“Blessed” my Eye...

Francis Declares Paul VI “Blessed”,
Benedict XVI Attends Ceremony

paul6 broken cross.jpg

Time for a Shocking Reality Check

The Modernists in the Vatican are laughing at all you people who believe they are legitimate Roman Catholic authorities. Giovanni Battista Montini (“Pope” Paul VI) was the single one figure in Church history most responsible for creating/shaping the apostate Vatican II Sect in Rome. Vatican II was his council (he’s the only “Pope” who signed its documents). The
Novus Ordo Missae was his “Mass.” The New Sacraments were his rites, most notably the new ordinations, which are invalid and confer no grace and make no priests or bishops (see details here). He took true Catholicism and trashed it, transforming it from being God-centered (theocentric) to being man-centered (anthropocentric). This sorry mockery of the true Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII that you now see in Rome, is Montini’s creation, as it were. True, “Saint” John XXIII really started it, but he was laying its groundwork more than anything else, preparing the way, so to speak, for the one who would really give it shape and identity: Giovanni Montini, “Blessed” Paul VI.

During the early days of the Second Vatican Council, some conservative bishops referred to John XXIII was the “precursor of the Antichrist” and “Cardinal” Montini as his “crown prince” (source), which was very much to the point, knowing what we know now. Before his first closing speech of the council on December 7, 1965, Paul VI said to his friend Jean Guitton: “I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse” (source).

But now “Pope” Francis has “beatified” Montini, declaring him “blessed”, and it is most likely that the same Giovanni Montini will be declared a “saint” within the next 12 months. 

Here is a video recap of the “beatification” ceremony held today in the Vatican:

There is a photo gallery of the shameful event available here, and Francis’ sermon for the occasion, in which he claims “God is not afraid of new things”, can be read here.

Now, for those who are inclined to forget: It was Benedict XVI who, two years ago, made this “beatification” possible to begin with, signing the official decree that recgonized the “heroic virtue” of Montini.

What follows below are some highlights — lowlights, really — of evidence that Paul VI (“Paul the Sick”, as Dr. Thomas Droleskey calls him) was most definitely not a Catholic saint, nor a Blessed, nor anyone that could be held up as a model of virtue, holiness, or Catholic doctrine. We provide this evidence to prove that the Novus Ordo “beatification” of the man is bogus (Francis being, of course, an antipope, not a true Pope). If he was such a holy man worthy to be venerated by the faithful, then the evidence below ought to be easily refuted. 

The Real Paul VI — 
Reality Check on “Blessed” Giovanni Montini

Summary of the Charges against Paul VI, provided by Chiesa Viva of the recently deceased Fr. Luigi Villa, who had been formally tasked by Pope Pius XII with exposing Freemasons within the Catholic Church:

Book-Length Evidence: Fr. Luigi Villa proves Paul VI was not a Catholic Saint but a destroyer of Catholicism, a blasphemer, a heretic and more

"Paul VI: Beatified?" by Dr. Luigi Villa

Paul VI ... Beatified?
by Fr. Luigi Villa

Free PDF Download of entire book here - lots of shocking photos

Buy this book here - other items available also

Book Review: R. Siscoe reviews Paul VI: Beatified? - "Who was Paul VI?"

Available also in Spanish, Italian, French - More Information and Related Books at these sites:

And then there’s this inconvenient video:

Oops: “Blessed” Paul VI was a Homosexual

It gets even wilder: Paul VI Responded to Accusations, Denied being a Homosexual

For those who may have forgotten, let’s take a look at what “Blessed” Paul VI did to Roman Catholic churches:

Don’t Forget:
The Roman Catholic Sanctuary

Before Paul VI...

Traditional Roman Catholic Sanctuary

Genuine Roman Catholic Sanctuary

...After Paul VI

Novus Ordo “sanctuary”

Novus Ordo "Sanctuary": a new sanctuary for a new religion

No doubt, there was some seriously “heroic virtue” going on in this man. But now let’s have a look at how this “almost-Saint” died….

Paul VI’s Death in 1978:
“As though He had Exploded from Within”

Giovanni Battista Montini's biographer, Peter Hebblethwaite, relates the following about the soul-destroying Antipope's death in a 1993 book:


"As Mass ends Paul has a massive heart attack. It is as though he had exploded from within. [Rev. John] Magee thinks he would have been thrown out of bed had his hand not been held"
(Peter Hebblethwaite, Paul VI: The First Modern Pope, p. 710).

The Broken Cross of False “Pope” Paul VI

Let us never forget the hideous and blasphemous so-called "Broken Cross" Paul VI introduced and used as his crozier. It is a bent cross with Our Lord's Body displayed in a repulsive fashion. This impious crozier has also been used by John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, and, after a hiatus, has recently been brought back by Francis.

See Also: Henry Makow: "Is the Pope a Catholic?"

Best of all, when Paul VI lay in state at St. Peter’s Basilica, his skin started to turn black:

Clearly No Transfiguration for Paul VI

"Pope" Paul VI lying in state on August 10, 1978

Giovanni Battista Montini died on August 6, 1978,
the Feast of the Transfiguration

See Also: Freaky Painting of Paul VI Celebrates 30 Years in the Vatican

And now for some details regarding the rotting corpse of Paul VI: The odor of sanctity or the stench of damnation? You decide…

Antipope Paul VI lying in state

Before the funeral, Paul VI's body had to be injected with more formaldehyde because it was already decomposing as it was being transported a mere 15 miles from Castelgandolfo to St. Peter's! (Source: TIME Magazine, "In Search of a Pope", Aug. 21, 1978) Verbatim: "With the Pope garbed in a red chasuble, slippers and gloves and a gold-and-white miter on his head, some 60,000 mourners filed past his body. Then, with more than 5,000 soldiers and police standing guard against Italy's unpredictable terrorists, a hearse drove the body along the 15-mile route to St. Peter's. For a time the body was sealed in its casket. But when Cardinals arriving in Rome voiced disappointment, it was again put on view—in front of the high altar, where only the Pope or his delegate may say Mass. (The body had to be injected with more formaldehyde because it was already decomposing in the late summer heat.)"

Pope St. Pius X also died in the hot summer month of August (1914) and did not decompose -- he, a true saint (canonized by Pius XII in 1954), is incorrupt! (More info here) See this beautiful photo of St. Pius X shortly after he went to His Eternal Reward — what a contrast to the rotting and rotten Paul VI!

See Also:

By the way, in December 2012, under Benedict XVI, the Novus Ordo cardinals voted unanimously in favor of declaring Paul VI to be a Catholic Saint, to which this “beatification” is the necessary prelude:

So, let’s recap: In the New Church of Vatican II, you can institute and preside over the Great Apostasy, let loose a deluge of heresy, impiety, and sacrilege on the faithful, be a practicing sodomite - and get rewarded with "sainthood" and recognition of "heroic virtue" in the end. This says all you need to know about the abominable Vatican II Sect. To say that this impious cult could be the product of the Holy Ghost, the Roman Catholic Church, is blasphemy!

Since the creation of the Novus Ordo Church in 1958, every single deceased "Pope" has been either “beatified” (Paul VI) or “canonized” (John XXIII, John Paul II), or is on his way to either (John Paul I). What's going on here? It's clear: They want to and need to "canonize" the Vatican II council and the New Church. Though the Catholic Church only produced 2 canonized saint Popes between 1566 and 1958 (Pius V and Pius X), the Novus Ordo church claims, essentially, to have had nothing but "sainted Popes" since then. How much more laughable can it get?!

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities." (Apoc 18:4-5)

All you need to do now is connect the dots (John Vennari, are you listening?):


In the 1970s, a Mexican priest by the name of Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga figured out that Paul VI could not possibly be a true Pope and that he was the creator of a new religion. Fr. Saenz courageously published a book exposing the “New Montinian Church”:

The New Montinian Church
by Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga


This is an exposition of the False New Church — the Vatican II Church — of Giovanni Battista Montini, otherwise known as "Pope" Paul VI, published first in 1971. 

Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga

About the author: Mexican Fr. Saenz y Arriaga was perhaps the first publicly sedevacantist priest. He was "excommunicated" by the Novus Ordo Church for exposing Montini/Paul VI and his new religion. In 1973, Saenz published a follow-up work called Sede Vacante: Paulo VI no es Papa legítimo (Sede Vacante: Paul VI is not a legitimate Pope), a sedevacantist manifesto. Read more about Fr. Saenz y Arriaga and his work here.

Used hardcopies of The New Montinian Church are difficult to obtain, but you can look for one here.

Reality Check: "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you." (Mt 5:10-12)

And now for some great photos...


Who needs a tiara?! Not a false pope, that’s for sure! (You might be laughing, but if you believe he was a valid Pope, the joke’s on you)


This backdrop graces the “Paul VI Hall” in the Vatican, where the “Pope” holds his audiences — it is entitled “The Resurrection”


This statue of Paul VI gives a fairly accurate representation of this diabolical man, though it is supposed to “honor” him, of course. It was made in 1984 and is located in Brescia, Italy.

One thing is for certain: Paul VI is not a “Blessed”!

A typical Modernist...

In Final Speech, Francis warns of “Temptations”, criticizes “Traditionalists” and “Liberals”


[LAST UPDATED: 19-OCT-14 01:35 GMT - Full Speech below]

In a sly move, “Pope” Francis addressed the Synod in Rome at its closure and criticized both liberals and conservatives for succumbing to certain “temptations” — thus allowing both sides to claim victory in a sense, and thus perpetuating the problem and the controversy until the Ordinary Synod scheduled for October 2015. This way, he has averted a schism at least until then, when final decisions will be made and Francis will release a so-called “Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation” that whichever side wins will say is “the Pope speaking” and the losing side will claim is “just a non-binding exhortation” (which is precisely what we saw with regard to the heretical 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium).

In other words, it’s business as usual and the circus will continue as before, at least for the time being.

Here is Francis’ closing speech, now available in full English translation via Vatican Radio:

Dear Eminences, Beatitudes, Excellencies, Brothers and Sisters,

With a heart full of appreciation and gratitude I want to thank, along with you, the Lord who has accompanied and guided us in the past days, with the light of the Holy Spirit.

From the heart I thank Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod, Bishop Fabio Fabene, under-secretary, and with them I thank the Relators, Cardinal Peter Erdo, who has worked so much in these days of family mourning, and the Special Secretary Bishop Bruno Forte, the three President delegates, the transcribers, the consultors, the translators and the unknown workers, all those who have worked with true fidelity and total dedication behind the scenes and without rest. Thank you so much from the heart.

