“Reveal to the faithful the wolves which are demolishing the Lord's vineyard.”
—Pope Clement XIII, Encyclical
Christianae Reipublicae (1766)

“No Rupture with the Past” Update…

The “Chosen People” No More: Pope Pius XI clarifies Catholic Teaching on the Jews


At a time when the Vatican II Sect celebrates 50 years of its anti-Catholic document Nostra Aetate, the decree on non-Christian religions issued by the Second Vatican Council in late October 1965 and promulgated with the full (supposed) authority of the false pope Paul VI, Novus Ordo Watch is pleased to make available a complete translation of the decree Cum Supremae of the Holy Office, issued in 1928 (link and quotes further below). This document is significant inasmuch as it reinforces the traditional and true pre-Vatican II Catholic teaching on the Jews, teaching that is gravely at odds with the judeophilic hysteria we have seen since the second half of the twentieth century, especially among “Popes” and other clerics, as well as laity, in the Novus Ordo Church.

Case in point: Mr. Jorge Bergoglio, the apostate Argentinian layman who currently runs around the Vatican calling himself “Pope Francis”. In a book co-authored in 2010 with the Jewish Talmudic rabbi Abraham Skorka, one of his bosom buddies, the then-“Cardinal” Bergoglio claimed:

There is a phrase from the Second Vatican Council that is essential: it says that God showed Himself to all men and rescues, first of all, the Chosen People. Since God is faithful to His promises, He did not reject them. The Church officially recognizes that the People of Israel continue to be the Chosen People. Nowhere does it say: “You lost the game, now it is our turn.” It is a recognition of the People of Israel.

(Jorge M. Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka, On Heaven and Earth [New York: Image, 2013], p. 188)

But is that so? While this is no doubt the understanding of Vatican II, it is clearly the opposite of the Catholic teaching from before the disastrous council.

This can be demonstrated by means of many quotes from Church teaching and the Sacred Liturgy and also by means of examples from Church history before the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 — such as the interesting anecdote of Pope St. Pius X’s meeting with the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, in 1904 —, and it is succinctly summarized in the papally-approved decree already referred to, issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1928:

…the Catholic Church has always been accustomed to pray for the Jewish people, who were the depository of divine promises up until the arrival of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding their subsequent blindness, or rather, because of this very blindness. Moved by that charity, the Apostolic See has protected the same people from unjust ill-treatment, and just as it censures all hatred and enmity among people, so it altogether condemns in the highest degree possible hatred against the people once chosen by God, viz., the hatred that now is what is usually meant in common parlance by the term known generally as “anti-Semitism.”

(Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Decree Cum Supremae, March 25, 1928; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis XX [1928]: pp. 103-104; trans. by Novus Ordo Watch; underlining added.)

In short, the adherents of today’s Judaism (as opposed to the Judaism of the Old Covenant, before the arrival of our Blessed Lord) are:

  • blind
  • no longer the depository of the divine promises
  • the people once chosen by God, but no more

This stands in clear and direct contrast to the fantasy spouted by Jorge Bergoglio in the book quoted above, the same Bergoglio who, now as “Pope”, has repeated his heretical view of Judaism in his “Apostolic Exhortation” Evangelii Gaudium, nn. 247ff. Although a number of our readers may not be Catholic and perhaps disagree with the pre-conciliar teaching on Judaism and think that Francis and Vatican II have laudably “corrected” it, this isn’t even the point so much — the point we wish to make first and foremost is that there is a contradiction between the pre-conciliar Catholicism and the post-conciliar faux “Catholicism”.

In February of 1926, a Catholic priestly organization was established that called itself the Amici Israel — “Friends of Israel” (note, this was 22 years before the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine). According to Wikipedia, the purpose of this association was “to pray for the conversion of the Jews and to promote a favorable attitude towards them within the Roman Catholic Church. In the first year of its existence, this association was composed of 19 cardinals, 300 archbishops and about 3,000 priests” (source).

This association, although clearly working for the conversion of the Jews to Catholicism (something quite clearly rejected by the Vatican II Church, which admits it operates “no mission to the Jews”), did not last very long. When it petitioned the Vatican for the removal of the Latin word perfidis (“faithless”, sometimes falsely translated as “perfidious”) from the Good Friday Prayer for the conversion of the Jews, Pope Pius XI had both the Sacred Congregation of Rites and the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office look into the matter. Whereas the former responded favorably to the request, the latter refused it. The matter was brought then before the Pope, who approved the decision of the Holy Office to deny the petition, which resulted in the decree quoted above.

However, the decree did much more than simply deny the request to remove one word from the Good Friday prayer. In fact, it altogether suppressed and abolished the association known as the “Friends of Israel”, as it had “embarked on a plan of acting and communicating at variance with the sense of the Church, the mind of the holy Fathers of the Church, and the sacred liturgy.” The Amici Israel had become a threat to the integrity of Catholic doctrine on Judaism and the Church’s relationship with the people known today as Jews. Against this threat, Pope Pius XI moved swiftly and decisively.

The full text of the decree is available at the following link, translated into English:

Unlike in the Vatican II Sect, the head of the Holy Office in the Catholic Church is the Pope himself, which is only reasonable, considering that he has the charge from Jesus Christ, ex officio, to watch over the purity and integrity of the holy Catholic Faith. The secretary of the Holy Office when the above decree was published, was the saintly Cardinal Raphael Merry del Val, at whose initiative the abolition of the Amici Israel came to be. Merry del Val had been the Secretary of State under Pope Saint Pius X, and was one of the latter’s closest friends and most esteemed advisors and collaborators.

It is entirely clear that if the Church moved against the Amici Israel in such a forceful and resolute manner on doctrinal grounds, it could never have approved the dangerous and subversive, nay heretical bunk published by the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium. As Bp. Donald Sanborn has explained, the “Catholicism” of and since Vatican II is substantially different from the Catholicism before. Still don’t believe it? Just go to your local Novus Ordo parish and see if they let you distribute the 1928 decree of Pius XI to the people — you wouldn’t get permission even in the Vatican to do such a thing!

So, a mere two years after their founding, the Amici Israel were abolished by Pope Pius XI. This is the same Pope, by the way, who nine years later wrote the important encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, in which he condemned the Nazi ideology on the eve of World War II. The Pope composed the encyclical in German, so that it would not first have to be translated; in fact, His Holiness commanded it to be distributed throughout Germany immediately and read from every pulpit at Sunday Mass on March 21, 1937.

Hatred against people of the Jewish race — the true meaning of “Antisemitism” — is indeed never permissible and a grave sin against charity. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Jews have rejected our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore forsaken their claim to being the Chosen People of God. They, too, like everyone else who is not a Catholic, must convert to the true Faith and the Ark of Salvation, which is the Catholic Church, if they wish to attain Eternal Bliss and escape the flames of hell.

As Fr. Richard F. Clarke, S.J., succinctly put it: “We ought to remember that Catholics are, far more than the Jews were, the chosen people of God…” (Clarke, “The Ministry of Jesus: Short Meditations on the Public Life of Our Lord”, in Beautiful Pearls of Catholic Truth [Cincinnati, OH: Henry Sphar & Co., 1897], p. 542). Yes, “far more than the Jews were,” because while the Jews were the Chosen People of the Promise, Catholics are the Chosen People of the Fulfillment, as the New Covenant has replaced the Old, as the reality has replaced the foreshadowing.

