposedly teaches “peace”?

With “Catholics” like Benedict XVI, Francis I, and “Cardinal” McCarrick, who needs apostates?

We are currently preparing a substantial post on the question of whether Allah of Islam is identical to the true God of Catholicism, the Most Holy Trinity, as claimed by the Vatican II Sect and many misled souls. Until then, please review these scriptural passages:

Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also. 

(1 Jn 2:22-23)

Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. 

(2 Jn 1:9-10)

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

(Gal 1:8-9) 

Dear people, yes, the Muslims pose a great threat to all of us, but the much greater threat is found in the Novus Ordo religion, which daily poisons souls with its Modernist apostasy under the name of “Catholicism.” Muslims may seek to kill your body, but the Novus Ordo goes straight for your soul.

So, now what? —> Face the facts: Francis is not the Pope of the Catholic Church; his sect is not the same religion as the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII.

Reality Check:

17-Year Old from Buenos Aires...

Lewd Singer Performs at Francis’ Soccer Match, Sings John Lennon’s Anti-Religious “Imagine”

We should have expected this, but it was still shocking to see: On September 1, 2014, Francis’ brilliant idea of a “Soccer Match for Peace” with the world’s soccer all-stars of different religions was realized in Rome’s Olympic Stadium. We reported on this naturalist silliness in this prior blog post. But not enough. Of course this much-anticipated event had to also feature profane music and dancing, and who was chosen for this occasion? Martina Stoessel (a.k.a. Tini Stoessel or Violetta Castillo, the character she plays in a Disney soap opera), whose shockingly lewd performance in front of children and a worldwide audience brought a new low to the Vatican’s spurning of good morals and Christian modesty.

Let’s take a closer look at what happened here. The following images, partially censored by us, were taken from Radio Cristiandad (all photos can be clicked for larger view). 

The first picture shows Stoessel performing in the stadium in a scandalous dress that would have gotten a woman arrested in the past. We have censored the image somewhat:


This unbelievably immodest dress is obviously meant to focus everyone’s eyes on you know where — yet not a single objection from the Vatican, which could have prevented this scandal.

Here are two more photos: The first one is a wider shot, showing Stoessel dancing seductively in front of adoring children and pre-teens. The second image is a close-up of what she’s wearing on her her belly: the secular
“peace” symbol, which became prominent in the 1960’s and is often associated with the hippie movement.


More screenshots from the performance. 

Next, a closer look at the children surrounding Stoessel and the other female dancers who performed with her. Look at their faces: They are thrilled to be seeing their idol perform, to be near the woman they admire so much. And what does she show them? How to dress and move your body in a sexually provocative way! How to seduce men! How to sway your body in a way that gives men dirty thoughts!


The innocent souls of these sweet girls are being polluted by Tini Stoessel. 

Whether intended or not, Stoessel is grooming these little ones to be whores. Children want to imitate and be like the icons they admire! It makes your heart break and your blood boil! What did our Lord say? “And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea” (Mk 9:41).

But what about Francis? Before the game and the performance, the “Pope” received Stoessel warmly. As long as you support interreligious “peace” efforts and your local soup kitchen, Francis doesn’t care if you perform an impure dance half-naked in front of children who look up to you as a model to be imitated.


“Don’t worry about the millstone, Tini. It’ll be fine.”

If you can stomach it, here is a video of Stoessel’s scandalous performance.
WARNING! Extremely immodest, impure dancing!

With lewd dancing in a shocking dress, Argentinian teenage singer Martina Stoessel endangers souls of adults & children at Francis’ “Soccer for Peace” Match in Rome’s Olympic Stadium Sep. 1, 2014

As this video shows, to add insult to injury, Stoessel proceeded after her initial performance to sing John Lennon’s blasphemous song Imagine, which contains the following lines from the pen of Lennon himself:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky


Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too

(John Lennon, Lyrics to “Imagine”, 1971)

These lyrics, of course, are perfect for Francis’ dogma-less, humanitarian hippie religion. (By the way, 
John Lennon was shot to death by a disillusioned fan on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1980. He was 40.)

One can only shake one’s head in disbelief. How can the Vatican get away with such an affront to Catholic sense, doctrine, and morals? What’s next for Francis and his naturalist gang? Striptease for Peace? Whores against Wars? Vatican Sleep-In? Make Love, Not War? The only reason the Modernists can get away with this anti-Catholic wickedness is because people let them. Whoever acknowledges these counterfeit “Catholic authorities” as legitimate is part of the problem, not part of the solution. They wouldn’t be able to pull off this anti-Catholic revolution if there weren’t hordes of people accepting their claims to being Roman Catholic authorities.

