Stacking the Deck with more Heretics...


Francis appoints Über-Modernist Enzo Bianchi to Vatican’s Council for Ecumenism

“Pope” Francis is once again causing chaos. On July 22, 2014, “His Holiness” appointed the Modernist layman Enzo Bianchi of the
Bose Monastic Community as an advisor to the Vatican's so-called Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

As Vaticanist Giuseppe Nardi reports:

On Tuesday [July 22] Pope Francis appointed new members and consultants to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. While no one seriously expected the Argentinian Pope to appoint Tradition-minded Catholics to this important body, nevertheless the Pope’s choice of Enzo Bianchi, the lay prior and founder of the ecumenical monastic community of Bose is still surprising.

Bianchi belongs to that progressive-adogmatic part of the church that interprets the Second Vatican Council and the Popes as he pleases. Msgr. Antonio Livi, who has criticized Bianchi’s theology in sundry articles, does not hesitate to label the prior of Bose a “false prophet.” For Bianchi, a representative of a horizontal, anthropocentric Christianity, the only path to salvation is “replaced by a demagogic search for peace, an illusiory universal harmony and a laicist solidarity”, according to Catholic historian Cristina Siccardi. [This is] A part of the church that was thought to have been overcome under Pope Benedict XVI. Under Pope Francis, on the other hand, Bianchi, a darling of the media and friend of Cardinal Martini’s, was made a consultant for ecumenism.

(Giuseppe Nardi, “Enzo Bianchi the ‘False Prophet’ is new Consultant for Ecumenism”,, July 23, 2014)

Bianchi is on the record endorsing a “reformed papacy”, one which is “no longer feared” and that the Eastern Schismatics could work with (sounds a lot like Joseph Ratzinger ’82). In addition, he adheres to the thoroughly heretical concept of an “ecumenism of blood” — one of Francis’ favorite ideas — according to which Christian unity is realized in a common martyrdom.

In a post on Bianchi and the “ecumenism of blood”, the married-with-kids Novus Ordo priest “Fr.” Dwight Longenecker endorses the concept heartily, mocking the serious and eternally-important theological differences between orthodoxy and heresy, between the Divinely-Established True Religion and a man-made counterfeit, between Catholicism and Protestantism, as “petty quarrels.” This cavalier attitude is actually not surprising, as Longenecker himself is a convert from Anglicanism, and he converted to the Novus Ordo Sect rather than the Catholic Church and so has never learned real Catholicism or joined the True Church. 

Let’s face it: Most Novus Ordos don’t believe for a minute that Catholicism alone is the true religion and all others false — rather, the most they believe is that Catholicism is merely the best option among many, or the religion with the “most truth” compared to others, but by no means is it the only, the exclusive way to salvation. This error takes its origin in the false idea that Faith can be possessed in part, in elements, when the truth is that it is an integral whole that can only be possessed in full or not at all. (On this, see our informative post, “Does the Catholic Church merely have the ‘Fullness’ of Truth?”)

So, what’s up with this “Ecumenism of Blood”?

The term is as powerful rhetorically as it is devoid of Catholic theology. Notice in Longenecker’s post linked above, there is no theological substance even being hinted at — it’s all based on emotion: “In prison I don’t suppose people will fuss about whether a brother or sister has worked out every detail of their theology or upheld every line of canon law.” Sounds good, doesn’t it? 

Longenecker appeals entirely to our emotions here, but even this he does in an underhanded way, namely, by misrepresenting the issue. What does “upholding every line of canon law” have to do with martyrdom or with the fact that Protestantism is a false religion and Catholicism the only true one? And, just what does he mean by this anyway? Can he give some examples? He is being deliberately vague because the vagueness is what gives the argument its persuasive force. You’re only supposed to feel that he is right, not understand it.

The same goes for “working out every detail of one’s theology” — this is totally vague, and with good reason. But what is Longenecker saying here? There’s no point in speculating because no matter what one comes up with, he can always respond by saying, “That’s not what I meant.”

