As in: “Reformation”...


“The Great Reformer”: Another Book causes Problems for the Vatican

A few months after the release of Antonio Socci’s inconvenient book Non È Francesco, in which the author claims that Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid and Francis is not in fact the Pope, another book has now appeared that is getting Francis into hot water, though this time the dispute over Francis’ validity was entirely unintended by the author. The book in question is Austen Ivereigh’s 445-page biography The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.

Dr. Ivereigh, once the press secretary of the “Archbishop” of Westminster, “Cardinal” Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, is a veteran journalist and author. His biography of Jorge Bergoglio is clearly professional, a thoroughly-researched book that is very well-written. When it was first published in the latter half of November, Ivereigh went to the Vatican to hand a copy to Francis in person, as the photo below shows (as tweeted by Ivereigh himself on November 21, 2014):


click to enlarge

Unlike Socci, Ivereigh is definitely an admirer of Francis, which, together with his professional research and writing, makes things all the more difficult for the Vatican now, as they cannot simply dismiss him as some whacko who has an axe to grind with the church and who is not to be taken seriously.

But before we get into the details about what is getting Francis into trouble this time, let’s look at a few links to sundry book reviews and interviews with Ivereigh about The Great Reformer, which is the most comprehensive biography of the Vatican’s current papal pretender to-date (keep in mind these links are all to Novus Ordo or secular sources):

Ivereigh also appeared on the “conservative” Modernist flagship station EWTN’s current-affairs program, The World Over with Raymond Arroyo:

The program “Vatican Connections” on the Canadian Novus Ordo Salt + Light TV also conducted an interview with Bergoglio’s biographer, below:

Interview with Ivereigh starts at 6:13 into the video

And finally, Ivereigh was interviewed together with David Gibson of Religion News Service on the Novus Ordo show “In the Arena” with “Mgr.” Kieran Harrington:

So, why are we making all of this information available? Are we trying to promote Francis? Far from it: We’re simply trying to provide information on a newly-released book that is making a huge impact around the world and in the Vatican, a book that is taken seriously by the “mainstream” and that even Francis happily received a copy of. As far as Novus Ordo Land is concerned, this book is the definitive biography of their head honcho. In short: Take notice. This biography is a huge deal — what it says carries weight, and in the future, writers and journalists will be referring to it again and again when talking about the person Jorge Bergoglio.

Needless to say, none of these people singing the praises of Francis is actually a real Catholic, so do not be misled by their glowing endorsements of Mr. Bergoglio. If you need a quick refresher on how empty is all this talk about how Bergoglio wants to “bring Christ to the world” by “letting him out of the sacristy”, etc., see the following small sample of sobering links:

Ivereigh’s biography is 445 pages long, consisting of a total of nine chapters and an epilogue. What’s been receiving most of the attention, however, including the Vatican’s, is one chapter in particular, Chapter 9: The Conclave.

This is where it gets hairy: Ivereigh’s research has revealed that after Benedict XVI stepped aside but before the actual conclave, a group of “cardinals” the author dubs “Team Bergoglio” started canvassing for the election of their man — in violation of the rules of the conclave laid down by “Saint” John Paul II in 1996. To make matters worse for the Vatican, Bergoglio himself is said to have been not only aware of the campaign, but of having given his explicit consent. Ivereigh writes verbatim:

They [Kasper, Lehmann, Danneels, Murphy-O’Connor] first secured Bergoglio’s assent. Asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked. (Murphy-O’Connor knowingly warned him to “be careful,” that it was his turn now, and was told: capisco, “I understand.”) Then they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man, arguing that his age— seventy-six— should no longer be considered an obstacle, given that popes could resign.

Austen Ivereigh, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope (Henry Holt and Co.: Kindle Edition), locs. 6899-6903; see p. 355 of hardcopy edition.)

The British
Telegraph broke the story on November 23, 2014:

“Team Bergoglio”, according to Ivereigh’s research, was headed by four Novus Ordo “cardinals” in particular: Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann (both of Germany), Godfried Danneels (of Belgium), and Cormac Murphy-O’Connor (of England). Having been a close associate of “Cardinal” Murphy-O’Connor, Ivereigh’s revelations, in particular with regard to the English cardinal’s role, are entirely credible — which explains why only two days later, The Telegraph published an official denial issued by the “Archdiocese” of Westminster’s press secretary, Maggie Doherty (Ivereigh’s successor in that role):


Apparently Ivereigh was not aware of the momentous consequences of his findings, because after the above-linked Telegraph article was published, Ivereigh sent out an embarrasing tweet attempting to control the damage, backpedaling on his details regarding Bergoglio’s explicit consent, even promising to change the text in future editions:


click to enlarge

As Ivereigh is neither a poor researcher, nor a sloppy writer, nor a man hostile to “Pope” Francis, what he says about the pre-conclave lobbying and Bergoglio’s consent must for these reasons alone be taken seriously — and has been even by the Vatican, who rushed to diffuse Ivereigh’s explosive revelation (more on that below). 

