Published September 4, 2015

“Love by Resurrection” Liturgical Dance in Alabama

SSPX Star Apologist dismantled in 460+ pages…



by John S. Daly

A Devastating Dossier First Published in 1989

It took a lot of effort, but we are now finally able to make available to you this extremely hard-to-find work exposing and refuting the errors, fallacies, dangers, false theology and sloppy scholarship of English author Mr. Michael Davies (1936-2004), one of the most prominent and influential writers of the traditionalist movement in the Vatican II Church.

In a devastating dossier of over 460 pages entitled Michael Davies — An Evaluation, the author, Englishman John S. Daly, thoroughly dismantles the star apologist for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X. No individual has written more prolifically than Michael Davies on traditionalist issues, and no single layman, with the possible exception of Dietrich von Hildebrand, has enjoyed wider prominence, credibility, and trustworthiness than him. But is this respect Mr. Davies has enjoyed really well-founded?

There is no doubt, of course, that Davies has done considerable good and provided excellent analysis and refutation of many errors promoted by the Vatican II religion. His work as a whole is certainly responsible for opening the eyes of a great many people to the dangers and heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect (which he, alas, identified with the Catholic Church), and has (re)kindled in countless souls a love for the Holy Catholic Mass offered in the traditional Roman rite.

Daly’s exposé does not mean to detract from the good which has admittedly been accomplished by Davies over the years. However, this good must be weighed against the considerable damage he has done, and harm to souls he has caused, as demonstrated throughout this book. A glass may be filled 80% with nutritious juice, but if the remaining 20% are poison, the entire glass will be contaminated, and death or severe injury will result. Pointing out that 80% of the contents were good, will not help to undo or minimize the damage of the 20%. It would also be quite irresponsible and dishonest to focus only on the healthful content and pretend the poison does not exist.

The work Michael Davies — An Evaluation is written in a tone the author now very much regrets. He has, in fact, withdrawn the book from publication, and has noted informally that some of the things he argued then — now over 25 years ago — he no longer stands behind. We present an electronic copy of this work, not as an endorsement of every idea or argument then advanced by Mr. Daly, or in order to spur hatred of Mr. Davies, but rather, to make known, for the good of souls, the many dangerous errors, fallacies, and problems in the research and argumentation of Michael Davies, upon whom so many, quite unjustifiedly, have relied in their understanding of traditionalist Catholic issues over the years.

We are in a terrible battle, and it is a battle for truth, which is an essential part of the battle for the salvation of souls, our own as well as those of others. It is therefore imperative for people to see falsehood exposed for what it is, and to realize that Michael Davies, whom many consider a weighty authority on the pressing issues or our times, was in fact a dangerous charlatan, even if he was right on many points.

Daly explains his motives for exposing Davies in the introduction to his dossier:

(i) To refute the gravely erroneous positions of Mr. Davies ... in which his assertions have been responsible for leading many souls astray in matters upon which salvation may depend. 

(ii) To show by careful analysis that Mr. Davies is a completely unreliable author whose theological statements should never be accepted without verification from genuine Catholic authorities. 

(iii) To set out in a single document the main points of disagreement among those commonly referred to - and referring to themselves - as “traditionalists”, allowing both sides to state their case, and showing by rigorous demonstration in each case where the truth lies.

(J.S. Daly, Michael Davies — An Evaluation [London: Britons Catholic Library, 1989], p. iv)

Davies was a very interesting speaker, and his writing was usually quite pleasant to read. His English accent and delightful humor contributed to his affable personality. We have already conceded that much of his research and argumentation was valid and good. However, this cannot exonerate him from the many erroneous arguments he advanced and the inadequate or selective research he engaged in, often with regard to issues impacting Sedevacantism (case in point: his widely-repeated but false thesis that St. Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius).

To give you a snapshot of the valuable information contained in Michael Davies — An Evaluation, we are reproducing here its TABLE OF CONTENTS:


Chapter 1: Davies’ attitude to authority

Chapter 2: The shockingly slipshod scholarship of Michael Davies

Chapter 3: The vacancy of the Holy See

Chapter 4: Dishonesty, arrogance, inanity, etc.

Chapter 5: Which side is Michael Davies on?

Chapter 6: A miscellaneous collection of Michael Davies’s heresies

Chapter 7: The Society of St. Pius X

Chapter 8: Davies as an anarchist

Chapter 9: Errors concerning sacramental theology

Chapter 9(A): The validity of the Orders of Marcel Lefebvre

Chapter 9(B): The validity of the 1968 New Rite of Ordination

Chapter 9(C): The theory of sacramental validity and “Significatio ex Adjunctis”

Chapter 9(D): The validity of the Novus Ordo Missae

Chapter 9(E): Odds and ends

Chapter 10: The alleged fall of Pope Liberius, his alleged excommunication of St. Athanasius, and other anti-papal libels

Chapter 11: Scandal

Chapter 12: Salvation outside the Church and the question of doctrinal development

Chapter 13: Open letter to Mr. Michael Davies

You can download for free an electronic copy of this book (fully searchable through optical character recognition) at the link below:

Download Here:


Michael Davies — An Evaluation
by J. S. Daly

(Britons Catholic Library, 1989)
PDF Format, ~100 MB

The book does not reserve copyright, and we are making it available electronically in accordance with its stipulations:

Our aim in publishing this book is to make the facts contained in it as widely known as possible. Subject to two conditions, therefore, we are not reserving copyright on either the whole or any part of it. 

Our two conditions are; 

(a) that with any reproduction, the title, the author, the name of the publisher (ourselves), the publisher’s address, and the date of publication should be included; and 

(b) that no deletions, alterations or liftings out of context are made which change the meaning conveyed in the original.

Britons Catholic Library

This copyright notice is printed on one of the initial pages of the book (p. 4 of the PDF file), where the address — now obsolete because the publisher is long defunct — is also given.

At over 460 pages, the reader will find this work is quite comprehensive in its critique of the Lefebvrist apologist. While the tone is quite haughty at times, we ask the reader to man up and look at the evidence against Mr. Davies, rather than get caught up in a set of convenient “I won’t read this because I think the tone is offensive!” excuses. This is war — a war for souls — and it is unavoidable for soldiers to cause and suffer blows and wounds, and perhaps even to commit an injustice, later regretted, in the heat of battle — such is the nature of warfare. The subject matter is too serious to play footsies — this is, at least in prefigurement, the battle of Christ vs. Antichrist, and certainly that of Pope vs. Antipope, Church vs. Counterchurch.

St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that God would permit, in the end, the “operation of error” to blind many souls because they did not love the truth:

And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 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 2:6-11; underlining added.)

If you have not seen it yet, make sure you read Cardinal Manning’s commentary on this passage and the great research he did on the question of the Pope, the Antichrist, and the latter times, in which we must surely now be, simply because that which 60 years ago would have been considered practically impossible, has now come to pass, and things are deteriorating qiuckly:

So, keep in mind, whenever you hear some uninformed loudmouth tell you that “God would never permit this!”, that what God will or won’t permit is told us in Divine Revelation, including Holy Scripture, and the matter is clear: God will not only permit but even “send”, as it were, the “operation of error”, with the precise intent that people will “believe lying” so that “all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity”.