The absolute impossibility of an ecumenism of blood is definitively enunciated by the Council of Florence in its Decree for the Jacobites, under Pope Eugene IV in 1442:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This scenario, under which someone who is objectively a heretic but is subjectively not guilty of the sin of heresy and instead possesses the love of charity and genuinely seeks to believe all that God has revealed, is killed for professing Christ, is known as the Baptism of Blood

This Baptism of Blood is infinitely far removed from the heretical notion of an “ecumenism of blood”, which claims that Catholics and heretics are spiritually and/or theologically united by being killed for professing allegiance to Christ. If this were so, then it would mean that the motive of the killer can cause religious unity between Catholics and Protestants, two religions that are exclusive of each other because their claims are mutually exclusive and per se irreconcilable.

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

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

And thus we see that an “Ecumenism of Blood” is an absurdity, simply the latest in Modernist-indifferentist hogwash dressed up as Catholic theology and foisted upon an unsuspecting populace by the enemies of the true Catholic Faith. Beware of the Modernists, who cleverly seek to eliminate all distinction between true religion and false religion.

True Catholic Teaching on Ecumenism and Christian Unity:

If you can figure it out, see a doctor immediately!

Novus Ordo Logic

Why would you want THIS…



…if you can have THIS?



Guess which one of these is considered by the Vatican to represent a “New Springtime” in the Faith!

(And to all those who are complaining to us that the first photo above is actually of an “indult Mass”, offered by an invalidly-ordained “priest” in the Vatican II Sect, we answer that while this is true, it is completely irrelevant to the point being made here, which is about the stark contrast these pictures portray externally.)

See Also: 

Ahead of Meeting with Francis...


Protestant “Bishop” Tony Palmer
Killed in Motorcycle Accident

UPDATED 22-JUL-14 01:57 GMT

On July 20, 2014, at 4:30 pm ET, Protestant “Archbishop” Charles Hill posted a note on Facebook, announcing that Anglican-Evangelical “Bishop” Tony Palmer, whom “Pope” Francis was going to meet later this month in Caserta, Italy, had been killed in a tragic motorcycle accident. Hill’s post reads:

We are in prayer for the family of Bishop Tony Palmer who was in a motorcycle accident this morning in the U.K. after hours of surgery he went home to be with the Lord. He was a good friend and brother in the vineyard.

A day later, the news of Palmer’s death was officially confirmed by The Order of the Ark Community, of which Palmer was a co-founder. The message of condolence reads:

Dear Friends and Companions,

It is with deepest sadness that I inform you that +Tony Palmer went to be with Jesus yesterday evening. +Tony died from injuries sustained in a motorbike accident yesterday morning and although surgeons tried to save him for 10 hours, they were unable to do so. We humbly ask that +Tony’s family be given space to grieve at this incredibly difficult time but we encourage you to leave your condolences on this page for them the read as a source of encouragement and strength. Thank you all for your continued support and prayers.

Peace & Good +

[Message by James Green at The Ark Community, July 21, 2014]

The deceased is the same Tony Palmer
to whom Francis sent a video message some time ago, referring to the Protestant layman as his “brother bishop.” It is the same Tony Palmer the “Pope” met just a month ago at the Vatican for a luncheon (see “The Evangelical Lunch”). 


Palmer speaking with Francis in the Vatican late June 2014

Meaning no disrespect to the deceased Palmer, we must point out that this is the
umpteenth time that something tragic, something terrible, something frightening has happened in connection with something done, planned, or desired by “Pope” Francis, such as the terrible war, persecution, and bloodshed in Iraq after Francis offered interfaith prayers for “peace” in the Vatican together with Jews and Muslims (where the latter boldly prayed for “victory over the infidels”).

We should privately pray for the soul of Tony Palmer and keep in mind that Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition: “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors [1864], n. 17).

As the same Pope Pius taught in an Apostolic Letter on the convocation of the First Vatican Council:

Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity. For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever.

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes [1868])

How far this is from the heretical ecumenism and phony “search for unity” promoted by the Modernist Vatican II Sect of which Francis is the head. As blogger Louie Verrecchio rightly points out: “The sudden death of Tony Palmer lends perspective to just how much is at stake when it comes to the deeply troubling words and deeds of the current pope [sic]” (source). Such as, for example, Francis’ explicit admission, “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism” (source).