So, what is the problem? The problem is that the governing Novus Ordo law regarding the election of the “Pope”, found in the 1996 “Apostolic Constitution” Universi Dominici Gregis by “Pope” John Paul II, imposes an automatic excommunication on any cardinals who commit themselves or others to voting for a particular candidate:

The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.

(John Paul II, “Apostolic Constitution” Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 81)

So much for the excommunication part. This alone would not be enough to cause trouble — it is only in connection with the following general ecclesiastical law that real problems arise for the Argentine apostate by the Novus Ordo Church’s own standards:

Can. 171 §1. The following are effected to vote:


3/ a person under a penalty of excommunication whether through a judicial sentence or through a decree by which a penalty is imposed or declared;


§2. If one of the above is admitted, the person’s vote is null, but the election is valid unless it is evident that, with that vote subtracted, the one elected did not receive the required number of votes.

(1983 Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, can. 171; underlining added.)

So, if the claims made in The Great Reformer are true, Mr. Bergoglio has a big problem: His election may just have been invalid by his own church’s standards.

No, this isn’t a bunch of sedevacantists trying to find another reason Francis isn’t Pope — we really couldn’t care less about this particular issue, as it is of no concern to us what Novus Ordo law says anyway, or whether a bunch of apostates violated it — this is an issue that has been acknowledged to be a problem by some clearly Novus Ordo sources. There would have been no need for the “Archdiocese” of Westminster to issue an immediate denial, nor for the “Holy See” Press Office to do the same (see below), if there were no pressing concern here. Nor, presumably, would Ivereigh have issued a tweet “correcting” his own words unless this were a most serious matter.

In particular, it is the anti-sedevacantist “traditionalist” Novus Ordo blog From Rome that has focused most exhaustively on this issue and provided a lengthy collection of information and evidence that demonstrates the problems Ivereigh’s revelations — now conveniently retracted in part — are creating for Francis. 

Here is a complete list of From Rome's informative blog posts on the “Team Bergoglio” story:

That “Team Bergoglio” is making waves is also acknowledged by so-called “mainstream” journalists, even if some want to dismiss it. For example, John L. Allen, Jr., a seasoned Novus Ordo expert on the Vatican, writes:

Other journalists and news organizations, on both sides of the Atlantic, mention the issue of “Team Bergoglio” as a concern as well:

But what’s most interesting is that a denial of campaigning, canvassing, or similar efforts — and especially that of Bergoglio’s alleged complicity in them — came from no less significant a source than the Vatican’s own press office, directly from the mouth of spokesman “Fr.” Federico Lombardi:

The after-the-fact denials and “corrections”, however, do not seem convincing. The content of Chapter 9 in Ivereigh’s biography of “Pope” Francis speaks for itself — the evidence is too detailed to have been made up, or to be mistaken, considering Ivereigh’s status and credibility not only as a researcher and writer but also specifically as the former spokesman for the “Archdiocese” of Wesminster, working closely together with “Cardinal” Murphy-O’Connor. 

The From Rome blog addresses the various denials and shows them to lack credibility:

As a general rule of thumb: Believe nothing about the Modernist Vatican until it’s been officially denied.

What to make of all this?

It is clear that Jorge Bergoglio is not the Pope of the Catholic Church. However, this is so not because of a violation of certain conclave rules drawn up by John Paul II, but because the man, Bergoglio, manifestly rejects Catholic dogma and has already done things — such as declaring the scandalous John Paul II a “saint” — that a true Pope would be divinely prevented from doing (see examples here).

It is important to understand that we’re not saying that there cannot be a bad Pope. Yes, there is such a thing as a bad Pope, but what we have here is a heretical “Pope”, and that’s a completely different case altogether. (For more on this, see “The ‘Bad Popes’ Argument.”)


Move over, Arnold Schwarzenegger:
Francis is the Reformator

What’s amazing and really quite pathetic in all of this is to see that people who would never question Francis’ legitimacy on the grounds of divine law — i.e., because the man is an apostate and not a Catholic or has done things the Church says a real Pope cannot do — are showing themselves now entirely willing to consider that he may not be the Pope after all, but on the grounds of merely human law (conclave rules).

Case in point: Bro. Alexis Bugnolo of the From Rome blog. An avid anti-sedevacantist, he has no qualms about accusing Francis of heresy, yet has always insisted the Vatican II papal claimants are valid Catholic Popes. But now, with these allegations about a violation of conclave rules drawn up by John Paul II, he is willing to doubt the legitimacy of Jorge Bergoglio as “Pope” of the Conciliar Church.