Does the Vatican II Sect believe and preach this? Does Francis? Fat chance! In fact, Francis does all he can to tell the Jews, in words and in actions, how their religion is pleasing to God and they need not convert to Catholicism:

Catholics pray for the conversion of all who are not yet in her fold, and this includes also the Jews — not only in the Good Friday liturgy, but also in the beautiful Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus: “Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of the race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life” (source).

Preaching Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church to the Jews is the greatest act of charity one can render them. Woe to those who have, for five decades now, denied it to them.

Related Links:

Heaven forbid someone should convert!

Francis: “Never Proselytize in Schools!”


…or anywhere else, for that matter!

Mr. Jorge “Preach the Gospel Always” Bergoglio — aka “Pope Francis” — has once again stressed that the last thing he actually desires is anyone’s conversion to Catholicism, and here we don’t even mean
authentic Catholicism, as found before Vatican II, but even just the NovusOrdo-distorted version of it.

The liberal Italian newspaper La Repubblica (Francis’ favorite, founded by his bosom buddy, the atheist Eugenio Scalfari) published the following on November 21, 2015:

Vatican City: Never proselytize in schools. Pope Francis said this in the Paul VI Audience Hall to seven thousand participants at the World Congress on Catholic Education organized by the Congregation in charge of Catholic Education.

“Christian education — the Pope says — is not only teaching catechism and proselytizing. Never proselytize in schools. Christian education is bringing up the young in complete reality with human values and one of these [values] is transcendence. Today there is a tendency to neo-positivism, which is education in immanent things, in countries of Christian tradition as well as those of pagan tradition. We are closed to transcendence but closure is of no use in education.”

(“Pope: ‘No to proselytism in Catholic schools’”, La Repubblica, Nov. 21, 2015; trans. by Francesca Romana, in “Pope Francis orders no conversions in Catholic schools”, Rorate Caeli, Nov. 21, 2015)

Glancing over the mumbo-jumbo on “complete reality with human values”, we find here Francis once again returning to one of his favorite subjects: No proselytizing! Because heaven forbid that someone should actually desire to forsake his false religion and become a Catholic! This time, the context was education in schools.

Speaking of schools, we remember that when the question of the education of needy children came up over a year ago, Francis emphasized that he didn’t care whether such a child got a Catholic education or a Protestant, Orthodox, or even Jewish one, as long as the child would have enough to eat and would get some sort of education: “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” (source). So much for the words of our Lord, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you” (Jn 6:27). But then again, we know what Francis thinks about the Holy Eucharist.

To feed a needy child is a most noble and worthy and meritorious cause. But to feed a child physically and then starve him spiritually is diabolical. Ultimately, we will all see the grave, our bodies will have been fed for the last time, and they will become the food of worms. The meat which “endureth unto life everlasting” is infinitely more important, ultimately, than the meat which sustains merely our temporary natural life.

When speaking with “conservative” adherents of the Novus Ordo Sect about the Vatican’s dismissive attitude about evangelization (which, although epitomized by Francis, is also found in his predecessors of unhappy memory), one argument one will typically hear before long is that the term “proselytism” doesn’t actually mean converting someone through evangelization; rather, proselytism, so the argument goes, refers to using dishonest or dishonorable means of converting someone. We addressed this specious argument a while back in a post dealing with one of Francis’ most loyal defenders, Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers:

So, no, the argument that Francis opposes merely dishonest means of converting people while whole-heartedly endorsing the idea of converting people per se, won’t fly. It’s simply not true. His latest denunciation of proselytism is just one more instance in an ever-growing series of statements that make clear he does not seek anyone’s conversion to Jesus Christ and the True Religion. Have a look at the other instances he’s already racked up:

Of course, at other times we do find Mr. Bergoglio insisting that we must “preach the Gospel”, but there he doesn’t use the word “Gospel” in the meaning it had between 33 AD and 1958, but rather in the distinctly Novus Ordo sense at best, which essential equates “Gospel” with spreading Freemasonic ideas about liberty, conscience, dignity, fraternity, religious indifferentism, and, you know, those “human values”. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Great Commission given by our Blessed Lord and bringing people into the only true Church, the Ark of Salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20) and, “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk 16:15-16).

These all-important saving words of our Blessed Lord, who to redeem mankind and save them from an eternity of hell came into this world, have since been emptied of their meaning and turned into little more than an advertisement to be nice to our fellow man, to feed the hungry and to console the suffering, to give alms to the poor and to shelter the homeless. As laudable as these goals are, they are not ultimately the reason why our Blessed Lord came or why He suffered on the Cross for us, why He rose again and ascended into Heaven and sent the Holy Ghost to establish and vivify the Church and reign in the souls of men, making them children of God.

We have denounced Francis’ false soup-kitchen gospel before, for example, in the following posts:

Francis reduces Christ the King, Redeemer of Mankind, to the status of a nice teacher with a merely natural and worldly mission: to ease human suffering. But no one needs the Incarnation for this, no one needs a Resurrection for this, no one needs a Church for this, no one needs sacraments for this, and no one needs a Pope for this. 

Since its inception after the death of Pope Pius XII, the Modernist Vatican II Sect has done all it can to attempt to abolish the Catholic Faith, and the fruits are clearly visible today. Francis is merely putting the finishing touches on the mass apostasy that was begun with the first of the false popes, John XXIII, who prepared the way for the destruction by a number of means, but chiefly with these: the appointment of Bp. Giovanni Battista Montini as “cardinal” (this was practically necessary to enable him to be chosen “Pope” after John XXIII’s death), the establishment of the “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and the calling of the Second Vatican Council.

Of course, we have the divine gurantee that all attempts to destroy the Roman Catholic Faith and subvert the Church from within will ultimately fail; however, in the meantime, countless souls are still being led to hell. Our Lord Jesus Christ said: “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6). This truth is something Francis does not believe, or if he does, he hates it with all his guts.

Francis is clearly the vicar of someone, just not of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Related Links:

50 Years of the Modernist Juggernaut

Vatican II: The Documents Examined

Bp. Donald Sanborn dismantles the Chief Errors
of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)


The Modernist monstrosity known as the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican opened on October 11, 1962, and officially closed on December 8, 1965, almost exactly 50 years ago. “Vatican II”, as it came to be known, laid the doctrinal and pastoral groundwork for the Novus Ordo Religion, which is why in most cases, the “New Catholicism” that emerged after the death of Pope Pius XII (1958) refers back into the past no further than “Pope” John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli, d. 1963), its founder, and his disastrous council, where Catholicism was essentially demolished and reinvented from the ground up.

Vatican II, which was solemnly promulgated and imposed by Roncalli’s successor, “Pope” Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini, d. 1978), has been called the “French Revolution in the Church”, and with good reason, as it introduced the Freemasonic notions of liberty, equality, and fraternity from the revolution of 1789 into the structures of the Catholic Church under the concepts of religious freedom, ecumenism, and collegiality, the three pillars of the council that have caused havoc throughout the Catholic world ever since.