We must remember also that while good will is necessary in this battle, it is not sufficient. The late great Fr. Frederick William Faber warned that one reason why the deception of the Antichrist would be so successful is that many “manifestly good” men would follow him and do his work, in ignorance: 

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

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

Besides, fallen men tend to deceive themselves, quickly ascribing good will to themselves when in fact the truth may be quite different. How often do we not tell ourselves we are only interested in the truth when in fact we are not and prefer our own self-interest before all else! (On this, see the same Fr. Faber’s excellent spiritual advice on self-deceit in Spiritual Conferences, 2nd ed. [1860], pp. 153-235.)

Jeffrey Knight’s talk on Sedevacantism and willful ignorance is also apropos here, a real eye-opener:

So, remember, ignorance alone will not get you off the hook, because much ignorance today is quite culpable. This doesn’t mean that those who are culpably ignorant are guilty of malice or ill will — no, it may simply be a case of culpable negligence. But it’s time to show some fortitude, which is, after all, one of the four cardinal virtues and also a gift of the Holy Ghost: This is about the eternal destiny of your soul, for heaven’s sake! And if you have a spouse and children, it is about their souls as well. It’s time to take things seriously! Stop kidding yourself and look the facts in the eye! They do not cease to be facts just because we refuse to look. 

Likewise, remember that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain: If Sedevacantism is true, it does not become false just because you refuse to look at the evidence; and if Sedevacantism were false, it would not become true just because you are looking into it. Besides, consider that Sedevacantism is entirely safe. By adhering to it, you cannot be led into heresy, nor into schism, if you are faithful to Catholic teaching. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the position were false, where would be the danger? What could you be accused of? The worst that could be said of you is that you were wrong about who the Pope was, or whether there was a Pope. You believed, in good faith, that there was no Pope when in fact there was one — but at least you acted consistently and in accordance with Catholic teaching, to the best of your ability and in peace with your conscience. You could be accused of having made a sincere mistake, nothing more; a mistake regarding the identity of the true Pope, as many others did before in Church history, and quite innocently (asuming, of course, that you have done your best to figure it out). This is the worst that could be said. You could not be accused of adhering to or spreading false doctrine (heresy), nor of refusing to be subject to the man you acknowledged to be the Pope (schism). That you would not submit to a man you were sincerely convinced could not possibly be Pope, cannot be laid to your charge, since a Catholic is required to refuse submission to an impostor.

God does not require us to be infallible, but He does require us to adhere to Catholic teaching at all times and in the same sense and meaning as it has always had, and He requires us to accept manifest facts as true and to reject contradictions as false. Sedevacantism is the only position that can reconcile the known empirical facts with Catholic teaching. For this you cannot be faulted, even if — per impossibile — it turned out to be false.

But back to Michael Davies.

On April 22, 1980, Davies appeared on Firing Line with Bill Buckley, Jr., debating a Novus Ordo priest and the infamous pseudo-traditionalist Malachi Martin (full video can be purchased at nominal cost here). There is a brief clip from the show embedded below, which we are including here as a little perk to readers to experience Michael Davies at a time when he had just published the first volume of his Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre:

Michael Davies on Bill Buckley’s “Firing Line” (1980)

What’s curious — and very telling — is that although Michael Davies lived until 2004, he never responded to John Daly’s blistering critique, which had been published fifteen years prior. One would think that if such a powerful refutation of one’s own writings was being disseminated, that the individual targeted would do everything in his power to defend himself to retain or regain his credibility, certainly over a period of time as long as 15 years. Not so with Michael Davies.

Davies died on September 25, 2004, and so has already received his judgment. We pray that it was a merciful one and that he repented of all his errors and sins before being summoned to appear before the Divine Judge. It is not our desire to focus so much on the person of Davies as on his errors, powerfully refuted in this work by John Daly, because these errors are still alive and well today, not least because the name of Michael Davies has been attached to them. Nevertheless we must call attention to the fact that it is not wrong, according to the Catholic position on personal polemics, to attack, besides the argument itself, also the person making it. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany explained this in his Vatican-endorsed book Liberalism is a Sin (1886):

This monumental dossier on Michael Davies is as explosive as it is detailed, and yet it is also eminently readable. You will find a great many arguments still heard today from people in the “recognize-and-resist” camp, competently refuted by the sound reasoning and authentic Catholic sources used in this powerful critique, which most people have never seen or even heard of.

It is quite opportune that we should release an electronic copy of this work at this point in time. As the present-day darlings of anti-sedevacantism, John Salza and Robert Siscoe, are preparing publication of what they think will be a substantial refutation of Sedevacantism, we are throwing this little monkey wrench into their endeavors, where they can find a number of their arguments destroyed as far back as 1989.

This Evaluation of Mr. Davies will prove a very valuable tool in defending the sedevacantist position and debunking one of its foremost critics. We do not think it an exaggeration to say that after these 460+ pages, there is nothing left of the credibility of the celebrated Lefebvrist apologist.

The facts are in; the truth is out. Exit Michael Davies…

Other Links of Interest:

“Mercy” is for everyone!


Francis Grants Jurisdiction to SSPX Priests to Hear Confessions & Grant Absolution during “Holy Year of Mercy”

Breaking News from the Vatican this morning: The apostate Argentinian layman Mr. Jorge Bergolgio (“Pope” Francis), has announced that for the upcoming jubilee year, the “holy year of mercy”, he is “excluding no one” and therefore expressly granting faculties (ordinary jurisdiction) to priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to hear confessions and grant valid absolution.

Here are his exact words, taken from a translation of a letter he sent to the President of the “Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization” on Sept. 1, just released by the Vatican and published on their official web site:

A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.

(“Pope” Francis, “Letter of the Holy Father Francis to the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization at the approach of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy”, Sept. 1, 2015)

The Vatican has released this letter at the above link also in the original Italian, as well as in French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and Polish.

Initial Novus Ordo Watch Commentary

The repercussions of this move will be tremendous. The initial reactions of the various wings of the Novus Ordo Sect are easy to predict: The Society of St. Pius X will be cheering, claiming that Francis is beginning to officially recognize them as being Catholic “as they are”; those who left the SSPX to form their own Resistance will denounce the move as being another sign of evidence that the “mainstream SSPX” is about to join Modernist Rome; “conservative” Novus Ordo entities such as Catholic Answers, EWTN, and Catholic Culture will matter-of-factly announce the news and acknowledge it as a positive sign, without, however, getting too much into anything that could be construed as an endorsement of the SSPX; Michael Voris and his ChurchMilitant enterprise will have no choice but to share the news and then put a lot of emphasis on how this only applies to the year of mercy (roughly 2016-2017, true enough), and that before and after that year, people are not allowed to approach SSPX priests for confession, and how in any case this decision does not mean and cannot in any way be construed to mean that Francis believes the SSPX is Catholic or not in schism, that this is simply a pastoral move made out of genuine mercy. Mark Shea will point out that Francis is so nice to these evil traditionalists, and that the traddies should be thankful to him. The rest of the Vatican II Sect — think of the neo-pagan Richard Rohrs, for example — will basically not give a hoot about any of this and not really spend a whole lot of time dwelling on it.


Another bad day for Michael Voris, who once again has plenty of egg on his face

From his point of view, Francis’ decision to grant ordinary jurisdiction to SSPX priests and bishops to allow for a valid absolution is extremely clever. It will silence or weaken a lot of the opposition he’s been encountering from Lefebvrite laymen and those tending in the SSPX direction (think of the many journalists and commentators in the indult/resistance camp). They will now have cause to be grateful to him and to focus perhaps more on the “good” he has done, not just the bad. 