Does this make any sense? It is a divine law — doctrine, not discipline — that in order to be a Roman Catholic, you must profess the Roman Catholic Faith (see Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 22); but from this it follows, as explained by St. Robert Bellarmine, that a public heretic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church, and there is no doubt, objectively speaking, that Francis is a heretic, nay worse, an apostate.

Perhaps it is that the legal argument against Bergoglio somehow feels “cleaner” to people than the doctrinal argument, and thus allows them to feel more comfortable asserting that Francis is not or may not be the Pope. Notice, however, that the emphasis is on “feel” — it is a matter of emotion rather than reason for them, because the doctrinal argument, as it argues from ontology rather than from legality, is inherently much more powerful than the legal argument.

Arguments from ecclesiastical laws and legal technicalities also seem the preferred way of the “Resignationists”, who are pinning their hopes on the idea that Benedict XVI’s resignation from the “papal office” in February of 2013 was not valid, or, alternatively, that “Cardinal” Angelo Scola was elected before Bergoglio, thus making it impossible for Francis to be Pope.

Francis is so blunt in his apostasy and in his sneering at everything that is pious and holy, venerable and traditional that he makes Benedict XVI look like an altar boy serving High Mass for Pope St. Pius X, but make no mistake about it: Joseph Ratzinger is by no means a Catholic, either, but a Modernist of the worst kind, the kind that seeks to cloak the poison of heresy in beautiful vestments, eloquent Latin, and apparent gestures of good will towards traditionalists. The objective facts are sobering:

We should end this post by drawing people’s attention to a beautiful quote from the great Pope Pius X, a saint canonized in 1954, who directly refuted the bogus soup-kitchen gospel of Jorge Bergoglio over 100 years ago:

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.)

Francis continually reduces the saving Gospel of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ to that “impotent humanitarianism” which focuses entirely on the needs of the body without tending to the needs of the soul; it extols the corporal works of mercy at the expense of the spiritual works. Yet: “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).

Let us pray that people wake up before it is too late. Francis is not a genuine Great Reformer, he is the Great Deformer, the “Reformator” who destroys everything Catholic that comes into his path. People are blinded by him, because he carries out his anti-Christian work of destruction with a smile, a hug, and a kiss. “Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.” (Mt 15:14).

Be not blinded by the false light of Jorge Bergoglio; for “whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God“ (2 Jn 1:9), and: “If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:9).

We used information published by Giuseppe Nardi and Bro. Alexis Bugnolo for this report.

His favorite target: “Rigidity”!

Francis Unleashed:


“Pius XII freed us from the very heavy cross that was the Eucharistic fast… 
So many Pharisees were scandalized!

On Monday, December 15, “Pope” Francis preached another sermon during the “Mass” at the Vatican’s Casa Santa Martha, once again exercising the magisterium of what blogger Tom Droleskey has called Bergoglio’s “Ding-Dong School of Apostasy”. One of his favorite things to rail against is, of course, Roman Catholic discipline, that awful “rigidity” he so detests — you know, the kind that just isn’t open to the “god of surprises” he worships.

Vatican Radio presents a summary of Bergoglio’s tirade here, which is really worth reading because seldom does he come out swinging like this:

Under the guise of extolling Pope Pius XII, Bergoglio attacks the venerable tradition of the Eucharistic fast from midnight, which was reduced by Pope Pius to a three-hour requirement, first only under special circumstances, in the Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus (January 6, 1953), later extended to all, in the Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem (March 19, 1957).

While reducing the Eucharistic fast from midnight to three hours was a prudent measure, especially for priests who had to offer sundry Masses on a difficult schedule and travel great distances, it is definitely not permitted to castigate the previous church law as somehow rotten or evil, and even Pius XII himself calls the prior law that requires fasting from midnight “the old and venerable form of the Eucharistic fast” and says:

We strongly exhort priests and faithful who are able to do so to observe the old and venerable form of the Eucharistic fast before Mass and Holy Communion. All those who will make use of these concessions [of the reduced fast] must compensate for the good received by becoming shining examples of a Christian life and principally with works of penance and charity.

(Pope Pius XII, Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem, March 19, 1957).

Looks like Mr. Bergoglio forgot to mention this part. Oh well.
 That’s what we’re here for.