More on Stoessel can be found at the Wikipedia entry on this gorgeous but seductively immodest Argentine model, singer, and actress. Let no one be deceived by her beauty — she is objectively a danger to people’s life of grace. Sins against the sixth and ninth commandments are perhaps the most dangerous of all in terms of having the power to ensnare souls for a lifetime, regardless of anyone’s intentions. Bad sexual habits are very hard to break. More souls, Our Lady of Fatima told us, end up in hell for sins against purity than for any other reason.

So, what’s infinitely worse than Stoessel’s scandalously lewd performance is the Vatican’s approval of it. Silence means consent. Francis could have prevented this, but he chose not to. They could have issued a condemnation even afterwards, and yet failed to do so. They are claiming to be the legitimate shepherds of the Roman Catholic Church, yet they are continually leading souls to hell.

Tini and Francis — but especially Francis — will have a lot to answer for at the Last Judgment. And no, it won’t be a cakewalk, unlike what Francis has led his followers to believe.

“Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Mt 3:7)

Pray for the conversion of sinners!



     Published September 10, 2014
    Novus Ordo Watch Tip: Too much to read? Can't keep up? Use Readability!

Attention All Novus Ordo Bishops:
Please don’t use the microphone to dispense holy water!

Do as I say, not as I do...


Francis the Hypocrite Condemns Insulting Speech

From the man who believes the biggest problems facing our world today are not the decline of Christendom, the flooding of the world with vice, or the abortion holocaust, but instead the unemployment of the youth and the loneliness of the elderly, now comes yet another gem of Jesuit wisdom. At his Sunday Angelus address on September 7, 2014, the Argentinian apostate-claiming-to-be Pope, Jorge Bergoglio, said the following on the topic of fraternal correction:

An attitude of gentleness, prudence, humility, and attention against those who have committed a crime, avoiding that words can hurt and kill the brother … When I make an unfair criticism, when I “curse” a brother with my tongue, this is killing the reputation of the other! … [Fraternal correction] also helps us – us  to free ourselves from anger or resentment which only hurt: that bitterness of the heart that brings anger and resentment, and that lead us to insult and attack. But it is very bad to see this come out of the mouth of a Christian as an insult or an attack! It’s bad! Got it? No insults! Insulting is not Christian!

(“Pope” Francis as quoted by Macro Tosatti in “Francis: ‘Insulting is not Christian! Even words kill’”, Vatican Insider, Sep. 7, 2014)

Several things need to be noted here. 

First, the hypocrisy of Francis’ words is staggering. You may recall that since his election, Francis has constantly used his sermons and addresses to hurl insults at people — usually at good Catholics or those trying to be such — so much so that “Fr.” Tim Finigan dreamed up the justification that Francis was just being very traditional and “reviving papal invective” (nice try, Mr. Finigan!). 

Francis didn’t even shy away from using what he called an “Apostolic Exhortation” (the infamous and heretical Evangelii Gaudium) for his uncalled-for overblown rhetoric. Such impressive phrases as “sourpusses” and “self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagians” now grace the pages of an official “papal” document. Indeed, one Novus Ordo blogger couldn’t take it any more and decided to engage in some satire by publishing Pope Francis’ Little Book of InsultsThe Bergoglian jibes have been so numerous that even the secular press started noticing, one writer calling Francis an “insult comic” and “the vicar of snark”

So, for Francis to now rail against insults as “not Christian” is the pot calling the kettle black — it is the height of hypocrisy.

Second, of course our speech must at all times be charitable, it is true. However, it must be charitable according to the standards of Catholic morality, not Francis’ humanist “church of nice” standards. When we have to engage in fraternal correction — that is, telling a fellow-Catholic that he is doing something sinful — then of course we typically ought to do it with kindness, showing that we are trying to help him, for the sake of his soul. 

However, there are times when kindness simply will not work — it will not accomplish the intended end, either from experience or because it is obvious that kindness would be totally out of place and not appropriate for the situation. For example, if a Catholic — a real, traditional Catholic — were to express his support for so-called “gay rights”, it would be silly to approach him with kindness about it, because it is clear that he knows better. Instead, he ought to be rebuked for this wickedness, and sometimes such a rebuke is greatly and efficaciously aided by the use of an insult. Such an insult would still be considered as meeting the demands of charity because charity isn’t “being nice”; rather, it is the love of one’s neighbor for God’s sake, and love of our neighbor (friend or foe) means we desire him to attain eternal beatitude in Heaven.