The funny thing is that in reality, this move on Francis’ part does nothing for the Society of St. Pius X. They’ve been hearing confessions and “absolving” for decades, and they would have continued to do so, with or without Francis’ approval. Their idea of “submission to the Pope” — thoroughly heretical because at odds with Vatican I — is one of ignoring the man and doing their own thing on the side, regardless. So, in the practical order, this changes absolutely nothing for the SSPX. It does, however, change things in people’s minds, in their consciousness, because they now have reason to look upon Francis more kindly. Besides, it will cause a number of commentators or journalists in the resistance camp to proclaim that this is evidence that “the Pope supports Tradition” or some other silly such thing. It will also give people reason to suspend any investigation of Sedevacantism. But in reality, of course, this is simply nothing but the proverbial traditional side altar in the Modernist cathedral that Francis is offering them. “Diversity and equality” is all this is — “Traditional Catholicism” shall have its place too in the pantheon of all religions.

In our opinion, this is the first step to an official reconciliation between the Modernist Vatican and the Lefebvrists. Francis himself hints at this, writing: “I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity”. Recall also that the SSPX Superior, Bp. Bernard Fellay, was already appointed by the Vatican as a judge of the first instance for the Society. So, it is quite possible that the plan is to have the SSPX substantially united with Rome by the end of the jubilee year (Nov. 20, 2016). After all, envision the alternative: For one year the SSPX has been absolving with permission from Rome, and then, all of a sudden, we are to imagine that they are to stop because, “Hey, you! Mercy is over! You’re back to being naughty now!” What kind of a “mercy” is that, that comes with an expiration date?

Not going to happen. Expect this to be the beginning of the full regularization of the SSPX as just another indult order — like the Institute of Christ the King or the Fraternity of St. Peter — of the Modernist Vatican II Church.

First Reactions / Official Statements

See Also:

Listen free online

VI: The Novus Ordo Seminary


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


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

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

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

Listen on Demand at any time, FREE:

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

Episode Description:

The main purpose of a Catholic priest is to offer Holy Mass for the living and the dead, forgive sin, pray the divine office, to sacrifice every day for the people, and to administer the sacraments. This is not the case for Novus Ordo presbyters.

In this episode Father Michael Oswalt recounts his time in the Novus Ordo seminary, where Modernism was on full display. Through the grace of God, Father realized there was a problem in the Novus Ordo Sect and, in attempting to alleviate his doubts, found that he was not a valid priest due to the change in the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration. He then knew he had to escape and become a true priest. Father also addresses those who may find themselves currently in a Novus Ordo seminary and also offers advice for their Catholic friends and family.

Join Fr. Michael Oswalt and host Jason Guardiano on this informative episode of Escape from the Novus Ordo, and please offer prayers and sacrifices for the conversion of those in the Novus Ordo Sect. 

As Novus Ordo Watch is sponsoring the entire first season of Escape from the Novus Ordo, we are no longer sponsoring the ongoing and very informative Francis Watch broadcasts, which you can subscribe to at Restoration Radio.

Many more talks and sermons, free of charge, are offered at the parish web site of St. Benedict Catholic Church here.

Other select Radio Broadcasts and Related Links:

Chaos Frank strikes again...

Francis and the Gay Penguins:
The Latest Kerfuffle in FrancisChurch


Just ahead of “Pope” Francis’ visit to the United States after the Supreme Court’s (invalid) ruling that homosexual unions are to be considered “marriage”, and about 6 weeks ahead of the much-anticipated October Synod on Marriage and the Family, once again there is chaos in Novus Ordo Land about what the “Pope” has — or has not — said to a lesbian activist who put together a children’s book in which gentle souls are groomed to be accepting of the idea of unnatural “families”, in which both “parents” share the same sex (often incorrectly termed “gender”, which is actually a grammatical term).

What happened is that in 2011, same-sex-“married” author Francesca Pardi had published a book for children called Piccolo Uovo (“Little Egg”), which is the story of an egg that is found by different animal “families”, including lesbian rabbits and gay penguins. The book thus subtly desensitizes children to the idea that “parents” are not necessarily a combination of male and female but can also consist of male-male or female-female spouses.

When the newly-elected conservative mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, took office on June 15 of this year, he immediately set out to purge homosexual and “gender” propaganda from the city’s schools and libraries, including Pardi’s Piccolo Uovo, which is clearly a threat to the morals of the little ones.

Pardi then sent a package of her books to “Pope” Francis, “including seven or eight books which deal with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues (LGBT), [which] was accompanied by a heartfelt letter from the author describing the attacks she has come under in recent months” (“Pope Francis sends letter praising gay children's book”, The Guardian, Aug. 28, 2015). In other words, she wrote to Francis specifically to complain about the “unjust” treatment she’s been receiving for being a pervert in public and trying to influence children in a way to be accepting of unnatural vice.

In July, Pardi and her “wife” received a response from the Vatican Secretariat of State (yes, it was addressed to both!), speaking on behalf of the bogus Pontiff:

His holiness is grateful for the thoughtful gesture and for the feelings which it evoked, hoping for an always more fruitful activity in the service of young generations and the spread of genuine human and Christian values.

(Quoted in “Pope Francis sends letter praising gay children's book”The Guardian, Aug. 28, 2015)

The letter was signed by “Mgr.” Peter Bryan Wells, Assessor for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State, and it included at the end Francis’ “Apostolic Blessing”. 

While of course the Vatican has already officially denied the obvious — never believe anything until the Vatican has officially denied it —, it is simply silly to maintain that this is not at least a tacit endorsement of the gender-trash Pardi foists upon the unsuspecting souls of little ones. Of course, the answer was given that this was just a boilerplate thank-you, and no endorsement of the harmful pervert agenda was intended, but this can hardly suffice as an explanation, especially not since Pardi had explicitly mentioned the “discrimination” she was suffering for being a public, practicing homo-pervert in her accompanying letter. 

Another attempted explanation, namely that Francis was asking the author to promote Christian values instead, is beyond laughable and entirely lacking in justification. The Vatican’s “clarification” that the “blessing” at the end “is for the person and not for (any) teaching against the Doctrine of the Church on gender ideology” (source), is likewise as absurd as it is contrived, since the person exists as a whole (that’s why at the Last Judgment, the entire person is judged — you won’t see yourself go to Heaven while your sins go to hell).

Here is a list of select news stories and commentaries on this latest chaos engendered (no pun intended!) by FrancisChurch:

No, we’re not going into any deep discussion now of what this or that translated word really means, or whether Francis was “really” aware of what books Pardi had written, etc. (Remember the Communist Crucifix story? Boy, did that get interesting!) Besides, this was not the first time Francis is reported to have given his support for same-sex relationships, and Pardi and her “wife” even care for four children!

Now that everything has transpired the way it has, if Francis were really innocent in the matter and this whole thing were just a misunderstanding or a mistake, then there is only one course of action Francis could now legitimately take to redress the scandal: Fire “Mgr.” Peter Wells; make unmistakably clear at an audience or a press conference in which he himself speaks that he condemns the lesbian author, her “wife”, and her work attacking children’s innocence; condemn officially the errors of the “gender” and homosexualist ideologies; explain how such a terrible mistake could have happened; apologize that it occurred under his watch; and outline what steps he is taking to ensure that this will never happen again.

Nothing less than this could possibly suffice to credibly exonerate him. Barring this, he will be guilty by being complicit at the very least through silence. Will he do it? Will he take the steps mentioned above? 