When it comes to the real Pharisees, of course, or their successors, Mr. Bergoglio isn’t so much interested in denouncing them — instead, he obediently hides his pectoral cross lest they be offended at the sight of their Loving Redeemer:


click to enlarge

More on that episode here:

One thing is for sure: In the Novus Ordo Church, the “heavy cross” of respect for the Holy Eucharist is definitely no longer an obstacle:

For those who have eyes to see: Bergoglio is obviously once again prepping his sheeple for more “reforms” to come in the name of “mercy,” especially at Part 2 of the Synod on the Family, scheduled for October 2015. You’re supposed to subject yourself to his “tyranny of mercy” and allow yourself to be “surprised” by whatever impious novelty he may come up with next.

The First Vatican Council, back in 1870, already dealt with Bergoglio’s “god of surprises”, teaching the following:

For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.

(Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1836.)

If this doesn’t exactly fit what you know about Jorge Bergoglio, there’s one clear reason why: 
He’s not the successor of St. Peter.

See Also:

Christ’s enemies are laughing…


Madonna Applauds Suor Cristina

When the Sicilian Ursuline nun Sister Cristina Scuccia first appeared on the Italian talent show The Voice of Italy in March of this year, we denounced her fiercely and noted:

Things like this, even if well-intentioned, always end up the same way in the long run: They do not lead the world to Christ, but make Christ into a mockery before the world. The world does not become Catholic, but Catholics become worldly. There is no better proof of this than the Novus Ordo religion itself, 50 years after the Second Vatican Council opened the church to the world. It is virtually powerless before the world, and most people do not really take it seriously.

(“Novus Ordo Nun’s Got Talent”, The Novus Ordo Wire, March 20, 2014)

In October, Sr. Cristina published a cover version of the raunchy Madonna song “Like a Virgin”, and not surprisingly, the original blasphemous “artist” herself has now chimed in — and, judging by her tweets, is quite pleased with Cristina’s work.

On her Twitter account, Madonna sent out two tweets endorsing Sr. Cristina. We reproduce screenshots of them below but have censored the photos for obvious reasons:


In this tweet, Madonna has photoshopped herself into the picture, which is the cover photo of Sr. Cristina’s first album. Notice the sarcastic caption, “Sisters for Life!” and the hashtag slogan, which is part of the song “Like a Virgin”. We notice also that the tweet was retweeted 1,182 times and favortited 1,535 times. The world loves it.


This tweet contains a snapshot from the video of Madonna’s original song, “Like a Virgin”, which is juxtaposed with Sr. Cristina’s cover version 30 years later. Both videos were shot at the same location in Venice. Again, the number of retweets and favorites tells us how much the world loves what Cristina is doing — and not because it’s so Catholic.

See, then, how the world reacts to the impious spectacle of Suor Cristina. Just as homo-pervert Elton John loves “Pope” Francis because of how un-Catholic he is, so Madonna praises the Ursuline religious not because she is such a wonderful Catholic bringing Christ to the world, but because she’s made a mockery of Catholicism, humiliating it before the world, now tainting it even with the blasphemies and impurities of a woman who’s made scoffing at Catholicism and all that is holy and pure into a veritable career.

Of course, there will always be some who will later say, “It was Suor Cristina who brought me back to church!” But such cases are exceptions and not the rule; they occur in spite of the scandal, not because of it. And they are utterly eclipsed by the number of souls that, consciously or not, are drifting further and further away from Catholicism, and who harbor more and more of a disgust for it, as they look at the Novus Ordo religion and, not knowing any better, identify it with the true religion founded by Christ, the holy Roman Catholic Church.

After all, a church that does not take its own claimed sacredness seriously and whose head jokes about the Crucifixion of Christ and does not see the point of converting anyone, what is such a church worth? Why bother belonging to it — especially with such inconvenient things like confession, fasting and penance, lifelong marriage vows, and the Ten Commandments?

It is not in being like to the world that we gain credibility or reach souls, but in being what we are called to be: in the world, though not of it (see Jn 17:11,16). It is precisely in standing out, firm and steadfast against all opposition, preaching the same doctrine and same morals for 2,000 years, come what may, that people recognize the Catholic Church as the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). That church, it should be clear to everyone now, is not the institution headed by “Pope” Francis.

By the way, on Wednesday, December 10, Sr. Cristina met “Pope” Francis at his general audience in the piazza of St. Peter’s, where she handed him a copy of her first album, appropriately named after herself, “Sister Cristina.”


More details on this encounter can be found here.

Thankfully, now even some Novus Ordo commentators are criticizing Cristina’s work, as this post by Catholic News Agency reveals, focusing specifically on the scandalous song Like a Virgin.

That such an impious and scandalous approach to evangelization should not bear good fruit is also backed up by the numbers: The Novus Ordo church, so hell-bent on being “relevant” and appealing to the world, is dying a slow but certain death, as these recent statistics once more affirm. The world just isn’t interested in an institution that tries to imitate it.

