New Radio Show — Listen Free

II: The Four Marks of the New Church


Isn’t it time you too headed for the exit?


Restoration Radio’s new show “Escape from the Novus Ordo” returns with Fr. Michael Oswalt, a former Novus Ordo “priest” of the diocese of Rockford, Illinois, who converted to traditional Catholicism (sedevacantism) and was ordained a true priest in 2011. He has penned an open letter to his former diocese of Rockford, Illinois, in which he explains why he left the Novus Ordo religion. The letter is available in English and Spanish:

Born in 1972, no one is a better fit than Fr. Oswalt to help you see the errors of the Vatican II Church (aka Novus Ordo Sect) and advise you on how to exit this false establishment and become a real Catholic, that is, someone who is Catholic in the same way everyone was Catholic until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 (just before the Second Vatican Council). Fr. Oswalt currently serves as the pastor of St. Benedict Catholic Church in Huntsville, Alabama. 

Novus Ordo Watch is pleased to be the sponsor for Escape from the Novus Ordo throughout this year, which means you will be able to listen to all episodes of this program in 2015 free of charge, without having to have a subscription to Restoration Radio.

Listen on Demand at any time, FREE:

In page that appears, scroll down to where it says “Podcast Player”
and click to play or download to your computer.

Show Description:

When the Novus Ordo Sect, the religion of Vatican II, prays in the Credo: “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”, do they intend the same meaning as when a Catholic prays, “I believe in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church?” Can truth change? Have you recently awoken to the reality that the Vatican II Church cannot be the Catholic Church? How do you now, armed with the knowledge of Roman Catholicism, escape the imposter religion?

This month on Escape from the Novus Ordo, Father Michael Oswalt leads us through a series of contrasts between the Novus Ordo Sect and the Roman Catholic Church. We discuss where to begin your research and examine the four marks of the Novus Ordo Sect compared to the Four Marks of the true Church: the Roman Catholic Church.

As Novus Ordo Watch is sponsoring the entire first season of Escape from the Novus Ordo, we are no longer sponsoring the ongoing Francis Watch broadcasts.

Other select Radio Broadcasts and Related Links:

“This Church deserves this Pope…”

Alessandro Gnocchi:


“Bergoglio is Destroying the Catholic Church… He is Not Catholic”

The following recent story seems to have fallen through the cracks of the usual English-speaking Novus Ordo and “traditionalist” blogs and web sites, so we’re happy to provide it here.

Italian author Alessandro Gnocchi (b. 1959) writes a weekly column called Fuori Moda (“Old-Fashioned”) for the Riscossa Cristiana web site, in which he answers questions people send him. In the February 4, 2015 installment, Gnocchi responds to a lady named Lisetta, who asks, with all the evidence he has provided about “Pope” Francis’ denial of Catholic truths, would it not be easier to “say what [Antonio] Socci says” about Francis, namely, that Jorge Bergoglio is not in fact a valid Pope (see here)?

The following is Gnocchi’s explosive reply (red font added by us for emphasis):

Dearest Lisetta,

It’s true that, as you suggest, “it would be easier to say what Socci says of Bergoglio”. But it would be wrong in terms of the content and in terms of the method. I will try to explain it to you in a way that you might find schematic but, I hope, clear.

1. It is a fact and not an opinion that [Jorge] Bergoglio is destroying the Catholic Church — and I emphasize “Catholic” — with even admirable energy. But I do not agree with those who say that this is done in the name of an undeclared Third Vatican Council and, therefore, that the remedy would be the correct application of the Second Vatican Council. The disasters that led the Church to the edge of the cliff and many Catholics to lose their faith, come precisely from the correct application of the Second Vatican Council: not from its spirit, but from its words.

2. I have said this many times and I will not tire of repeating it: This Church deserves this Pope. Or better still, this Pope is the perfect expression of this Church, which is less and less Catholic, time after time. If tomorrow Benedict XVI would come back to the Chair of Peter, nothing would change, and the process of self-destruction would continue without interruptions, as it happened during the pontificate of [Joseph] Ratzinger and his conciliar and post-conciliar predecessors. It is evident that the virus was injected a long time ago, although it did not show up in magisterial documents until Vatican II.

3. I consider it a useless waste of intellectual energies to put together complex and even striking arguments about Bergoglio not being the Pope, so as to be able to criticize him. A Catholic can denounce, even fiercely, all the errors that are committed in matters of Faith by a Pope, although knowing that he is the Pope. In addition: If such a Catholic has the ability and the prestige to do so and he does not, he commits a grave wrong before God and the people.

4. I consider a bit ridiculous, and very pathetic, the thought process of those who deny the facts because they are then obliged to change their theory. Often you can hear someone to argue in this way: “We cannot say that this statement or this behavior of the Pope are wrong because then we should say that he is not infallible”. And they conjure up all sorts of mysterious interventions, summoning the name of the Holy Ghost, in vain. But an error is an error, whoever commits it. And, in fact, if this error is committed by the Pope, it means that even he himself, except under certain exceptional conditions, is not infallible.

5. I do not have the ability, the competence, or the role to say whether Bergoglio is Pope or not. I am not able to judge if the reconstruction of the procedures of the last conclave should make his election null. I take note that nobody taking part in the conclave ever affirmed this thesis [of Socci], at least openly. When they do, I will be happy to take their opinion into account. At the same time, the opinion of a layman like me, and I am a layman in theology and canon law regarding this topic, I value as close to zero.

6. Having said this, the fact that I don’t think I can say that Bergoglio is not the Pope is not a matter of being afraid to take the last step in my reasoning. I am not able to say if Bergoglio is not the Pope: But I am able to say, and I do say, that he is not Catholic, in almost all his declarations and acts. This is the last step in my reasoning and I think it is harder and more painful than the step of the ones who say that Bergoglio is not the Pope. I believe that you can acknowledge that; if I were to realize that a further step is needed, I would take it.