I thank all of you as well, dear Synod fathers, Fraternal Delegates, Auditors, and Assessors, for your active and fruitful participation. I will keep you in prayer asking the Lord to reward you with the abundance of His gifts of grace!

I can happily say that – with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality – we have truly lived the experience of “Synod,” a path of solidarity, a “journey together.”

And it has been “a journey” – and like every journey there were moments of running fast, as if wanting to conquer time and reach the goal as soon as possible; other moments of fatigue, as if wanting to say “enough”; other moments of enthusiasm and ardour. There were moments of profound consolation listening to the testimony of true pastors, who wisely carry in their hearts the joys and the tears of their faithful people. Moments of consolation and grace and comfort hearing the testimonies of the families who have participated in the Synod and have shared with us the beauty and the joy of their married life. A journey where the stronger feel compelled to help the less strong, where the more experienced are led to serve others, even through confrontations. And since it is a journey of human beings, with the consolations there were also moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations, of which a few possibilities could be mentioned:

 - One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

 - The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

 - The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

 - The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

 - The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted – and even called Beelzebul (cf. Mt 12:24) – His disciples should not expect better treatment.

Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace. Instead, I have seen and I have heard – with joy and appreciation – speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parresia. And I have felt that what was set before our eyes was the good of the Church, of families, and the “supreme law,” the “good of souls” (cf. Can. 1752). And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life (cf. Cann. 1055, 1056; and Gaudium et spes, 48).

And this is the Church, the vineyard of the Lord, the fertile Mother and the caring Teacher, who is not afraid to roll up her sleeves to pour oil and wine on people’s wound; who doesn’t see humanity as a house of glass to judge or categorize people. This is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and composed of sinners, needful of God’s mercy. This is the Church, the true bride of Christ, who seeks to be faithful to her spouse and to her doctrine. It is the Church that is not afraid to eat and drink with prostitutes and publicans. The Church that has the doors wide open to receive the needy, the penitent, and not only the just or those who believe they are perfect! The Church that is not ashamed of the fallen brother and pretends not to see him, but on the contrary feels involved and almost obliged to lift him up and to encourage him to take up the journey again and accompany him toward a definitive encounter with her Spouse, in the heavenly Jerusalem.

The is the Church, our Mother! And when the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err: it is the beauty and the strength of the sensus fidei, of that supernatural sense of the faith which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit so that, together, we can all enter into the heart of the Gospel and learn to follow Jesus in our life. And this should never be seen as a source of confusion and discord.

Many commentators, or people who talk, have imagined that they see a disputatious Church where one part is against the other, doubting even the Holy Spirit, the true promoter and guarantor of the unity and harmony of the Church – the Holy Spirit who throughout history has always guided the barque, through her Ministers, even when the sea was rough and choppy, and the ministers unfaithful and sinners.

And, as I have dared to tell you , [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquillity, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter), and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all.

We will speak a little bit about the Pope, now, in relation to the Bishops [laughing]. So, the duty of the Pope is that of guaranteeing the unity of the Church; it is that of reminding the faithful of  their duty to faithfully follow the Gospel of Christ; it is that of reminding the pastors that their first duty is to nourish the flock – to nourish the flock – that the Lord has entrusted to them, and to seek to welcome – with fatherly care and mercy, and without false fears – the lost sheep. I made a mistake here. I said welcome: [rather] to go out and find them.

His duty is to remind everyone that authority in the Church is a service, as Pope Benedict XVI clearly explained, with words I cite verbatim: “The Church is called and commits herself to exercise this kind of authority which is service and exercises it not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ… through the Pastors of the Church, in fact: it is he who guides, protects and corrects them, because he loves them deeply. But the Lord Jesus, the supreme Shepherd of our souls, has willed that the Apostolic College, today the Bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter… to participate in his mission of taking care of God's People, of educating them in the faith and of guiding, inspiring and sustaining the Christian community, or, as the Council puts it, ‘to see to it... that each member of the faithful shall be led in the Holy Spirit to the full development of his own vocation in accordance with Gospel preaching, and to sincere and active charity’ and to exercise that liberty with which Christ has set us free (cf. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 6)… and it is through us,” Pope Benedict continues, “that the Lord reaches souls, instructs, guards and guides them. St Augustine, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St John, says: ‘let it therefore be a commitment of love to feed the flock of the Lord’ (cf. 123, 5); this is the supreme rule of conduct for the ministers of God, an unconditional love, like that of the Good Shepherd, full of joy, given to all, attentive to those close to us and solicitous for those who are distant (cf. St Augustine, Discourse 340, 1; Discourse 46, 15), gentle towards the weakest, the little ones, the simple, the sinners, to manifest the infinite mercy of God with the reassuring words of hope (cf. ibid., Epistle, 95, 1).”

So, the Church is Christ’s – she is His bride – and all the bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter, have the task and the duty of guarding her and serving her, not as masters but as servants. The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the “servant of the servants of God”; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim, despite being – by the will of Christ Himself – the “supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful” (Can. 749) and despite enjoying “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (cf. Cann. 331-334).

Dear brothers and sisters, now we still have one year to mature, with true spiritual discernment, the proposed ideas and to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront; to give answers to the many discouragements that surround and suffocate families.

One year to work on the “Synodal Relatio” which is the faithful and clear summary of everything that has been said and discussed in this hall and in the small groups. It is presented to the Episcopal Conferences as “lineamenta” [guidelines].

May the Lord accompany us, and guide us in this journey for the glory of His Name, with the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of Saint Joseph. And please, do not forget to pray for me! Thank you!

[The hymn Te Deum was sung, and Benediction given.]

Thank you, and rest well, eh?

(Vatican Radio, “Pope Francis Speech at the Conclusion of the Synod”, Oct. 18, 2014)

The Synod’s final document as it was voted on is available in the original Italian at the Vatican web site here. The paragraphs that talk about “Communion” for adulterers and about homosexuals, in English translation, can be found here. (Note that they did not receive the required two-thirds majority.)

We’ll reserve commentary on this until next week.

Meanwhile, Voice of the Family says that the final synod report “fails to resolve confusion” — which is exactly how Francis wants it: no decisions, no clear statements, no line of sight — just a lot of fog.

See Also:

Accepting Bergoglio as Pope has consequences...


“Cardinal” Burke Confirms Demotion
— Neo-Traditionalists in Shock

The following is a post we published on Sept. 17, 2014, regarding reliable rumors of “Cardinal” Raymond Burke’s impending removal from the Vatican’s Supreme Court, the Apostolic Signatura, by “Pope” Francis. This rumor is a rumor no longer — now Burke himself has confirmed that he has been demoted:

[original post of 17-SEP-14:]

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

Magister writes:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Bye, bye, Raymond!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


To be exiled by Francis: “Cardinal” Raymond Burke

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

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

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

See Also:

Chaos Frank strikes again...

Francis Rents Out Sistine Chapel
for Private Corporate Event


No, this isn’t satire. This isn’t a joke. This isn’t fiction. No one could make this stuff up. Francis, as head honcho of the Novus Ordo Sect and therefore de facto owner of the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City, has decided to rent this sacred and magnificent building to Porsche for a private corporate event at which 40 high-paying guests will be listening to a concert given by a Roman choir as they gaze at the gorgeous paintings of this holy Catholic place.

The event is scheduled for Saturday, Oct. 18, and advertised at the Porsche corporate web site, on this page.

According to a report filed by Nick Squires of The Telegraph, the Vatican has not revealed how much revenue it will take in from the Porsche event but has stated that all proceeds received will go to charity:

The Vatican would not divulge how much it will earn from the event, but the five-day tour of Rome arranged by the Porsche Travel Club costs up to 5,000 euros per head, meaning an overall price of 200,000 euros [approx. $255,000 USD].

Participants are promised "a magnificent concert in the Sistine Chapel, with its ceiling frescoes painted by Michelangelo”.

The concert will be performed by a choir from the Accademia di Santa Cecilia in Rome, which traces its origins back to the 16th century.

Monsignor Paolo Nicolini, the administrative director of the Vatican Museums, said firms like Porsche would be asked to make a donation for the use of the Sistine Chapel, with the money then passed onto Catholic charities of the Pope's choice.

"It is an initiative which will support the Pope's charity projects. It is aimed at big companies which, through the payment of a fee, can contribute to charity activities," he said.

Concerts have been held in the Sistine Chapel before, but they have been for private Church audiences, including events held in honour of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

It is believed this is the first time that the chapel, which was built by Pope Sixtus IV between 1473 and 1484, has been leased out to a company for a commercial event.

The Vatican would not say whether it was planning to strike similar deals with other companies….

(Nick Squires, “Pope Francis allows Sistine Chapel to be rented out for private corporate event, The Telegraph, Oct. 16, 2014)

Meanwhile, Religion News Service has published a brief article on this disgraceful story, quoting the same “Mgr.” Nicolini to the effect that the Sistine Chapel was not available for rent but that this “initiative is organized directly by the Vatican Museums” (source).

Though many people will dismiss this as being of no great concern because “it’s for charity,” our Blessed Lord Himself insisted: “Make not the house of my Father a house of traffic” (Jn 2:16). The motive for this act does not cancel out the act itself.

The Sistine Chapel, or Sacellum Sixtinum, is named after Pope Sixtus IV and was solemnly consecrated on August 15, 1483. The beautiful frescoes that grace the inside were painted by the famous Michelangelo under Pope Julius II in the early 16th century, as recounted in the popular movie The Agony and the Ecstasy. Aside from the various artistic works found in it, the Sistine Chapel is well-known for being the place where papal elections (“conclaves”) are held after a Pope dies.

Over the last 19 months, and in his years as “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Francis has shown that he has no regard for the honor of God, no sense of the sacred, and no respect for Catholic doctrine or morals, as is clear from the links offered below. This latest attack on what Catholics hold dear is no surprise, therefore, though one shudders to imagine what might be next.

In 1994, a French priest mystically received knowledge of what purported to be the true Third Secret of Fatima given by Our Lady to Sr. Lucia in Portugal in 1917. The text, which can be read in English here, predicts horrendous evils afflicting the Catholic Church in the future (i.e. after 1917): “The church will bleed from all her wounds. There will be a wicked council planned and prepared that will change the countenance of the Church. Many will lose the Faith; confusion will reign everywhere. The sheep will search for their shepherds in vain. A schism will tear apart the holy tunic of My Son…” (full text here).

We do not know whether this is truly what it claims to be, namely the Third Secret of Fatima, but if it is, it is clear that we have been living through it.