The fifteenth-century contemplative St. Nicholas of Flue prophesied:

The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.

(St. Nicholas of Flue, quoted in Yves Dupont, ed., Catholic Prophecy [TAN Books, 1970], p. 30)

May the Good Lord hasten the day.

See Also:

Bp. Sanborn dismantles Jorge Bergoglio

Countering Francis’ Heresy
against the Most Holy Trinity


On October 9 of this year, the incredible headline made the rounds: “Pope Says ‘God Does Not Exist’!” (See our blog post discussing this here.)

No, it wasn’t satire published by The Onion. It wasn’t a misquote. It wasn’t even taken out of context. It was simply what Francis had said — the only falsehood in the headline being that Francis isn’t actually the Pope, though over 1 billion “Catholics” believe him to be.

So, are we saying that Francis was teaching atheism by saying, “God does not exist”? Oh no — his trashing of Catholic dogma is a lot more clever than that. Because even though he said that God doesn’t exist, he did affirm the existence of the Three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

While Novus Ordo pundits immediately accused critics of “taking the Pope out of context”, affirming the existence of the Three Persons while denying the existence of God doesn’t do anything to save the baby. For one thing, it either denies that the Three Persons are divine, or that they are one. It does not suffice, you see, to merely affirm that there are Three Divine Persons — you must also affirm that they are one in substance, and that this One God is a pure Spirit.

In the Roman rite of Holy Mass, the Church uses on most Sundays of the year the following preface to the canon, which is as breathtaking in its eloquence as it is precise in its statement of doctrine:

It is truly meet and just, right for our salvation, that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks unto Thee, O holy Lord, Father almighty, everlasting God; Who, together with Thine only-begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one Lord: not in the oneness of a single Person, but in the Trinity of one substance. For what we believe by Thy revelation of Thy glory, the same do we believe of Thy Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without difference or separation. So that in confessing the true and everlasting Godhead, distinction in persons, unity in essence, and equality in majesty may be adored….

(Preface of the Most Holy Trinity)

Catholic belief in the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity is beautifully expressed in this prayer.

In the October 2014 edition of his monthly newsletter, Bp. Donald Sanborn, rector of Most Holy Trinity (!) Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, offers a scathing rebuttal to the twaddle taught by Francis regarding the august and inexhaustible mystery of Three Persons in One God. Click below to download it:

Newsletter of Most Holy Trinity Seminary
October 2014
by Bp. Donald Sanborn


(PDF / Click Here to Download or View)

His Excellency firmly and competently exposes the blasphemous Bergoglian error for the outrageous heresy that it is:

[Francis] is denying the unity of substance in God. When he says, “God does not exist,” but “the three persons exist,” the only possible way in which to take it is that there is no single divine substance which each of the Persons has equally. If these three Persons exist by a single act of existence, or in other words, as one God, then one must assert the existence of one divine substance. If, however, this one divine substance does not exist, as he says, then we must conclude that each Person of the Trinity has His own act of existence, and each one is different from the other according to substance, and not merely according to relation.

The inevitable conclusion from what Bergoglio says is that there are three gods. There is no other possible conclusion than that there are three gods. If each of the divine Persons has an act of existence separate and distinct from the other Persons, then there are three separate substances or three gods. If there is not one divine substance which they all have, then there are three divine substances, or three gods. In such a case none would be God, since God, by His very nature, is one. Bergoglio is giving us polytheism, pure and simple.

The Athanasian Creed is explicit in condemning the idea of three gods: “And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.”

Bergoglio, to make matters worse, flippantly, stupidly, and blasphemously refers to the sacrosanct divine essence as “God spray.” “This God spray does not exist!” The angels of God tremble before the ineffable majesty of the divine substance, the One God. Bergoglio calls the divine substance “God spray.”

(Excerpt from the October 2014 MHT Seminary Newsletter, linked above, p. 3)

At this stage in the game, the heresies of “Pope” Francis are so outrageous and so glaring that in the meantime, the anti-sedevacantists seem to have changed their tune from the usual, “But this isn’t heresy!” to, “Of course Popes can be heretics, and we’ve had a number of them in the past.”

While we prepare several articles/blog posts that deal with the matter of the alleged “heretical Popes” of the past, such as Liberius, Honorius I, and John XXII, let us just use some common sense in the meantime: If a “heretical Pope” was an established and commonly-accepted historical fact of the past, why were great theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine still discussing amongst themselves whether such a thing was even possible, as late as the seventeenth century? Besides, the only book we know of that casually asserts that “many Roman pontiffs were heretics” is Paul Viollet’s Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus (1904), and it was formally condemned by the Holy See and put on the Index of Forbidden Books under Pope St. Pius X, approximately forty years after the dogmatic teachings and definitions on the papacy by the First Vatican Council (1869-1870).