No, we’re not making this up. Let’s review some basic Catholic morality on this topic of insults. The technical moral term for this is “contumely”:

Contumely consists in unjustly dishonoring another person in his presence and thus showing one’s contempt for him… Dishonoring another may be done by words, deeds or omissions… The gravity of the sin of contumely is determined by the words, actions or omissions employed and especially by the dignity of the person dishonored. Some expressions used among the less educated may be only banter, and, therefore, no sin; whereas among the more cultured people they would imply a grave affront.

(Fr. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology [1961], n. 378)

Did you notice the key word here? Fr. Jone states that the sin of contumely is committed when “
unjustly dishonoring another person in his presence”. But clearly there are times when it is just to do so, in fact, when the offender has already dishonored himself by his wicked act.

Don’t believe it? Then consider these rather insulting words used by our holy Lord Jesus Christ against the Pharisees:

O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 

(Mt 12:34)

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. 

(Jn 8:44)

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor. Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor. Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it:

And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it: And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.

Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men' s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just, and say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. 

(Mt 23:15-35)

These holy words of our Blessed Lord are not “nice.” They are not kind. They are, in fact, quite insulting. Yet, our Lord is Charity itself, the every essence of Love. Here we have a perfect example of the
just dishonoring of someone in his presence, the just use of insulting language, aimed at the betterment of that person’s life, to the good of his soul and his eternal destiny. Our Lord did not hate the Pharisees, He loved them — with a true, genuine, and perfect love, not with the “niceness” demanded by our politically correct but wicked world.

Let’s be clear about it: A loose, unbridled tongue is very dangerous. Sins of the tongue have landed many a soul in hell, without doubt, and the sin of contumely is generally a mortal sin, unless the unjust insult is merely slight (see Jone, Moral Theology, n. 378). Our Blessed Lord Himself said as much: “…whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment… And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Mt 5:22). And yet this is the same Lord who hurled strong epithets of rebuke and contempt at the Pharisees because they deserved it and needed to hear it, and so did the people around them.

The lesson to be learned here is simply this: Not all insults are wrong. Charity is not “being nice,” at least not necessarily. In order to be truly charitable, one must sometimes be very unkind, just like a parent must sometimes spank his child and punish him, not out of malice or through a lack of charity, but precisely from a motive of genuine love and seeking the child’s ultimate happiness. (The same goes for humility. Reproving another is often an act of humility, not of pride.)

As usual, then, Francis has it all wrong. His teaching that “insults aren’t Christian” is false — though in his case, it is also amusingly hypocritical. True, a Christian ought to watch what he says and take great care to show as much kindness as possible, but not all insults are wrong. Francis knows this (he certainly practices it!), and his failure to point this out, especially in the context of fraternal correction, once more distorts the true teaching of Christ and thus misleads souls.

We live in a world where this is “niceness” in abundance, but very little charity. Francis has just done his part to ensure that it will continue to be this way.

Bergoglio's Angelus address also included, of course, the obligatory semiweekly denunciation of gossip. Novus Ordos must be relieved to know that their “Pope” has the spiritual prowess to quickly identify what really ails this world, and what they have no other pastor to warn them against: uncharitable speech, judging, lack of dialogue, and gossip. Impressive!

Being a 1960’s-educated Jesuit, Jorge Bergoglio is the perfect embodiment of everything that is wrong with the Novus Ordo Sect. If a Freemason-Modernist-Naturalist-Sillonist-Indifferentist nincompoop hell-bent on destroying the last few well-meaning and pious “Catholic” souls in the Vatican II Church were to claim the papacy, just what would he be doing differently from Francis?

See Also:

Summing it up...

The Strange “Papacy” of Jorge Bergoglio
by Miles Christi


When on March 13, 2013, a largely unknown Argentinian stepped onto the balcony of St. Peter’s, dressed fully in white, his first words “Good Evening” were only the ominous beginning. Since then, utter chaos has been unfolding in the Novus Ordo Sect (Vatican II Church) under the new leadership of “Pope Francis.” Most people who have been trying to be good Catholics are getting restless, and the upcoming Synod on the Family promises to unleash another theological earthquake, quite possibly leading to a schism within the False Church itself.