May Almighty God in his mercy deign to deliver us from the False Church of Vatican II and its false shepherds, especially Jorge Bergoglio, Antipope Francis!

Related Links:

Vienna’s Homo-Heretic weighs in...


“Cardinal” Schönborn Lauds “Exemplary Behavior” of Homo-Couples who “Faithfully Care” for One Another

It’s the last thing we needed: Vienna’s pervert-endorser-in-chief, Mr. Christoph Schonborn, opened his mouth again in favor of sodomite couples. In the October 14 edition of Corriere della Sera, the “cardinal-archbishop” of Vienna praised the “human values” supposedly found in homosexual unions that are “based on lifelong fidelity and mutual caring.” He claimed that our Lord Jesus Christ opened Heaven even for tax collectors and prostitutes, without, however, mentioning the minor detail that Christ was referring to repentant sinners, rather than those who persist in mortal sin (“Go, and now sin no more” — Jn 8:11). 

Apparently Schonborn also never came across St. Paul, who said in rather politically-incorrect words, “Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10). Nothing in there about “lifelong fidelity” or “mutual caring” which some of these idolaters, drunkards, perverts, etc. no doubt exhibited!

Schonborn insisted on separating the perverse sexuality from the positive “human values” found in such relationships, going so far as to claim that oftentimes bishops and priests have cause to “bow down in reverence” before the “exemplary human behavior” of practicing sodomites. In other words, he sees fidelity as a good in itself, regardless of what someone is actually faithful to, such as, in this case, mortal sin, fleshly lusts so perverse that they cry to Heaven for vengeance, meriting from Almighty God merciless destruction by fire and brimstone (see Gen 19:24)! Somehow our Lord must have forgotten to take into consideration the “care” and “loyalty” some of these perverts no doubt had for each other!

Schonborn further related that he himself knows of such an “exemplary” homosexual couple living in a civil union in Vienna that exhibited precisely such “human values”: When one of the two fell seriously ill, the other faithfully remained at his side: “It was wonderful, in a human as well as a Christian sense, to see the one care so much for the other”, the Austrian apostate said, while also “clarifying”, of course, that the church could not accept homosexuality.

The full interview, currently only available in Italian, can be accessed here:

For those who don’t know the man, Schonborn is no insignificant little oddball — he’s a giant in the New Church. Here’s some background:

In short, Schonborn is Satanic. But wait — there’s more! Ready for the best one?

You can’t make this stuff up!

Related Links:

It was “Mad Monday”...

The Day After:


Surveying the Landscape after the First Synod Document causes Chaos in Novus Ordo Land

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a
bloodbath. When the first synod document was released yesterday, Oct. 13, there was no stopping the avalanche of shock, horror, outrage, confusion, bewilderment, and — from the other Novus Ordo side — glee, excitement, and (dare we say it?) triumphalism!

Chaos Frank has struck again, and this time perhaps more than ever before in his 19-month reign as the leader of the institution that falsely claims to be the Catholic Church. We’d like to take a moment now and survey the landscape, so to speak, of reaction among the Novus Ordo populace, especially those who have been trying most vociferously to defend the more and more obviously ludicrous idea that Jorge Bergoglio is actually the Pope of the Catholic Church.

About a week ago, we published a timely post entitled, “How Long Until Schism? The Novus Ordo Sect on the Brink of Chaos.” On cue, just like clockwork, it all seems to be happening more or less exactly the way we predicted it. There is chaos, confusion, lots of tension, and now the threat of schism is starting be talked about more openly than before. Read on.

The morning of Oct. 13, the Vatican released the first synod document, a sort-of “mid-term report” filled with summaries of the salient points of the different ideas offered during the first week of discussions that took place in the assemblies. This document, known as the Relatio Post Disceptationem (“Report after Discussions”), serves as the fundamental working paper for further discussion at the synod. Though it is by no means a “magisterial” document, it certainly signals the general direction in which things are headed.

This document is available on the Vatican web site here:

Our initial commentary and analysis of the document can be found here:

Shortly after the document was released, and people had a chance to peruse it, a flood of reactions began to pour in. Vatican commentator John Thavis called it a “pastoral earthquake”, and the leftist Tablet referred to the paper as heralding a “major shift in the Church’s pastoral care.” The indult blog Rorate Caeli denounced the document as creating a “New Gospel” while “Fr. Z” (Rev. John Zuhlsdorf) warned his readers of a “Synod of the Media”.

The U.K. blogger Mundabor accused Francis of dancing Tango with Satan (see Part 1 and Part 2) while Louie Verrecchio pointed out that excrement had begun to hit the fan. A newly-formed pro-family group called Voice of the Family quickly issued a statement on the document, calling it a “betrayal” of Catholic parents worldwide.

Michael Voris intrepidly reported directly from Rome on the Synod’s “Confused, Contradictory Chaos”, yet conveniently failed to mention Francis’ involvement in the whole spectacle (we call his program The Ignore-tex for a reason). At the same time, Jimmy Akin offered another 12 Things to Know and Share, and Christopher Ferrara is praying for a miracle as he denounces this “devilish piece of trash.”

At one point, “Cardinal” Peter Erdo, official rapporteur of the Synod, was asked to clarify the document’s outrageous and explosive statements on homosexuality and sodomitical behavior, yet refused, instead pointing the reporter to “Archbishop” Bruno Forte, identifying him as the author of the controversial paragraphs. (Background information on this episode has since been provided by Sandro Magister, here.) What must not be glossed over here is that Forte is known to be an extreme liberal, and it was none other than then-“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger who personally consecrated him a “bishop” in 2004. Chris Ferrara at The Remnant blasted Ratzinger for this at the time (see “Ratzinger Personally Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop”), denouncing him as a conniving “ecclesial termite”, only to begin hailing him as the great stalwart of Tradition (“Pope Benedict XVI”) a few weeks later, when the wind blew in a different direction.

John Vennari of Catholic Family News came up with the ultimate solution: Write your Nuncio! Vennari posted:


Send Your Concerns Immediately to the U.S. Apostolic Delegate

WRITE TO United States Nuncio to demand NO CHANGE WHATSOVER on the Catholic teaching and practice on marriage, family life and perverse lifestyles, and to demand absolute fidelity to the received teaching of the Church, as found in Pius XI’s Casti Cannubii [sic].


that’s it! See, if only a few more people had signed The Remnant’s grand petition to “Stop the Synod” — it didn’t even get 1,400 signatures by October 5 — all this chaos could perhaps have been averted! Maybe Vennari forgot that the nuncio has a boss, and his name is “Pope Francis,” the one whom Vennari has forbidden from teaching religion to his children. We’ve said it before and say it again to all those Neo-Trads: Actions have consequences. If you accept a Modernist as Pope, then you must live with the Modernist consequences. Stop complaining — you are the problem just as much, because without people’s acknowledgement of the man as the head of the Catholic Church, he would have no power whatsoever! All the strength of his revolution lies in the idea that he is the head of the Catholic Church. The more people abandon this silly idea, the more quickly this whole mess will come to an end.

Later on October 13, Vatican Radio released an interview with the head of the conference of Polish Novus Ordo bishops, who said the Synod document was “unacceptable” and it contradicted the teaching of John Paul II. (Never mind it contradicting the true Catholic teaching before Vatican II — at this point, the situation is so bad they can’t even get continuity within their own Modernism!)


Kelly Bowring, a Modernist theologian with sympathies for real Catholicism and an ardent promoter of end-times prophecy (danger! stay away!), published a brief blog post asking whether a new schism had just begun, and he answers in the affirmative: “Quite likely yes.” Just a few days before, Bowring had released an explosive “Open Letter to Pope Francis” in which he threatened schism should Francis continue to go down the road he has indicated in so many ways. Our analysis and commentary of Bowring’s manifesto can be found here.

Speaking of schism…. This past Thursday, the Paraguayan Opus Dei “bishop” whom Francis just removed from office, Rogelio Livieres Plano, used his blog to openly warn of an emerging schism, saying: "The situation is very grave and I’m not the first to notice that, regretfully, we’re facing the danger of a great schism” (source). We’ve been saying for a while now that a schism among Novus Orods is inevitable, and in fact has already begun in a microscopic way in the “Resignationists” who believe Benedict XVI is still Pope, or that “Cardinal” Scola was really elected (more on that here). Journalist Antonio Socci’s book disputing the validity of Francis’ election adds fuel to this fire, which, it seems, must soon cause a gigantic explosion. There are more and more people who simply cannot take Francis’ daily open trashing of Catholicism any longer.

On October 14, The Catholic World Report published a mini-interview with “Cardinal” Raymond Burke, pretty much the last great hope of the Novus Ordo neo-conservatives in this whole spectacle, but whose position of influence in the Vatican has been waning under Francis:

This does not, of course, prevent some others from being in denial about what is happening. The “iPadre” Rev. Jay Finelli still believes all will turn out well, and of course Mark Shea, who draws a paycheck from EWTN, always has an answer for you — it’s all a matter of you getting it all wrong, you not knowing what the Gospel really is, you needing to be educated by people like him!

Whew, are you exhausted yet? This is just the beginning. If all this happens from a single draft document, can you imagine what will happen when a real text is released? You can’t make this stuff up!

And now for a few concluding thoughts.

At World Youth Day in Rio 2013, “Pope” Francis said to the participants, “Make a mess! I want a mess!” Well, he got one. We’ve been calling him “Chaos Frank” since almost the beginning, because the signs were there. Chaos indeed he has unleashed, and it will only get worse. He didn’t come this far only to make a U-turn now.

The Modernist Revolution has been with us since it began in 1958, so that’s nothing new. What’s new is that things are so blatant and so advanced now that a rift is beginning to occur within the Modernist Vatican II Church itself, between those who would rally behind Francis and accelerate the apostasy even more, and those who would gather behind Benedict XVI, so to speak, mistakenly thinking that in him and the Novus Ordo Sect before Francis they will find the solution and salvation they seek, but which was just the necessary transitional prelude to the Bergoglian Church.

By the way, this outrageous idea of finding “elements” of Holy Matrimony in fornication-cohabitation which the Synod document talks about, isn’t new. Jorge Bergoglio himself mentioned it approvingly in a book he published in 2010, and this is something we blasted him for from the very beginning, when people like Chris Ferrara at The Remnant were still busy trying to spin the man as a Catholic and complaining that people like us were just rushing to judgment about Francis, when the proof was already in the pudding as his public record in Buenos Aires spoke for itself. But these people are now once again acting as though they are the ones everyone should listen to, when they first tried all they could to make Francis look like a Catholic and only turned on him once it became patently impossible to continue the charade. Buyer, beware!


