Two more days till publication...


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

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 will hit the shelves throughout Italy on October 3, two days before Francis’ Synod on the Family is scheduled to 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 Sep. 30, 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.)

At this point, two days before its release, Socci’s book is beginning to be mentioned and talked about on blogs, on media sites, and in other places on and off the internet. Once available in stores, the secular media will pick up on it as well, especially as details of its contents become known. 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.

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, whose only association with traditionalism is his book The Fourth Secret of Fatima (2008), 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 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 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.

As of October 1, the sales rank for Non È Francesco is no. 4 in Religious Books and no. 359 in All Books. One may surmise that once the work is released, it will certainly hit no. 1 for Religious Books and perhaps end up in the Top 50 of All Books.

No doubt it will only be a matter of time before a full English translation is released.

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.


Ugly as Hell...

That Seventies “Pope”:
Francis’ New Pastoral Staff Fails to Impress


Dentists and hygienists around the globe must be envious: The world’s largest dental explorer was carried in procession by the Jesuit Jorge Bergoglio, “Pope” Francis, on Saturday, September 27, 2014, as he celebrated the 200th anniversary of Pope Pius VII’s re-establishment of the Jesuit order. The hideous crozier Francis carried really did resemble an oversized toothpick or a dental sickle probe more than a Pope’s pastoral staff and so made one wonder if Pope Clement XIV didn’t perhaps have a vision of our times when he decided to suppress and abolish the Society of Jesus in 1773.

More photos of the sharp instrument used as a crozier by Francis, and other images of the ceremony, can be found at the Italian Quotidiano web site here.

Repulsive, ridiculous liturgy is a Bergoglian favorite, as can be seen in the following links:

Some New Church apologists have tried to refer to Francis’ pseudo-liturgies as possessing a “noble simplicity”, but no matter what you call it, at the end of the day it’s simply Modernist junk from the 1960s and ’70s.

For Francis, of course, this is not the first time he’s used an unsightly pastoral staff (ferula, crozier). Shortly after his election as head of the Novus Ordo Sect in March of 2013, the Jesuit Modernist dug out the appalling and sinister-looking “Bent Cross” crozier that was first introduced by Paul VI in the 1960s and used also by John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI:

About seven months later, on the Feast of All Saints, Francis showed up for his liturgical celebration using a pastoral staff that displayed Christ in such a grotesque fashion as to make Him look like a millipede:

This is the same Francis who, during World Youth Day 2013, kissed a Christ-less “crucifix” with occult symbolism.

At this point, the Modernist usurpers in the Vatican openly mock our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Indeed, as the “Archbishop” of Buenos Aires, the apostate Bergoglio even went so far as to make the holy Crucifixion of our Lord the punch line of a public joke.

These people are absolute scum, ladies and gentlemen. All who desire to be true and good Catholics must finally stop recognizing these anti-Christ monsters as the legitimate shepherds of the Catholic Church. They are not!

For decades they have disseminated heresy, introduced error and impiety, blasphemed our Lord and our Lady, abused our children or allowed them to be abused, left souls to starve, encouraged people in their sins, and belittled and denied the true Catholic Faith as it was known and taught until the death of the last known Pope, Pius XII.

They do it, folks, because they can. Don’t let them get away with it any longer. Abandon the Novus Ordo Sect, find true Catholics in your area and true priests (contact us if you need help), keep the true Faith and live a holy life, and let the diabolical Modernist Sect die its well-deserved death whenever God chooses to put an end to it.

“And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity” (2 Thess 2:8-11).

See Also:


     Published September 27, 2014
    Novus Ordo Watch Tip: Too much to read? Can't keep up? Use Readability!

Official Song for Francis’ Visit to Philippines in Jan 2015:
“We Are all God’s Children” - More Naturalist-Masonic Junk

Dissecting Bergoglio’s ongoing Revolution...