7. I do not know why our Lord permits this agony, I do not know why He allows the visible guide of the Church to act in a conscious way to destroy it. I do not pretend to know the reason for all this, but I am humble enough to accept the facts, because everything that God allows, even evil, is always in view of a good, perhaps one that we cannot even imagine. For sure, a desolation like this is not a reward. We have to pay for our personal sins. But I think that we are paying also for the sins of those who came before us, particularly the sins of the pastors who, at the time, had the obligation to defend the flock of sheep from the wolves, opposing the drift, but didn’t do so. With ten — I do not say a hundred — only ten Mgr. [Marcel] Lefebvres, instead of only one, probably today we would not be in a such a pitiful condition.

8. When I say that I am humble enough to accept the facts, I do not mean that one should not oppose evil, injustice and the betrayal of the faith. I only say that we must fight for what is good, for truth, and for the salvation of our souls, and for the glory of God, without cooking up excuses that cannot withstand the test of facts. Otherwise we would be defeated from the very beginning.

Alessandro Gnocchi.

(“Fuori Moda: La posta di Alessandro Gnocchi – rubrica settimanale”, Riscossa Cristiana, Feb. 4, 2015; our translation.)

A lot could be said about what Dr. Gnocchi has written here, which is seriously flawed in some ways, but this post is not intended to be a response to or a critical analysis of his position. Instead, here we would merely like to draw readers’ attention to the fact that another well-known personality in Italy — formerly a contributor to Radio Maria until he was fired for criticizing Francis — has come out and stated bluntly that Jorge Bergoglio is simply not a Catholic and that he is in fact destroying the Catholic Church. 

Gnocchi does not even rule out the possibility that Francis is an impostor, a mere papal pretender, though he seems to think that such a thing would be a matter of conclave rules having been violated rather than be the necessary consequence of the fact that the Argentine blabbermouth is “not Catholic” (Gnocchi’s words). Still, this is a lot more for him to admit than a great number of other “traditionalists” are willing to concede, who think nothing of refusing the religion taught by their “Pope” but yet seem to go into cardiac arrest over the very idea that maybe a man who does not profess the true religion cannot be the head of the true religion.

For quite a while now we’ve been predicting a schism within the Novus Ordo Sect over Francis — a genuine rift that may become formally visible as early as October’s Part 2 of the Synod on the Family. It remains to be seen, though recent statements by some Novus Ordo authorities lend further credibility to this thesis.

One thing, however, seems certain: The battle lines are being drawn ever more clearly, and there is no doubt that the worst of this is still to come.

Image Source:

Related Links / Reality Checks:

Put on your Surprise Face...


Bergoglio’s Sister Reveals:
As a young Cleric, Francis taught his Godson Swear Words

Maria Elena Bergoglio is the only still-living sister of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the man in the Vatican who goes by the pseudonym “Pope Francis.” In an interview shortly after the conclave of 2013, Maria Elena told the following story, captured by the Austrian public broadcasting organization ORF, which we have translated for you:

“When he was already wearing a collar” and much to her displeasure, the man who is Pope today taught swear words to his nephew, whose name was likewise Jorge and who was also his godson, according to Maria Elena Bergoglio. This led to an embarrassing situation when her brother began to preach “at an important Mass” with lots of priests, and her son, being surprised at seeing his uncle [at the pulpit], disturbed the calm by yelling out “a very bad word” — audible to all. “After Mass, Jorge came to us and could not stop laughing”, according to his sister. In addition, her brother dipped her child’s pacifier into whiskey. Her brother got the sanguine temperament and the joke-telling from his father, so [Maria Elena] Bergoglio.

(“Kindheitserinnerungen von Papst Franziskus” [“Childhood Memories of Pope Francis”],, Mar. 19, 2013; our translation.)

As the mother of the nephew in question, Maria Bergoglio would know what she is talking about. The fact that Jorge Bergoglio “was already wearing a collar” and was allowed to preach indicates that he was a cleric at the time, though it remains unknown whether he was a “priest” or merely a “deacon” then.

This story really speaks for itself. In the case of Jorge Bergoglio, we have a man who has no Faith, no love for the truth, no love of God, and no respect for the sacred. His “ministry” is centered on man, not God — everything is “encounter”, favelas, and soup kitchens. He wants to feed the body while starving the soul.

Francis is the man who, even as a “cardinal”, thought nothing of publicly cracking a joke about the Crucifixion of our dear Lord, and who as a young “priest” broke off and stole the Rosary cross from the dead body of his late confessor:

Image Source: Internet photo

See Also:

12 Pages of Claptrap...

Francis the Destroyer:
An Anthology of the Bergoglian “Magisterium”

by Miles Christi


If you can stomach it: A writer using the pen name of Miles Christi (“Soldier of Christ”) has compiled 12 pages of quotations from “Pope” Francis since his election on March 13, 2013, demonstrating how the man is not a Roman Catholic and therefore cannot be the head of the Catholic Church, since “he cannot be head of what he is not a member” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice II, c. 30).

This anthology is being made available in several languages. Click to download in the language of your choice (all files in PDF format):

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!

Note: Miles Christi is an independent writer and not to be confused with the Novus Ordo clerical group Miles Christi, which submits to the “pontificate” of Jorge Bergoglio.

See Also:

Caution: Bergoglio gives Liturgical Advice...