Philosophically considered, the father of Modernism is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), whose chief work Kritik der Reinen Vernunft (Critique of Pure Reason) was put on the Index of Forbidden Books. Kant’s revolutionary philosophy, which made truth consist not in conformity of the mind to reality, but in conformity of reality to the mind, came to be termed the “Copernican revolution in philosophy”. Similarly, we may say that the Second Vatican Council constituted the “Copernican revolution in theology,” because it transformed theology from being clearly theocentric (God-centered) into being anthropocentric, that is, man-centered. Since Vatican II, everything in the Roncalli Sect (the false “Catholic Church” which we also term the “Novus Ordo Sect” or “Vatican II Church”) revolves around man. Even God Himself has been relegated to little more than a servant of man, whose only purpose is to forgive our sins, solve our problems, and provide us with a nice life, both in this world and in the next:

God is dethroned in the Novus Ordo religion, and man is put in His place. This is eerily reminiscent of St. Paul’s warning in 2 Thessalonians 2 of the “revolt” that must “come first” after he who “withholdeth” is “taken out of the way”, by whom is meant, as Cardinal Manning explains, the true Pope:


With a true Pope out of the way, the forces of evil have unfettered reign to impose their wickedness, their apostasy, on the entire globe, even under the guise of a faux “Catholicism” that is far removed from the real Catholicism of the past, something that is easily seen when comparing the magisterial documents of the true Church before the Roncalli usurpation in 1958 with the documents that were issued after. This web site is dedicated to proving that disparity between the true Catholic Church and the false Modernist sect that retains the name of Catholic but has emptied the label of its distinctive meaning.

On October 20, 2012, our friends at True Restoration dedicated a special three-hour episode of its edifying Restoration Radio program to examining and refuting the heresies and errors of the Second Vatican Council. Its special guest was Bishop Donald J. Sanborn of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, who explained at length how the documents of Vatican II contradict the prior and true Catholic teaching on a number of important points, and how the council embraced the very errors previously condemned by the Church’s authoritative Magisterium.

This show is available to the public for free, sponsored by Novus Ordo Watch. You can access it at this link:

In addition to this highly-informative audio broadcast, in which Bp. Sanborn explains the Catholic doctrine and Vatican II’s opposing Modernist errors using exceptional clarity and easy-to-understand language, Restoration Radio is now also making available a transcript of the entire program.

While the transcript is not free of charge, True Restoration has kindly agreed to provide the transcript to anyone who makes a $25.00 (USD) donation to Novus Ordo Watch, its show sponsor. 

Here are the content highlights of the transcribed show, in the order in which they are discussed:


  • Vatican II — dogmatic or pastoral?
  • What is “interpretation”?
  • Vatican II has a single mind and a single interpretation
  • Councils clarify, not obfuscate

Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio

  • Roots in Modernism, Liberalism, Liturgical Movement
  • Goal: A dogma-less, one-world religion
  • Heresy: Holy Ghost using non-Catholic sects?
  • The true Church cannot defect
  • The “Fundamental Truths” myth

Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes

  • Ratzinger: A “revision of Pius IX’s Syllabus”
  • The point: man has changed
  • Church must serve international socialist world-building
  • Dignity of man is the supreme principle to uphold

Dogmatic Constitution: Lumen Gentium

  • Detaching the structure of the Church from the Church of Christ
  • “Subsists” = confuse, not clarify
  • Ratzinger’s reading is heretical
  • “Pilgrim church” and “substantial anchorages”
  • A heresy against the Creed
  • Ambiguous: “the Christian faithful”

On Non-Christian Religions: Nostra Aetate

  • Confusing the natural and supernatural orders
  • False religions: means of damnation
  • Pope St. Gregory VII: Soft on Islam?
  • The Jews get a free pass
  • Calumnies about the Church and the Jews
  • We do NOT worship the same God
  • Faith is a condition for apostolic authority
  • The Church is bound by dogmas
  • Vatican II contradicts Catholic teaching

On Religious Liberty: Dignitatis Humanae

  • Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors: Errors required to be condemned
  • Osama Bin Laden acts in accordance with his religious beliefs
  • Pope Pius IX invoked his apostolic authority
  • Giving “value” to false religions
  • A permissible “toleration”?
  • A moral heresy

On the Sacred Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium

  • Hijacking the Liturgical Movement
  • The pre-Vatican II ecumenist: Beaudiun
  • Heretics in 1940s Brooklyn
  • Again, adapt the liturgy; modern man has changed
  • Remove what’s non-ecumenical

Miscellaneous Questions

  • Can you say Vatican II was “non-binding”?
  • Read the conclusion of each document!
  • Modernism in the 20th century
  • How did it get by so many bishops? 

The transcript is 75 pages in length and not available to the general public until January 1, 2016 (and then, too, it won’t be free). If you are already an annual member with True Restoration, the transcript is available to you right now and without any further charge. However, if you are not an annual member, right now the only way to obtain the transcript is to make a donation of only $25.00 (USD).

Please proceed to make your donation to Novus Ordo Watch here (not tax-deductible):

This offer expires on December 31, 2015.

You will receive access to the transcript via an email from True Restoration as we forward your information to them. Please allow 24 hours of turn-around time, and please indicate with your donation whether you have listend to Restoration Radio before. This is a great way for you to obtain written expert analysis of the errors of Vatican II while supporting Novus Ordo Watch in the process. And $25 is really not a lot to ask. Please remember that unlike other web sites, Novus Ordo Watch does not pester you with annoying ads, and all content is free, including our highly-educational podcasts.

Let us be clear: You can listen to the entire 3-hour program for free at any time (click here) — it is only the transcript that is not free.

If you would like to support Novus Ordo Watch in other ways, please review our 12 ways you can help Novus Ordo Watch and spread the word!

Thank you for your kind support. May God bless you!

Related Links:

Novus Ordo Watch for your Ears...

Episode 009 Now Available

The Traditional Catholic Podcast


In TRADCAST 009, released on November 18, 2015, we spend roughly 50 minutes to present to you two info-packed segments of hard-hitting Catholic commentary and analysis. We take a look at “Pope” Francis’ obsessive condemnation of metaphorical idolatry (“idolatry of money”, “idolatry of consumerism”, etc.) and contrast it with his curious failure to condemn real idolatry (as found in paganism), nay, his veritable confirmation of heathen idolaters in the practice of their false and abominable religions!

In the second portion of our podcast, we begin a multi-part series, to be continued in subsequent TRADCAST episodes, that unmasks and refutes the false arguments advanced by John Salza in the recent TradCatKnight radio program, “Sedevacantism, Fatima, and Freemasonry,” hosted by Eric Gajewski. The program, which aired on Oct. 25, 2015, was also used to promote Salza’s upcoming book on Sedevacantism, co-authored with Robert Siscoe, entitled, True or False Pope?. We go through all the main arguments and dismantle them step by step.

You can listen to our podcast by clicking the YouTube video above, or you can go to our TRADCAST 009 page, where you will find all the information you need for this show, including links to articles, blog posts, news stories, etc., mentioned in the podcast, and where you will also find ways to download this episode to your computer and sign up to be notified of new episodes by email.

See Also:

Fallout from the latest Francis Fiasco

Novus Ordo Priest warns Francis the Holy Ghost will Strike him Dead or Incapacitate him!


As we predicted early on, Francis has caused nothing but chaos in the Modernist Sect since he began to play “Bishop of Rome” on March 13, 2013. Apparently not familiar with the job description of even Novus Ordo “Pope”, Francis has recently announced that when it comes to the question about whether Lutherans and “Catholics” can participate in each other’s “communion” (which he called the “Lord’s Supper”), he will leave this to “those who understand”, to “the theologians”, because it is “not my competence”, as he said in an answer riddled with heresy on November 15 during a visit to one of Rome’s Lutheran churches. If you haven’t seen this story yet, be sure to check out our post on it, as well as a few other commentaries:

It has been evident from the beginning that theology isn’t his thing (especially not Catholic theology), and yet this admitted fact doesn’t keep him from constantly “instructing” his sheeple through daily homilies that usually consist of gratuitous insults and pseudo-spiritual rambling with a hefty portion of bizarre metaphors that have no clear meaning apart from what Francis spontaneously assigns to them, as manifested by the context. Not to mention his constant speeches, interviews, phone calls, addresses, and endless documents.