It is an absolute theological freak show in Rome at this point. Finding “positive” aspects in fornication, adultery, sodomy? Poor St. John the Baptist (see Matthew 14) — he could have kept his head attached to his neck if only he had known about what the “Holy Spirit” would be telling the Vatican in the future. You see, if he had only avoided such “insensitive” language against King Herod, language that clearly “discriminated” against him, making him feel “unwelcome” and “judged”, oh, how much more could have been accomplished! If only the Baptist had recognized the “good elements” in the king’s adultery, all would have been well!
Mark Shea guarantees it!

Likewise, our Blessed Lord: Instead of “encouraging” the woman at the well to strive for the “ideal” of a valid marriage, He flat-out told her, "For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband” (Jn 4:18). That is so insensitive! What about the positive aspects of her adultery? What about the “fidelity” and “love” she was surely showing to her “Husband No. 5”? Wasn’t she making sacrifices and such? Didn’t she cook him meals? Clearly, the Holy Spirit of 2000 years ago hadn’t yet “smelled the scent of the people.” Good thing we’ve got Bergoglio now to straighten it all out! 

You can only laugh at this silly Francis Show in the Vatican. Whoever still believes that this sect of heretics and blasphemers is the Catholic Church, can’t be helped. And please don’t say, “There have been bad Popes before!” This isn’t about a Pope who is morally bad. This is about a man who does not hold the Catholic Faith. See our post explaining this crucial distinction here:

And in case you’re wondering, “Now What?”, we have some answers here

Fasten your seatbelts, for this is only the beginning!

Related Links:

First Document causes Chaos...

A Nod to Sin at the Synod:

Gathering finds “Elements” of Holy Matrimony in Fornication & Adultery, wants to “Accept & Value” Homosexual “Orientation”


Vatican commentator John Thavis has called it a “pastoral earthquake”: The Extraordinary Synod on the Family currently underway in the Vatican has just released its first post-discussion document (relatio post disceptationem), an initial position paper, if you will, or draft of ideas and suggestions to be considered and discussed in the coming days at the synod itself and in the next 12 months before the final decisions are made at next year’s Ordinary Synod in October 2015.

As was to be expected, the document, which was read aloud at the assembly on Oct. 13, is filled with endless Modernist prattle about “mutual respect”, “cultural realities”, “socio-economic factors”, etc., ad nauseam. But the salient point of the relatio can be summed up thus: While paying lipservice to Catholic dogma, the document encourages “Catholics” to focus on the positive aspects supposedly found in “irregular” situations (read: fornication, adultery, sodomy) and thereby gradually help such people to embrace the Gospel’s teaching about marriage and the family. John Thavis summarized it this way:

While defending the traditional teachings that reject divorce and gay marriage, the synod said the modern church must focus more on the “positive elements” in such relationships, rather than their shortcomings, and open a patient and merciful dialogue with the people involved. The ultimate aim, it said, is to use these “seeds” of goodness to bring people more fully into the church.

(John Thavis, “A Pastoral Earthquake at the Synod”, Oct. 13, 2014)

Sound familiar? It’s Vatican II Reloaded. Just as the council discovered “elements” of “sanctification and truth” in other religions (see Lumen Gentium, n. 8; Nostra Aetate, n. 2), so today’s Novus Ordo bishops don’t see why such elements couldn’t also be found in people who are cohabiting without being married or who live in a state of adultery. Though the document does not explicitly say so, it hints at the same considerations applying to sodomitical unions, something that, in any case, would be merely a logical consequence of this principle. Hey, there’s a little bit of virtue in every vice, eh?!

We are reminded of the stern warning of the prophet Isaias: "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20). Sodomy is a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance!

Let’s have a look at some of the more explosive quotes from the Synod document (all underlining added by us):

In considering the principle of gradualness in the divine salvific plan, one asks what possibilities are given to married couples who experience the failure of their marriage, or rather how it is possible to offer them Christ’s help through the ministry of the Church. In this respect, a significant hermeneutic key comes from the teaching of Vatican Council II, which, while it affirms that “although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure … these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity” (Lumen Gentium, 8).

In this light, the value and consistency of natural marriage must first be emphasized. Some ask whether the sacramental fullness of marriage does not exclude the possibility of recognizing positive elements even the imperfect forms that may be found outside this nuptial situation, which are in any case ordered in relation to it. The doctrine of levels of communion, formulated by Vatican Council II, confirms the vision of a structured way of participating in the Mysterium Ecclesiae by baptized persons.

In the same perspective, that we may consider inclusive, the Council opens up the horizon for appreciating the positive elements present in other religions (cf. Nostra Aetate, 2) and cultures, despite their limits and their insufficiencies (cf. Redemptoris Missio, 55). Indeed, looking at the human wisdom present in these, the Church learns how the family is universally considered as the necessary and fruitful form of human cohabitation. In this sense, the order of creation, in which the Christian vision of the family is rooted, unfolds historically, in different cultural and geographical expressions.

Realizing the need, therefore, for spiritual discernment with regard to cohabitation, civil marriages and divorced and remarried persons, it is the task of the Church to recognize those seeds of the Word that have spread beyond its visible and sacramental boundaries. Following the expansive gaze of Christ, whose light illuminates every man (cf. Jn 1,9; cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22), the Church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings.

Truth and beauty of the family and mercy

The Gospel of the family, while it shines in the witness of many families who live coherently their fidelity to the sacrament, with their mature fruits of authentic daily sanctity must also nurture those seeds that are yet to mature, and must care for those trees that have dried up and wish not to be neglected.

In this respect, a new dimension of today’s family pastoral consists of accepting the reality of civil marriage and also cohabitation, taking into account the due differences. Indeed, when a union reaches a notable level of stability through a public bond, is characterized by deep affection, responsibility with regard to offspring, and capacity to withstand tests, it may be seen as a germ to be accompanied in development towards the sacrament of marriage.

A new sensitivity in today’s pastoral consists in grasping the positive reality of civil weddings and, having pointed out our differences, of cohabitation. It is necessary that in the ecclesial proposal, while clearly presenting the ideal, we also indicate the constructive elements in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to that ideal.

It was also noted that in many countries an “an increasing number live together ad experimentum, in unions which have not been religiously or civilly recognized” (Instrumentum Laboris, 81). In Africa this occurs especially in traditional marriages, agreed between families and often celebrated in different stages. Faced by these situations, the Church is called on to be “the house of the Father, with doors always wide open […] where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems” (Evangelii Gaudium, 47) and to move towards those who feel the need to take up again their path of faith, even if it is not possible to celebrate a religious marriage.

In the West as well there is an increasingly large number of those who, having lived together for a long period of time, ask to be married in the Church. Simple cohabitation is often a choice inspired by a general attitude, which is opposed to institutions and definitive undertakings, but also while waiting for a secure existence (a steady job and income). In other countries common-law marriages are very numerous, not because of a rejection of Christian values as regards the family and matrimony, but, above all, because getting married is a luxury, so that material poverty encourages people to live in common-law marriages. Furthermore in such unions it is possible to grasp authentic family values or at least the wish for them. Pastoral accompaniment should always start from these positive aspects.

All these situations have to be dealt with in a constructive manner, seeking to transform them into opportunities to walk towards the fullness of marriage and the family in the light of the Gospel. They need to be welcomed and accompanied with patience and delicacy. With a view to this, the attractive testimony of authentic Christian families is important, as subjects for the evangelization of the family.

Caring for wounded families (the separated, the divorced who have not remarried, the divorced who have remarried)

What rang out clearly in the Synod was the necessity for courageous pastoral choices. Reconfirming forcefully the fidelity to the Gospel of the family, the Synodal Fathers, felt the urgent need for new pastoral paths, that begin with the effective reality of familial fragilities, recognizing that they, more often than not, are more “endured” than freely chosen. These are situations that are diverse because of personal as well as cultural and socio-economic factors. It is not wise to think of unique solutions or those inspired by a logic of “all or nothing”....

Each damaged family first of all should be listened to with respect and love, becoming companions on the journey as Christ did with the disciples of the road to Emmaus. In a particular way the words of Pope Francis apply in these situations: «The Church will have to initiate everyone – priests, religious and laity – into this “art of accompaniment”, which teaches us to remove our sandals before the sacred ground of the other (cf. Ex 3,5). The pace of this accompaniment must be steady and reassuring, reflecting our closeness and our compassionate gaze which also heals, liberates and encourages growth in the Christian life» (Evangelii Gaudium, 169).

Various Fathers underlined the necessity to make the recognition of cases of nullity more accessible and flexible….

As regards matrimonial suits, the speeding-up of the procedure, requested by many, as well as the preparation of a sufficient number of operators, clerics and lay people, dedicating themselves to this, requires an increase in the responsibilities of the diocesan bishop, who in his diocese might charge a specially trained priest who would be able to offer the parties advice on the validity of their marriage….

In the same way the situation of the divorced who have remarried demands a careful discernment and an accompaniment full of respect, avoiding any language or behavior that might make them feel discriminated against. For the Christian community looking after them is not a weakening of its faith and its testimony to the indissolubility of marriage, but rather it expresses precisely its charity in its caring.

As regards the possibility of partaking of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, some argued in favor of the present regulations because of their theological foundation, others were in favor of a greater opening on very precise conditions when dealing with situations that cannot be resolved without creating new injustices and suffering. For some, partaking of the sacraments might occur were it preceded by a penitential path – under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop –, and with a clear undertaking in favor of the children. This would not be a general possibility, but the fruit of a discernment applied on a case-by-case basis, according to a law of gradualness, that takes into consideration the distinction between state of sin, state of grace and the attenuating circumstances.

Welcoming homosexual persons

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.

The transmission of life and the challenge of the declining birthrate

Probably here as well what is required is a In this light, we should go back to the message of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Paul VI, which underlines the need to respect the dignity of the person in the moral evaluation of the methods of birth control….

(Relatio Post Disceptationem, in “Family synod: full text of the mid-term report”, Catholic Herald, Oct. 13, 2014; some minor formatting and typographical edits made.)

Wow! What can one say to this? Perhaps we are supposed to be consoled and encouraged that the Vatican II Church still “affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman.” That’s nice to know: The abominable sin of sodomy is not exactly the same as the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony — how reassuring!