Sure he will. Right after hell freezes over.

Related Links:

Another blow to Bp. Williamson...

Against Mente-Vacantism:
Refuting the Idea that the Vatican II “Popes” Cannot Be Guilty of Heresy because they have no Grasp of Immutable Truth

Bishop Donald Sanborn, rector of the sedevacantist
Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, has produced another excellent post in which he refutes one of the main errors of the ‘Resistance’ movement, that which has come to be known as “mente-vacantism” — “empty-mindedness” —, according to which Francis and his manifestly heretical predecessors cannot be considered heretics because they are allegedly incapable of understanding the concept of the changelessness (“immutability”) of truth.

As Bp. Sanborn demonstrates, this is simply a novel idea — one not at all found in traditional Catholic teaching — made up by Bp. Richard Wiliamson (formerly of the Society of St. Pius X) in order to allow him to continue to maintain that Francis and his heretical predecessors were valid Popes, all the while refusing their heretical religion. It is a cousin of SSPX leader Bp. Bernard Fellay’s error of the “half-Catholic, half-Modernist brain” of the Vatican II “Popes”, on which we will comment in the future.

Some may be wondering why we spend so much time and effort combating the SSPX/Resistance position — shouldn’t we be focusing on exposing and refuting the Novus Ordo religion? The answer is simple: Regardless of personal motives, the truth is that the “recognize-and-resist” position of today’s mainstream “traditionalism” is part of the Novus Ordo, to which they (albeit confusedly) profess to belong; and it is beyond all doubt that it is this position that continually gives credence to the Vatican II Church because it insists that the people who lead it are in fact true and legitimate Roman Catholic authorities. 

To bring down the false Modernist Sect of the Second Vatican Council, therefore, it is not enough to only attack it directly, but we must also combat those who, wittingly or not, give it continual legitimation. In fact, we may say that nothing is so dangerous as the false resistance position, because — again, regardless of individual promoters’ good intentions — it puts a Catholic veneer over the Modernist sect that has been eclipsing the Catholic Church since 1958, thus giving it its much-needed credibility, without which it could not live or function.

The following is the full text of Bp. Sanborn’s refreshingly clear, Catholic, and razor-sharp analysis.

[Source: In Veritate Blog]


Bergoglio is doing and saying so many non-Catholic things that the Novus Ordo conservatives, and really all that regard him as a true pope, are practically going insane in order to find solutions in some way to keep him as the “pope.” It is hardly necessary any more to make an argument about Bergoglio’s abandonment of Roman Catholicism. The Bergoglio-ites, therefore, must take refuge in some principle which protects him from the attacks of the sedevacantists.


One such principle is mentevacantism. This is a word coined by Father Cekada in his response to Bishop Williamson’s claim, made a number of years ago but often repeated, that Novus Ordo “popes” are incapable of the sin of heresy for the reason that they cannot think straight. Bishop Williamson claims that because the Vatican II “popes” are subjectivists, and cannot conceive of a fixed and unchanging truth, they are incapable of the sin of heresy.

The word mentevacantism means “empty-mindedness,” and is obviously a play on the word sedevacantism [the position which holds that the Chair of St. Peter is empty because occupied by a heretic].

Is it true, however, to say that Novus Ordo “popes” are incapable of heresy?

Absolutely not. Mentevacantism involves necessarily a naturalistic view of the virtue of faith. The supernatural virtue of faith is defined as that virtue by which the intellect, informed concerning revelation, freely assents to the truth revealed by God and proposed by the Church because of the authority of God. The act of faith, as opposed to the virtue, is defined as an act of the intellect, by which, by the command of the will moved by grace, we firmly believe the truths revealed by God and proposed  by the Church because of the authority of God revealing.

These definitions require some explanation. First of all, a virtue is a habit which inclines us to do something good. In this way a piano player has the habit of piano-playing, which inclines him to play well. An act, on the other hand, is to operate in accordance with the habit. So the piano player might play a Mozart piece very well.

The same distinction may be made in regard to the virtue and act of faith. The supernatural virtue of faith is a habit which is infused by God into our souls at baptism, whereby we are inclined to make acts of assent to truths revealed by God and proposed by the Catholic Church. We assent because of the authority of God revealing, and not because we are convinced by evidence for these truths. The truths of our faith, in other words, are not mere convictions which we may have, such as political convictions. The act of faith is the operation of this virtue producing the act of assent when we are in the intellectual presence of some supernaturally revealed truth, when we are thinking about it, when we hear it in a sermon perhaps, or read it in a book.

Notice that the definition includes the very important, and indeed essential element that the will is moved by God through grace. By actual grace the intellect is moved to assent to these truths.

The proposition of the Church is also necessary, since otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish what should be believed from what should not be believed. One of the essential roles of the Church is to propose infallibly the truths which are contained in divine revelation. Protestants deny this authority of the Church, and we are not surprised to see their religion to have devolved into a dogmatic chaos since, precisely, no one really knows what God has revealed, and what He has not.

We therefore understand that the act of faith proceeds from a supernatural virtue, infused by God, and that the act itself is the result of a divine movement.

The object of faith. The next question is: What is the object of faith? What do we give our assent to?

The answer is that the object of faith is the dogmas of the Catholic Church. These are truths revealed by God and proposed by the Church as having been revealed by God. They therefore meet the standards of the virtue of faith, and the intellect, under the influence of the grace of God, assents to them.

The motive of faith. What moves our mind to assent, especially to mysteries which we do not fully understand, and which are above reason?

The answer is that the authority of God revealing is what moves the intellect to assent, and not some rational evidence, which is the motive of our natural convictions. In other words, we hold the dogmas to be true because God has revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Immutable truth. Because God never changes, indeed cannot change, it follows that the dogmas of the Catholic Church are immutable truths, that is, are incapable of being changed. We assent to them as they are immutable, that is, with full knowledge of their immutability. This inability to be changed is a necessary quality of these divine truths, and consequently a necessary quality of our assent to them. In other words, we assent to necessarily immutable truths. If we fail in this regard, we do not have supernatural faith. By analogy, a marriage is by nature indissoluble. If the marrying parties do not consent to an indissoluble marriage, there is no marriage at all.

Mentevacantism is actually an argument for sedevacantism. The mentevacantist says that the Novus Ordo popes cannot even conceive of an immutable truth. Therefore they cannot be heretics.

I respond that if it is true that they cannot conceive of an immutable truth, then it is proof positive that they do not have the supernatural virtue of faith and are therefore heretics, or worse atheists. (More and more I am inclined to say that Bergoglio is a marxist atheist).

The supernatural virtue of faith is not dependent upon or affected by any of our natural intellectual errors. It is not necessary that we be trained in Thomistic philosophy and theology in order to have the Catholic faith. Simple and illiterate people may have it, and do have it, even if in the natural order they are mixed up, confused and in error about a great many things. In fact, the whole purpose of the supernatural infused virtue is to liberate the mind from its error, and to give it a motive of assent which is essentially different from the natural motives of assent. The supernatural virtue therefore saves the intellect from its problems of error and ignorance, and elevates it to assent, under the influence of grace, to immutable supernatural truths.

Consequently, the mind that is not capable of heresy is the mind which is not capable of the faith. For heresy is immediately understood as the opposite of the object of faith. If we believe by faith that Christ is God, we know that the proposition, Christ is not God, is not only false, but also against faith. The person who does not understand the notion of heresy reveals to all that he lacks the virtue of faith. For the faith is necessarily independent of his weird ideas.