Let us pray that somehow, by a miracle of divine grace, Mr. Palmer was able to convert to the True Faith before being called so suddenly to appear before his Judge, who desires “all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4).

More on the Death of Tony Palmer:

See Also:

Hey, what’s one more at this point...


A Little Heresy from Richard Rohr

Consider yourself blessed if you’ve never come across the name or theology of “Fr.” Richard Rohr, one of the Novus Ordo Sect’s most dangerous Modernists in the United States. Officially a “Franciscan priest”, Mr. Rohr — ordained in 1970 in the doubtfully valid Novus Ordo rite of Paul VI — is a master of syncretism, mixing traces of Catholicism with lots of New Age and Modernist “spirituality” that he administers to people at his “Center for Action and Contemplation” in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

We have exposed Rohr and the dangers of his false theology and false spirituality before in the following post:

Rohr’s satanic New Age agenda also includes “retreats” in the desert where, so he boasts, oftentimes men will strip naked and jump over a fire. As Rohr himself relates:

We often have camp-fires, and I know some of you have been at these where it happens, so you know what I'm talking about. Always, always, there's some guys — I mean, is it in their hard wiring? — they'll strip and have to leap over that fire, burning their balls. . . . I don't know what it is. They're the “real” men, who can leap over the fire, naked.

(“Fr.” Richard Rohr, OFM; quoted in Stephanie Block, “Coloring Outside the Lines”)

Of course, Rohr is in full communion and good standing with the apostate Vatican II Church, which only takes serious action against people actually suspected of being Catholics (see example here).

On July 11, 2014, Richard Rohr used his Twitter account to disseminate a favorite Modernist heresy: the idea that grace is inherent in nature. Here is Rohr’s actual tweet, from his Twitter handle @RichardRohrOFM:

In case you cannot view the embedded tweet, Rohr says: “Grace is inherent to creation from the very beginning.”

This is unmistakable heresy, condemned by various Popes through the ages, and definitely a consequence of Modernism, which Pope St. Pius X rightly called the “synthesis of all heresies” (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 39). It is a damnable error resurrected once more by some proponents of the Nouvelle Theologie, the “New Theology”, condemned as crypto-Modernist by the Catholic Church in the 1930s-1950s and effectively endorsed by the Novus Ordo Sect at Vatican II in the 1960s and ever since (for an academic treatment of the Nouvelle Theologie by one of its heretical proponents, conceding also the Catholic pre-Vatican II opposition to it, see Jurgen Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Theologie - New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II).

Reality Check: Rohr’s Thesis is Heretical

  • Pope St. Pius V, Bull Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (1567): 
    • “Absurd is the opinion of those who say that man from the beginning, by a certain supernatural and gratuitous gift, was raised above the condition of his nature, so that by faith, hope, and charity he cherished God supernaturally.” —CONDEMNED (Denz. 1023)
    • “The integrity of the first creation was not the undeserved exaltation of human nature, but its natural condition.“  —CONDEMNED (Denz. 1026)
    • Note: St. Pius V condemns the above errors as “heretical, erroneous, suspect, rash, scandalous, and as giving offense to pious ears.” (Denz. 1080)
  • Pope Clement XI, Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus (1713): 
    • “The grace of Adam is a consequence of creation and was due to his whole and sound nature.” —CONDEMNED (Denz. 1385)
    • Note: Clement XI condemns the above error as “false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively“ (Denz. 1451). In addition, on August 28, 1718, in his bull Pastoralis Officii, Pope Clement decreed the excommunication of all who refused to adhere to his Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus (source).
  • Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei (1794): “The doctrine of the synod [of Pistoia] about the state of happy innocence, such as it represents it in Adam before his sin, comprising not only integrity but also interior justice with an inclination toward God through love of charity, and primeval sanctity restored in some way after the fall; in so far as, understood comprehensively, it intimates that that state was a consequence of creation, due to man from the natural exigency and condition of human nature, not a gratuitous gift of God, [is condemned as] false, elsewhere condemned in Baius, and in Quesnel, erroneous, favorable to the Pelagian heresy.” (Denz. 1516)
  • Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis (1950): “Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.” (n. 26; Denz. 2318)

The above references to “Denz.” are to the 1954 edition of Henry Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma, available for free as online text here, or to purchase in hardcover here.