How (Not) to Celebrate “Mass”:
Francis in “Wonder”-Land


And now, another post from our “You can’t make this stuff up” department:

On February 19, 2015, “Pope” Francis hosted a two-hour meeting with the clergy of Rome, during which he advised them, among other things, on how to properly celebrate “Mass” (i.e. the 1969 Modernist worship service known as the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI). As you can probably imagine, he tried to steer a middle course — so as to look “moderate” — between “rigid” and “sloppy”:

The Pope combined two subjects in his introduction: homiletics (“Homilies are a challenge for all priests”) and the ars celebrandi, that is the art of celebrating, which aims to “restore the fascinating beauty” and “the awe one feels when one encounters God”. “An attractive feeling that leads you to contemplate”. In this sense, “to celebrate is to enter into the mystery and to let other enter into it: it’s as simple as that”. The Pope then compared prayer to celebration: “When we meet the Lord in prayer, we feel this awe. When we pray formally or with formalisms, we do not.” Similarly, the ars celebrandi involves “praying before God with the community, but as you would normally pray.” On the contrary, “when priests celebrate in a sophisticated, artificial way and abuse gestures, it is not easy to inspire awe.” So “if I am too rigid, I don’t let others enter the mystery” and “if I am a showman, the protagonist in the celebration, I don’t let others enter into the mystery.”…

(“Pope meets Rome’s priests: Homilies are not for show, Vatican Insider, Feb. 20, 2015)

That’s it: If you celebrate in a manner that is “sophisticated” and has rigid “gestures”, then you cannot really “inspire awe”. Really now? Let’s take a look. The image below shows the traditional Catholic Mass of the ages: plenty of rigid and sophisticated rubrics.


(Yes, this is technically an invalid indult “Mass” of the Vatican II Sect, but this is irrelevant to the point being made here about the externals — they certainly inspire awe)

Nothing there to inspire awe, huh? 

But it gets better. Catholic World News reported on Francis’ meeting with Roman clergy as follows:

Pope Francis concentrated on the need for reverence in the sacred liturgy, as he met on February 19 with priests of the Rome diocese.

After being introduced by Cardinal Agostino Vallini, the vicar for the Rome diocese, the Pope spoke to the priests about the need for reverence. He then answered questions from the clerics in attendance.

“I was very impressed first of all by a reference he made to the need to recover the sense of wonder in the liturgy,” one Roman priest told Vatican Radio after the meeting. “I was struck by the idea that he emphasized: how the priest who celebrates the Liturgy in an automated way, attentive only to the rules, is not capable of wonder - but neither is the priest who celebrates in a sloppy manner.”...

(“Pope emphasizes need for reverence in liturgy, at meeting with priests of Rome”, Catholic Culture, Feb. 20, 2015)

Ah yes, the usual crocodile tears about irreverent liturgies! John Paul II cried them, Benedict XVI cried them, and now Francis cries them too. He wants more “awe” in the liturgy, he wants a sense of “wonder” to be recovered. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

It’s time for a little reality check: Let’s look at how “Cardinal” Bergoglio liked to celebrate “Mass” in Buenos Aires. The following video clips are excerpts from the annual diocesan “Children’s Masses” in 2010, 2011, and 2012, just before he was elected the successor to Benedict XVI:

Mr. Bergoglio definitely didn’t celebrate in a “sophisticated” manner here, nor did he use “artificial” or “rigid” gestures. But — especially compared to the traditional Catholic Mass — did his celebration inspire “awe”? Did it allow those present to enter into the mystery of Calvary? Which of the two types of liturgical celebration reduces the celebrant to a “showman”? Sorry, but in light of the facts, Francis’ call for more reverence in the liturgy is a tad unconvincing. 

Speaking of reverence, here is a video of how “Cardinal” Bergoglio distributed “Holy Communion” in Buenos Aires at an outdoor liturgy:

(distribution of “Communion” begins at 8:00 min mark)

Of course, we all remember the recent “Communion” chaos at Francis’ “Mega Mass” in Manila, Philippines, in January.

Another item from Francis’ message to his Roman presbyters we would like to draw attention to is something he said concerning sermons, or homilies:

One priest asked the Pope why he once described the homily as an “act of justice”, to which Francis replied quoting St. Paul. He explained that the homily justifies us, or rather makes us just, righteous people because it is the moment when the grace of God enters us, His Word enters us. Francis highlighted that during the celebration, it is the Lord celebrating within us, he is “the people’s altar”.

(“Pope meets Rome’s priests: Homilies are not for show, Vatican Insider, Feb. 20, 2015)

This is quite interesting — the sermon has apparently now become a sacrament for Francis, one that gives sanctifying grace, ex opere operato. That must be the eighth sacrament, then (or perhaps the ninth, since Vatican II already spoke of the Church as a sacrament), which, unfortunately for the Argentine impostor, is an impossibility in the Catholic Church: “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven… let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon I). We’ll leave the asinine remarks about “the people’s altar” uncommented.

By the way, there is a reason why the Catholic Church has rigid rules when it comes to the Sacred Liturgy: It is precisely so that each priest’s own person, own personality, may vanish behind the person of Christ, whom he represents at Holy Mass and in other liturgical functions: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn 3:30). The priest’s own personality is to lose itself completely in the rubrics so as not to draw anyone’s attention to him but only to our Lord Jesus Christ in whose person he is acting. Holy Mother Church, with her beautiful and venerable tradition of liturgical rubrics, knows exactly how best to represent Christ as the celebrant. This common-sense concept has been entirely destroyed, of course, in the “New Mass” of Paul VI, a rite so banal and insipid that it practically beckons each celebrant to become an entertainer and “fill out” the liturgy — which is exactly what has happened.

Notice also how Francis keeps emphasizing the subjective feeling and experience of each individual, as though these things were the focal points of the liturgy. In truth, of course, the Sacred Liturgy is first and foremost the solemn act of worship of the Most Holy Trinity. How each and every person in attendance “feels” about it really does not enter into the picture at all.

In lieu of Francis’ Modernistic drivel about liturgical “experience” and quasi-sacramental sermons, we recommend Pope Pius XII’s beautiful encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, Mediator Dei, in which the Pope speaks of the “majestic ceremonies of the sacrifice of the altar” (n. 5), a phrase one could not convincingly apply to Bergoglio’s children’s mess in the videos above. In fact, in his encyclical letter on the Sacred Liturgy, Pius XII condemns precisely so many ideas that were later imposed in the “New Mass” of Paul VI in 1969, such as reducing the altar to a table, suppressing private devotions on the part of those attending, eliminating black vestments, and using crosses that do not show a crucified, but rather a resurrected Christ:

By the way, during his meeting with his Roman clergy, Francis also dished out a few insults against traditionalists, which the indult Rorate Caeli blog points out here.