Notice also the blasphemous reference to Exodus 3:5, where God in the burning bush says to Moses: “Come not nigh hither, put off the shoes from thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (source). The Synod’s Relatio, quoting Francis’ outrageous Evangelii Gaudium, applies this not to God but to man (“the other”), as though he were the “holy ground” before which one ought to remove one’s shoes! Once again Francis blasphemes, as he has done numerous times in the past, such as when he made the Crucifixion the punch line of a joke (see here).

With regard to fornication and adultery, then, the Synod’s position is that although these mortal sins may possess “elements” of marriage, nevertheless they do not have the fullness of married life, which subsists only in the Sacrament of Matrimony. As the text admits, this is simply a logical extension of Vatican II’s Frankenchurch heresy, because once you admit the principle of “elements of truth and goodness”, there’s no reason why it could apply only to some things and not to others. (For more on the Frankenchurch heresy, be sure to watch this exciting debate and read the documentation provided.)

These ideas, by the way, are 100% Jorge Bergoglio. In his 2010 book On Heaven and Earth, which he co-authored with his rabbi friend Abraham Skorka, the future “Pope” Francis wrote that fornication does not have the “fullness” or “greatness” of marriage and that a priest does not have the right to tell a penitent what to do because this would constitute “spiritual harassment” — see our post here:

Yes, this is like saying that sewage does not have the “greatness” of drinking water. It may be technically correct, but misses the point entirely and is dangerously misleading.

In practice, all this wordy pseudo-theology amounts to saying that married Catholics should tell people living in sin, “What you have is good, but what we have is better!” This sort of strategy, even if it were theoretically justifiable (which it is not), never works and is based on a denial of original sin and its consequences. It has been tried many times in the past, for example, with regard to not harping on the obligation to assist at Holy Mass on Sundays and rather casting it in the light of an invitation which people are merely “encouraged” to accept. What happened? Empty churches. Invitations, you see, can be declined. Duh!

So, we are once again seeing Vatican II — in its teachings and its methods — being offered as the great “solution” to the problems which the Council and the whole Novus Ordo Sect themselves have brought about or fostered. The disease is again being offered as the cure.

We all know, then, where this is going, and it’s not anywhere good. Just a few days ago we renewed our prediction that a schism is forming within the Vatican II Church, and it seems that this schism has just come a lot closer. And so we ask once again: “How long until Schism?”


Reality Check:

Related Links:

How to be a Catholic Today


The Church is in Eclipse, so…

It’s a fair question. If you’ve been spending a good amount of time on our web site, you may find yourself agreeing with what we’re saying, but there is now one burning question on your mind: “Okay, fair enough, but… NOW WHAT?!” We get this question a lot from our readers who contact us, and it is time we addressed this in a lengthy post, which we have done here:

It is not easy to give advice in our situation, and we certainly don’t claim to be infallible, but we’ve done our best to help you sort things out. We hope that our counsel will be of great benefit to you and provide you with hope, consolation, and encouragement. It is very important to realize that none of what has happened somehow took God “by surprise”, as though it were possible to cross His plans and designs. Rather, all that has happened is precisely part of the Divine Plan. We must lovingly accept the mysterious workings of Divine Providence and realize that God chose to put us on earth at this very time precisely because it so pleases Him and it will be most conducive to our eternal salvation to be alive today and suffer through these trials.

Don’t let these difficulties be a hindrance to your spiritual perfection — rather, realize that God calls you to perfection through these trials, by means of them. And don’t fear that somehow these afflictions will prove too great for you — when God blesses you with extraordinary crosses, He also grants extraordinary graces, graces not available to others who lived at other, easier times. 

“Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.” (Mt 11:29-30).

Jorge opened his mouth again...


Francis: “God does Not Exist! … There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!

October 9, 2014. Exactly 56 years since the death of Pope Pius XII. Vatican Radio publishes a summary of the “Pope’s” latest homily, quoting him as follows:

So often [people ask]: 'But do you believe?': 'Yes! Yes! '; 'What do you believe in?'; 'In God!'; 'But what is God for you?'; 'God, God'. But God does not exist: Do not be shocked! So God does not exist! There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, they are not some vague idea in the clouds ... This God spray does not exist! The three persons exist!

(“Pope at Santa Marta: What we dare not hope for”,, Oct. 9, 2014)

You can view the homily right here — the juicy part begins at 2:04 into the clip:

Just brilliant. This from the man who said “There is no Catholic God.” Hopefully this idiocy does not require further comment. We defy Francis to say what he just said, to Jews and Muslims. (Remember, he believes they worship the same god he worships, but they explicitly reject the Most Holy Trinity.) Somehow we don’t recall him preaching the Three Divine Persons to Jews and Muslims. Instead, he hosted interreligious prayer to “God” with them at the Vatican. Francis may mockingly refer to “God Spray”, but it is Catholic dogma that God is a pure spirit: “God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:24).


“Pope” Francis preaching the Three Divine Persons to the Jews

As one member of the Novus Ordo curia is reported to have said about Francis, “His health is bad, so at least this won’t last too long” (source).

On this October 9, pray for the repose of the soul of the last true Holy Father, Pius XII. Nothing has been the same since his passing. A whole new religion was formed after his death, occupying the Catholic structures throughout the world. All the trouble began at the suspicious conclave that followed the Pope’s death in 1958.

Kyrie, eleison.



     Published October 8, 2014
    Novus Ordo Watch Tip: Too much to read? Can't keep up? Use Readability!

What they have done to our churches:
Novus Ordo “Night of Lights” in Holzkirchen, Germany

Full Movie on Pope Pius XII, the last known true Pope,
who passed away on Oct. 9, 1958 in Rome.

For a Reflection on 50+ terrifying years of being without a Pope, please see this essay:

Get the Popcorn ready...

How Long Until Schism?
The Vatican II Sect on the Brink of Chaos


The Synod on the Family had not even started yet, and already all hell was breaking loose: Francis’ endless tyranny against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate over their slight drift towards traditionalism; The Remnant’s much-hyped Petition to Stop the Synod’s embarrassing failure to get even 1,400 unverified signatures; Novus Ordo cardinals being at each other’s throats over what the Synod is and isn’t permitted to change; Francis’ invitation of Belgium’s scandal-ridden “Cardinal” Daneels to participate in the synod while showing conservative-minded “bishops” the door (he did once work as a bouncer, you know); and on top of all this, a respected Italian journalist’s well-timed release of a book making the case that Francis isn’t even a valid Pope!

And now, thisDr. Kelly Bowring, an American Novus Ordo theology professor, has composed an ‘Open Letter to Pope Francis’, with an accompanying video, in which he threatens to break communion with the Argentine “Pope” should he attempt to change church teaching or practice substantially:

The following video shows Bowring reading the Open Letter:

Kelly Bowring isn’t an insignificant figure in Novus Ordo Land. According to his own testimony, he has received a doctorate in the Novus Ordo version of Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome and possesses his church’s mandate to teach theology. In other words, he is a real theologian of the Vatican II Church. Here’s what his web site says about his background and education:

Dr. Kelly Bowring is a Catholic theologian and popular Catholic speaker, who received his doctorate from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Rome); his licentiate from the Dominican House and the John Paul II Institute (Washington DC) while working at the US Bishops Office; and his masters from Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio). He has the Church’s mandatum to teach theology.

Dr. Bowring has been a dean, chair, and professor of theology at the Graduate School of Theology at St. Charles Seminary, Southern Catholic College, and St. Mary’s College of Ave Maria University.


Bowring is also an author of sundry books published by Two Heart Press. He is an avid promoter of various alleged apparitions, revelations, and seers, some of them genuine (Quito, LaSalette, Lourdes, Fatima), others unapproved or definitely false (Medjugorje, Garabandal, Amsterdam, Luisa Piccarreta, Faustina Kowalska).

Before analyzing Bowring’s letter to Francis, let’s be very clear about one thing: Regardless of how good his intentions may be, Bowring is a Novus Ordo Modernist, not a true Catholic, not a real Catholic theologian, and not someone from whom anyone should seek instruction in matters of Faith or morals. The fact that he takes issue with and warns “Pope” Francis only shows what pathetic state the Vatican II Church finds itself in after one-and-a-half years of Jorge Bergoglio at the helm. So, please don’t be naive — not everyone who has good intentions and opposes Francis’ more egregious errors is also thereby a Catholic. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, at least not necessarily!

Ready for Schism: Dr. Bowring’s Open Letter to “Pope” Francis

Dr. Bowring begins by asking Francis a number of questions about things that have characterized his putative pontificate so far, specifically regarding liberalism and sexual morality. The author then asks: "Is there a single doctrine of the Faith that you refuse to believe in?” A bit of a puzzling question to be sure, not only because Bergoglio will hardly admit to being a heretic, but also because his statements and actions over the last 18 months have been permeated with heresies and other doctrinal errors so that Bowring’s inquiry regarding “a single doctrine” appears almost comical.

For example, Francis published unmistakable heresy in his Modernist “Apostolic Exhortation” Evangelii Gaudium, n. 247, when he taught:

We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

(Francis, “Apostolic Exhortation” Evangelii Gaudium, n. 247; underlining added.)

In this official document, he simply echoes what he already said, a bit less formally, in his book co-authored with his Jewish rabbi friend Abraham Skorka, namely:

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. That, I think, is the most courageous thing from Vatican II on the subject.

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

This heretical nonsense is powerfully refuted, with copious traditional Catholic documentation,
in our blog post here.

A second example of clear heresy on Bergoglio’s part can be found in the sermon he gave on February 21, 2014, in which he claimed that faith without works is not true faith. This is heresy against the Council of Trent, as we explain in our blog post here.

Other Bergoglian heresies and errors can be found aplenty on our special Francis Page here: 

Remember that part of the Modernist strategy is to remain vague and appear confused, rather than deny dogma clearly and verbatim, so as to inject their poison more subtly and therefore more successfully into the veins of the unsuspecting faithful. Hence Pope St. Pius X warned us that we must look for Modernism not only in a suspect’s stated beliefs but also in his manner of speaking and his actions (see Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 3; cf. Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei). 

In other words, Modernists tend to diffuse their heresies by how they speak (what they emphasize vs. what they leave unsaid) and how they act (for example, nothing preaches the denial of Transubstantiation more effectively than treating the Blessed Sacrament like popcorn). They speak in such a way that, even though perhaps technically no heresy is actually stated, everyone who listens to them takes heresy from what they say. Hence Pope Pius VI condemned even an entirely orthodox restatement of the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation, merely on the grounds that it failed to use the word “Transubstantiation”, “since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question” — calling the omission of this term “dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics” (Bull Auctorem Fidei, error no. 29; Denz. 1529). Pope Clement XIII had likewise warned against “diabolical error,” which, “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” (Encyclical In Dominico Agro, n. 2). Apply that standard to Vatican II sometime and see what you get….