After issuing the motu proprio granting drive-thru annulments, after promoting more Naturalism in his visit to the U.S. and Cuba, and after a tumultuous synod on the family and another scandalous interview by Eugenio Scalfari, Francis has now kicked things up yet another notch by announcing this past Sunday that Lutherans should just “discern” if they can receive Novus Ordo communion, after “talking to the Lord” and “moving forward.” Well that would also settle the issue of “Catholic” adulterers, wouldn’t it?

All this is taking place even after it had already come to light that some high-ranking clergy in the Vatican were becoming restless about Francis’ path of theological and spiritual destruction and preparing to move against him in some way or another. And just yesterday, on Nov. 16, the reliable Novus Ordo insider Edward Pentin, journalist for the National Catholic Register, reported the following on Twitter: “Senior Vatican official speaking anon[ymously]: ‘This pontificate poses serious risks for the integrity of Catholic teaching in faith and morals’” (source):

We’ve said before that the Bergoglian chaos can’t last much longer without someone blowing a fuse soon. Well, it looks like now someone has. 

On November 16, “Father” George David Byers, a Novus Ordo parish priest in North Carolina who blogs at Arise! Let Us Be Going!, and who is actually one of those special “missionaries of mercy” appointed by Francis for the upcoming jubilee year, published an open letter in which he warns the “Pope” that if he should attempt to make this sort of “communion-for-all” nonsense part of the infallible ordinary Magisterium, that the Holy Ghost would intervene and prevent him from doing so, either by causing his death somehow, or by incapacitating him:

I note your overture to a Lutheran woman at the Lutheran church on Via Sicilia in Rome on 15 November 2015, the one who asked about intercommunion (starting minute 21.00 on the Vatican YouTube video).

I had to wonder before if your recent interview with Eugenio Scalfari was correctly reported. I now have no doubt.

With due respect to your person and your office, I ask you not to make this kind of thing part of what you want to publish about the Synod with the authority of the infallible ordinary magisterium, which you inferred you would most certainly do in your speech of October 17, 2015.

If you do this, going against the doctrine of the Church, grave matters of faith and morals, on so very many points on so very many levels …, and precisely as the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, and this not just to a journalist, or a single woman, but to the universal Church, deciding what is now a matter of extreme controversy, well, you won’t be able to do it. You will either die or be incapacitated, much as Pope Sixtus V dropped dead before he could accomplish his own will on a matter also touching on marriage and divorce, which I wrote about for your own benefit....

...But the Bishop of Rome has no right to change the truth before the Living God, who is Himself Living Truth. You will not get the chance to do this, as you will surely die of natural causes, or because you are martyred, or because you are otherwise incapacitated.


Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.

— Father George David Byers // 16 November 2015 // Andrews, NC, USA

(“Death or Incapacitation of Pope Francis: Soon”, Arise! Let Us Be Going!, Nov. 16, 2015)

Very interesting stuff. Although it probably wasn’t the smartest thing to invoke the infamous saying of Martin Luther at the end, with which the German heresiarch justified his resistance to Catholic dogma and to the Pope: “Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir” (“Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”). Seriously — Martin Luther, in a post against Francis for promoting intercommunion with Lutherans? Hello?!

Well, at least Mr. Byers recognizes that Almighty God protects all legitimate successors of St. Peter from doing things that would run contrary to the infallibility of the Pope and the infallibility and indefectibility of the Catholic Church. But herein lies the rub: This only, of course, applies to true Popes and the true Church. Therefore, we know that Byers’ prediction will come to nothing, because Francis is not a true Pope, and his sect is not the Catholic Church.


Francis the Lutheran, left, and “Fr.” George Byers

What is puzzling to see is that although we have a number of people in the Novus Ordo acknowledging that Francis cannot cross the line without proving false his claim to being Pope, it seems that this line keeps moving further and further out. Perhaps “Fr.” Byers is not aware, but Francis
 long ago crossed that line. For example, by canonizing as a “saint” the public apostate Karol Wojtyla, aka “Pope” John Paul II. Canonizations are infallible acts of the Roman Pontiff. Since a public apostate cannot be a Catholic saint, Francis definitively proved that he is not a true Pope because he, using infallible and definitive language, declared John Paul II to be a Catholic saint.

Remember? Let’s review:

Sorry, “Fr.” Byers, but Francis did not drop dead before “canonizing” John Paul II. Back in 2011, The Remnant’s celebrated rhetorician Christopher Ferrara had already dared to make a similar prediction, insisting that it would be impossible — yes, he used that word! — for a Pope to make John Paul II a saint, and he even insinuated that Benedict XVI possibly resigned in order to prevent such a “canonization” — a most ridiculous argument for sure!

Yet, what happened? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The bogus canonization went ahead as planned, and Francis thereby definitively ruled out any possibility that he might be a lawful and valid successor of St. Peter. In short: His goose is long cooked, over-cooked at this point. 

So, we would like to remind all Novus Ordos, and esp. the Rev. Byers, that Francis has long crossed the line that is impossible for a true Pope to cross. Let’s stop moving it further out; let’s stop pretending that he hasn’t long done what is impossible for a Pope to do. 

The game is over. So let’s stop continually changing the rules to keep this farce of a game alive.

Related Links:

“Chaos Frank” on shared “Communion” with Lutherans:


“I leave that Question to the Theologians and those who understand… 
Life is Bigger than Explanations”


Someone call Jimmy Akin and the rest of the Novus Ordo cleanup crew: Chaos Frank has made a mess again! With him visiting an Evangelical Lutheran Church in Rome on Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015, we knew to expect anything but Catholicism from the Modernist lips of Jorge Bergoglio. And sure enough, he did not fail to deliver.

Not surprisingly, a Lutheran woman married to a “Catholic” asked the “Roman Pontiff” if Lutherans and “Catholics” would not finally be allowed to share each other’s “Communion”. As a reminder, Lutherans have no valid priesthood and no valid sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. They deny the dogma of Transubstantiation and adhere to the heresy of Consubstantiation, also known as “impanation”, which holds that Christ is somehow present alongside the bread, which remains bread, after the “consecration”:

The following transcript of “Pope” Francis’ words has been made available by Rocco Palmo of Whispers in the Loggia. What Francis says is such a perfect blend of heresy and idiocy that it’s best we just post it in its entirety and leave it largely uncommented. We are marking in red font some of the more outrageous and ridiculous parts:

The question on sharing the Lord’s Supper isn’t easy for me to respond to, above all in front of a theologian like Cardinal Kasper – I’m scared! 

I think of how the Lord told us when he gave us this mandatum to “do this in memory of me,” and when we share the Lord’s Supper, we recall and we imitate the same as the Lord. And there will be the Lord’s Supper in the final banquet in the new Jerusalem – it’ll be there! But that will be the last one… in the meantime, I ask myself and don’t know how to respond – what you’re asking me, I ask myself the question. To share the Lord’s banquet: is it the goal of the path or is it the viaticum [etym. “to accompany you on the journey”] for walking together? I leave that question to the theologians and those who understand. 