The reason why this particular heresy is so popular today is that if sanctifying grace is inherent in created nature, and not a gratuitous gift of God (i.e., freely given by God as an undeserved “add-on” that elevates and perfects nature), then it follows that man cannot lose this grace through original or mortal sin, as it is part of his nature, and he would then retain it as long as he remains man (i.e. always). In this way, then, Eternal Life would be “owed” to all human beings on account of their humanity, and so all would ultimately go to Heaven, and hell would be empty. Sound familiar?

This damnable heresy of course also then implies that Christ’s Redemptive Sacrifice on Calvary was useless and had no real, propitiatory purpose or effect, since original sin then did not, according to this heresy, deprive us of sanctifying grace. Which is exactly what many of today’s “Catholics” believe, such as “Archbishop” Robert Zollitsch, who declared in an interview in 2009 that he doesn’t believe Christ died to atone for our sins and appease the just wrath of Almighty God but only in order to show solidarity with human suffering:

The most famous modern-day “Catholic” theologian who defended the heresy that denies the gratuity of the supernatural order was Fr. Henri de Lubac, a French Jesuit quite revered and esteemed in the Novus Ordo Church (in fact, Antipope “Saint” John Paul II made him a “cardinal” in 1983). His book Surnaturel (“Supernatural”) got him in trouble with the Vatican’s Holy Office and Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange in particular. He was silenced by the Jesuit Superior General and several of his books were ordered withdrawn from theological libraries. 

The denial of original sin, which follows from this heresy, is also a popular and recurring theme among Modernists. You won’t be surprised (or perhaps you will) to find out that another well-known Modernist who came to “re-think” original sin is Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, the man who claimed to be “Pope Benedict XVI” from 2005-2013:

No wonder Richard Rohr is in such good standing with the Modernist church.

See Also:

Uh… no, he couldn’t!

“Fr.” Zuhlsdorf:
“Pope could give a Priest Permission to ‘Break’ the Seal of Confession”

UPDATE 19-JUL-2014 18:48 GMT: Just as we were getting ready to publish this, we noticed that the Rev. Zuhlsdorf had already deleted his controversial post. Which is good — it is an admission that he was wrong — though it would have been better to leave the post up and retract it (as we’ve done before when the need arose) so that the people already affected by it can see the correction. But either way, it’s good the post is gone, and hopefully it won’t return. We all make mistakes. So please read what follows with this in mind, that “Fr. Z” has since deleted his remarks.

We recommend “Fr.” John Zuhlsdorf spend less time updating his blog and adding items to his Amazon wish list, and a little more time studying actual Catholic theology.

On July 18, 2014, in another “this-news-is-outrageous-so-why-don’t-you-purchase-something-from-my-store” post on the state of Louisiana’s alleged attack on the seal of confession, the full-time internet “priest” made a stunning claim: “Yes, the Pope could give a priest permission to “break” the Seal of Confession. I stretch my mind to imagine the circumstances when a Pope would do that, but, yes, a Pope can do that.”

The Rev. Zuhlsdorf said this as a “correction” to an article he was recommending by Aaron Taylor in the Novus Ordo First Things magazine. Mr. Taylor had written, quite correctly: “If subpoenaed to testify and asked about what he heard during confession, the court will effectively be asking Fr. Bayhi to choose between being sent to prison and committing what Catholics consider to be such a serious offense against the sacrament that not even the Pope himself can dispense from the law’s requirements in this area.

On which “Fr. Z” commented as follows:

BTW… Mr. Taylor erred in his piece when he wrote: “…not even the Pope himself can dispense from the law’s requirements in this area [i.e., the Seal of Confession].” 

Yes, the Pope could give a priest permission to “break” the Seal of Confession. I stretch my mind to imagine the circumstances when a Pope would do that, but, yes, a Pope can do that.

(Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, “Seal of Confession under Threat by the State: Follow-Up”, July 18, 2014)

Someone then added an entry in the combox and said: “The Pope cannot give a priest permission to break the Seal. At least Aquinas doesn’t think so, and I’ll go with him on that.” The commenter, named
Cordelio, then provides a link to St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part, Question 11, Article 1, Reply to Objection 2 (see also Article 4 on that, by the way), in which the Angelic Doctor teaches:

Reply to Objection 2. The precept concerning the secret of confession follows from the sacrament itself. Wherefore just as the obligation of making a sacramental confession is of Divine law, so that no human dispensation or command can absolve one therefrom, even so, no man can be forced or permitted by another man to divulge the secret of confession. Consequently if he be commanded under pain of excommunication to be incurred "ipso facto," to say whether he knows anything about such and such a sin, he ought not to say it, because he should assume that the intention of the person in commanding him thus, was that he should say what he knew as man. And even if he were expressly interrogated about a confession, he ought to say nothing, nor would he incur the excommunication, for he is not subject to his superior, save as a man, and he knows this not as a man, but as God knows it. 

(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., q. 11, a. 1, ad 2)

That’s pretty clear and authoritative, coming from the theologian the Catholic Church recognizes as the “Universal Doctor.” (Anticipating what some might now say, please see “St. Thomas Aquinas’ Position on the Immaculate Conception”). While it is probable that the supplement to the third part of the Summa here quoted was actually compiled by Fr. Reginald of Piperno, the content is nevertheless based on St. Thomas’ Commentary on the ‘Sentences’ of Peter Lombard (source).

Because of Cordelio’s comment and evidence provided, Mr. Zuhlsdorf then added an update to his blog entry, which reads:


It may be that St. Thomas Aquinas argued that not even a Pope can permit the breaking of the Seal of Confession. Fine. I remind the readership that the Angelic Doctor, as great as he is, is not the equivalent of the Church’s Magisterium. (Neither is St. Augustine, and in the past Pope’s have had to remind people that he isn’t.)

I have the moderation queue switch ON. I may permit some comments if they contribute something new and interesting to this entry.

(Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, “Seal of Confession under Threat by the State: Follow-Up”, July 18, 2014)

In case the blog post is taken down or changed, you can view a screenshot of the relevant excerpt here (click image to enlarge):



Now, perhaps we missed it, but as far as we know, Zuhlsdorf did not provide a shred of magisterial evidence for his contention that the Pope can dispense a priest from the seal of confession, or can permit him to break it. Such an idea would mean that the seal is not of divine origin, bound up intimately with the sacrament as instituted by Christ, but rather is simply an ecclesiastical law, a convention the Church maintains and that she has full control over.

In fact, Mr. Z’s comment indicates that the Pope is not really subject to the seal of confession himself, and can dispense himself from it any time he pleases. Not that he would, but that he could. Not only would this mean that no one should want to confess to the Pope, it would also mean that people could no longer feel confident that their confessions will remain confidential with their own parish priests because, what if the Pope permits — or even orders — their priests to break the seal?

No, “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf: You are wrong; Aquinas is right. The Pope can do no such thing. The sacrament would be rendered odious and people would begin to avoid confessing their sins. It would be a complete slippery slope; it would be a genie that, once having left the bottle, could never be put back in.

But there is more evidence than just the foregoing that the Pope could not permit a priest to break the seal of confession. In his great 4-volume work Moral and Pastoral Theology, Fr. Henry Davis, S.J., confirms the position of St. Thomas, which is that of the Church:

The obligation of the seal is of the gravest, on the grounds both of justice and of religion. The obligation of justice is obvious, for violation of the seal is violation of an entrusted secret as also of a natural secret, if, as usually happens, the sin confessed was occult [i.e. not publicly known]. The obligation of religion arises from the fact that the Sacrament is to be treated with reverence, as an institution of Christ our Lord, and as a means of entering into relations with God. The obligation of the seal arises certainly from divine law, and most probably from divine Natural law, on the presupposition that the Sacrament of Penance was instituted by Christ, and that the secret confession of sins was enjoined by Him

In other words, since Christ instituted the Sacrament and imposed on all the baptized the obligation of secret confession, He thereby instituted a secure means of seeking forgiveness of sin, safeguarded, that is, in the highest degree from every circumstance extrinsic to the tribunal that could possibly redound to the shame, inconvenience, or annoyance of a penitent. It is obvious, therefore, that the secret of the confessional differs in kind from every other secret, in that it may never be disclosed, not even to the penitent outside confession, and that it extends even to the smallest detail. There is no slight direct violation of sacramental secrecy.