A man who does not profess the Faith of the Catholic Church cannot be the head of that Church, because one of the infallible marks of the Church is her unity in Faith and governance:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum [1896], n. 6)

Jorge Bergoglio, it is abundantly clear, does not profess but denies this Faith (see links below for more evidence). He is not a member of the Body of Christ. He is not a Catholic. He is not the Pope.

See Also:

New Mass vs. True Mass:

New Eucharistic Prayers:
False History, Hippie Theology

See Also:

Highlights & Lowlights…


More Interviews:
3 with Francis, 1 with Benedict

The barrage of words from the Vatican will not let up: In the past few days, a total of four major interviews hit the news, three that were conducted with the “Pope”, Francis, and one with the “Pope Emeritus”, Benedict XVI. Let’s take a look at the actual texts and some highlights, in chronological order:

Interview with Francis by Heqnrique Cymerman for Israeli Media (Nov. 28):

  • Full Text in English here
  • Francis says he harshly condemns any kind of violence in the name of God
  • On Jerusalem: It “should be the capital of the three religions” — not exactly what our Lord thought when He wept over the city’s rejection of Him as the Messiah (see Mt 23:37)
  • On the afterlife: “What awaits us [is] Heaven on earth”
  • On interreligious prayer and events: “God … likes to surprise, and now we are waiting to see how he will surprise us”
  • On Talmudic Judaism (as opposed to the Judaism of the Old Covenant, which ceased with the promulgation of the Gospel): “…our roots are in Judaism. In every Christian, there is a Jew; and you can't be a true Christian if you don't recognize your Jewish roots. I don't mean Judaism in the ethnic, origin, sense, but from the religious aspect. And I think interfaith dialogue must place an emphasis on the inseparable connection between the religions, on the fact that Christianity grew from within Judaism.”
  • Cracks a joke involving our Lord and our Lady
  • Says the Jews were not responsible for the death of Christ — contradicting the words of our Blessed Lord in John 8:37 and those of St. Peter in Acts, who said to the Jews: “you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain” Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23)
  • And much more!

Press Conference with Francis on Return Flight from Turkey (Nov. 30):

  • Full Text in English here
  • Francis indicates he believes the Koran preaches peace, not war or violence
  • On the bloody persecution of Christians: "Christians are being chased from the Middle East. In some cases, as we have seen in Iraq, in the Mosul area, they have to leave or pay a tax that may be unnecessary. Sometimes they chase us away kindly.”
  • On his prayer with the Mufti at the mosque: "I went to Turkey as a pilgrim, not as a tourist… When I entered the mosque, I could not say: now I’m a tourist! I saw that marvellous place; the Mufti explained things very well to me, showing great meekness; he quoted the Quran when he spoke about Mary and John the Baptist. At that moment I felt the need to pray. So I asked him: Shall we pray a little? To which he responded: ‘Yes, yes’. I prayed for Turkey, for peace, for the Mufti, for everyone and for myself ... I said: Lord, let’s put an end to these wars! It was a moment of sincere prayer.” (So, not only did he actually pray at the mosque, he is the one who initiated the prayer! Keep in mind the Vatican II Church teaches that Catholics and Muslims worship the same god; see Nostra Aetate, n. 3 — so it can truly be said that Francis worshipped the Muslim god)
  • On Ecumenism: "Then there is ecumenism of the blood: when they kill Christians, bloods mix. Our martyrs are crying out: we are one. This is what ecumenism of the blood is. We must follow this path courageously and carry on moving forward. Perhaps some are not able to understand this. The Eastern catholic Churches have a right to exist, but uniatism is a dated word, another solution needs to be found”. (This, of course, is absolutely heretical — see Council of Florence, Decree Cantate Domino, Denzinger n. 714)
  • And much more!

Interview with Benedict XVI by Frankfurter Allgemeine Newspaper (Dec. 7):

  • Full Text in German here
  • Snippet in English here
  • Benedict says he would have preferred the title “Father Benedict” over “Pope Emeritus Benedict” but didn’t think he could convince enough people to accept it (on that, see this interesting story from earlier this year)
  • He has a good relationship with Francis and does not want to be seen as a “side Pope”
  • On the revision of his 1972 essay on sacraments for public adulterers: Benedict denies trying to join the debate, says this is not his intention and the timing was accidental

Interview with Francis by Elisabetta Piqué for La Nacion Newspaper in Four Parts (Dec. 7):