As we can easily see, Francis giving advice on how to offer Mass is a lot like Michael Moore giving advice on how to lose weight — it’s just not convincing.

See Also:

Send in the lawyers...

Blog-of-War: Vatican Spokesman threatens to sue Canadian Blogger


“Fr.” Thomas Rosica, right, seen here with his boss, Mr. Jorge Bergoglio
Image source:

The ‘new media’ of blogs, Twitter, and internet forums is quite powerful. So powerful, in fact, that the Modernist heretic “Fr.” Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman (second only to “Fr.” Federico Lombardi) and CEO of Salt + Light TV, has now threatened to sue the Canadian Novus Ordo blogger Mr. David Domet, editor of the Vox Cantoris blog. For what? Essentially, for exposing the man’s undermining of Catholicism, even by Novus Ordo standards.

While we do not mean to endorse or give credibility to Mr. Michael Voris of the so-called ChurchMilitant.TV Detroit-warehouse operation, Mr. Voris has produced two succinct videos on this matter that are indeed worth watching for a summary of what’s going on:

Mr. Rosica is one of the worst and most dangerous enemies of the traditional Catholic Faith hiding behind a Roman collar. His position as a spokesman and translator for the Vatican gives him plenty of clout, and apparently he’s trying to use it against those who are exposing his treachery, even those in his own church.

Here are some links that give detailed information about what’s happened and what’s going on now, as well as some background on Rosica’s anti-Catholic Modernism:

Rosica has long blocked @NovusOrdoWatch on Twitter, but we remember quite well the following tweet he sent out on October 19, 2014, at the end of the Vatican’s infamous “Synod on the Family”. Keep in mind that the adjective “irregular” had been used to describe illicit sexual unions of people not married to each other in the Synod’s notorious midterm report (par. 17-20):


Further comment is hardly needed on this point. To use the extraordinary and unique nature of the Holy Family as an “argument” to justify adultery and fornication — perhaps even the unnatural kind of union — is a blasphemy beyond disgusting and perhaps even a new low for the Modernists.

During the “lame duck” days of Benedict XVI’s false pontificate, Tom Rosica appeared on Canadian television for an interview and used the heretical term “first among equals” (primus inter pares) to describe the nature of the papal primacy. You can watch the interview at this link (the sentence in question starts at the 7:28 mark). Even though it must be mentioned that Rosica in this case was only repeating Ratzinger doctrine, as Joseph Ratzinger (“Pope” Benedict XVI) himself explicitly denies the dogma of Papal Primacy in his 1982 book Principles of Catholic Theology and instead suggests a mere “primacy of honor” on the part of the successor of St. Peter.

You might ask why we care about this. A Novus Ordo presbyter threatens to sue a Novus Ordo blogger — what does this have to do with us? Lots, ladies and gentlemen, lots. Mr. Rosica’s attack on Mr. Domet is an attack on all who threaten to expose the Modernists. This is how this must be viewed, and so we do not shy away from expressing our sympathy and our closeness to Mr. Domet. People like Rosica do not distinguish conservative Novus Ordos from semi-traditionalists from sedevacantists when it comes to being exposed like this. All of them, in one way or another, pose a threat to him and his ilk. It is time that charlatans like him had their mask torn off.

Rosica may be a lot of things, but a Roman Catholic he is not.

Fear Francis more than ISIS...

It’s Heresy:
Francis’ “Ecumenism of Blood”


Bergoglio’s heresies are a direct attack on the Body of Christ

This post is not going to make us a lot of friends, but we’ll publish it anyway, since our desire is to serve and please God, not man (cf. Gal 1:10).

We have all heard about the horrific murders of men, women, and children by the ISIS terrorists. The barbarism of these people is beyond comprehension — they are clearly tools of the devil. In response to the most recent video that shows the beheading of 21 Egyptian men for professing belief in Christ, “His Holiness” Francis made a statement on February 16, 2015. As it is very brief, we reproduce the entire news clip from Vatican Radio below:

Pope Francis on Monday denounced the murder of 21 Coptic Christians by ISIL militants in Libya. The Islamist terrorist organization released a video of the killings on Sunday. 

Speaking in Spanish to an ecumenical delegation from the Church of Scotland, the Holy Father noted those killed only said “Jesus help me.”

“They were killed simply for the fact they were Christians,” Pope Francis said.

“The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard,” said the Pope.  It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians! Their blood is one and the same. Their blood confesses Christ.''

Pope Francis said that in remembering these brothers and sisters who have been murdered simply for confessing Christ, Christians should encourage one another in the ecumenical goal, noting the “ecumenism of blood.”

“The martyrs belong to all Christians,” he said.

(“Pope Francis: The blood of murdered Copts a ‘witness that cries out’, Vatican Radio, Feb. 16, 2015)

“Pope” Francis has promoted his idea of an “ecumenism of blood” before, but it is absolutely clear and unmistakable heresy — in direct contradiction to an infallible dogma proclaimed by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century:

[This council] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

(Council of Florence, Decree Cantate DominoDenz. 714; underlining added.)

This absolutely, definitively, and infallibly excludes any possibility of an “ecumenism of blood.” No one dying for the name of Jesus Christ can attain to eternal life unless he is joined to the Catholic Church, either as a formal member, or, if invincible ignorance should prevent his becoming a member, through the genuine virtues of Faith, hope, and charity, the latter of which, to be true charity, must animate the 
sincere desire to enter the Catholic Church, even if this desire be only implicit. 

As the great anti-Modernist Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton explains:

…the forgiveness of sin and the infusion of the life of grace is available by the power of Christ only “within” His kingdom, His Mystical Body, which, in this period of the New Testament [i.e., as opposed to the time of the Old Covenant —NOW], is the visible Catholic Church.