So, it is puzzling to see how Dr. Bowring is at this point still asking whether Francis is a heretic. Has he not been reading what Francis writes? Should he not, as a Novus Ordo theologian, be reading the official “papal” documents? Is he not following what Francis says and does — and if he is, has he still not figured out that the man is obviously not a Roman Catholic?

Bowring agrees: A Heretic cannot be Pope

Bowring concedes that a heretic cannot be a valid Pope, and he states in his Open Letter that any heresy on Francis’ part would invalidate his claim the papacy. In this context he refers people by means of a link to the following page on his web site, which discusses issues surrounding heretical papal claimants:

In a nutshell, he says that if a Pope were to become a heretic in office, he would cease to be Pope, “without any declaration, by operation of law.” Yet, Bowring then states: “However, ecclesiastical law requires that the faithful must presume we have a valid Pope, unless the Church’s highest authority formally declares otherwise.

So which is it now? Is a declaration necessary or not? He just affirmed that the fall from office would happen “without any declaration” but then says we must accept a heretical Pope until “the Church’s highest authority formally declares otherwise.” Besides, there’s another pesky little problem: Isn’t the Church’s highest authority precisely the Pope? Hello?

Perhaps Bowring is here adopting John Salza’s position of “the heretical Pope ceases to be Pope immediately but we can’t know this until there is a declaration by the cardinals”. While this may seem like a convenient solution to some, it cannot escape the dilemma, as we show in our definitive and exhaustive refutation of Salza’s position here:

In this essay responding to Salza, you will also find a response to the popular claim that as St. Paul rebuked St. Peter in Galatians 2:11-14, Catholics can “resist” a heretical “Pope”, a prooftext Bowring also uses for a similar argument.

Before returning to the Open Letter, we must briefly respond to two more arguments the theologian uses to make his case that we can “resist” a Pope who appears to be a heretic until the Church’s “highest authority” — left conveniently undefined — declares he has lost his office:

How to Treat a Heretical Pope

The Popes themselves teach it is possible for a Pope to be a heretic. What to do if this happens? Ven. Pius IX answers: “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”


St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., even wrote as follows:

“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”

(Kelly Bowring, “Concerning Pope Francis and the False Prophet”, Two Hearts Press Blog, Oct. 1, 2013)

Now this is just rich. Bowring casually ascribes an absolutely outrageous quote to Pope Pius IX, without giving any reference whatsoever. Where is the quote from? In what authentic papal document does it appear? Nowhere. No doubt, the quote is made up. If you search the internet for it, you will see that it can allegedly be found in a letter Pius IX wrote to one “Bishop Brizen.” The problem is, there was no Bishop Brizen. You will search the Catholic Hierarchy web site in vain for such a bishop. He did not exist. Instead, however, there was a diocese of Brixen, whose bishop during the reign of Pius IX was Vincent Gasser, and it is quite possible that he had ongoing correspondence with the Pope. If anyone wishes to claim that such a stupid and erroneous statement regarding “not following” the Pope should have come from Pius IX in a letter to Bp. Gasser, then prove it, don’t just assert it. 

It is extremely unscholarly and irresponsible of Dr. Bowring, who has such great academic credentials, to simply lift an unverified quote like that off the internet and use it as papal teaching. And those who claim that this quote is found in the 1904 book L’Infaillibilité du Pape et le Syllabus by Paul Viollet, should be made aware that this book was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in 1906 and put on the Index of Forbidden Books (see Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, April 5, 1906, in Acta Sanctae Sedis 39, pp. 96-97).

As to the quote of St. Robert Bellarmine about “resisting the Pope” that Dr. Bowring offers, it is a very popular quote that is used again and again by non-sedevacantists to justify their resistance to the Vatican II magisterium, but the original context in which it appears shows that St. Robert was not at all endorsing their “recognize-and-resist” position, as the following links show:

It is quite disturbing to see a Novus Ordo theologian with a doctorate from Rome and an official mandate to teach, recycle these old quotes so sloppily in his argumentation.

But let us return to Bowring’s Open Letter to Francis.

Changes in Doctrine? Welcome to the New Religion

After connecting heresy with the loss of papal office, Bowring proceeds to warn Francis that he “cannot change any doctrine in the Catechism”, which is amusing inasmuch as the 1992 Novus Ordo Catechism of the Catholic Church to which the theologian refers is already a manifesto of the changed faith and new religion of Vatican II. So, we would like to say to Dr. Bowring: “You’re a bit too late here. The doctrine has already been changed. If you don’t believe it, try using the Catechism of Trent and the pre-Vatican II papal encyclicals in a Novus Ordo parish catechism course and see how far you will get.”

Next, the author mentions that any substantial change to Catholic doctrine by Francis would by that very fact invalidate his claim to be Pope. This is exactly right, but we don’t know what world Bowring has been living in, because the religion of Vatican II, as we just said, already represents a substantial change of the Catholic religion as it was taught until that point. This is explained very well by Bp. Donald Sanborn in the following sermons, commentaries, and lectures:

jp2 indian blessing.jpg

Bowring proceeds to tell Francis that “[t]he Church cannot be made to suit the modern world, nor can her doctrine be changed to become inclusive, in order to suit other denominations and religions and fashions”. Yet, this is exactly what the Vatican II Church is: a Modernistic perversion of the Catholic Church, adjusted to the modern world, changed to suit other denominations, religions, and fashions. That’s what John XXIII’s “aggiornamento” (updating) was all about, the opening of the windows to let in the smoke of Satan “some fresh air”, and why Vatican II published a document “on the Church in the modern world” — Gaudium Et Spes. Yet the true Popes before Vatican II had warned of “unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind” (Leo XIII, Instruction of the S.C. of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, Jan. 27, 1902; qtd. in St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 55).

Excuse me, Dr. Bowring, but where were you all this time? Where were you during the reigns of John Paul II and Benedict XVI? This mess didn’t start with Francis; he’s just more blunt and more open about it all than any of his five predecessors of unhappy memory. What has changed since Benedict is emphasis, frankness (no pun intended), and perhaps the degree or speed of the revolution, but not the revolution itself.

The Open Letter continues, and now it gets really wild. Bowring asks Bergoglio point-blank:

Pope Francis, are you the wolf in shepherd’s clothing that Catholic prophecy has warned us about? Are you the prophesied false prophet of lies and deception who will lead the Church into schism? Are you the anti-John the Baptist and precursor of the antichrist who will rule over the world? Will you soon be at death’s door, as the Book of Revelation prophesizes, only then, just as if a miracle has taken place, seem to have risen from the dead?

(Kelly Bowring, “Open Letter to Pope Francis: Are You About to Redefine Church Doctrine?”, Two Hearts Press Blog, Oct. 1, 2014)

All right, here’s some advice from Novus Ordo Watch, free of charge: The False Prophet mentioned in Holy Scripture (Apoc 16:13), whoever he may be, is probably not going to tell you that he’s the False Prophet. So, it’s probably pointless to ask him. If you’re looking for an Anti-John-the-Baptist, you may want to take a closer look at John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli), the precursor of the Vatican II religion, who got everything prepared — he enabled the reign of his crown prince, Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini), by making him a “cardinal”, something Pope Pius XII had refused to do; he added St. Joseph’s name to the canon of the Mass, thus signaling that even the canon was not untouchable; he established the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, which was the starting point for Ecumenism; and he called and convened the Second Vatican Council, the ground zero of the New Religion, on which the False Church is based. Indeed, with his emphasis on aggiornamento and the New Theology for “modern man”, John XXIII can be said to have made straight paths crooked, in opposition to St. John the Baptist, who came to make crooked paths straight (see Mk 1:2-3). During the council, some even referred to John XXIII as the “Precursor of the Antichrist.”


Let’s not act like Francis is the beginning of Novus Ordo Modernism. He’s just No. 6 in the list of anti-Catholic usurpers of the Chair of St. Peter. John XXIII, long before Francis, was considered the “humble” one, the “Good Pope”, as he came to be known. He received the adulation of the masses, the respect of the world, the admiration of all. And if we consider that it was his election, more than that of Francis, that was riddled with irregularities and bizarre occurrences, as the following links show, it becomes clear that your focus, Dr. Bowring, ought to be on Angelo Roncalli much more than on Jorge Bergoglio — you are 55 years too late!

It is also of some interest that, as Bergoglio himself revealed, if he had been elected in the conclave of 2005 rather than that of 2013, he would have chosen the name John XXIV. Indeed he resembles Roncalli in more ways than one.

Bowring then warns that “the false prophet will be masquerading as a friend to Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims”. That description definitely fits Francis, but by no means only Francis. Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI were deeply involved in “interreligious dialogue” and the rejection of proselytism. It was Benedict XVI who prayed at the Blue Mosque in Turkey and declared in a German synagogue that he who meets Christ meets Judaism; it was John Paul II who kissed the Koran in public and, like Benedict and Francis, prayed at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem; it was Paul VI who laid the groundwork for it all through the abominable conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate, Vatican II’s foundational document for interreligious dialogue.

The question of whether the usurpation of the Papal Throne began only with Francis or in fact much farther back, in 1958 with John XXIII, is extremely significant, because the answer to this question determines whether the Vatican II Church is the True Church or a false church. Under Bowring’s hypothesis, the Vatican II Sect is the True Church, from which Francis would be cutting himself off should he defect into heresy (remember, Bowring doesn’t believe Francis has committed any heresy yet). The “faithful” who oppose Francis, then, would still be part of the “True” Church, of which Bergoglio would then no longer be a member. 

Bowring specifically says: “Those who separate themselves from the [Vatican II] Church in these times by compromising doctrine, even if following a pope, will no longer be united to the true Church” (ibid.; italics added). Now this is a mouthful. Let’s disentangle this for a moment. Bowring is saying that if Francis compromises doctrine, then…

  • he cuts himself off from the Vatican II Church (“True Church” in his eyes)
  • the [Novus Ordo] faithful will have to refuse to follow Francis in his compromise of doctrine
  • and therefore not “follow the Pope”
  • else they will not be part of the “True” Church any longer

This position is a theological disaster. It is impossible to not be part of the true Church by following a true Pope, because where Peter is, there is the Church. He is the bedrock and guarantor of orthodoxy. On the other hand, to refuse to follow the Pope makes one a schismatic. But schismatics are, by definition, not part of the true Church. What Bowring is proposing here is frightening — it is totally backwards. He’s essentially saying that should Francis deny the Faith, then, in order to remain a Catholic, you must become a schismatic, else you become a heretic. Got it? Don’t you just love it when Novus Ordo theologians offer to cut through all the confusion?!