Imagine a civil engineer, for example, who cannot conceive of a fixed physical law, e.g., the law of gravity or of centrifugal force. When the bridge falls down and people are killed, shall we hold him innocent of responsibility, because he cannot conceive of fixed physical laws? Would that be a good defense in court? Anyone with common sense would say: “If he cannot conceive of fixed physical laws, he should not be an engineer.”

Dementia. When monarchs become too demented to rule, or are too young to rule, there is appointed a regent, that is, someone who is not in fact the true monarch, but who has the power of the monarch to rule the country. So George III of England became too insane to rule, and was replaced until his death by a regent.

Likewise a demented pope would not be able to rule. The reason is that he would be incapable of directing the Church toward its proper ends. In his dementia, he might define that there are four or five persons in the Trinity.

The inability to know a fixed truth, in the case of a pope, is analogous to physical dementia. In order to teach the faith to the whole Church, he must first conceive in his mind the truths of the faith, which, as I said, are necessarily immutable. If he is incapable of conceiving such truths, he is incapable of directing the Church to its primary essential end, which is to teach infallibly the revelation of God to the entire world.

It would be something like appointing a blind man to fly an airplane. He is radically incapable of it.

And what would everyone do if it were announced that the pilot were blind? All those with common sense would charge for the door to get out as fast as they could.

The Bergoglio-ites, however, of whatever flavor they are, would stay on the plane and say, “Blind or not, he is the appointed pilot, so we have to stick with him.”

Mentevacantism is nonsense even from the natural point of view. Even naturally speaking, that is, apart from supernatural faith, it is impossible that the mind be incapable of conceiving of a fixed truth. This is so because the mind is necessarily ruled by what we call the first principles of reason, which are implicitly affirmed in everything we know.

The most fundamental of these principles is known as the principle of contradiction, whereby the mind is necessitated, by the very laws of being itself, to negate the opposite of what it knows to be true.

For example, if I say, all men are rational, I must necessarily negate the sentence: some man is not rational. Likewise if I say: no truth is fixed, I must necessarily negate: some truth is fixed. And thus the denier of fixed truths finds that there are fixed truths, for even in trying to negate the fixed truth, he nonetheless asserts no truth is fixed as a fixed truth.

[Source: In Veritate Blog]


Bp. Donald J. Sanborn

More from Bishop Sanborn:

One essential point to remember is this: You cannot uphold Catholic Tradition if you make up new ideas and principles to suit a desired conclusion, as Bp. Williamson and other SSPX/resistance adherents habitually do. If you wish to defend and keep the Faith of old, then you cannot modify it to fit the current situation, for by doing so, you are necessarily giving up the very Faith you have desired to preserve.

Im-moral Theology

Novus Ordo Moral Theologian sees “Sacramental Character” in “Commited, Loving” Same-Sex Unions


Stephan Goertz is a recognized “Catholic” authority on moral theology in Germany

BARF BAG ALERT: The latest aberro-sexual trash comes once again from the heart of apostate Europe, from Germany. The internet portal, which is maintained by the German National Conference of Novus Ordo Bishops, has published an interview with the “moral theologian” Stephan Goertz, who is part of the “Catholic-theological” faculty of the University of Mainz. Goertz is the editor of the new book, “Wer bin ich, ihn zu verurteilen?” — “Who am I to judge him?”, a title that quotes the words of “Pope” Francis regarding sodomites who are of “good will” and “seek the Lord.”

We are reproducing an exclusive translation of this interview below. This conversation with Goertz is a very important read, for it demonstrates how far gone the country is that once upon a time produced saints like Gertrude the Great, Albert the Great, Fidelis of Sigmaringen, Norbert, and others. The “Catholics” of Germany are Modernists through and through — there is not a shred of Catholicism left in them, which is why the Vatican II Church is dying out in the land of Luther

Having upset the theological and supernatural order, the Modernists are now coming for the natural order: “Male and female He created them” so that they would “increase and multiply” (Gen 1:27-28) — even this very basic truth of creation, of the natural order, is now dismissed as essentially nothing more than a fairy tale for the primitive peoples of the past, to be superseded by the “scientific discoveries” of divinized modern man. The Satanic Non Serviam — “I will not serve” — is evident, and it is used to advance the mass apostasy awaited by the Church to a considerable degree. God is mocked, and Divine Revelation set aside, as the Faith is replaced by a feel-good pseudo-theology the Modernists find appealing.

Use extreme caution when reading the text below, and keep a barf bag handy. It ain’t pretty! 

[Begin Interview]

“Not to Condemn Others”

Moral theologian Stephan Goertz on the Church’s attitude towards homosexuality

Mainz - Aug. 25, 2015

“If someone is homosexual, seeks the Lord and is of good will - who then am I to judge him?” Thus Pope Francis expressed himself two years ago at a press conference on the return flight from his first trip to Latin America. Following this, “Who am I to judge him?” reads the title of a new anthology of essays on the topic of “homosexuality and the Catholic Church”. In an interview the Mainz moral theologian Stephan Goertz explains the motives behind publishing the approximately 400-page book.


Question: Mr. Goertz, why do so many religions have such a difficult time with homosexuality?

Goertz: Religions such as Judaism, Islam, or Christianity originated at a time when our current scientific knowledge of human sexuality was not yet available. What back then was accepted without question, was equated with the divine order: The earth is the center of the universe, men and women do not have equal rights, all men are attracted to women, all women to men. And this has an effect on sexual morality.

Question: What followed from this?

Goertz: Procreation was considered the primary God-given natural purpose of sexuality. And sexual behavior was not allowed to endager the social order. In this paradigm, there was no room for sexual relations between men or women.

Question: In your book you specifically deal with the topic of “homosexuality and the Catholic Church”. Aren’t there more important, more pressing topics in the Church of today?

Goertz: This we should ask those for whom homosexuality apparently still presents a problem. It would be irresponsible if theology did not have anything to say about this. First, sexuality is something that affects all people. And secondly, on a political level, in many parts of the world we are still dealing with discrimination, persecution, and exclusion of homosexuals. Thus it would be an important Christian testimony for the Catholic Church to present herself in terms of a categorical rejection of discrimination.

Question: The Church has said for a long time that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against. But then there are also Tradition and Bible passages in which homosexuality is condemned

Goertz: When interpreting [the Bible], we must always take into consideration the concrete historical situation of the authors of the biblical texts.

Question: In the book of Leviticus, sexual acts between people of the same sex are called “abominations” that are “punished with death”. That sounds rather clear.

Goertz: Here the context is that sexuality had to fulfill the primary purpose of ensuring the continuity of the race. This is obviously no longer our situation, and especially since the [Second Vatican] council no longer our sexual morality. That’s why individual quotes, taken out of context, cannot be used to answer a contemporary moral question. This would be a fundamentalist way of dealing with biblical passages.

Question: Objection: Aren’t you doing exactly the same thing when you pick quotes that correspond to your view of things?

Goertz: For me this is about a basic theological attitude founded on the Bible: that God has unconditionally promised his love for all people, that natural, social differences are to be overcome among the people of God, that we are not to condemn others. This to me carries more theological weight than precepts about the “nature” of individual sexual acts.

Question: The problem is that these days anyone who wants to speak about homosexuality and the Church dispassionately, immediately finds himself in the crossfire of right-wing blogs or leftist church critics…

Goertz: From some circles one indeed gets the impression that one can barely break through by means of arguments anymore. It is the task of theology to evaluate the arguments and to ask what the Christian message requires of us today. In this we must carefully draw [the necessary] distinctions and approach the issues with frankness. And then such a theology will hopefully also be regarded accordingly by the bishops.