…Now, while it is possible to have a desire to be within the Church, and, indeed even to be a member of the Church, without having the love of charity for God, it is quite impossible to have charity without being within the true Church, at least by an implicit desire to dwell in it. The love of charity is, by its very nature, a sovereign affection.

…The love of charity is essentially something in the line of intention rather than of mere velleity. The man who loves God with the true affection of charity actually intends, insofar as it is possible for him to do so, to do the will of God. It is definitely the will of God that all men should enter and live within the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. It is impossible for a man who really loves God with the affection of divine charity not to be within the Church as a member or at least to desire with a sincere and effective, even though perhaps only an implicit, intention to enter this company.

Hence, if a man is not “within” the Church at least by a sincere desire or affection, he has not the genuine love of charity for God.

(Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation [Westminster: The Newman Press, 1958], pp. 38-40.)

This scenario, under which someone who objectively professes heresy but is subjectively not guilty of the sin of heresy and instead possesses the love of charity and genuinely seeks to believe all that God has revealed, is killed for professing Christ, is known as the Baptism of Blood. (The term ‘baptism’ here is to be understood loosely, as it merely produces the grace of regeneration, not the sacramental character [indelible mark], and many who profess heresy but are not subjectively guilty of the sin of heresy already received a valid sacramental baptism in their own church. Cf. Pietro Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, s.v. “Baptism”.)

It is possible, therefore, that those poor ISIS victims were indeed saved. However, the Baptism of Blood is infinitely far removed from the heretical notion of an “ecumenism of blood” pushed by Francis, which holds that Catholics and heretics are spiritually and/or theologically united by being killed for professing allegiance to Christ. If this were so, then it would mean that the motive of the killer can cause religious unity between Catholics and Protestants, two religions that are exclusive of each other because their claims are mutually exclusive and per se irreconcilable. It would also mean that the Body of Christ has not “one Faith” (Eph 4:5) but several different faiths which contradict one another. The unity of the Church would be destroyed; but: “I believe in … one holy Catholic and apostolic Church” (Nicene Creed).

Furthermore, whereas in a baptism of blood the martyr dies within the Catholic Church of our Lord and any adherence to heresy which may exist would be entirely accidental and not intended (i.e. not pertinacious), in Francis’ proposed “ecumenism of blood” anyone who professes allegiance to Christ is per se considered united to the Church, regardless of any attachment to heresy or a false religion. This is clearly condemned by the decree of the Council of Florence, quoted above. 

To put it succinctly: In the baptism of blood, being united to the Catholic Church is a necessary precondition for one's martyrdom to lead to salvation; whereas in the ecumenism of blood, unity with the Catholic Church is, at best, the inevitable consequence of the martyrdom. This would then make any and all martyrs ipso facto into Catholics, and one might as well include Muslims then, too, for there is no theologically satisfactory reason why if a Protestant who dies for his faith goes to Heaven, this couldn’t also be affirmed of a Muslim dying for his religion. The inevitable result of this is indifferentism, the idea that it ultimately doesn’t matter what religion you profess. Indifferentism was sternly condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (1864).

And thus we see that an “Ecumenism of Blood” is an absurdity, simply the latest in Modernist-indifferentist hogwash dressed up as Catholic theology and foisted upon an unsuspecting populace by the enemies of the true Catholic Faith. Beware of the Modernists, who cleverly seek to eliminate all distinction between true religion and false religion (cf. 2 Cor 6:14; Gal 1:8-9), when for 2,000 years Catholics went to the most cruel deaths rather than admit even the slightest alteration to the true doctrine. In the 1500s, the Catholic Church was willing to see the entire nation of England defect into schism and heresy, and people like St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More to be martyred, rather than so much as grant a fake marriage annulment or compromise on her doctrine by one iota. How things have changed!

Some more words of clarification are in order. 

We understand that in the face of these horrific acts perpetrated by ISIS, many people think theological disputes between Catholics and Protestants are mere trifles by comparison and so view Francis’ “ecumenism of blood” as a great and charitable approach to bring Catholics and Protestants together in the face of such a terrifying threat. The truth, however, is very different.

Our Blessed Lord counseled us to fear not him who can kill the body, but him who can kill the soul: “And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him” (Lk 12:4-5). These are the very words of God Himself — truer ones have never been spoken. “But God is true; and every man a liar…” (Rom 3:4). 

The atrocities committed by ISIS are indeed cruel, but heresy is an infinitely greater danger, because heresy attacks and destroys the soul: “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 Jn 1:9). Pope Clement XIII taught likewise: “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” (Clement XIII, Encyclical In Dominico Agro, n. 2).

What this means in practice is that Francis is to be feared much more than ISIS. Islamist terrorists can harm the body but the body alone — Francis, as a Modernist apostate, papal impostor, and spiritual terrorist, has power to send souls to an eternity of hellfire, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished” (Mk 9:43). The jihadi terrorist presents himself clearly as a threat to your bodily well-being, and once he has killed you, his terror is forever over. But the Modernist “Pope” presents himself as an “angel of light” (cf. 2 Cor 11:14), as a kind and benevolent spiritual guide, poisoning your soul gradually so you won’t notice. He is therefore the much greater danger and thus much more to be feared. “[T]he moderate [Modernist] is the real Satanic type; his is the masked evil” (Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Ch. 16).

Francis’ use of the slaughter of Egyptian Copts to promote his heresy of an ecumenism of blood is shameful and diabolical. Francis’ message here is ultimately that Christ’s Truth does not matter, that the Church consists of many different faiths, that heresy is no obstacle to salvation, and that in the end, none of this “doctrinal stuff” is of any significance. Apparently, Saints Thomas More and John Fisher were just idiots for going to their deaths over such “squabbles.” Francis is essentially spitting Christ in His holy Face, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6) and who must be worshipped “in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:23). Gone is the “one Faith” proclaimed by St. Paul (Eph 4:5).