The author Miles Christi (“Soldier of Christ”) has written a lengthy and well-documented study of Bergoglio’s first eleven months in the office he has usurped and made it available in several languages. Click to download in the language of your choice (all files in PDF format):

The study is divided into several numbered sections: 

  1. The Question of Islam
  2. The Question of Judaism
  3. Francis and State Secularism
  4. The Homosexual Ideology
  5. Francis and Freemasonry
  6. Other Statements and Facts

This is great reading material for all who still need to be convinced — or want to convince others — that Jorge Bergoglio is not a Roman Catholic and is most definitely not the Pope of the Catholic Church. Thank you, Miles Christi!

Spread this study far and wide — on social networks, forums, by email, etc.!

See Also:

Here it comes...

Shimon Peres to Francis: We need a “United Nations of All Religions”!


SEPT 4, 2014: The Italian news agency ANSA is reporting that former President of Israel Shimon Peres, who visited “Pope” Francis this morning in the Vatican, proposed to Francis that he head a “United Nations of All Religions.”

(ANSA) - Rome, September 4 - Former Israeli President Shimon Peres said he has proposed the formation of a United Religions organization to combat terrorism during a meeting at the Vatican on Thursday.

    "The UN has had its time," Peres was quoted as saying by Catholic weekly Famiglia Cristiana. "What we need is an organization of United Religions, the UN of religions.

    "It would be the best way to combat these terrorists who kill in the name of their faith, because most people are not like them, they practise their religions without killing anyone, without even thinking about it.

    "I think that there should be a charter of the United Religions, just like there is the UN Charter. "The new charter would serve to establish in the name of all the faiths that slitting people's throats or conducting mass slaughters, like the ones we have seen in recent weeks, has nothing to do with religion.

    "This is what I proposed to the pope”. 

(“Peres proposes anti-terror 'Religions UN' to Pope Francis, ANSA, Sep. 4, 2014)

Here are other reports on this story:

We’ve said before that if Francis isn’t the False Prophet of the Book of the Apocalypse, then the real False Prophet ought to sue him for impersonation. Now he’s got the Ex-President of Israel (!) proposing the ultimate antichrist concept of “United Religions” to bring “peace” — under the direction of an apostate “Pope”!

Reality Check:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.


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.)

Seems like world events are unfolding perfectly on cue.

“Come, Lord Jesus.” (Apoc 22:20).

Sancte Pie X, ora pro nobis!

The Great St. Pius X


Extraordinarily pleasing to God: Pope Pius X (1835-1914)

Every year on September 3, the Catholic Church commemorates the great Pope St. Pius X, Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, the Scourge of the Modernists. This year, we have decided to commemorate this joyous occasion by offering a collection of our own and others’ material on this great Pontiff. (Click images for larger view.) Enjoy!

Our own Posts (including many photos and videos):


St. Pius X around age 14 -
his nickname was “Beppo”

Other Material:


Pius X’s Papal Coat of Arms

Pope Pius X's Most Important Doctrinal Papal Documents:


Saint Pius X offers High Mass at the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican

Holy Pope Pius X, intercede for us, who suffer in this valley of tears, and deliver us from the heresy of Modernism, which you rightly called the “synthesis of all heresies”, and which has penetrated our sinful world down to its deepest fibers. Assist God’s holy Church from your heavenly abode: Obtain for us the grace of a true Pope and the full restoration of the Church and Christian society. St. Pius X, pray for us!

The Rest of the Story...

Mgr. Fenton on the Failure of Vatican II 
— What John Vennari didn’t tell you


John Vennari, editor of the recognize-and-resist flagship publication Catholic Family News, has long been an ardent proponent of the great anti-Modernist theologian Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-1969), and rightly so. Fenton was indeed a remarkably gifted and zealous opponent of Modernism in the twentieth century, a genuine stronghold of Catholic orthodoxy amid the theological liberalism that was trying to gain foot in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

For well over ten years, and again very recently, Vennari has been quoting in his articles and talks from an essay written by Mgr. Fenton in 1962 (“The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council”), just before the opening of the council, in which the theologian warns that Vatican II might fail, and that the faithful should not assume that the mere calling of an ecumenical council also guarantees its success. While Vennari’s quoting of Fenton is accurate, there are other quotes in Fenton’s essay that diametrically contradict and refute Vennari’s own position on Vatican II — quotes which the editor of Catholic Family News somehow did not see fit to share with his readers and listeners, but which we are more than happy to provide for you.