It’s true that in a certain sense, to share means that there aren’t differences between us, that we have the same doctrine – underscoring that word, a difficult word to understand. But I ask myself: but don’t we have the same Baptism? If we have the same Baptism, shouldn’t we be walking together? And you’re a witness of a likewise profound journey, a journey of marriage: itself a journey of family and human love and of a shared faith, no? We have the same Baptism. 

When you feel yourself a sinner – and I’m much more of a sinner – when your husband feels he’s sinned, you go forward to the Lord and ask forgiveness; your husband does the same and also goes to the priest and asks absolution, [thus] I’m healed and kept alive in my Baptism. When you pray together, that Baptism grows, becomes stronger. When you teach your kids who is Jesus? Why did Jesus come? What did Jesus do for us?, you’re doing the same thing, whether in the Lutheran language or the Catholic one, but it’s the same. 

The question [Pope draws question mark with his finger]…. The supper? There are questions that only if one is sincere with oneself and the little theological light one has, must be responded to on one’s own. See for yourself. This is my body. This is my blood. Do it in remembrance of me – this is a viaticum that helps us to journey on. 

I once had a great friendship with a bishop who went a little wrong – 48 years old, he married [then had] two children. This made for great discomfort in him – a Catholic wife, Catholic children, him a bishop. He accompanied them on Sunday, his wife and children, to Mass, and then went to worship with his community…. It was a step toward his participation in the Lord’s Supper. Then he went forward, then the Lord called him [to realize] “I’m not right.” 

I can only respond to your question with a question: what can I do with my husband that the Lord’s Supper might accompany me on my path? It’s a problem that each must answer [for themselves], but a pastor-friend once told me that “We believe that the Lord is present, he is present” – you believe that the Lord is present. There are explanations, interpretations, but life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism – one faith, one baptism, one Lord: this Paul tells us; the consequences come later. 

I would never dare to give permission to do this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and go forward. [Pauses] And I wouldn't dare – I don’t dare say anything more.

If you actually need us to comment on this tidal wave of Modernism and indifferentism, you haven’t been reading our web site long enough. This was nothing short of absolute theological chaos. Francis doesn’t give a hoot about God, about Truth, about the true Faith, about dogma, about Transubstantiation, about sanctifying grace, or about anything that really matters in one’s spiritual life. God to him is nothing but an emotional bandaid whose job is to forgive your sins and make you feel good and solve your problems. For Francis, it’s all a matter of soup kitchens, caressing the peripheries, making the world a better place, and not judging. What an absolute disgrace! 

A video of Francis’ disaster of a response, which can be summarized simply as “Whatever!”, is also available:

So, life is bigger than explanations, huh? Sure, why not — and outside it’s always colder than at night. You can’t make this stuff up!

But then again, let’s not forget: According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by “Pope Saint” John Paul II, Protestants are already permitted to share some of the Novus Ordo sacraments, under certain conditions, as we prove in our post here. And, sure enough, Jimmy Akin can be seen in a video here explaining exactly that.

So, don’t be surprised — it’s chaos all around, and Francis is only too happy to join in!

Related Links:

Heresy has Consequences...

Public Heretics and Loss of Office
in the Catholic Church


Sitting in the chair physically is not enough...

What follows below is an edited version of a post we originally published on June 22, 2013. The semi-traditionalist web site Tradition In Action (TIA) had published the erroneous opinion that a cleric who becomes a public heretic does not incur an automatic excommunication from the Church, and that therefore — so their reasoning — he also does not lose any office he may hold in the Church. A few days later, TIA apologized and acknowledged that their opinion was mistaken, and they conceded that a public heretic is indeed automatically excommunicated. The question of loss of office they deferred to another time, which, however, has still not occurred (to our knowledge). The whole matter came up for discussion after it had come to light that the Vatican’s “chief of orthodoxy”, “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Muller, denies the dogmas of the Resurrection, Transubstantiation, and the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Can such a blatant heretic possibly validly hold office in the Catholic Church? Obviously not.

We are reproducing the post below not because we want to beat up on TIA some more, but because the topic is as relevant as ever, and because it involves a number of concepts that some people are still quite confused about.


One of the best web sites exposing the horrors of the bogus Vatican II religion is the site Tradition In Action. Unfortunately, there is a fly in the ointment: Against all Catholic theology and right reason, the people at TIA still somehow insist that this false religion is nevertheless the Roman Catholic Church, and its heretical or apostate clergy are somehow legitimate Roman Catholic shepherds or authorities.

On June 20, 2013, TIA responded to an email inquiry sent by a reader who was puzzled that TIA was exposing Muller's denial of dogma but without admitting the obvious repercussions of his heresies. Here is the response given by TIA:

We believe that a man who denies these two dogmas of the Catholic Faith - the perpetual virginity of Our Lady and transubstantiation - is a heretic. Otherwise, the word heretic would lose its meaning. Therefore, Archbishop Müller fits this definition perfectly.

We do not believe that he is automatically excommunicated. The excommunication latae sentenciae [sic], or automatic, is reserved for a few cases regarding secret crimes which do not include public heresy.

However, for a person to be declared a heretic, some official procedures are needed.

Before the Council, the normal procedure for a person to be declared a heretic was to have the Holy Office, today’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), warn the person who defended a heretical thesis to retract. If the person did not do so after two admonishments, then he was declared a heretic by the Holy Office.

(Tradition In Action, "What People Are Commenting", Jun 20, 2013) 

If this were an accurate presentation of the Catholic position on the matter, then the Modernists would have a very easy task: Since they're the ones "in charge" in the Vatican, anyone can preach whatever heresy he likes and he would still retain his putative office until they declare him to have lost it — which, of course, being Modernists themselves, they will never do. They could thus unleash the most damnable errors and heresies on the unsuspecting faithful and would in this manner transform the Catholic Church from being the Ark of Salvation to being an ark of damnation. In this way, heretics could hijack the Bride of Christ and turn her into a harlot, and the Church's infallibility and indefectibility would be denied. 

Nothing but doctrinal and pastoral chaos would ensue if a public heretic could validly hold office or claim the title 'Catholic' until he is removed or declared a heretic by the proper authority. But don't take our word for it.

Let's review some basic Catholic teaching and law on the matter:

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: ...

            4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith

(Canon 188 n.4; The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law)

Note that the canon clearly states that the clerical office (for example, that of archbishop) becomes vacant upon the fact (not upon a legal recognition thereof) and without any declaration (!) if the cleric in question defects from the Catholic faith in a public manner (as opposed to a hidden or secret defection). That Muller's defection is a real defection from the Faith is clear by what he's said, for he denies dogmas, and, as an expert of dogmatic theology, knows exactly what he's saying. That his defection is public is clear by the fact that we're all talking about it. He's committed his heresies in books he's published and statements he's made. It's all out in the open. So according to Canon 188 n. 4, Muller has lost his office (not that he ever validly held it to begin with, but for the sake of argument), and to recognize this fact there is no declaration necessary. (A scan of the Latin original of this canon can be found here.)

The text is really clear. What's even more important is that this canon is not merely a church law, created by human beings, but actually a restatement of the divine law that those who profess a false faith cannot be members of the Catholic Church, and therefore they cannot hold office in the Church:

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). 

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 9; underline added)

Muller is a heretic and not a Catholic, and therefore he is not a member of the Catholic Church and cannot hold any position in the Church. He is entirely separated from the Body of Christ, from Catholic communion. This separation is not primarily a punishment imposed against him by the Church (i.e. excommunication), but, above all, it is simply the natural consequence of his commission of public sins against the Faith (not against morals), sins which in and of themselves are incompatible with being a member of the Church, as we will now explain.