“Pope” Francis leads souls astray in the most devious and clever manner possible: with words that sound comforting and sweet but which in reality are but a cloak for the most destructive poison (see another example here).

Even if you, dear reader, are not in agreement with us on this point and believe that Francis’ Ecumenism of Blood is a great and noble concept, please recognize at least one thing: that what Francis preaches is contradicted by the teaching of the Council of Florence, as we showed above. And yet, the Cathoilc Church teaches that the dogmas of her Faith cannot change, cannot “develop” under the pretext of a “deeper understanding”:

…[T]hat understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding…. “Therefore . . . let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.”

(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 4; Denz. 1800)

The religion promoted by Francis is not the Catholic religion of old. The man is not a Catholic, and he therefore cannot be the head of the Catholic Church. 

Fear him, for he leads souls to hell.

Image source: Scene from The Passion of the Christ, modified


Si Si, No No...


Twelve Inconvenient Questions
for the Society of Saint Pius X

We challenge the clergy and/or lay faithful of the Society of St. Pius X to answer the following questions. All questions ought to be answered, insofar as applicable, with proof from authoritative Catholic magisterial sources, such as papal encyclicals, decrees of ecumenical councils, or approved catechisms and theological manuals, before the death of Pope Pius XII (1958). Novel concepts, such as “partial communion” or “Eternal Rome vs. Today’s Rome”, are not acceptable, as they have no foundation in Catholic teaching. In addition, anyone answering these questions ought not to seek refuge in vague formulations or ambiguous expressions: “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil
” (Mt 5:37). Please answer clearly, directly, straightforwardly.

  1. Are you, or are you not, in communion with “Pope” Francis and his religion?
  2. Do you agree that, in the final analysis, it is for the Pope and the Pope alone to say who is and isn’t in communion with him?
  3. Do you agree, as the First Vatican Council teaches, that “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated” (Denz. 1833)?
  4. Do you agree, as the First Vatican Council teaches, that Francis, who you insist is the Pope of the Catholic Church, “is the supreme judge of the faithful,” of whom you consider yourselves a part, “and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed [not even by the SSPX], is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone [including the SSPX] permitted to pass judgment on its judgment” (Denz. 1830)?
  5. Do you submit to Francis in the same manner as you would have submitted to Pope St. Pius X had you lived during his reign?
  6. Who has the final say on what is orthodox doctrine — Rome or Menzingen? If Rome doesn’t have the final say in our day, why did it have the final say in 1910, and when did it switch from “final say all the time” to “final say sometimes, depending on what they decide, as judged by Menzingen”, and who decided that?
  7. In his encyclical Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII teaches: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held” (n. 13; quoting St. Augustine). Do you believe and teach “the faith of Rome”?
  8. Do you believe that the Catholic Church, Bride of Christ, “regards with sincere reverence those [Pagan] ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men” (Vatican II, Declaration Nostra Aetate, n. 2)? Do you believe that “Pope” Paul VI, “by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve[d], decree[d] and establish[ed] these things” and, furthermore, that Paul VI, by his supposed apostolic authority, ordered these things “to be promulgated unto the glory of God”, as the conciliar document says at the very end (see here Latin original)?
  9. Suppose for a minute that Paul VI was not a valid Pope, as we Sedevacantists argue. Would you then agree that all of the sacramental rites he promulgated in which the essential matter or form were changed, could be invalid?
  10. If you answered “yes” to the previous question, do you agree then that Sedevacantism is the safer course to take, just in case it should turn out that Paul VI was indeed not a valid Pope?
  11. If there should be a dispute among SSPX clerics on how to answer any of these questions, why is that, and who gets to decide which set of answers is the “real” Catholic position?
  12. If you dislike any of these questions, why is that?

For an organization that considers itself to be one of the last bastions of Catholic orthodoxy, these questions ought not to cause offense, nor confusion, nor consternation.

Image source:

See Also:

More calls for “Resistance”...

First Burke, then Lenga, now Schneider:
The Schism Begins


Things are getting wild, folks. While a formal, full-blown schism may still be a couple of years away, we believe that recent events indicate we are seeing an intra-Novus-Ordo schism in its infancy.

In October 2014, just before the dramatic “Synod on the Family” began, we explained at length what we saw as the foundation for believing that there is a major rift coming between Bergoglio-Modernists on the one hand and Ratzinger/Wojtyla-Modernists on the other:

Just in the past week, three further developments have taken place, involving two Novus Ordo bishops and one cardinal, that underscore the reality of the rift that is beginning to take shape: On February 8, a French television program aired an interview with “Cardinal” Raymond Burke, widely seen as Francis’ highest-ranking and most outspoken antagonist, in which the layman-dressed-as-cardinal made clear that he would “resist” any attempts by Francis to permit those living in public sin to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments.

Less than two days later, the semi-traditionalist Rorate Caeli blog published an exclusive English translation of a public letter penned by the retired “Archbishop” of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, Jan Pawel Lenga, on January 1 of this year, in which he bluntly criticizes the obvious Modernism issuing forth from the current Vatican administration, slams the appointment of bad bishops, bemoans the worldliness of the clergy and the pandering to the media, warns against subverting the doctrine of Christ, and mentions Freemasonic infiltration. He even hints at the invalidity of Benedict XVI’s resignation by pointing out it may have been obtained by coercion: “It is difficult to believe that Pope Benedict XVI freely renounced his ministry as successor of Peter” (source).

But not enough. On February 11, “Bp.” Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary in the “Archdiocese” of Mary Most Holy in Astana, Kazakhstan, went one step further, calling for the creation of “groups of true Catholics” to resist heresy, impiety, and any further anti-Christian societal changes. In an exclusive for the semi-traditionalist One Peter Five blog, Mr. Schneider counseled: 

We must create groups of true Catholics, scholars, families, and clergy who will spread courageously the full Catholic truth, especially on the Church’s teachings on the family, on nature, and the commandments of God.