Against this nonsense, let’s recall some refreshingly clear and authoritative teaching from Pope Pius IX:

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

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

If it appears to you that maybe this papal teaching doesn’t exactly fit into Dr. Bowring’s theology, that’s because it doesn’t. Novus Ordos and Neo-Traditionalists are notorious for making things up as they go along, especially when it comes to issues about papal authority, public heresy, loss of office, and sedevacantism.

Dr. Bowring ends his letter with another puzzling statement. He writes: “Pope Francis, if you should still yet decide to allow any change in doctrine, then the Church’s legitimate hierarchy will make the faithful aware of such matters clearly at that time and how we should best respond in good faith.” Okay, so if that’s the case, then what’s all the fuss about? If the Novus Ordo faithful will be made aware and then properly guided by their hierarchs when Francis defects, then what need is there to warn the faithful, and why even bother to write this Open Letter to Bergoglio? Bowring really seems to be undercutting the whole reason why he made his letter public in the first place.

However good and noble Dr. Bowring’s intentions may be, one would have expected a bit more from a man with a doctorate degree in the Novus Ordo version of Sacred Theology from a Pontifical University in Rome. This letter is a real head-scratcher: in terms of the poor understanding of the subject matter the author exhibits (essentially saying “Don’t follow the Pope if you want to remain in the Church!” and then using an unverified quote, attributed to Pope Pius IX, taken from an alleged letter to a non-existent bishop); in terms of the bizarre contrasting of the “bad” Francis with his “good” Novus Ordo predecessors, as though the Vatican II Church itself were not already heretical; and in terms of the failure to recognize that Francis himself has long ago crossed the line into heresy, in words and in actions.

Let’s see what sort of reaction Bowring’s Open Letter gets in Novus Ordo Land in the weeks ahead. Most of his fellow-theologians can’t be pleased.

Concluding Commentary

It seems pretty clear from all that has been happening since the election of Jorge Bergoglio as “Pope Francis” on March 13, 2013, that the Novus Ordo Sect is on the verge of chaos. We have long been saying that there may eventually come a schism, and it seems that this time is approaching very quickly now indeed. Dr. Bowring has just given an informal theological justification for it. His Open Letter makes clear that he is ready to go into schism should Francis cross the line. (More on schism below.)


This is huge, ladies and gentlemen. Until now, a possible schism was only a conjecture on our part, based on the problems we were seeing Francis create. But now we have an accredited Novus Ordo theologian coming out and threatening it — and he already has a following, as you can see from the comments on his blog and on his Facebook page. Will other high-profile individuals join him?

From our monitoring of various blogs and Twitter feeds and other sources, we know that the New Church is a powder keg at this point, waiting to explode. The Synod on the Family currently underway in Rome, together with Socci’s book disputing Francis’ validity, might just be the trigger. And then what? 

Those who split from Francis may find a consoling alternative in the “Resignationist” position, which considers Benedict XVI’s resignation invalid and hence him to be Pope still. At the end of the day, Satan does not care which of the two antipopes people accept as the true Pope, because neither of them is. It would truly be a masterstroke of deception to offer people two false alternatives — this way, they would believe themselves to have a choice, and thus to have a way to escape the deception, when in fact either choice ensures that their soul will remain in the dark confines of the spiritual wasteland that is the Vatican II Church. Pick Francis or pick Benedict — either way, you’re choosing a Modernist! A devilishly clever plan!

While it is true that next to Jorge Bergoglio, Joseph Ratzinger doesn’t look so bad, we must recall the warning of Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, who in his 19th-century book against Liberalism, which was endorsed by the Vatican, warned that the most dangerous kind of Liberal is not the extreme but the moderate one, because the moderate seeks to cloak his Liberalism:

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)

It would seem that Francis’ deception of the masses is
painfully obvious to anyone who bothers to look and who doesn’t get paid not to see it. Surely one may be permitted to ask: Who benefits from this? Could the real deception here be two-pronged, like a one-two punch? Doesn’t a turn against Francis by “conservative” Novus Ordo Modernists like Kelly Bowring implicitly legitimize the Vatican II Sect at least up until Francis? Is this not exactly what Bowring argued — not that Francis was contradicting, for example, Pius XI and pre-conciliar teaching, but that he was contradicting John Paul II and Vatican II? Thus, either way, whether you go with Francis or with Bowring, the Vatican II Revolution is legitimized and perpetuated, whether the more moderate and hidden kind (that of Benedict XVI) or the more extreme and open kind (that of Francis). If Francis is too obvious for you, you can go to Benedict — and will still be in the False Church of Vatican II. Clever!


A few clarifying words about schism are still in order. When we say that there may occur a
schism in the Novus Ordo Sect, or that Bowring is ready to go into schism, we simply mean a rift between Francis and his followers on the one hand, and Novus Ordos who reject Francis on the other (and possibly accept Benedict instead). It is a descriptive use of the term, much like “schism” is used in “The Great Western Schism” of the 14th/15th century. We are not here concerned with anyone’s culpability or lack thereof, nor with the distinction between the canonical crime of schism and the personal sin of schism. At the same time, we must point out that Bowring’s call to reject Francis by not “following the Pope”, i.e., even while believing him to be the Pope is definitely and clearly a condoning of the mortal sin of schism.

Pope Leo XIII wrote two Apostolic Letters on the subject of the required proper submission of each Catholic to his local bishop and to the Pope. These letters are not widely known, and we suspect that the “Recognize-and-Resist” traditionalists won’t have much of an interest in circulating them. Make sure you read them and ask yourself if you can accept Francis (or Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, or John XXIII) as Popes and yet reject their Modernist teachings, saints, liturgical norms, church laws, etc.:

In connection with this important evidence for the true Catholic position on submission to the Pope and the legitimate hierarchy, we should also remind our readers once more of the fact that whoever believes Paul VI to have been a true Pope of the Catholic Church, must accept as true and pleasing to God the teachings and decisions of the Second Vatican Council, as proved here:

Francis’ “pontificate” is truly threatening to tear the Novus Ordo Sect apart. No papal pretender has polarized his people as much as Jorge Bergoglio, at least not since Paul VI, and today things are quite a bit different from the way they were in the 1960’s and 70’s. It is comically ironic to see that at a point when even Novus Ordos are struggling and wrestling with their “Pope”, the Society of St. Pius X, who found itself unable to come to an agreement with the much more nuanced Modernist Ratzinger, is showing renewed interest in being fully reconciled to the Vatican II Sect and its blunt and open “genuine Modernist” (Bp. Fellay’s words!), Francis.

Again, we have chaos, or are pretty close to it.


No one causes chaos like Chaos Frank!

Holy Scripture warns us again and again about the deception of the last days, about false teachers, false prophets, and false signs and wonders. Beware of the big ones — like Francis and Benedict XVI — but also of the small ones, like Bowring himself, a very gifted man whose apparent sincerity and pleasant way of speaking, as seen in his video, will make him appeal to many, especially those disillusioned with Francis.

And therein lies the danger. Keep in mind that, as we said towards the beginning, the mere fact that a well-intentioned soul is opposing Francis and his more obvious errors doesn’t mean that this person is giving you the true Catholic Faith — it could simply be a false alternative, as is the case with Kelly Bowring’s proposal of the pre-Francis Vatican II religion as the “solution” to Bergoglio. Sorry, but you cannot save people from the devil by offering them Satan as an alternative.

The great Fr. Frederick Faber, in a sermon preached in 1861, explained in what the great deception of the Antichrist and his False Prophet will consist. Listen closely to these words of Fr. Faber:

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

(Fr. Frederick Faber, Sermon for Pentecost Sunday, 1861; qtd. in Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World; underlining added.)

Let this be a warning to all of us. Personal sincerity is simply not enough.

What’s also disturbing about Dr. Bowring is the fact that he puts so much emphasis on alleged apparitions and revelations — and releases them into the wild, into the vulnerable and already-confused public.

We cannot emphasize this enough: Stay away from unapproved “apparitions” and “revelations”! They are dangerous! Holy Mother Church has not approved them (true, she is currently in eclipse, but the fact remains she has not sanctioned them), and our position on Francis, Vatican II, etc., cannot be based upon a private revelation or an alleged apparition anyway, even if the apparition is authentic and approved by the Church.

Recently an unidentified woman calling herself “Maria Divine Mercy” has been spreading bogus “revelations” she allegedly receives from Our Lord. Many people find them credible because they point out that Francis is not a valid Pope. However, never forget that just because you find certain things in an alleged prophecy or apparition to be factually correct, doesn’t mean that the apparition is authentic, that it is from God. The most dangerous lies are those that contain a lot of truth, because that is what gives them credibility. 

The bottom line is: Maria Divine Mercy has not been approved by the Church, so you have no business reading or spreading the “messages”. Seeking after these special “revelations” is a sure way to be misled! Remember these words of our Blessed Lord: “And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; lo, he is here: do not believe. For there will rise up false Christs and false prophets, and they shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect” (Mk 13:21-22). These deceptions will be so great and so appealing that even many good souls will be misled, not just the bad, as Fr. Faber warned.

Even the true and approved apparitions, like LaSalette and Fatima, those that have the Church’s full endorsement and approbation, cannot be the basis for our position on who the Pope is, what is happening to the Church, etc. — they merely provide helpful support, encouragement, and warnings. They may point us in a certain direction, emphasize a certain important aspect, etc., but they can never be the foundation, the decisive factor, in what we believe about the Catholic Church and the Modernist Sect.

In other words, do not reject Francis and the Vatican II Sect as illegitimate because of this or that apparition, authentic or not — instead, reject them because the Catholic Faith compels you to do so, because it is the only possible conclusion that does not do damage to the Faith or to the required submission Catholics owe to the Church and to the Pope. Again, our Blessed Lord warned us that many would be deceived by false “spiritual” messages and revelations: “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” (Mt 24:11-13).

Persevere then, always remaining faithful to the Deposit of Faith, which was taught by all true Popes faithfully and without any error, until the Church went into eclipse after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

Related Links:

More Relevant Now than Ever…

St. Francis of Assisi Prophecy:

“A Man, not Canonically Elected, will be raised to the Pontificate… In those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer.”


Shortly before he died in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the members of his order and warned them of great tribulations that would befall the Church in the future, saying:

Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.

The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.

Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.

There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.

Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.

Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.

Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.

(Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250; underlining and paragraph breaks added.)