Question: For the fall, the world synod of bishops on the subject of marriage and the family is on the agenda. From your point of view, what can we expect in terms of dealing with homosexuals in the Church? And what would be desirable?


Goertz: It is perhaps realistic to emphasize once more that homosexuals are not allowed to be discriminated or criminalized, and that they have, of course, their place in the Church. This is an important message from a global point of view. Perhaps we will also finally succeed in abandoning the old condemnations of homosexual acts. I would consider it desirable to seek even more strongly a direct dialogue with homosexuals within the Church and stop talking and making moral judgments over their heads. This would be quite a positive signal.

Question: Then we might also possibly have to raise the question, however, that is now already being discussed in politics: to what extent matrimony is to be put on a par with gay or lesbian relationships. 

Goertz: Differences can be recognized for what they are and yet be treated with equal esteem and respect. One could pose the theological question whether a committed, loving homosexual union, which sees itself as a relationship of faith in the God of Israel and Jesus, does not possess a sacramental character. Homosexual relationships could then find ecclesiastical recognition.

Question: Might this also take place by means of external signs one day, such as a blessing of homosexual couples?

Goertz: Even though I do not expect this to be discussed at the synod at this point already, theologically I do not see any problem there in principle.



Goertz seen here to the left of “Bishop” Franz-Josef Bode, who has welcomed virtually nude dancers in his cathedral (see links below)

That there is no Catholic Faith left in this man, Stephan Goertz, is obvious. His religion is Modernism — it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the Catholic religion, as the entire world knew it until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. This abominable “theology” being put forth here is nothing but a most destructive Modernism, a Modernism that does not even content itself with dismantling Faith but also zeroes in on reason and the natural created order. It is nothing but man spitting God in the face and audaciously asserting, “We shall now make man in our image and likeness”!

Well did Pope St. Pius X, in his landmark 1907 encyclical Pascendi, prophesy that Modernism logically leads to atheism (see also this well-done cartoon). Stephan Goertz is an atheist dressed up as a Catholic. Don’t be surprised if Francis soon names him, too, a “papal” consultor, as he did with the no-less scandalous “Fr.” Timothy Radcliffe, OP, who blasphemously claimed that sodomy can be an expression of “Christ’s self-gift”!

Goertz’s apostate pseudo-theological trash is based on the so-called “historical-critical” method of theology, condemned by the Church (see nn. 29ff. in Pascendi) and beloved by the adherents of the Nouvelle Theologie, such as Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger, and Marie-Dominique Chenu, who became theological “experts” at the Second Vatican Council (appointed by “Pope” John XXIII) and were the darlings of the post-conciliar Novus Ordo magisterium (all of the ones mentioned, with the exception of Chenu, were made “cardinals” after Vatican II). 

Goertz obviously does not believe in the inerrancy of Holy Scripture — he does not believe that it was dictated by the Holy Ghost (see Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, n. 20) but treats it as simply a historical narration subject to the conditions of the times in which it was written, to be superseded at any point by human “scientific” discoveries, as though human science could ever give greater certainty than that which God Himself has revealed.

Goertz’s false and disgusting theology thus runs directly contrary to the teaching of the First Vatican Council, which defined infallibly: 

If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the church: let him be anathema.

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter 4: Canons 2-3)

But then of course, Goertz does not believe in the teachings of the First Vatican Council, either. He is, as we noted, an atheist. He ultimately believes only in himself, in what makes sense to him — the traditional Catholic definition of Faith as the assent of the intellect, aided by divine grace, to all that God has revealed because He, who cannot lie or err, has revealed it, is entirely absent: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected” (Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, n. 24; see also our informative podcast on this topic).

This is not to pooh-pooh natural science, of course. Genuine empirical science has its place, and it is very important. But the knowledge it produces is necessarily always merely provisional, as it is based on observation and subject to falsification, using an inductive method of arriving at truth. It could never trump Divine Revelation, for there can be no surer way of knowing the truth than to cling to what has been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Goertz is yet another example of the extreme decay of what passes for “Catholicism” in the heart of Europe, fully backed by the “Pope” and his episcopal henchmen in the false Modernist Sect that has been masquerading as the Catholic Church ever since the bogus election of John XXIII in 1958.

Image sources:; (cropped);;

Related Links:

“This saying is hard, who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60)


Francis “Explains” Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 — without mentioning the Real Presence!

From the man who likes to emphasize that we must “preach the Gospel always”, comes yet another blatant refusal to do precisely that. In a short “catechesis” on our Lord Jesus Christ’s “I am the Bread of Life” discourse in John 6:27-70, “Pope” Francis (Jorge Bergoglio) in his Sunday Angelus Address of Aug. 23, 2015 managed to preach on the classic scriptural prooftext for the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation while conspicuously avoiding any reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Yet that is the very central theme of the entire discourse, as the Catholic Church teaches and as even Novus Ordo apologists constantly emphasize (e.g., Jimmy Akin, Patrick Madrid, Karl Keating, Tim Haines, Michael Voris, etc.).

Francis’ manifest refusal to even mention the dogma of Transubstantiation or the Holy Eucharist as part of a catechesis on this pericope, is an implicit denial of it, because he has an obligation when preaching on Christ’s words “I am the Bread of Life”, etc., to explain their meaning and not disguise it. But not only does Francis blatantly refrain from mentioning the Real Presence when he is obliged to teach it, he undermines it further by suggesting that our Lord’s words mean something else, something quite “unoffensive” to Protestant ears.

Listen to these clever words of the Argentinian antipope:

Today is the conclusion of the readings from the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St John, with the discourse on the “Bread of Life,” proclaimed by Jesus on the day after the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. At the end of that discourse, the great enthusiasm of the day before faded, because Jesus had said He was the Bread come down from heaven, and that He would give His Flesh as food and His Blood as drink, clearly alluding to the sacrifice of His very life. These words provoked disappointment in the people, who considered them unworthy of the Messiah, not “winning.” That’s how some saw Jesus: as a Messiah who ought to speak and act in such a way that His mission would be successful, immediately! But they erred precisely in this: in manner of understanding the mission of the Messiah! Even the disciples failed to accept that language, that disturbing language of the Master. And today’s passage refers to their discomfort: “This saying is hard,” they said, “Who can accept it?” (John 6:60).

(“Pope” Francis, Angelus Address, August 23, 2015; underlining added.)

This is a complete distortion of the scriptural text. By speaking of “His Flesh as food and His Blood as drink”, our Lord was not simply speaking metaphorically about the Sacrifice He was going to offer on the Cross, which is exactly what Protestants and other heretics believe. Rather, Christ was speaking quite literally, foretelling His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, His True Body and Blood, under the appearances of bread and wine. It is
this meaning that the people listening to our Lord found offensive, and this did not provoke “disappointment” in them but bewildermentThat is why they said, “This saying is hard, who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60). Francis apparently can’t, and so he has clearly joined their ranks.

The Modernist “Pope” continues slyly:

All that we have in the world does not satisfy our hunger for the infinite. We need Jesus, to remain with Him, to nourish ourselves at His table, on His words of eternal life! To believe in Jesus means making Him the centre, the meaning of our life. Christ is not an accessory element: He is the “living bread,” the indispensable nourishment. Attaching ourselves to Him, in a true relationship of faith and love, does not mean being chained, but [rather] profoundly free, always on a journey.