We should also create a movement of Catholic families, of “domestic churches”, to witness, defend and spread the integral faith and the teaching on family, marriage, and the order of nature.

We must, at this dangerous time, be courageous in illuminating the truly Gnostic and revolutionary character of the “Kasper agenda,” demonstrating the continuity of the Divine doctrine on marriage and its practice throughout the two thousand years of the history of our Church….

To address the errors currently being spread, true Catholic husbands, families and single persons must write to the pope, to the their bishops, and to the competent dicasteries of the Roman Curia, notifying them of heretical, semi-heretical, or Gnostic pronouncements of ecclesiastical persons or events with such an agenda which are being promoted though [sic] ecclesiastical persons or groups.

(Athanasius Schneider, quoted in “Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Battling the New Gnosticism, One Peter Five, Feb. 11, 2015; underlining added.)

It is as amusing as it is telling that the Novus Ordo Sect is in such bad shape now that an American blogger has to reach out to an auxiliary bishop in Kazakhstan (!) to get halfway decent direction on what people trying to be Catholics are to do as Francis fiddles while his Modernist church burns. Assuming for the sake of argument for a minute that Schneider were actually a bishop of the Catholic Church and Francis a true Pope, one can say that indeed this auxiliary has just given more useful and spiritually sound advice in a few paragraphs than his blathering Pope has in two years, who drowns the world in sterile platitudes and endless verbal trash full of taunting epithets, totally devoid of any genuine Catholic spirituality or doctrine, to the applause of the world.

Although it is true that Mr. Schneider isn’t calling for a schism or any sort of opposition to “Pope” Francis, nevertheless what he proposes here will, in our opinion, buttress, expand, and accelerate the already-existing rift between Bergoglio’s supporters and his opponents. One Roman blogger, in fact, understands Schneider’s comments as expressing the need to “begin immediately the work of resisting the false church which is arising” (source). Of course, the false (Novus Ordo) church truly arose as far back as in 1958 after the conclave that supposedly elected Angelo Roncalli as “Pope” John XXIII, but it is still significant that even Novus Ordos are beginning to see a “false church” arising, even if they’re still confused about the nature, presence, and extent of it.

Upon some reflection, one may legitimately conclude that “Bishop” Schneider’s very idea of having to establish “groups of true Catholics” suggests that there are plenty of people in the Novus Ordo Church that the Kazakh auxiliary would agree are not in fact true Catholics, and we know that those are going to be, and have been, Francis’ loudest defenders. Besides, though Schneider is telling people to “write to the pope” and the hierarchs of the official Novus Ordo apparatus to make known any Modernist, Gnostic or other errors they see being spread by other “Catholics”, this cannot really be taken as much more than mere lipservice to the powers that be, since Schneider knows — or ought to know — that it is those very people that are the biggest problem, themselves purveyors and disseminators of the most noxious and dangerous heresies and other errors, exercising incredibly powerful influence over souls.

As an example, what Schneider oddly fails to mention, and what runs directly contrary to his advice, is the fact that what he rightly denounces as Kasper’s “Gnostic and revolutionary” agenda is being spread with Francis’ knowledge and approval — so to now act as though the solution were to “write to the Pope” is a glaring absurdity of colossal proportions. “Write to the Pope” hasn’t worked since the 1970s, and it’s not going to work this time around either, partly because the “Pope” isn’t in fact the Pope, but that’s another matter. Schneider’s advice, though no doubt well-intentioned, is silly because obviously Francis isn’t the solution but part of the problem.

But more than wrongheaded, Schneider’s idea is dangerous because it reinforces in people’s minds the idea that Jorge Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ, the Pope of the Catholic Church — a mistaken belief which is ultimately at the source of the current madness, and it would be absurd to attempt to fight madness with more madness. We will never defeat this monstrous apostate church until we finally start exposing these charlatans for what they are: heretics and apostates, non-Catholics, people who hold no valid office in the Catholic Church and have no power whatsoever over Catholics, neither to teach them, nor to direct them, nor to judge them, nor to inform their consciences.

Any proposed “solution” to the Modernist hierarchy that bases itself on the idea that these apostates are the valid hierarchs of the Catholic Church, is doomed to failure from the outset. This is why no amount of “resisting” has worked out — it is flawed in principle. Any apparent “successes” — such as some have imagined were being achieved during the “pontificate” of Benedict XVI — are necessarily and by their nature merely incidental and temporary, and even then they are not really genuine (for example, see this article on the great damage that the widely-hailed motu proprio Summorum Pontificum has done).

The new year is only roughly six weeks old, and already we’ve had three major developments with regard to the growing intra-Novus-Ordo resistance against Francis. You can be certain that in the months ahead of the second Synod, scheduled for October of this year, this schism-in-infancy is going to mature and get a lot more pronounced, as both sides prepare for a showdown over “Communion” for the so-called “divorced-and-remarried”. Those in favor of such an instrinsically evil practice know that they will have one shot at this, and probably only one, this very October and under Francis. They will therefore pull out all the tricks they possibly can as they prepare for a “now or never”-inspired intra-Modernist mini armageddon, in which “moderate” Modernists battle “extreme” Modernists.

It’s going to be quite a spectacle, folks.

Make popcorn.

See Also:

Nothing but chaos since...

Two Years Later: Benedict XVI Resigns

Joseph Ratzinger Announced
His Resignation Two Years Ago Today

It was Monday, February 11, 2013, when Italian journalist Giovanna Chirri became the first person to inform the world of "Pope" Benedict XVI's resignation, effective February 28. As the Vatican correspondent for the Italian news outlet
ANSA, Chirri was seated among other members of the press to cover on-site the consistory Benedict had convoked and at which he made known his totally unexpected decision to renounce the office of the papacy which he had (falsely) been claiming since April 19, 2005:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

(Benedict XVI, Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013)

These were the exact words Benedict XVI uttered in the presence of all his "cardinals" gathered in the Vatican's Consistory Hall (video of the event available here). Chirri had one crucial advantage over many other journalists covering the consistory: She understood Latin and didn't have to wait for a vernacular translation of Benedict's speech to be handed out.