  • Part 1: Full Text in English here
  • Part 2: Full Text in English here
  • Part 3: Full Text in Spanish here
  • Part 4: Full Text in Spanish here
  • Francis denies he removed “Cardinal” Burke to punish him: “It is ... not true that I removed him because of how he had behaved in the synod.” (Louie Verrecchio masterfully dismantles Francis’ comments on Burke right here)
  • Francis says the reform of the Roman Curia will not be ready in 2015
  • Acknowledges there has been resistance to his “reforms” but he says it’s good when disagreements are voiced openly
  • Says the reason people are leaving his church is “clericalism”
  • Denies “firing” the head of the Swiss Guards
  • Francis: "We have to find a way to help that father or that mother to stand by their [homosexual] son or daughter.”
  • Francis: "We must move forward” (But why and to what? Where are we going? Why this constant obsession about “moving” and always “forward”?)
  • Francis: “In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! Thus, let us open the doors a bit more. Why can’t they be godfathers and godmothers? ‘No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?’. The testimony of a man and a woman saying ‘my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on’. Anything more Christian than that? …Things need to change, our standards [!] need to change.” (Unlike for Francis, the standard of our Lord, preached by the Church for 2,000 years, is good enough for Catholics: “Go, and now sin no more” [Jn 8:11])
  • Francis: “…the Church isn´t into proselytism. The Church doesn´t want to engage in proselytism because the Church does not grow on proselytism, it grows on attraction, as Benedict said. The Church needs to be a field hospital and we need to set out to heal wounds…” (Francis loves to speak in metaphors because they make great soundbites, require no real theology, and they are ambiguous enough to where he can always say, “I didn’t mean that”)
  • And much more! 

By the way, Bergoglio recently revealed that as a child he was fed donkey’s milk. Now that would explain the asinine comments he keeps making. There simply is no better advertisement for the Sedevacantist position than Francis himself speaking freely and off the cuff.

See Also:

Behold the “Catholics” of tomorrow...

Hip Hop & Fog Machines:
Steubenville Meets Life Teen

Spiritual, theological, and liturgical chaos is infallibly certain when attending an event sponsored by either the Franciscan University of Steubenville or “Life Teen”the Novus Ordo Sect’s flagship youth outreach program. So what happens if you put the two together? 

Then you get…well…this:

It is horrible to witness these dear youngsters being subjected to this pretense of Catholicism. They are the most vulnerable victims of the shenanigans the Modernists have been perpetrating for decades on guileless souls. In the Modernist system, religion is essentially a matter of personal “experience” and “encounter”, in which you are supposed to “feel” God’s holy Presence. Hence so much focus on “cool” touchy-feely externals that are geared towards enhancing the “experience” of the people present rather than the worship of God (as in the Catholic Church).

The Steubenvillains and the Life Teen promoters have preached this Protestant-Modernist-charismatic distortion of Catholicism for a long time. Of course many of the organizers and promoters of these events are victims of this faux spirituality themselves, never having known true, pre-Vatican II Catholicism. But what these youngsters need is a solid formation in the true doctrines of the Faith clearly communicated, and genuine, traditional Catholic spirituality as it was practiced and handed down for two millennia. They need a healthy Catholic spirituality and sound tools with which they can successfully counter our godless, pagan, and Modernist society and all its temptations, allurements, and false promises.

Such authentic Catholic teaching and spirituality for the youth is very much still possible in our times. Various sedevacantist groups make impressive efforts year after year in their formation of the young, offering them the bread of true Catholicism rather than Modernist stones (cf. Lk 11:11), as can be seen in the following examples:

The above links demonstrate how true Catholic youth outreach is done, and this stands in stark contrast to what goes on in the Novus Ordo religion, which is focused on experience and feeling rather than on Faith and reason, on man rather than God.


As the head of the Vatican II Church, it goes without saying that Francis is a big proponent of this “religion as experience” stuff himself. Every so often he likes to point out that “the truth is an encounter” and that the sacraments are an “encounter” with Christ — and an encounter, as any dictionary will confirm, is essentially an experience. But the truth is not an experience. To an extent, it can be experienced, of course, but it is not an experience. Neither are the sacraments — they are visible signs instituted by Christ to give grace, according to the traditional teaching, and not some special emotional episode that “connects” you to God.

The reason the term “encounter” is a Modernist favorite is that it is so wonderfully nebulous and elusive of clear meaning; it is phenomenological at its core because an encounter is an experience and therefore something that simply appears to consciousness (regardless of any objective grounding in reality, the question of which is left untouched). Besides, speaking about an “encounter” makes you sound so up-to-date and enlightened, so totally-unlike-those-stupid-pre-Vatican-II-peasant-Catholic-folk of yesteryear, who only knew about black and white, right and wrong, truth and error, and none of the 1,500 shades of grey in between that were finally discovered at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s! 