Before we do so, however, let’s look at an excerpt from a recently republished article by Vennari in which he quotes from Fenton’s 1962 essay on the possible failure of the council (to facilitate reading, Vennari’s words will appear in black, Fenton’s in blue):

[Fenton] ... lays out what the Council will have to achieve in order to be considered a success:

"In order to be successful, in order to accomplish the purpose for which it has been called into being, the ecumenical council must speak out effectively and adequately against the doctrinal aberrations which are endangering the Faith, and hence the entire spiritual life, of the Faithful at the time the council is working.

    "Furthermore, in the disciplinary field, it is impossible for an ecumenical council to attain its purpose unless it sets forth regulations and directives which tend to achieve the following objectives.

    "First, these disciplinary decrees must be such as to make it easier for the Faithful in the state of friendship for God to advance in His love.

    "Second, they must be so calculated as to make it easier for those who are members of the Church and who are not living the life of grace to return to the friendship of God.

    "And finally, they must be such as to aid in the conversion of non-Catholics to the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ."

    Along the same line, he elaborated,
"those who are not favored with membership in the Church [should] be able to see even more clearly that the presently existing visible Catholic Church is really the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth."

    Again, he warns,
"It is by no means automatically certain the council will be successful, speaking from the point of view of this supernatural prudence."

    As if predicting the future, Fenton closes:
"It is possible that the council might act other than with the fullness of supernatural prudence. It is possible that, seen it this perspective, it may not be successful."

    Tragically, the Council has been a failure on the very points spotlighted by Msgr. Fenton.

(John Vennari, “Vatican II May Fail: Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton’s 1962 Warning”, Catholic Family News Blog, June 18, 2014)

We all know that John Vennari takes the position not only that the council failed in these three respects, which Fenton clearly conceded was possible, but also that the council taught doctrinal error. This can be seen, for example, in the following blog post, in which Vennari promotes the
SiSiNoNo series “The Errors of Vatican II”, highlighting the council’s “mutilated concept of the Magisterium” and a “contamination of Catholic doctrine”: 

This speaks for itself. The series “The Errors of Vatican II” lists a total of 18 concrete errors, most of them genuine errors in doctrine, not merely problems of expression or vagueness or ambiguity. In the introductory post, Vennari himself highlights the series’ accusation against the council of engendering the “contamination of Catholic doctrine with intrinsically anti-Catholic ‘modern thinking.’”

Another example that demonstrates that Vennari believes Vatican II to contain error, if not outright heresy, is had in this post:

Vennari explicitly says: “The documents of Vatican II are flawed documents due to their deliberate ambiguity, lack of precision, countless omissions, refusal to employ scholastic language, and because of the novel concepts advanced that constitute a rupture with the past, such as the decree on Religious Liberty” (italics added). A concept that is new (“novel”) and contradicts prior teaching (“rupture with the past”) is obviously erroneous, since the prior teaching is trueIn the above-linked article, Vennari also speaks of the council as being “defective at its core” and containing “harmful novelties.” 

Clearly, the editor of Catholic Family News believes Vatican II taught error, even if he sometimes uses the smoother-sounding word “novelty” instead, a term which is abundantly used by Vennari’s associate Christopher Ferrara, because it allows him to give the impression that Vatican II teaches error without explicitly saying so (clever!).

More links of John Vennari talking about Vatican II and Mgr. Fenton are available here:

Now that we have clarified Vennari’s own position on Vatican II, which is well known among his readership, let us turn again to his presentation of what Mgr. Fenton said before the council. As we said already, Vennari quotes Fenton accurately. However, here is what else Fenton said in the context of the possibility of the council failing, unduly — but quite conveniently — omitted by Vennari:



Here is a transcript of the relevant passages:

The fact of the matter is that the success of the ecumenical council really depends on the effectiveness and the ardor of the prayers of the faithful. There is one factor which Our Lord has clearly promised to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The supreme teaching power of the kingdom of God on earth will be protected against the teaching of error as long as it speaks out on a matter of faith or morals to the entire Church of God in this world, and speaks definitively. In other words, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost will teach and lead the ecclesiastical magisterium when it speaks definitively for the universal Church of God on earth, in such a way that this magisterium … will teach and define the doctrine of the Church accurately.

Thus there need be no anxiety about the possibility of any doctrinal error emanating from the ecumenical council. It is absolutely beyond the bounds of possibility that the ecumenical council should proclaim, and that the Roman Pontiff should confirm and promulgate as the teaching of an ecumenical council, any doctrine at variance with the teaching of God which has been given to us through Jesus Christ our Lord. There never will be a time when the doctrinal decrees of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican will have to be corrected, either negatively or positively. And, in precisely the same way, there is absolutely no possibility that the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican will set out to correct, or to put into better balance, any of the decrees of any of the previous ecumenical councils, or, for that matter, any of the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, whether therese pronouncements have been made through the solemn or the ordinary teaching activity of the Bishop of Rome.