At exactly 11:46 am CET (5:46 am EST), Chirri's message flashed across ANSA's news ticker, the first to announce Ratzinger's resignation to the world:


click to enlarge

Twelve minutes later, Chirri sent a public tweet proclaiming that Benedict XVI was calling it quits:

This tweet, composed in Italian, states: "B16 sie e' dimesso. Lascia pontificato dal 28 febbraio." English translation: "Benedict XVI has resigned. Gives up pontificate effective February 28."

Novus Ordo Watch was among the first web sites in the world to announce the resignation of Joseph Ratzinger -- even before Vatican Radio, before the Drudge Report, before, before, before Pewsitter, before Rorate Caeli. Indeed, not finding Benedict's resignation reported on any of these sites made it extremely difficult to confirm the story.

At 6:13 am EST, our own first tweet appeared:

A few minutes later, Vatican Radio posted the official announcement of Benedict's resignation, which you can read at this link.

It was the beginning of a historic day. Rome Reports has summed how events transpired, in this brief video clip made in 2014:

For his own sake, stepping down was the best thing Benedict could have done, because if before the end of his life he is to save his soul and convert to Catholicism, it is absolutely necessary that he give up his false claim to the papacy. His resignation was at least a first step in the right direction and a most necessary one (though we do not, of course, mean to suggest that this is the reason why he resigned). A possible future conversion has now been rendered much more feasible. Do we believe he will come to his senses, accept God's grace, and become a Catholic before it is too late? Frankly, no, we do not, but we must nevertheless greatly desire this and pray for it to happen, as St. Paul the Apostle said:

I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(1 Timothy 2:1-4)

Benedict's resignation was a veritable earthquake that sent shockwaves throughout Novus Ordo Land and the entire world. No papal claimant (whether genuine or fake) had resigned since the 15th century.

Being familiar with different kinds of Novus Ordo adherents and especially various "conservative" Ratzinger admirers and Semi-Traditionalists, we figured it wouldn't take long before someone would claim that Benedict's resignation was invalid on account of having been obtained -- someone would surely contend -- by force. We made known our prediction in a public tweet right away:

Sure enough, this is exactly what happened, though it took a bit longer than expected. On November 29, 2013, the Rev. Paul Kramer, a (former) associate of the Rev. Nicholas Gruner and the pseudo-Traditionalist Fatima Center, announced he was convinced that Francis was not a true Pope but a manifest heretic, and that Benedict XVI was still the reigning Pope, his resignation having been invalid. We covered the story
in this blog post

While we were happy to see that another well-known Novus Ordo personality had come to realize that the impostor in Rome is truly an Antipope, we were dismayed that "Fr." Kramer would accept the silly idea that it was Joseph Ratzinger's resignation that was invalid, rather than his election in 2005. (Benedict, now claiming the title "Pope Emeritus", is actually on the record as supporting Francis.) Regardless, Kramer is by no means the only person of this interesting persuasion, which we have nicknamed "Resignationism.” A retired Kazakh Novus Ordo bishop has since hinted at the Ratzinger resignation’s suspected invalidity by saying, “It is difficult to believe that Pope Benedict XVI freely renounced his ministry as successor of Peter” (source). 

The Resignationist movement was simply bound to emerge, especially after it became woefully evident to many that Jorge Bergoglio, "Pope Francis", is so far removed from Catholicism that to believe this man could actually be the head of the Roman Catholic Church is simply absurdity on stilts. But rather than embracing Sedevacantism and recognizing that Ratzinger is no less of a Modernist than Bergoglio, differing from him only in style and loquacity, some people prefer to adhere to the more attractive position of Resignationism. Anything to keep from becoming sedevacantist, apparently. (Since then, the idea that “Cardinal” Angelo Scola was elected as the true successor to Benedict XVI has also been floated — see here.)

As we now know, February 11, 2013, was but the first act of what would become a very historic and turbulent year. It is for good reason that we have given Benedict's talkative successor the moniker of "Chaos Frank." (He himself asked for a "mess" at World Youth Day, remember?) Chaos it truly has been ever since.

Lightning struck St. Peter's Basilica the very day Ratzinger announced he was stepping down -- not once but twice. As well it should have, for it was the day that cleared the way for Francis "the Destroyer."


Lightning strikes St. Peter's Basilica on the evening of Feb. 11, 2013

"And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven."
(Luke 10:18)

What transpired in the second year since Benedict’s resignation, and what was not yet quite visible in the first, is that there has been a growing movement of unrest and exasperation with Francis, especially since the October 2014 Synod on the Family, to the point where two journalists have — one wittingly, the other unwittingly — put the validity of Francis’ election into doubt (by their own Novus Ordo standards), and calls for “resistance” have now been made by several high-ranking Novus Ordo clerics, most famously “Cardinal” Raymond Burke.

The greatest danger in all of this, however, is not so much Bergoglio’s own clear defection from Catholicism, but rather the fact that since Francis is so obvious and bold in his apostasy, he makes the more “moderate” apostates like Benedict XVI and John Paul II look Catholic by comparison.

On this very point, the great Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany warned the Catholic world in the 19th century. Dividing Modernists (simply called “Liberals” in his day) into extreme and moderate, he explains that the moderate ones are the much more dangerous kind because they cloak their heresies under a guise of piety and orthodoxy:

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)

These descriptions of the various types of Liberals are as timely today as ever. Which one fits Benedict XVI and John Paul II? Which one fits Francis?

The most dangerous wolf is the one in sheep’s clothing, not the one in wolf’s clothing. Beware, then, lest ye be misled: “Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying” (2 Thess 2:10); “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand” (Mt 24:24-25).

See Also:

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.
Google Analytics Alternative