An excommunication is a Church punishment imposed upon an offender with the purpose that the offender would amend (see H.A. Ayrinhac, Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law [NY: Benziger, 1920], pp. 54-57; free e-copy available at Google Books). But loss of office, and loss of Church membership, are not a punishment; they are, rather, the necessary consequences of publicly committing the sins of either heresy, apostasy, or schism, three sins that are in and of themselves incompatible with Church membership:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith [=Catholics], and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body [such as heretics, schismatics, or apostates], or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed [the excommunicated].... As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those [who] are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.... For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

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

A heretic is someone who obstinately doubts or denies a dogma of the Faith; heretics are not Catholics and cannot be members of the Church. They have no part in the Body of Christ. Pope Leo XIII actually calls this immediate self-expulsion from Church communion a “divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity” (Satis Cognitum, n. 9). And this only makes sense, else the Church could have in her fold false teachers who corrupt the Faith of the people, and these heretics would then actually be the valid and legitimate shepherds and teachers to whom the people owe submission! It would be absurd.

When genuine theological studies are consulted on these matters (which, interestingly enough, is rarely ever done by those of the “recognize-and-resist” persuasion, except perhaps centuries-old texts proposing theories subsequently abandoned by the Church), the sedevacantist position is always found to be vindicated. Commenting on Canon 188 n.4 and the divine law of cessation of Church membership in the case of sins against the Faith, Fr. Gerald McDevitt writes:

Since it is not only incongruous that one who has publicly defected from the faith should remain in an ecclesiastical office, but since such a condition might also be the source of serious spiritual harm when the care of souls in concerned, the Code [of Canon Law] prescribes that a cleric tacitly renounces his office by public defection from the faith.

(Gerald V. McDevitt, The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1946], p. 136)

Notice that Fr. McDevitt says that there would be “serious spiritual harm” towards souls if the heretic remained in an ecclesiastical office validly, i.e. remained a member of the Church and a Catholic authority! In this, he echoes Pope Leo XIII. So, contrary to what the “recognize-and-resisters” have been telling us for decades, the true Catholic position is not that spiritual harm would ensue if we all recognize that the heretic has no office in the Church, but rather, grave spiritual damage would result if we all believe he does hold office in the Church!

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the clear Catholic teaching. Sedevacantism is true!

Curiously, TIA does not go into the question of Church membership at all. Instead, they only talk about excommunication, which, although related, is a different thing, as shown above. TIA seems to believe that only an excommunication could sever a man from the Body of Christ, but this is not at all so, as we have seen, especially in the words of Pope Pius XII, who differentiated clearly between those who “separate[d] themselves from the unity of the Body” and those who have “been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed” (Mystici Corporis).

So, loss of Church membership (implying then, also, loss of office in the case of a cleric) is one thing; excommunication is another. By no means is an excommunication needed for someone to cease being a member of the Church, as Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII have stated clearly. In fact, there is no agreement among theologians regarding whether an excommunicated Catholic is still a member of the Church, but in light of Pius XII's teaching in Mystici Corporis and without going into too much unnecessary detail, suffice it to say that the more probable opinion is that so-called vitandi excommunicates are not members of the Church, whereas so-called tolerati excommunicates retain Church membership (for details, see Mgr. Gerardus van Noort, Dogmatic Theology II: Christ's Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 244-245).

However, TIA even gets what it says about excommunication wrong: “We do not believe that [Muller] is automatically excommunicated. The excommunication latae sentenciae, or automatic, is reserved for a few cases regarding secret crimes which do not include public heresy.” Why not simply look it up in the Code of Canon Law and consult a few commentaries on it? A simple check of the Code would have revealed that the Church very much imposes an automatic excommunication upon all heretics, apostates and schismatics, whether public or secret, so even in TIA's own world of “only an excommunication severs you from the Church”, the heretic Muller is cut off from the Body of Christ:

All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:

            1.° Incur by that fact excommunication

(Canon 2314 n.1; The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law)

How could TIA miss this? It even says “by that fact”, so the excommunication is incurred automatically and immediately upon the commission of the crime, i.e. upon the willful denial of the Faith. It is very disheartening to see TIA do such a terrible and sloppy job in presenting this most important subject matter. It is not, however, surprising, because in our experience, even the most gifted and astute “recognize-and-resisters” somehow seem to lose all sense of orthodox Catholic theology and right reason when the subject turns to Sedevacantism.

For a lengthy, in-depth treatment of the issues pertaining to heresy, excommunication, loss of office, etc., with copious documentation, please see the essay The Chair Is Still Empty by Gregorius, which is a response to two of John Salza’s pieces on Sedevacantism.

In sum: All heretics, apostates, and schismatics automatically incur an excommunication (Canon 2314 n.1). However, we must distinguish the church punishment of excommunication — a matter of human church law that could be changed — from the cessation of Church membership, which is a matter of fact based on the unchangeable divine law that heresy, apostasy, and schism are sins of such a nature that they exclude one from membership in the Church because they are in and of themselves incompatible with what it means to be a Catholic.

Because Tradition in Action does not approach this matter correctlly, does not draw the necessary distinctions, and did not do sufficient research, they end up in error and mislead their readers on this point. Let us hope for a correction and retraction.

See Also:

Apostates, heretics and schismatics: Rejoice!

“All the Baptized are Members of the Church!”


Apparently the god of surprises is rearing its ugly head in the Vatican again, speaking through its favorite oracle, Mr. Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope” Francis). On November 4, the latter proclaimed more unmistakable heresy in a message to the ecumenical “Global Christian Forum”, which was holding a three-day conference in Tirana, the capital of Albania. Here are Bergoglio’s words in full and verbatim:

I extend greetings to you and all those participating in the Global Christian Forum Consultation, to be held in Tirana from 2 to 4 November 2015, as you reflect on the theme "Discrimination, persecution, martyrdom: following Christ together". In a particular way, I wish to greet our brothers and sisters of different Christian traditions who represent communities suffering for their profession of faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. I think with great sadness of the escalating discrimination and persecution against Christians in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and elsewhere throughout the world. Your gathering shows that, as Christians, we are not indifferent to our suffering brothers and sisters. In various parts of the world, the witness to Christ, even to the shedding of blood, has become a shared experience of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, Evangelicals and Pentecostals, which is deeper and stronger than the differences which still separate our Churches and Ecclesial Communities. The communio martyrum is the greatest sign of our journeying together. At the same time, your gathering will give voice to the victims of such injustice and violence, and seek to show the path that will lead the human family out of this tragic situation. With these sentiments, I assure you of my spiritual closeness. May the martyrs of today, belonging to many Christian traditions, help us to understand that all the baptised are members of the same Body of Christ, his Church (cf. I Cor 12:12-30). Let us see this profound truth as a call to persevere on our ecumenical journey towards full and visible communion, growing more and more in love and mutual understanding.

(“Message of His Holiness Pope Francis on the Occasion of the Global Christian Forum”,, Nov. 4, 2015; underlining added.)

To Novus Ordo ears, these words are no big deal. To Catholic ears, they are heretical, favorable to heresy, erroneous, impious, and offensive. An explanation may be in order.