The October SINod – Go and Sin Some More


Listen On Demand Any Time:


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

In this month's episode, host Justin Soeder covers an immense amount of material with his guests Bp. Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada, who analyze, dissect, and comment on the latest heresies, errors, and contradictions of “Pope” Francis, from the perspective of the traditional and true Roman Catholic religion, the Faith as it was known and proclaimed by all Catholics until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

The first part of this 2-hour-37-minute broadcast covers:

  • The appointment of Blase Cupich as the new Novus Ordo “Archbishop” of Chicago
  • More “Reform of the Papacy” in conformity with the ecumenical directives of Vatican II at the behest of lay monk Enzo Bianchi
  • More Francis denouncement of “law and order Christianity”
  • Francis’ admonition to his bishops to stop “defending their own borders” and make no effort to convert people
  • Francis once again telling people “not to be slaves to little laws” (like adultery)
  • The Dr. Roberto de Mattei article which lambasts Vatican II as a de-dogmatization of Catholicism and a substantial change of Catholic doctrine
  • More tripe about not judging
  • Francis doubling-down to once again boldly and objectively deny the miracle of Our Lord feeding the five-thousand
  • Francis’ new (and false) gospel telling the masses that we encounter Our Lord Jesus Christ in our sins
  • Francis telling Evangelicals that he does not want them to convert to the Novus Ordo religion
  • Francis’ demotion of Novus Ordo “Cardinal” Raymond Burke – the traditionally-minded nuisance who has been given his walking papers as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura for a patronship of the Order of the Knights of Malta
  • And much more!


In the second segment of the September ’14 episode of Francis Watch, the host discusses with his guests the upcoming Synod on the Family (scheduled for Oct. 5-19 in Rome), which has everyone braced for a formal defection from Catholic doctrine. Items being discussed include the preparatory document Instrumentum Laboris and the four key issues that this Synod is going to address and how in all likelihood, it is going to produce a formal break from Catholic doctrine relating to the Catholic understanding of marriage, the rules on reception of the Sacraments for the divorced and “re-married”, “same-sex” couples, as well as issues revolving around the sixth and ninth commandments. We will hear Bp. Sanborn’s and Fr. Cekada’s predictions for what they think we will see on the other side of this event.

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

Other select Restoration Radio Broadcasts and Related Links:

Perfect Timing...


“It’s Not Francis”:
Explosive New Book Argues Benedict XVI is Still Pope

[Update 01-OCT-14: More Details on Socci’s New Book, here]

Not that we want to say, “We told you so”, but…
we told you so! 

Days before the controversial Synod on the Family is set to begin in Rome, a synod whose decisions may force many people who are currently part of the Vatican II Church to reevaluate their position with respect to whether Jorge Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy is valid and legitimate (VOTE IN OUR POLL HERE), the Italian daily Il Foglio reports that journalist and author Antonio Socci (The Fourth Secret of Fatima) will be releasing a 296-page book in which he makes the case that the resignation of “Pope” Benedict XVI in February of 2013 was invalid. In other words, Socci argues that Benedict XVI is still Pope, and that, consequently, Francis is not. 

Socci’s book, aptly entitled Non È Francesco: La Chiesa Nella Grande Tempesta (“It’s Not Francis: The Church in a Great Tempest”), presumably a play on words with Lucio Battisti’s 1969 song Non È Francesca, will be released by the publisher Mondadori on October 3, two days before the Synod opens. Here is a link to the story by the Italian paper:

We’ve covered the various ideas regarding Benedict’s resignation and Francis’ usurpation — including the alleged election of “Cardinal” Scola before that of Bergoglio — over the past year-and-a-half on this blog (see links below for a listing of all related posts). Most recently, as the signs point to an impending revolution over questions regarding divorce, “remarriage”, annulments, sacraments for adulterers, and other family-related “pastoral” topics, to be decided at the October Synod, we predicted that the idea of Benedict XVI’s resignation having been invalid — and thus him still being the Pope, not Francis — would become a lot more popular in the wake of a disastrous synod.

Right on cue, Socci releases his new book, a publication we did not know was forthcoming.

Needless to say, the repercussions of Socci’s thesis are earth-shattering. (Full disclosure: We believe that neither Francis nor Benedict XVI is Pope.) The impact Socci’s book may have on public opinion at least in Rome and Italy should not be underestimated. His 2008 book The Fourth Secret of Fatima, for example, was so well-researched and documented that it forced “Cardinal” Tarcisio Bertone to respond in public and at length. Quite unwittingly, Bertone’s response and “clarification” regarding the Third Secret resulted in even further evidence in favor of Socci’s thesis that the Vatican had not released the actual Third Secret of Fatima, which you can read about in Christopher Ferrara’s follow-up work The Secret Still Hidden.