We are praying, however, that the forthcoming Council may be successful, and the success of the Ecumenical Council involves a great deal more than the infallible pronouncement of the salutary message of Jesus Christ….

(Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, “The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council”American Ecclesiastical Review 147 [Oct. 1962], pp. 255-256; italics in original; underlining added for emphasis.)

This is Fenton’s prelude to his argument about the possible “failure” of the council — a prelude, we submit, Vennari should have mentioned to his readers and listeners, so as not to cause the false impression that Fenton agrees with Vennari’s “resistance” position against the errors of the council. For Fenton, such doctrinal error as Vennari believes in was entirely impossible, a priori. Yet, Vennari constantly uses Fenton for his anti-Vatican II apologetics, as shown above; his failure to mention, therefore, that Fenton adamantly rejected as absolutely incompatible with Catholic doctrine the very ideas held by Vennari about even the possibility of doctrinal errors in the council, is a grave affront worthy of special censure.

While Vennari doesn’t explicitly claim that Mgr. Fenton believed the council would or could teach doctrinal error, he nevertheless gives the impression that Fenton would have been on his side with regard to Vatican II by quoting him as above and then failing to mention that Fenton absolutely and definitively excluded any possibility that the council might fail in the sense of teaching error or heresy.

A little later in his essay, Fenton reinforces what he has already said about the impossibility of doctrinal error in Vatican II by pointing out that it therefore follows that the council’s teaching must be accepted by all without hesitation:

Incidentally, it should be noted that it makes no difference whatsoever whether the doctrinal statements of the ecumenical council are set forth in a positive mananer or negatively. A teaching is presented positively when the truth is asserted directly. It is presented negatively when the error or heresy contradictory to this truth is condemned. In either case the work is done. The people of God are made aware of the fact that this truth forms a part of the Christian message, and that any contradiction of this statement, or even any hesitancy in accepting it with a perfectly certain assent, is definitely an offence against God.

(Fenton, “The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council”, op. cit., pp. 257-258; underlining added for emphasis.)

This is not exactly what you’ve heard from John Vennari lately, is it? Yet this is the teaching of Mgr. Fenton, the very same Fenton whom Vennari quotes regarding the possibibility that the council might fail. Yes, Fenton did indeed warn that the council might fail. And yet in the same breath he also clarified, even before the council convened, that it would be beyond the realm of all possibility that the council could fail doctrinally.

So, Mr. Vennari, our question to you is this: If Mgr. Fenton was such a great theologian as you say (and he was indeed!), how is it that you accept his theological expertise only regarding his warning that the council might fail in terms of prudence, but yet not regarding his insistence that it would be absolutely impossible for the council to err in matters of faith and morals? And why is it that you even fail to tell your audience that this was Fenton’s position with regard to the doctrinal content of Vatican II, all the while you do tell them about his warning that the council might fail?


The bogus Second Vatican Council in Session (1962-65)

For all those interested in reading the full article written by Mgr. Fenton on the virtue of prudence and the success of Vatican II, we are pleased to make available a scanned PDF version of the complete article as it appeared in the American Ecclesiastical Review in October of 1962. Click below:

Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton

“The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council”

Originally published in
American Ecclesiastical Review 147 (Oct. 1962)
pp. 255-265

(12.7 MB)

To clarify our own position, we wish to state explicitly that we hold Mgr. Fenton in the highest regard. He was an exceptionally gifted theologian and passionate defender of orthodoxy, especially against the heresies of Modernism and religious liberty. His thesis that Vatican II could not possibly teach any error on faith or morals is entirely correct under the assumption that it would be promulgated by a true and valid Pope, an assumption he of course labored under. We know today that Vatican II taught grave doctrinal error, but this is only possible because the “Pope” who promulgated it, Paul VI, was not in fact a true Pope. 

To be sure, Fenton himself was no sedevacantist after the council, but then again, he died in 1969, a mere three-and-a-half years after its close; whereas we today have the benefit of decades of further doctrinal clarifications and developments that demonstrate, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Church teach doctrinal error. Precisely what Fenton thought of Vatican II after it finished is a bit difficult to ascertain, as he resigned his editorship at the American Ecclesiastical Review in December of 1963. However, his recently-published personal diaries give some insight into his struggles before, during, and after the council, at which Fenton worked for Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani as a theological expert.