(Fr. Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 3, 3rd ed. [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1938], pp. 316-317; underlining and paragraph break added.)

Maybe “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf should be adding Fr. Davis’
Moral and Pastoral Theology to his Amazon wishlist, instead of $1,200 radio transceivers and $700 solar panel chargers. Just a thought. But then, with all the blogging, facebooking, target shooting, appeals for money, traveling, dining, lecturing, TV watching, movie reviewing, Kindle reading, and combox moderation — who has time for Catholic theology?

More on “Father Z”: 

“I can’t believe it’s not Catholic!”

Vatican Radio:
“Homosexuality Need Not Be ‘Cured’”

“Pope” Francis may say he doesn’t know who’s part of the notorious Vatican Gay Lobby, but we suspect he can find some of them at the German branch of Vatican Radio, which posted a photo of two young men kissing while waving a rainbow flag, as part of a news story on the heretical “Bishop” Stephan Ackermann on July 17, 2014. The post can be seen here, but, just in case it gets removed, we provide a screenshot here (UPDATE 18-JUL-14 12:22 GMT: Vatican Radio has just replaced the offensive photo with a photo of “Bp.” Ackermann):


Time to block Vatican Radio in your Internet Filter 
— the original post with the offensive picture

The story about “Bishop” Ackermann is bad enough (also see the links beneath this news piece), but it is even worse for Vatican Radio to illustrate it with such an act between two men. (Clearly, the idea is to further desensitize the “Catholic” culture to public perversion.) The title of the post is D: Homosexualität muss nicht “geheilt” werden — “G[ermany]: Homosexuality Need Not Be ‘Cured’”, a paraphrase from Ackermann’s “dialogue” with homo perverts in his diocese of Trier.

We are providing a translation of the entire post by Vatican Radio, for full details and context:

G[ermany]: Homosexuality Need Not Be “Cured”
[July 17, 2014]

Stephan Ackermann, the bishop of Trier, takes a critical view of efforts to “heal” homosexuality. There is no official church backing of such initiatives, Ackerman said on Wednesday night in Saarbrucken. The paper Die Zeit had recently reported on doctors who advertise changing your sexual orientation and who are therefore considered an “insider’s tip” among conservative Christians. Ackerman spoke at a discussion round organized by the Association of Lesbians and Gays (LSVD) of the Saar region, in which approximately 100 people participated. The two-hour meeting was the first of its kind in Germany. In smaller settings, similar discussions had taken place before with representatives of lesbians and gays, such as in the diocese of Essen and ahead of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Germany in 2011 in the archdiocese of Berlin.

Controversial Provision in Church’s Employment Law

The focus of the meeting in Saarbrücken was questions concerning ecclesiastical employment regulations and how the church deals with sexuality. One topic was the so-called obligations to loyalty, according to which church employees who live in a homosexual relationship and would like to have this relationship legally recognized must expect getting fired. In a “Saarbrucken Appeal”, the LSVD called on Ackermann to declare publicly “that in his diocese, employees of the Catholic Church no longer need to fear being dismissed from work on account of registering a homosexual partnership.” This is to apply at least to “non-vocational professions”, such as physicians and nurses in Catholic hospitals.  

Ackerman asked people to understand that obligations to loyalty are important to the ecclesial profile of an institution. At the same time, he admitted to the existence of “tensions” in some areas, “which are not good.” The [German] bishops are presently taking part in in-depth discussions about what shape these obligations to loyalty are to take in the future, according to Ackermann. The bishop of Trier assessed the dialogue in Saarbrucken as “sincere.” He wants to be “ready to listen”, he said, and contribute to greater mutual understanding in controversial matters. The organizers, too, emphasized that they were interested in building bridges and fostering mutual dialogue. In what manner this dialogue will be continued is still an open question at the present time.