There are four salient points in Francis’ message that are at odds with various levels of Catholic teaching. Actually, there are more, but let’s just focus on the following four:

  • Non-Catholics who die for their faith in Christ are genuine Christian martyrs
  • This communio martyrum (“communion of martyrdom”) is a true communion that unites “Catholics” and Protestants
  • All the baptized are members of the one Church, the one Body of Christ
  • Although all the baptized are in communion with one another and part of the same true Church, nevertheless this unity is not visible (yet) — this visible communion must still be achieved

Oh my, where to start… 

Let’s start at the beginning: First, to say that non-Catholics who die for their faith in Christ are, objectively speaking, real martyrs for the Faith, is heresy. This is one of Francis’ pet doctrines, which he has termed the “ecumenism of blood”. Earlier this year we published an extensive refutation of this heresy, which we encourage everyone to review. Bergoglio’s “ecumenism of blood” nonsense is in direct contradiction to the infallible teaching of the 15th-century Council of Florence, among other things:

A few months after debuting his “ecumenism of blood” heresy, Francis sent a video message to an ecumenical conference taking place in Phoenix, United States, in which he repeated it, but this time with the very candid admission, “This may perhaps be a heresy”! Yes, he really did say that — you can’t make this stuff up! Here are our three posts on Bergoglio’s frank revelation and the podcast we made about it:

As Francis’ own words and our commentary show, he will teach his own peculiar doctrine regardless of whether it is heretical or not — he simply does not care. This suffices to reveal his heretical depravity. If need be, he may roll in the “god of surprises” for support or perhaps claim to be “listening to the spirit” — but it is heresy nonetheless and he is determined to have his doctrine, no matter what.

Second, since there is no such thing as a genuine martyrdom outside the Catholic Church, then it follows also that there can be no “communion of martyrdom” between those inside and those outside the true Church. In fact, the idea that there could be any sort of spiritual unity between Catholics and non-Catholics is definitively ruled out by Catholic teaching:

Wherefore, since outside the Catholic Church there is nothing undefiled, the Apostle declaring that “all that is not of faith is sin,” we are in no way likened with those who are divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no communion.

(Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 129; qtd. in Bp. Donald Sanborn, The New Ecclesiology: Documentation [PDF], p. 12; underlining added.)

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

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

They [the Ecumenists] add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 7; underlining added.)

It also won’t do to say that all who profess faith in Christ and die for Him are somehow part of the Catholic Church, which is precisely what Francis claims later on in his message. This is the third point we must now examine. 

Is it true, as Francis asserts, that baptism alone suffices to make one a member of the Church, regardless of profession of faith? Far from it! The First Vatican Council taught that Christ constituted His Church such that “all the faithful might be contained by the bond of one faith and charity” (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus; Denz. 1821). Pope Leo XIII described “the constitution of the Christian commonwealth” as being “one in faith, in government, and in communion” (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 15). In addition, in his beautiful 1943 encyclical on the Church, Pope Pius XII clearly laid out the essential conditions for membership in the Mystical Body of Christ:

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

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, n. 22)

Thus, while baptism is necessary to be a member of the Church, it is by no means sufficient. Other conditions, too, have to be fulfilled: one must profess the true Faith, and one must be in communion with the Roman Pontiff and the other members of the Church. Duh!

But not, of course, for Francis — according to him, and based on the Vatican II doctrine of “partial communion” (aka “Frankenchurch” or “Patchwork Ecclesiology”), all who have received a valid baptism are now members of the true Church of Christ, which is His Body. That would include most Protestants, the Eastern Schismatics, and all apostates (for apostates are, by definition, the baptized who have fallen away), whether they now be Jews, Muslims, polytheists, satanists, atheists, agnostics, or anything else. As long as they were once validly baptized, Francis believes this motley crew makes up the true Church. A “Frankenchurch” indeed!

A quick word of clarification: Some people believe, falsely, that Protestants are members of the Church as long as they are sincere and without guilt in their errors, but this is not true. While it is possible for individuals who outwardly profess heresy to nevertheless retain the virtue of Faith internally and, combined with hope and charity, to reside inside the Catholic Church through a genuine votum Ecclesiae (desire to be united to the true Church — please see our TRADCAST 004 for a detailed explanation), it is wholly impossible for them to be members of the Church, for, as Pope Pius XII made clear, profession of the true Faith is necessary for membership. But profession is an external act and quite independent of guilt or innocence, hence it really doesn’t matter, as far as Church membership is concerned, whether a Protestant is in good faith or not.

Fr. Ludwig Ott’s handbook Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma explains:


Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church. However, this does not prevent them from belonging spiritually to the Church by their desire to belong to the Church (votum Ecclesiae) and through this, achieving justification and salvation.

Although public apostates and heretics, schismatics and excommunicati vitandi are outside the legal organisation of the Church, still their relationship to the Church is essentially different from that of the unbaptised…. As the baptismal character which effects incorporation in the Church is indestructible, the baptised person, in spite of his ceasing to be a member of the Church, cannot cut himself off so completely from the Church, that every bond with the Church is dissolved.

(Fr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, trans. by James Bastible [original 1954; reprint by TAN Books, 1974], p. 311)

Catholic teaching on the matter is simple and straightforward: All who are baptized but do not profess the true Faith, or do not remain in communion with the Church, are not members of the Church, regardless of any other consideration, such as invincible ignorance. Period.

Fourth, Francis asserts that although there is a real communion between “Catholics” and Protestants that unites them both to the Body of Christ, the Church, nevertheless he says it is not a visible communion, which must still be achieved. Right there the Argentinian apostate commits another theological blunder of staggering proportions, for the idea that the true Church is invisible is Protestant in essence and not compatible with the Catholic doctrine that holds that there is only one Church, and this one Church is necessarily visible.

The following magisterial evidence leaves no doubt as to the Church’s visible nature, and this visibility is found precisely in the outward profession of Faith and the outward communion between the members of the Church and the Supreme Pontiff, both of which are obviously lacking in Protestants — any “martyrdom” notwithstanding:

If we consider the chief end of His Church and the proximate efficient causes of salvation, it is undoubtedly spiritual; but in regard to those who constitute it, and to the things which lead to these spiritual gifts, it is external and necessarily visible. The Apostles received a mission to teach by visible and audible signs, and they discharged their mission only by words and acts which certainly appealed to the senses. So that their voices falling upon the ears of those who heard them begot faith in souls - "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the words of Christ" (Rom. x., 17). And faith itself - that is assent given to the first and supreme truth - though residing essentially in the intellect, must be manifested by outward profession - “For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. x., 10). …For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ - "Now you are the body of Christ" (I Cor. xii., 27) - and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible: and because it is the body of Christ is it living and energizing, because by the infusion of His power Christ guards and sustains it, just as the vine gives nourishment and renders fruitful the branches united to it. And as in animals the vital principle is unseen and invisible, and is evidenced and manifested by the movements and action of the members, so the principle of supernatural life in the Church is clearly shown in that which is done by it. From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error….

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 3; underlining added.)

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those [who] are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.


Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. As the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, who in His name should govern the Church in an invisible way, so, in the same manner, He commissioned Peter and his successors to be His personal representatives on earth and to assume the visible government of the Christian community.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, nn. 22, 69; underlining added.)

Obviously, it is impossible to fit Francis’ idea of an invisible church into this, a church that unites Catholics and Protestants even though they are divided in faith and government. So, if Mr. Bergoglio says that there is an invisible church that he and Protestants belong to, it is clear that this church he is talking about is not and cannot be the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not that we needed any more proof that he’s the member of a false church, but it doesn’t hurt.