The great anti-Modernist Pope St. Pius X warned us about this back in 1910, for he knew it was his duty to “protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious" (Apostolic Letter Our Apostolic Mandate, n. 1). 

Three years prior, the same holy Pope had upbraided the Modernists for their absurd concept of truth as essentially an experience: “What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true” (Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 14). And this is how Modernism eventually leads to atheism (see illustration here).

Does all of this sound familiar? Do we not have a man claiming to be Pope who tells Muslims to be Muslims and Jews to be Jews? Do we not have full-blown apostasy in the Vatican at this point?

By the way, the founder of Life Teen is “Mgr.” Dale Fushek, formerly the Vicar General of the Novus Ordo diocese of Phoenix, Arizona. He can be seen dancing and perpetrating all sorts of liturgical chaos in the video What We Have Lost (for example, at the 14:37 min mark and in other places). He established Life Teen in 1985 to “lead teens closer to Christ.” He later exited the Novus Ordo Church and formed his own so-called “Praise and Worship Center”, which is a Protestant church that describes itself as a “non-judgmental community of faith”. In 2008, Phoenix’s “Bishop” Thomas Olmsted excommunicated Fushek, and two years later, “Pope” Benedict XVI laicized him.

The Novus Ordo religion is a cesspool of heresy, impiety, false morals, faux spirituality, and abominable liturgy, perpetrated in the name of Roman Catholicism. Exit it quickly while you still can, and become a real Catholic today: “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2).


Life Teen “Mass” with “Mgr.” Fushek in Mesa, Arizona
click to enlarge

See Also:

Reportedly wants a “kinder, gentler” security force


Francis fires Commander of Swiss Guards

The internet is abuzz with news about Francis’ firing of Daniel Anrig, head commander of the Vatican Swiss Guards since 2008, for allegedly being too “rigid.” Here are several interesting news stories covering Francis’ latest move:

The British Telegraph has also provided this video regarding Anrig’s dismissal:

Not everyone believes, of course, that Anrig’s rigidity is the (sole) reason for Francis’ insistence that he step down. The reliable Rorate Caeli blog suspects that there may be a connection to that infamous Vatican ‘Gay Lobby’ that is no longer spoken about since Mr. Bergoglio took over in March of 2013:

Approximately one year ago, news broke from Switzerland that the former head of the Vatican Swiss Guards revealed that Novus Ordo “cardinals” had solicited him for sex — in an explosive interview, Elmar Mader made serious accusations against a homosexual lobby allegedly found in the Vatican:

When Francis was asked directly about a Vatican gay lobby in July of 2013, he agreed that such a thing was bad — not the “gay” part, mind you, but the “lobby” part. As far as resolve to eradicate such a sordid stain on the Vatican’s record, Bergoglio was less than zealous: “We need to see what we can do about it.

What was “done” about it? Nothing, of course. If anything, sodomite perverts are even more powerful now under Francis than before:

For now, all the reasons for the firing of Swiss Guard commander Daniel Anrig will have to remain on the level of speculation. But one thing’s for certain: At least Anrig now won’t have to worry about having to play gossip police around the Vatican any more.



     Published December 3, 2014

Everything the Novus Ordo heart desires: Interfaith liturgy celebrates German soccer club, with Lutheran priestess, Muslim imam, “Catholic priest”, ugly-as-hell “tabernacle”, party time, and zero Catholicism

“By their fruits you shall know them…” (Mt 7:16)

Blase Cupich, Enemy of Christ

The following photo is taken from the Catholic Conclave blog, which provides excellent video and pictorial evidence of the catastrophic state the Novus Ordo Church is in. The picture shows St. Turibius chapel at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio, before and after the rector, Mr. Blase Cupich, took his axe to it.


click image to enlarge

No wonder “Pope” Francis appointed him “Archbishop” of Chicago a few weeks ago, where he will be able to wield enormous influence over countless “Catholics” and their churches. Cupich is a man after Francis’ Modernist, anti-Catholic heart. In Chicago, the layman-dressed-as-bishop has wasted no time showing whose side he is on, and it isn’t that of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ:

When Mr. Cupich was first chosen to be “Archbishop” of Chicago, we reported that he was so bad that even the leftist “Catholic” blogger Mark Shea is severely critical of him


By the way, Cupich was first chosen to be a “bishop” by “Saint” John Paul II, and is seen above in an encounter with “Pope” Benedict XVI a few years back.

When will people finally wake up to the reality that the Vatican II Church is an anti-Christ institution, filled with false shepherds that hate Catholicism, mock our Lord Jesus Christ, and seek to destroy souls?

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them” (Mt 7:15-16).

Our Blessed Lord warned us. Are you listening?

See Also:

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

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

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

2002: 10-12/02

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

Fair Use Notice:

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