Antonio Socci

The idea that the Ratzinger resignation was invalid because somehow forced, defective, or lacking the proper intent, is not new. In fact, less than 60 minutes after Benedict XVI publicly made known his intention to step down, we sent out a tweet that predicted that the validity of his resignation would at some point be called into question:

Over the past 18 months, Socci had released sundry articles in print and online that make the case that Benedict XVI’s resignation was or may have been invalid, a position that we have collectively termed “Resignationism.” Justification for this thesis is thought to be found in various rumored and factual curiosities, such as an allegation of defective Latin grammar in Benedict’s reading of the text of his abdication, Ratzinger’s bizarre claim that the only reason he continues to wear the white cassock is that they couldn’t find a black one, his continued use of the papal suffix “P.P.” when he signs his name (“Benedictus P.P. XVI”), his claim that he only resigned from the “active administration” of the papacy but not from the munus (“gift”), which is perpetual, and so forth.


Benedict XVI on Sep. 5, 2014, in the Vatican

According to the publication announcement in Il Foglio, Socci’s book adds a few new pieces of alleged evidence into the mix. Among them, the claim that during the conclave that elected Bergoglio, the cardinals illicitly changed the voting rules, voting five times in one day instead of the prescribed four times, thus rendering the conclave results void, because only the Pope has the authority to make changes to the laws that govern the conclave. 

Just how convincing Socci’s evidence will turn out to be, remains to be seen, but we believe that Non È Francesco will have quite an impact in Rome, and it will be a welcome source of illusory hope for restless Novus Ordo “conservatives” after Francis’ Synod, which we believe will effectively allow public adulterers to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments.

It will be a lot easier and much more convenient for people who can no longer accept Francis’ absurd claim to be the Pope of the Catholic Church, to turn to Benedict XVI as the “real” Pope, rather than accept the frightening but nevertheless quite factual truth that all the “Popes” since Pius XII have been pretenders and usurpers, and that the Vatican II religion they have created is not in fact the Catholic religion of our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


Habemus Papam? Nequaquam!

Related Links:

What Will You Do After the Synod?

“Pope” Francis’ Synod of Bishops on the Family will begin on Oct. 5 and conclude on Oct. 19, 2014. So far, the preponderance of the evidence points to an imminent theological earthquake in the Novus Ordo Sect, so much so that an actual schism may be looming in its wake. The Synod will discuss “pastoral challenges” to the family in today’s society, including the question of whether the “divorced-and-remarried” — i.e., public adulterers who didn’t manage to get a Novus Ordo annulment when they’re a dime a dozen now — should be allowed to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments.

Not only has the arch-apostate “Cardinal” Walter Kasper been laying the theological groundwork for such a thing to happen, allegedly with Francis’ approval, but even the “Pope” himself has recently done and said a lot of things that would seem to pave the way for major changes in the Novus Ordo Church on these issues.


For example, the impending exile of the Vatican’s “Cardinal” Burke (considered a conservative hardliner by Novus Ordo standards), the shock appointment of the scandalous Belgian “cardinal” Godfried Danneels to the Synod, the recent appointment of arch-liberal Blase Cupich to head the archdiocese of Chicago, and some of Francis’ recent sermons indicate that major changes are coming down the pike, changes a lot of people are not going to like or agree with.

Furthermore, the infamous papal pretender Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini), the one man who is most responsible for the introduction of the Novus Ordo religion and all that is wrong with it, is scheduled to be “beatified” (declared “blessed”) by Francis on the last day of the Synod, Oct. 19. It would be a fitting end to a revolutionary meeting of the Modernists. (A recent post we published here summarizes the main reasons why Paul VI was the furthest thing from a Catholic Saint.)

All of this begs the question: How are you going to react to all this? A lot of people in Francis’ church, good-willed and meaning to be real Catholics, are getting restless because the apostasy coming from the man on a daily basis can simply no longer be ignored. It calls for some sort of reaction by all who consider themselves Catholics because a Catholic must, under pain of schism, submit to the Pope. 

Over the years, many Novus Ordos who have been evaluating the sedevacantist position as an accurate assessment of today’s state of affairs — namely, that the “Popes” since Pius XII have been illegitimate and the religion they’ve been heading is in fact substantially different from the Catholic Church of the ages — have been waiting for the “final straw” to finally make their exit out of this apostate Modernist sect that’s been masquerading as the Catholic Church since Vatican II. For some, that last straw was John Paul II’s Assisi interfaith abomination in 1986 or the one in 2002; for some it was the election of the Modernist Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) in 2005. For others it was the election of the Modernist Bergoglio (Francis) in 2013; and for still some others, it was the “canonization” of the apostate John Paul II as a “Catholic saint” in April 2014.