Having thus critically examined the four salient points of Francis’ message to his fellow-Protestants, let us briefly recall an incident from the early days of Francis’ sham pontificate. In late April 2013, about six weeks after his election, he said in a sermon: “…it is not possible to find Jesus outside the Church” (source). Some conservative Novus Ordo pundits immediately sprang into action and seized the opportunity to declare what a rock-solid Catholic Francis was! “Fr.” John Zuhlsdorf wasted no time in happily reporting the news, and Michael Voris incorporated the quote into his infamous “BAM!” Vortex of May 6, 2013. 

At the time, Novus Ordo Watch and other sedevacantists were the lone voice in the cyber-wilderness warning that things were not quite as they seemed. Here’s what we said in our post covering Francis’ allegedly anti-Protestant pronouncement:

Remember that Francis is speaking within the context of the Vatican II religion, and according to Vatican II doctrine, the Church does not exist as an integral whole, rather, it exists in degrees or elements in other Christian denominations as well, in virtue of a common baptism (that's where “imperfect communion” and all this junk comes from). So even if Francis meant to say that one cannot separate Christ from the Church, nevertheless, he believes that there's a little bit of the Catholic Church in every heretical sect, and every baptized person is a part of the Church; so what he said is really not anti-ecumenical at all.

(Novus Ordo Watch, “‘Pope’ Francis: ‘Not Possible to Find Jesus Outside the Church’", Apr. 24, 2013)

So… were we right, or were we right? While Francis was making people think that he believes one can find Christ and salvation only inside the Catholic Church, after two-and-a-half years he has now lifted the veil on part 2 of that story: Everyone is a member of the Church! While most people fell for Francis’ conservative-sounding hogwash, we did not. You follow people like Voris, Zuhlsdorf, Haines, and Madrid at your own risk, folks.


“Haha, gotcha! YOU fell for it!”

There is one more thing we must examine in Francis’ anti-Catholic message to the ecumenical Global Christian Forum. Notice exactly what Francis says, as already quoted:

In various parts of the world, the witness to Christ, even to the shedding of blood, has become a shared experience of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, Evangelicals and Pentecostals, which is deeper and stronger than the differences which still separate our Churches and Ecclesial Communities.

(“Message of His Holiness Pope Francis on the Occasion of the Global Christian Forum”, Nov. 4, 2015; underlining added.)

Notice he uses the word “experience”. As for any Modernist, so too for Francis, Faith is an experience that, although it may differ in accidentals, is shared by all believers and binds them together, surpassing any differences in belief or the confession of faith. In fact, the Argentinian antipope routinely refers to Faith as an “encounter”, and an encounter is, essentially, an experience. By contrast, the Catholic notion of Faith is defined as a “theological virtue by which our intellect is disposed to assent firmly to all the truths revealed by God, because of the infinite truth and wisdom of God who can neither deceive or be deceived” (Donald Attwater, ed., A Catholic Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. “Faith”, ii.).

Let’s have a look at how Pope Saint Pius X slammed the Modernists for their false concept of faith-as-experience, and what follows from it:

For the Modernist believer [as opposed to the Modernist philosopher], on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics…. They assert … the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. 

(Pope Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, n. 14; underlining added.)

Does this not sound familiar? Here we have the evidence that the Vatican II junk about “partial communion”, about “we reject nothing that is good and holy in other religions” and “there are elements of truth in other religions” is ultimately of Modernist origin, condemned by the Church in the severest of terms. It is but a restatement, in slightly adjusted terms and ideas, of the Modernist rejection of the objectivity and exclusivity of truth.

Further evidence regarding Francis’ adherence to the Modernist notion of faith and making everything about experience/encounter rather than truth, can be found here:

As an important reminder, here is what Pope Gregory XVI taught on the question of religious indifferentism, which Francis and the Vatican II Sect have clearly been promoting, in word and especially in action:

Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph 4:5] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," [Lk 11:23] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate" [Athanasian Creed]. Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"

(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, n. 13; underlining added.)

Yeah, not exactly Francis doctrine, eh?

Before we conclude, there is one more thing we must mention. Alas, the idea that profession of the true Faith is not necessary for membership in the Catholic Church, as Francis asserts in his Nov. 4 message to the Global Christian Forum, is also being swallowed more and more, de facto, by people who call themselves Traditional Catholics. In their stubborn refusal to consider the reality of Sedevacantism as even so much as a possibility, they are entangling themselves further and further not only in outright absurdities, but what is much worse, also in heresy.

For example, they routinely refer to certain bad guys in the Novus Ordo Sect as “heresiarchs” and “heretics”, such as “Cardinals” Walter Kasper and Carlo Martini, “Archbishop” Blase Cupich, “Bishop” Johan Bonny, Fr. Hans Kung, and other similar characters, even the “Pope” himself! Yet, at the same time they maintain that these men, although obvious public heretics, are nevertheless members of the Catholic Church and hold their putative offices validly. 

Here are some examples: 

This is a disease! These pundits’ reluctance to draw the only valid and necessary conclusion, namely, that if the clerics they denounce are public non-Catholics, then they cannot validly hold office in the Church, leads to a complete disfiguring — and thus rejection — of the Catholic dogma that the Church possesses unity in Faith

This is no small matter. To say that the Church does not have only one single Faith is to deny the visibility of the Church and also her unity, which is exactly what Francis does: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5); “…the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one” (Roman Catechism, “The Creed”, Article 9); “I believe in one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” (Nicene Creed). These Semi-Traditionalists (see, there is a reason why we call them “semi-”, “pseudo-”, and “neo-traditionalists”!) ignore Pope Pius’ teaching that profession of the True Faith is necessary for Church membership. If Kasper, Cupich, etc., are heretics, that is because they do not profess that true Faith! It will not do to say that the heresy isn’t manifest, for if it weren’t manifest, that is, public, then none of the bloggers and commentators would know about it. Neither will it work to say that we must wait for a Church declaration to consider them heretics, because the pundits in question have not waited for such a judgment before correctly labeling the culprits “heretics”; and besides, per Pius XII’s teaching, which says nothing of a declaration, the mere fact that one externally professes a different Faith suffices to lose membership in the Church, even regardless of personal culpability. In 1208, Pope Innocent III, writing to the Archbishop of Terraco, declared: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved” (Apostolic Letter Fitts Exemplo; Denz. 423).

And so we find that the Neo-Traditionalists are in fact embracing the same heresy as Francis, that membership in the Church is not severed by the public profession of heresy — and this is the consequence of their stubborn refusal to accept Sedevacantism. 

Oh, the irony in it all! The Semi-Trads want to combat heresy with more (or even the same) heresy; they want to be traditional by adhering to non-traditional ideas. Oh, what a contorted picture of Catholic doctrine and dogma the non-sedevacantists have painted, and all because, for one reason or another, they do not wish to say that Francis and his five predecessors have been antipopes!

We will end this post by encouraging you to view, perhaps not for the first time, this interesting conference given by Bp. Donald Sanborn on the Modernist ecclesiology of the Vatican II Church:

This conference was given by Bp. Sanborn in 2004, following the fiery debate His Excellency had with Dr. Robert Fastiggi, a theologian of the Novus Ordo Sect, on the same topic. You can view this debate here.

The vacancy of the Apostolic See is staring us all in the face. Closing our eyes and pretending it weren’t so, will not change that.

Related Links:

Looking for More? We only keep the 10 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.