To verify for yourself that these words have been transcribed accurately from their source, we are providing scanned images of the pages from which they are taken:

(In addition, the book that contains this prophecy is available for free PDF download at Google Books. Click here to download it. If you would like to purchase a paperback copy, click here.)

Clearly, these prophetic words of St. Francis have never been more relevant than today. It has been rumored that St. Francis also said that the false pope he was warning against would take his own name (“Francis”), but we have not been able to verify this information or find a source for it.

While we ought not to seek after prophecies, special revelations or apparitions, nor make them the basis for our theological position, we share this prophecy with our readers in order to reassure them that our times, though extraordinary, have been foreknown and foretold in various ways by various Catholic authorities. St. Francis was by no means the only one, as the links below demonstrate.

St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Similar Prophecies & Related Links:

“I can’t believe it’s not Catholic!”

St. Jacob “Catholic” Church


(click to enlarge)

No, this isn’t an ugly public restroom, it is a lot worse: This is St. Jacob Novus Ordo cemetery chapel in Bad Kleinkirchheim, Austria. This building, located in the diocese of Gurk, was perpetrated by Thomas Hoke, Ed Hoke, and Armin Guerino. The local “bishop” responsible for this blasphemous disaster is Mr. Alois Schwarz, the same Modernist layman-in-bishop’s-clothing under whose watch the infernal “Sounds Effects Mass” is held every year.

We’re purposely showing you only the front view of this “church”, because if you don’t like it, we’re pretty sure you don’t want to see the back. (For those who just can’t resist, you can see the back of the chapel here and get a side view here, but don’t say you weren’t forewarned!)

If, after checking these images, you are still reading this post, we have to tell you that none of what you just saw can compare to what you’re about to see on the inside of this “church”. If you thought the building looks like a public bathroom only from the outside, we have to inform you that care was taken to make the interior resemble such facilities as well, complete with graffiti on the walls and what looks like a sterilized stall with copious lighting:


The inside of “St. Jacob Chapel” is even worse
(click to enlarge)

The diocese is mighty proud of its “beautiful” chapel and features it on its web site, where you can also watch a brief video clip introducing the monstrosity, reproduced below:

In the unlikely event that you haven’t seen enough yet, there are plenty more images available here, courtesy of the diocese. 

There’s nothing left of Catholicism in Austria, folks. Nothing at all. And “churches” such as this one are the outward manifestation of the spiritual wasteland that is generated by the false Modernist sect masquerading as the Catholic Church, the “operation of error” mentioned by St. Paul (see 2 Thess 2:10). The whole fraud is successful only because it is deceitfully being done under the banner of “Catholicism”, by a false hierarchy that consists of wolves rather than shepherds. But the Catholic Church and her true Popes had long ago warned us about this.

The Vatican II Church is a cruel joke — and if you’re still Novus Ordo, we hate to say it, but the joke’s on you.

See Also: 

Published on Oct. 3, dedicated to Benedict XVI...

Non È Francesco:
Pressure mounts on Vatican as New Book
disputes Francis’ Legitimacy


[UPDATED Oct. 4, 2014]

On September 24, we were the first English-speaking web site to provide information about Antonio Socci’s explosive new book Non È Francesco: La Chiesa Nella Grande Tempesta (“It’s Not Francis: The Church in a Great Tempest”), a work in which the Italian Novus Ordo journalist makes the case that Benedict XVI’s resignation in February 2013 was invalid and therefore the man elected to replace him is not in fact the Pope. (See our original post here.)


The timing of the release of this book is surely no accident — it first hit the shelves throughout Italy on October 3, two days before Francis’ Synod on the Family will open, a Vatican gathering of select Modernist “bishops” that has the potential to revolutionize Novus Ordo Church law and/or practice with regard to the reception of the “sacraments” by the divorced and “remarried”, that is, by unrepentant public adulterers.

Until the synod begins, you can still vote in our poll and tell us what you will do if the Vatican gathering decides to indeed allow those publicly living in unrepented sin to approach the Novus Ordo sacraments. (As of Oct. 4, only 4% of people polled are confident that such a thing cannot happen, and The Remnant has noticeably refused to make a similar prediction, after their last claim that it would be impossible for John Paul II to ever be “canonized” went up in smoke earlier this year.)

Socci’s book has now begun to be mentioned and talked about on blogs, on media sites, and in other places on and off the internet; the secular media has picked up on it as well. This book is sure to cause a ruckus throughout Italy, and its impact in the world will likewise not be insignificant, given the power and influence of the mass media and especially the blogosphere and internet forums. Sooner or later, the Vatican press secretary “Fr.” Federico Lombardi will have to address its claims.

The October 1 edition of Libero, the Italian newspaper for which Socci writes as a columnist, carried a special article today introducing the explosive book, entitled “Francesco è il Papa di Scalfari ma dimentica noi Cristiani”. You can download the article (in Italian) in PDF format at this link.


We should emphasize that Antonio Socci is not a traditionalist of any stripe, and certainly not a sedevacantist. He is a mainstream Novus Ordo, a proponent of Vatican II, and his only association with traditionalism is his book The Fourth Secret of Fatima (2006), which was originally intended as a work debunking claims that the Vatican had failed to release the true or at least the full Third Secret of Fatima, but which ended up defending those claims as the author came to realize in the course of his research that the claims rested on extremely solid ground.

Socci’s work as a journalist and author, his association with the mainstream Novus Ordo Church, and the fact that he still refers to Francis as Pope even though he has serious doubts about the validity of the Ratzinger resignation, give him endless credibility. Though of course there will be no shortage of media personalities, bloggers, pundits, and other “experts” who will seek to question Socci’s credibility, based on what we have seen in The Fourth Secret of Fatima we expect Socci’s research will prove well-founded and academically sound. And we suspect that, given the turmoil already rampant in the Vatican II Sect since Bergoglio’s election, the usual suspects won’t be able to silence the outcry and confusion this book will cause with some simply dismissive blog posts or jabs about “conspiracy theorists” or a journalist “gone crazy.”

No matter what you may think about the thesis itself, Non È Francesco will be a huge dent in Francis’ credibility and therefore the credibility of the Vatican II Sect of which he is the head. Although the alternative hypothesis advanced by Socci — that of the true Pope being the old Modernist Joseph Ratzinger — isn’t any better, this doesn’t matter in terms of the wound it will inflict on the Modernist establishment. It will, in fact, inevitably lead to a discussion of Sedevacantism, the position that the Vatican II “Popes” (i.e. the “Popes” since Pius XII) have all been illegitimate and invalid, which is the well-founded position of Novus Ordo Watch.

Socci’s book, therefore, is a godsend. It will force a discussion that has long been overdue in the mainstream media: Is the Vatican’s every papal claimaint always and necessarily the Pope? Not at all, of course, as even Church history proves, but this is an error that prevails in our “don’t-disturb-me-with-inconvenient-facts-especially-if-they-impact-my-paycheck” society.

The publisher of this controversial new book is Mondadori. Their web site provides the following interesting description of the book:

While the Church is going through a dramatic period of history, of internal crises and violent attacks on Catholics all over the world, the Vatican continues an unprecedented “co-existence of two Popes”, which no one has yet had the courage to think about. In this book, Antonio Socci does precisely this, wondering what the still unknown reasons are for the historical resignation of Benedict XVI and if it can be considered a true papal resignation, as many canonists have raised serious doubts. Questions that are now intertwined with those of the conclave that took place on March 13, 2013, which, according to the author’s sensational reconstruction, violated some of the norms of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis that would automatically render Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s election null and void. The question of who is the real Pope (or if there is a need for a new conclave) comes at a time when the Church is experiencing dramatic rifts and clamorous things are happening.

Who is at the helm? Many liked how Francis began. It seemed like a return to the simplicity of the Gospel. However, many faithful are now disappointed. What was expected was a moral rigor against the “filth” (also within ecclesiastical circles) denounced and fought by Ratzinger. But how should we interpret the signal given by the new pontificate to the world, that of laxity and surrender on moral principles? And the surrender against antichristian ideologies and forces, even persecutors? And the traumatic break with the tradition of the Church? A lot of supernatural events, from the apparitions at Fatima to the vision of Leo XIII, the prophecies of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich on the age of the “two Popes”, seem to point to our times, announcing catastrophic events for the papacy, the Church, and the world. Are they inevitable or is there another way? And with which Pope?

(Source - our translation)

For further details about the content of “It’s Not Francis”, please see our post of Sep. 24. In addition, the author himself has provided an excerpt of the introductory chapter of his work, at the following link:

On of October 4, the sales rank for Non È Francesco reached no. 1 in Religious Books and no. 10 in All Books. No doubt it will only be a matter of time before a full English translation is released.

The following video clip was released by the conservative Novus Ordo GloriaTV News on October 2:

Sit back and watch as the Novus Ordo Church may perhaps be entering into its final stage. It can’t be long before a schism between Bergoglio adherents and Ratzinger adherents will wreak havoc on the False Church that the world believes to be the Roman Catholic Church, but which is in fact the “operation of error” warned against by St. Paul the Apostle (2 Thess 2:10-11); it is the “Church of Darkness” foreseen by the Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich, now offering two false alternatives for Pope: Francis and Benedict.

Related Links:

Behold the “Great Renewal”...

Infernal Dungeon:
“Holy Spirit” Chapel at University of California


There is only one word to describe this “Catholic” chapel at Berkeley’s University of California campus: HELL. Something that you may have dreamed about in your worst nightmares is stark reality at the “Holy Spirit” Chapel of Newman Hall, the arch-liberal university’s Novus Ordo community.

The perpetrators of this infernal dungeon are Stephen De Staebler (sculptures) and Mario J. Ciampi with Richard L. Jorasch (architectural design). The work was commissioned — you guessed it — in the latter half of the 1960s, when the new religion of Vatican II began to be implemented.

More photos of this pseudo-liturgical crime scene, if you can handle them, can be found at this link. The “Catholic bishop” overseeing this sacrilegious mess is a Jesuit, of course, and his name is Mr. Michael C. Barber.

One thing about this is positive, however: It gives perfect external expression to the diabolical Modernist religion. This hellish “worship space” is to Catholic sanctuary what Francis is to Pope, what the Novus Ordo Sect is to Catholic Church, what Modernism is to Catholicism. The Vatican II Sect has nothing to do with the Catholic Church of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, whose last known Pope was Pius XII, and the more it is externally manifested, the better.

To see what a Catholic church looks like on the inside, click here.


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

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

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

2002: 10-12/02

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

Fair Use Notice:

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