See Also:

You can’t make this stuff up...

It’s Time for the “Soccer Game for Peace”! 
Meet the Official Mascot, Plim-Plim:

To be clear: Plim-Plim is the one on the left

Yes, Plim Plim plays soccer with the “Pope”, and no doubt this will bring on a gigantic wave of peace that will flood the world with luv, harmony, mutual respect, and brotherhood! You see, Plim Plim is a big fan of the “Co-Exist” ideology, as Vatican Radio was only too happy to point out:


Vatican Radio’s article on this — in Spanish — can be found at this link.

If you’re not familiar with what all this “Soccer for Peace” hype is about, check the following post for the background: 


Against this laughable nonsense, the true Catholic Church knows only one way to bring about true and lasting peace. This way is outlined in two beautiful encyclicals of Pope Pius XI:

Besides, in 1910, Pope St. Pius X sternly refuted the errors of the so-called “Sillonists,” errors most strongly held and disseminated today by “Pope” Francis and his Modernist sect. Take a good and careful look at what Pope Pius X teaches here:

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 [true] 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 Our Apostolic Mandate [1910]; underlining and paragraph breaks added.) 


Now this is a true Pope speaking against the errors of our day, specifically against the Freemasonic-humanitarian junk about a “common brotherhood” that is “united in love” through a “reconciliation of all religions.”

A few days ago, Catholics celebrated the 100th anniversary of the holy death of this very St. Pius X — take a look at the following link to see how Francis reacted to it:

How’s it been working out?

A Failed Strategy: 
“Resisting from Within” the Novus Ordo Church


[Taken from In Veritate Blog]

…Now that fifty years have transpired since Vatican II, can we really say that the movement from within has succeeded? After a half a century of resisting from within, has the tidal wave of Vatican II receded? Has the Catholic faith become stronger in the souls of baptized Catholics? As we look around at the vineyard of the Church, is it flourishing with deep faith and obedience to the commandments of God? Are the sheep of Christ in good hands? Are they confirmed in the doctrines of the Catholic Faith?

   Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the central act of worship of the Catholic Church, in good order? Has progress been made to turn back the tide of the devastating liturgical reform of Vatican II?

   The answer is, of course, no. What words can we muster to describe the state of the Catholic Church today: Disaster? Ashes? Hiroshima? Great Apostasy? Is there, indeed, a word that could adequately describe the collapse of an institution which has taken place in the past fifty years?

If our numbers are not strong, it is because for the past half-century the “workers from within” have reviled and scorned us as renegades. If they had joined us, tremendous pressure could have been put upon the Modernists to abandon their program.

   Time has told that working from within is a failed strategy.

   Nor for a single moment should anyone think that I concede that we have been working outside the Catholic Church. What sets you outside the Church is heresy. It is those who have embraced the Modernist heresy that are working outside the Church. Those who have resisted the heresy are inside. It is adherence to Catholic doctrine which keeps you inside the Church; it is adherence to heresy that sets you outside….


See Also:

Bursting a Beloved Bubble

Benedict XVI and the
“Prophetic Mission of Fatima”

Every so often, someone with a soft spot for the old Modernist Joseph Ratzinger (“Pope” Benedict XVI) digs up a quote from a homily he gave in 2010 (see video above) in which he speaks somewhat cryptically about the apparitions of our Lady at Fatima and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete. Here there takes on new life the plan of God which asks humanity from the beginning: “Where is your brother Abel […] Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!” (Gen 4:9). Mankind has succeeded in unleashing a cycle of death and terror, but failed in bringing it to an end… In sacred Scripture we often find that God seeks righteous men and women in order to save the city of man and he does the same here, in Fatima, when Our Lady asks: “Do you want to offer yourselves to God, to endure all the sufferings which he will send you, in an act of reparation for the sins by which he is offended and of supplication for the conversion of sinners?” (Memoirs of Sister Lúcia, I, 162).

At a time when the human family was ready to sacrifice all that was most sacred on the altar of the petty and selfish interests of nations, races, ideologies, groups and individuals, our Blessed Mother came from heaven, offering to implant in the hearts of all those who trust in her the Love of God burning in her own heart. At that time it was only to three children, yet the example of their lives spread and multiplied, especially as a result of the travels of the Pilgrim Virgin, in countless groups throughout the world dedicated to the cause of fraternal solidarity. May the seven years which separate us from the centenary of the apparitions hasten the fulfilment of the prophecy of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity.

(Benedict XVI, Homily of May 13, 2010 at Fatima, Portugal; bold print added.)