So this is where our poll comes in: What will you do if the October Synod in Rome effectively allows people in illegitimate “marriages” to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments?

Vote here (poll will close when Synod starts):

survey software

Please share this poll with others, regardless of how you think they will vote. And please spread the word about Novus Ordo Watch in general to your friends and family — friends don’t let friends be Novus Ordo!

Oh, and in case any of your friends try to use the popular “But there have always been bad Popes!” argument, please direct them to this powerful refutation.

See Also:

Not even Mark Shea likes him...


Francis appoints Blase Cupich
as “Archbishop” of Chicago

You have probably heard about it by now: “Pope” Francis has appointed Mr. Blase Cupich (pronounced SOUP-itch) as the next “Archbishop” of Chicago, Illinois, the former diocese of the notorious “Cardinal” Joseph Bernardin, most recently headed by “Cardinal” George. Up until this point, Cupich had been the “bishop” of Spokane, Washington, appointed to this office by “Pope” Benedict XVI. First chosen to be a “bishop” by “Saint” John Paul II, a quick review of the facts about Cupich indicates that he is very much a man after Francis’ heart.

Here are some links to introduce you to this latest “papal” appointment — another Modernist hell-bent on destroying whatever remnants of true Catholicism still remain among Novus Ordo adherents:

The 35-minute press conference from the archdiocesan bishop’s residence in Chicago can be viewed here:

The fact that anti-Catholic entities like Call To Action, America, and National [Non-]Catholic Reporter are celebrating the Cupich appointment tells you all you need to know. (For all those who think a “moderate” is good, make sure you read Chapter 16 of this online book: The Moderate Liberal is the Worst Kind of Liberal.) Even Washington’s most famous “Catholic” blogger, Mark Shea, who is not exactly a conservative by any stretch, is troubled by the man. Here are some links to Shea’s past posts critical of Cupich, in chronological order (let’s hope they will not be taken down):

[UPDATE 9-21-14: Mark Shea has now weighed in on the Cupich promotion: HERE. In his usual style, he simply posted a sarcastic comment that changes the topic. Must have worked well for him up until now. He ought to consider that, even under the false supposition that the Vatican II Sect is the Catholic Church of our Lord, though the gates of hell will not prevail against her, nevertheless souls still go to hell.]


Mr. Blase Cupich
(nice “crucifix” there!)

Of course, there is never lacking at least one Novus Ordo blogger who will tell you that, despite all, there is nothing to worry about, that we need to understand what it all “really means”. So also in this case

Yet, the Cupich appointment appears to be such a disaster that even the popular Francis defender “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf has not yet mentioned the matter, and instead decided to blog a second time about Talk Like a Pirate Day. But give him some time — he might still be trying to figure out how to spin this whole thing in such a way that it doesn’t make Francis look too bad, especially as it comes right after the credible story over the impending removal of “Cardinal” Burke.

Fasten your seatbelts, folks. “Chaos Frank” has struck again, and he’s just getting started.


The Hermeneutic of Continuity...


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Also:

Don’t you hate it when that happens?


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

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

Magister writes:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Bye, bye, Raymond!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


To be exiled by Francis: “Cardinal” Raymond Burke

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

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

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

See Also:

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

Francis Doesn’t Care What Religion You Are

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

(Mt 10:28)

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

(2 Jn 1:7-10)

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

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

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

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

It often happens that certain unworthy ideas come forth in the Church of God which, although they directly contradict each other, plot together to undermine the purity of the Catholic faith in some way. It is very difficult to cautiously balance our speech between both enemies in such a way that We seem to turn Our backs on none of them, but to shun and condemn both enemies of Christ equally. Meanwhile the matter is such that diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


click to enlarge

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

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

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

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

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

See Also:

Sign of things to come at the Synod?


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

[Revised and updated Sep. 14, 2014]

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which camp will you be in?

See Also:

In-Your-Face Apostasy...


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1 Jn 2:22-23)

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

(2 Jn 1:9-10)

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

(Gal 1:8-9) 

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

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

Reality Check:

17-Year Old from Buenos Aires...

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

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

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

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


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

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


More screenshots from the performance. 

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pray for the conversion of sinners!



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

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

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.