Each one of us can ask himself, right now, “Who is Jesus for me? Is He a name? an idea? Is He simply a person from history? Or is He really the person Who loves me, Who gave His life for me and walks with me?” Who is Jesus for you? Do you remain with Jesus? Do you seek to know Him in His word? Do you read the Gospel every day, a passage from the Gospel in order to know Jesus? Do you carry the little Gospel in your pocket, in your bag, in order to read it everywhere. Because the more we are with Him the more the desire to remain with Him grows. Now I kindly ask you, let us take a moment of silence, and each one of us, in silence, in his or her heart, ask yourself the question: “Who is Jesus for me?” In silence, everyone answer in his or her heart. “Who is Jesus for me?”

(“Pope” Francis, Angelus Address, August 23, 2015; underlining added.)

Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Wesley could not have said it better. There is nothing in this explanation that in any way even hints at the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is a dogma of the Faith, and pertinacious denial of which leads to eternal damnation:

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

(Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 13, Canons 1 & 2)

Everything in Francis’ words points to the nourishment Christ provides not as being His literal Body and Blood, even though it is precisely this literal Body and Blood that our Lord speaks about as being “my flesh” He will “give … for the life of the world” (Jn 6:52). Instead, Francis suggests the nourishment our Lord provides is merely His teaching, “His Word”. No Protestant could object to that — and no Catholic will recognize in Francis’ words here the Real Presence being taught.

Will the Novus Ordo enterprise known as Catholic Answers once again roll out Jimmy Akin to “explain” how Francis really is teaching Transubstantiation even though he clearly isn’t?

For a sobering reality check, we call to mind Pope Pius VI’s stern warning that it wouldn’t even be sufficient to simply teach the dogma of Transubstantiation while at the same time refusing to use the term “Transubstantiation”, as was done at the robber synod of Pistoia in the late eighteenth century:

The doctrine of the [heretical] synod [of Pistoia], in that part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of consecration, and disregarding the scholastic questions about the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrine in these two propositions only: 1) after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it (the doctrine) absolutely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith [see Denz. 877, 884], and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith [see Denz. 997]; since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question,—dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics.

(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei [1794], n. 29; Denz. 1529; underlining added.)

So this is what Pius VI had to say to those who stated the dogma of Transubstantiation in a way that contained no error but refused to use the term “Transubstantiation” — can you imagine what the same Pope would have said to a heretic like Bergoglio, who will not even state the dogma in a “catechesis” on the Bread of Life discourse in John 6?!

Let no one say now that Bergoglio has affirmed Transubstantiation elsewhere — this is the same old trick that was used by the proto-Modernists of the synod of Pistoia, whom the same Pope Pius VI castigated for their clever use of ambiguous language and deliberate contradictions in order to poison the pure Faith of the people more successfully:

[This] cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei [1794]; underlining added.)

Besides, actions always speak louder than words, of course, and when you then see Mr. Bergoglio handing out “Holy Communion” like it’s popcorn (see below and click here for video), together with his refusal to genuflect after the “consecration” at the Novus Ordo worship service, that’s really all you need to know.


“Cardinal” Bergoglio in Argentina - “The Body of Christ…”

“By their fruits you shall know them”, said our Blessed Lord (Mt 7:16); and remember, too, that Pope St. Pius X taught that Modernists can be identified not only by their ideas but also by 
how they speak and what they do: “Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action” (Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 3; italics added).

Well done, Francis. You have once again undermined the little bit of faith that may still be left in some of your adherents. But now it’s time to talk some more about “preaching the Gospel always” and to kiss another baby. The show must go on.


Related Links:

You can’t make this stuff up...


Meet the “Punk Priest”

Today we present another offbeat character that serves as a great example of the glorious “New Springtime” that was ushered in by the Vatican II Church in the 1960s. His name is “Fr.” Bob Lubic, and he goes by the nickname “The Punk Priest” (we say “Father” in quotes because he was ordained in the invalid Novus Ordo rite of ordination). He formerly had a website at, but it is now defunct and the address forwards to his Facebook page instead.

Luckily, however, a good amount of the content of the old Punk Priest web site was saved by the Web Archive’s Wayback Machine and can still be retrieved, for example, right here:

Caution! Clicking on this link will trigger an auto-play of an awful punk version of the Novus Ordo hymn “Here I am, Lord”, performed by The Vandals. It is horrific, yet you may still want to give it at least a quick listen to see just how grotesque and repulsive the whole “Punk Priest” gimmick is. In case you can’t get the audio to play, you can listen to a YouTube version here. It is clearly intended to be an act of blasphemy.

Of course, Lubic is a Novus Ordo priest in good standing, and this is really not surprising because the Novus Ordo Sect more or less attracts eccentrics like him. He functions in the Novus Ordo diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania, which was led for 11 years by “Bishop” Lawrence E. Brandt and just a few weeks ago got a new “bishop”, appointed by Francis, Mr. Edward C. Malesic. Lubic already has a photo with his new “bishop”, on his Facebook page:


On August 5, Lubic posted on his Facebook page his “favorite quote” from a sermon given by his new pretend-bishop. Says Lubic: “‘I don't like negativity,’ my favourite quote from Bishop Malesic's homily at his Mass for our region this evening at Saint Pius X in Mount Pleasant. There were other gems that I WISH I could remember”. Here, see for yourself:


This says a lot about Malesic and about Lubic. Both are perfect for the Modernist Novus Ordo religion. With that kind of theological depth and spiritual insight, no doubt Lubic will one day advance to the ranks of “Punk Bishop.”

But meanwhile, Lubic is only pastor and administrator of the “partner parishes of Immaculate Conception, St. John the Evangelist, and St. Rita” in Connellsville, Pennsylvania. In addition, he is also the school chaplain at Geibel “Catholic” Junior-Senior High School in Connellsville.

Just below you can watch a video showing “Bp.” Brandt’s installation of Mr. Lubic as pastor of Immaculate Conception parish:

Click to play video

In 2006, Novus Ordo blogger Rocco Palmo wrote up an article on Lubic entitled, “Almost Holy: Confessions of a Bad Catholic” that gives more background on the pseudo-clerical punker.

Lubic has described himself as an “inveterate Facebook addict”. His Facebook page has countless photos and other information about him, also some videos:

In his spare time, Lubic apparently practices “truth in advertising” and takes off the clerical collar — lest anyone actually mistake him for a Catholic priest. Very good. But we cannot help but notice that pink seems to be a favorite color of his:



Hey, pink and punk go great together, no?! But we have a few more photos for you — consider it penance for your eyes:


Some images speak for themselves...

More frightening images, including one in which he shows himself dressed as a bishop while lying across the laps of several women dressed as nuns, can be found at the exposé Tradition in Action did on Lubic a few years ago:

We also discovered one image on his Facebook page that was so disturbing that we can only reproduce a censored version of it here — if you absolutely must see it, you can find it on his profile under “Photos” (posted on July 20, 2015). 


On his old The Punk Priest web site, Lubic noted that his favorite musicians are the Gothic-rock band The Cure, a group of English men known for their punk-alternative rock music and bizarre looks — which included a vampire-like appearance with makeup and lipstick. See below for an example of just how edifying this band is:


“Father” Lubic’s favorite: The Gothic-rock band “The Cure” — just edifying, eh?
What - you can’t see St. John Bosco endorsing these guys?!