The parts in bold print are what is usually emphasized and interpreted as Benedict XVI trying to signal to all who are devoted to Our Lady that he is convinced that the Fatima prophecies have not yet been completely fulfilled, specifically that the conversion of Russia asked for by our Lady has not yet taken place and still lies in the future, which is when the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Mother will finally triumph.

Even though when viewed in the context of the entire homily, there is really nothing that would lead one to believe that Ratzinger holds to this “Gruner-Vennari-Matt-Ferrara” line on Fatima, nevertheless it is indeed true that these words of his — the ones in bold — are obscure enough to allow one to suspect he might be indicating that he believes the conversion of Russia has not yet taken place, and that the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is still to come in the future. 

The problem, however, is that Benedict XVI has since clarified these cryptic remarks of his, and totally burst the bubble of all who were putting their hopes in Ratzinger believing in a future consecration of Russia or some similar version of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. For some reason, these clarifying remarks have gone widely under-reported, so we’ll be glad to help out in this regard.

To let the cat out of the bag right away, the cold, stark reality is simply this: Benedict XVI’s statement that the prophetic mission of Fatima is not yet concluded means nothing more than that since there are still evil, suffering, and danger in the world, there must still continue to be a conversion of hearts through faith, hope, love, and repentance, which are the only answer to evil, suffering, and danger.

That’s it — no great mystery, no climax, no consecration or conversion of Russia, no triumph of the Immaculate Heart as traditional Catholics have always envisioned it. Benedict gave these clarifying remarks to interviewer Peter Seewald, when the latter asked him to elaborate on what he meant in his homily of May 13, 2010, when he said that the prophetic mission of Fatima was not yet over.

Benedict’s anti-climactic answer was published in Seewald’s book Light of the World:

[Interviewer:] . . . You said: “Whoever believes that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded, is wrong.” What is meant by this? Does the message of Fatima in truth still need to be fulfilled?

[Benedict XVI:] It is necessary to distinguish two things when it comes to the message of Fatima: on the one hand, a particular event which is represented in visionary forms; on the other hand, the essential matter under discussion. It wasn’t a matter of satisfying curiosity, after all. For then we would have had to publish the text much earlier. No, the issue is one of pointing to a crux, a critical moment in history, namely, all the forces of evil coming to the fore in the great dictatorships of the 20th century – and which, in other ways, are still active today.

The other issue was [sic] the answer to this challenge. This answer doesn’t consist of great political action, but, at the end of the day, it can only come from a transformation of hearts – through faith, hope, love, and repentance. In this sense, the message is precisely not finished, even though the two great dictatorships have disappeared. The suffering of the Church remains, and the threat which man faces remains, and with them the question for the answer remains as well; with them, the pointer given us by Mary remains. Even now there is affliction. Even now the forces [of evil] threaten to crush the faith in all possible ways. Even now, therefore, we need the answer of which the Mother of God has spoken to the children.

(Benedict XVI, Licht der Welt: Der Papst, die Kirche und die Zeichen der Zeit [Freiburg: Herder, 2010], pp. 193-194; italics added.)

This excerpt is taken directly from the
German original (via our translation) to ensure that no one will be able to say we just relied on an unverified, faulty translation (the page references refer to the original German edition; the English equivalent of these passages is found on pp. 165-166 of Light of the World).

So, let’s set the record straight once and for all here: Benedict XVI does not believe there is still some major event to come: not the consecration of Russia, notr the conversion of Russia, not the triumph of the Immaculate Heart in any sense in which traditional Catholics typically understand these terms. Rather, he is on the record clarifying that for him the message of Fatima is only “not finished” “in this sense”, namely, that “a transformation of hearts — through faith, hope, love, and repentance” is still needed today in response to the great “forces of evil” which are “still active today” and cause the “suffering of the Church, and the threat which man faces.”

That’s all there is to it. This nonsense about some mystifying signal Ratzinger supposedly gave about a future Fatima-related event, most recently insinuated by Rorate Caeli and claimed by Antonio Socci and Chris Ferrara, needs to stop. It simply doesn’t correspond to the facts. True devotion to our Lady of Fatima and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary — which we certainly cultivate and encourage — can never be promoted by lies or wishful thinking.

May Our Lady of Fatima intercede for us and hasten the day of her genuine triumph, when the false Vatican II Church will finally be but a distant memory and the true Catholic Church once again shine forth gloriously with a true Pope as the legitimate shepherd of all Catholics.


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.