In 1982, The Cure released an album entitled Pornography. It’s probably better we just leave it at that and don’t get into further details. If these people are “the cure”, we would hate to know what the disease is.

This idea of making yourself a punker so that the punker will become a Catholic, is absurd and never works. But of course the entire Vatican II religion is based on this very idea — that if we all just become more open to the world, then the world will be attracted and become Catholic. Yet we know from experience that the opposite is the case: Catholics become worldly. Look at what happened after “Pope” John XXIII opened the windows to the world. Did the world enter the Church? No — rather, Catholics left the Church for the world, seeing no point anymore in being Catholic. (Kenneth Jones once collected the statistics that prove it into a handy little book, the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators.) 

If the Vatican II approach had worked, there wouldn’t be parish closures left and right now, and formerly Catholic nations would be countries flourishing in true virtue, and Catholic teaching and spirituality would be evident even in public life everywhere. Even the indifferentist United States would now share in such a happy lot, due to its formerly large number of Catholics who collectively exercised great influence on society (think of the Legion of Decency, for example), and due to the immensely valuable work done by prominent clerics such as Fr. Charles Coughlin or Bp. Fulton Sheen, who were respected and taken seriously even by citizens who were not Catholic.

What, instead, do we see today? The worst politicians and public figures are usually the ones that identify as “Catholic”, i.e. Novus Ordo. In the United States, “Catholics” like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Anthony Kennedy come to mind. And of course they are never excommunicated or even disciplined by their pretend “shepherds”, the Novus Ordo bishops. This is the real fruit of Vatican II. It is not an exception, it is the rule. And it is abundantly clear that this is not the result of a mistake by a few good-willed but misled souls but rather the desired result of an orchestrated scheme: “An enemy hath done this” (Mt 13:28; cf. Mt 7:16-20).

Contrary to the illusion disseminated by Vatican II, by opening the sacred to the profane, the profane does not become holy; rather, the holy becomes sullied with the profane, as Italy’s “Singing Nun” Suor Cristina amply demonstrated last year

We can likewise see how wrong-headed this entire program of “let’s be like the world so that the world will want to be Catholic” is, in the abysmal failure that is the Novus Ordo “Mass” of Paul VI. Instituted with the excuse that it would make the Holy Catholic Mass more understandable for the people in the pew and encourage active participation, and thus lead to greater holiness and a more widespread practice of the Faith, the exact opposite has been the result: Most people do not have a clue as to what the Holy Catholic Mass is, practically no one believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, most people couldn’t even correctly define the concept of faith, church attendance is laughable, the Sunday obligation has been wiped from people’s consciousness, and least of all do young people want anything to do with it.

Compare once more which of the two liturgies makes people aspire to holiness and respect the sacred:

Bob Lubic is the “Punk Priest”, or perhaps we should call him the “Pink Punker”. “Punk” is American slang for a number of unsavory ideas. We do not care what his intentions may be, because the intentions are entirely irrelevant to the grave scandal he causes. Lubic is a microcosm of the cruel joke that is the Vatican II Church. 

Image sources:;;;;


Wonderful gift idea

Sedevacantism: A Primer (DVD)


Our friends over at True Restoration have taken two of their best videos explaining Sedevacantism and put them on DVD. This is great for anyone who does not have an internet connection to watch online, or for people whose connection is too slow to play videos. It is also perfect for people who simply want to be able to watch using a TV in the living-room. This new DVD, entitled “Sedevacantism: A Primer”, also makes for a wonderful gift for friends, family, and coworkers. Hey, why not invite a few over and watch together with an exciting group discussion afterwards?

Description from the True Restoration Blog (slightly edited):

“Is the Pope Catholic?”

That used to be a rhetorical question, much like “Is the sky blue?” or “Is grass green?”, but ever since the Second Vatican Council wound up in 1965, it has been increasingly difficult for the faithful to discern the Catholicity of the church hierarchy. Not to worry: our host and roving reporter Stephen Heiner has once again enlisted the help of Bishop Donald Sanborn and Father Anthony Cekada to unmask Conciliar duplicity, and to demonstrate the logical and uniquely tenable position of Sedevacantism in the face of the debacle that is Vatican II.

True Restoration Media has just released a DVD, Sedevacantism: A Primer (NTSC format, $29.99), which includes an excellent conference by Bp. Sanborn in December 2013 on “The Fundamental Principles and Common Objections”, and a more conversational video with Fr. Cekada from 2011 entitled “Sedevacantism: How to tell Aunt Helen”. I had to chuckle at the second video’s title, because I actually had an Aunt Helen, and she would have been in dire need of a DVD like this!

Imagine St. Thomas Aquinas sitting beside the few conservative Cardinals at the Council, aghast and beside himself with having to put up with all the Modernist gobbledygook that the Liberals were promulgating! That’s kind of the impression I got from Bp. Sanborn’s exposé. He dissects the main problems, leads us through to the choices we are faced with, and unerringly presents the only logical position. A perfect syllogism. He asks us if the religion (the ensemble of doctrines, disciplines and liturgical practices) of Vatican II is Roman Catholicism or not. His Excellency shows that ecumenism, religious liberty, a new conception of the Church, collegiality, and relativism of truth were the most objectionable doctrines that came from the Council, to the extent that the pre-1958 Church and the Church of today could hardly be recognized as the same religion. He demonstrates that it is impossible that the authority of the Catholic Church can promulgate false doctrine, evil discipline and false liturgical practices, and therefore if Vatican II represents a substantial change to the Catholic Faith, it cannot have come from the authority of the Church. Sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion.

Bp. Sanborn explores three positions of reaction to Vatican II, answers the seven main objections to the Sedevacantist position, and in the remaining 50 minutes takes questions from those attending the conference.

The video itself was shot in less than perfect conditions. Poor lighting made the image a bit grainy and also induced the photographer to periodically adjust the focus. Although His Excellency’s image was sometimes blurred, his train of thought was crystal clear, making this presentation a must-see.

Lean back in your La-Z-Boy with the second video by Fr. Cekada, as Stephen asks Father how he came to be a Sedevacantist. Here we have a personal journey which parallels that of many today, starting with a disenchantment with the new Mass and the blatant errors of doctrine, discipline and worship that came out of Vatican II. Although Fr. Cekada describes himself in the sixties as a neo-con, Wanderer-type Catholic, he was all too ready to stick with the (putative) Pope with the assurance that everything would be all right. He came to realize, however, that the problem with Vatican II was not one of interpretation: it was everything! His search led him to the inevitable conclusion that the changes were evil, and since evil cannot come from the authority of the Church, therefore those in the Church hierarchy must not have the authority of the Church.

Fr. Cekada goes on to examine the arguments of the Recognize and Resist traditionalists, and shows how theirs is not a Catholic position. He notes that people don’t want to discuss the possibility of Sedevacantism, afraid of the consequences, looking over into the abyss. Traditionalists are already all Sedevacantists, except they haven’t figured it out yet, according to Father. People will have to do the hard work; look it up and investigate.

These are two very convincing video presentations, available for purchase on one DVD here.

Purchase here: Sedevacantism: A Primer (DVD Video)

Both videos have been released by True Restoration online in full. You can watch them here and here.

Related Links:

Looking for More? We only keep the 10 most recent blog posts on this page. For more, check the monthly Wire Archive... well as the News Archive, which we maintained before our Wire Blog:

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

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

2002: 10-12/02

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

Fair Use Notice:

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