(kna 17.07.2014 mg)

Link to Original Story here
Translation: Novus Ordo Watch

More links regarding what “Bishop” Ackermann said at the discussion:

By the way, the head of the German branch of Vatican Radio is Bernd Hagenkord, a Jesuit. That would explain a lot.

Reality Check:

“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10)

“A new kind of war against the enemies of our salvation must now be waged. The license of thinking and acting must be curbed. The luxury and the pride of life must be restrained and cupidity for gain must be kept in check. All impurity must be purged and all enmity eliminated. All hatreds must be abolished. Sound the trumpets and declare a spiritual war against the enemies of the cross of Christ. Strengthen the languid hands of your soldiers and straighten their bent knees. In the first place, make straight the path for those who have decided to come to this citadel of religion, this impregnable stronghold. Let them hear from you that they are not called here for leisurely roaming nor to view strange sights; but they are summoned to carry arms in a Christian militia and to undertake the labors of fighting and war. What are the arms that Satan fears if not the vigils of the pious, their prayers, fastings, almsgivings, their works of Christian humility and of mercy? By these the tyrannical domination of human cupidity is overcome, and the kingdom of love is strengthened and extended.” (Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Peregrinantes (1749), nn. 11-12)


     Published July 16, 2014
    Novus Ordo Watch Tip: Too much to read? Can't keep up? Use Readability!

What a Mess! “Youth Mass” in Brazil

He has a microphone, and he’s not afraid to use it...

Don Bruno Unleashed

His name is Bruno Maggioni. He’s a well-known and popular Novus Ordo priest in Italy who is famous for dancing, clapping, and singing secular songs during weddings he officiates. See the videos below — what a joke the Novus Ordo priesthood is, a parody of itself. Priceless!

Don Bruno unleashed: a John Wayne he ain't

[Face palm]

Who is the center of attention in this “Mass”? Jesus Christ or Don Bruno?

Don Bruno sings “Mamma Maria” by Ricchi e Poveri...

…and ends it with a kiss for the bride — and TWO for the groom! ;-)

How a Catholic priest instead ought to act and carry himself is wonderfully explained by the words and example of Pope Saint Pius X: 

See Also:

Sexual Innuendo to Drive Sales...


New Low for “Fr.” Zuhl$dorf:
“Use Protection!”

We’ve said it before, and, unfortunately, we have reason to say it again: The Rev. John Zuhlsdorf — “Father Z” — is apparently a full-time professional businessman using the “traditional Catholic priesthood” as a sales gimmick. 

In case our previous posts and sample links didn’t convince you of our less-than-stellar view of this man...

…we now have even more confirmation that his morals are as questionable as the validity of his priesthood:

Using sexual innunedo (!) in the title of one of his blog posts dated July 11, 2014, “Fr. Z” tries to drive more sales. The title is: “Advice from a priest: Use protection!” You can view his post here.

Anyone who hasn’t lived under a rock for the last 100 years can spot the deliberately suggestive ambiguity, the innuendo, contained in this phrase: “Use protection” is, of course, a popular euphemistic slogan employed by the liberal-pagan left to tell people to contracept when they fornicate so they are “protected” from pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. In other words, “use protection” is typically used as an exhortation to commit two mortal sins at the same time: fornicate and contracept. What a perfect slogan for a “priest” to use to get more of your money!

But don’t get us wrong: We’re not suggesting that Zuhlsdorf is trying to promote contraception or fornication. Definitely not. His post is about nothing sexual or moral at all actually — it is about “recommending” (read: selling) uninterruptible power supplies that protect you from power failures.

Is there anything wrong with doing that? Of course, selling battery backups is not wrong; in fact, such devices are rather important if you want to keep your computer safe. What is wrong, however, is the shamefully indecent way “Father Z” is doing it: by using a perceived hidden sexual message as an attention grabber to get people to click on and read the post, which contains sales links. Obviously, the more clicks on the links, the more sales, and the more sales, the more cash for him, as he gets paid a commission from Amazon based on the total value of items sold.

So, Zuhl$dorf’s latest tactic is to create in people’s minds an association with sexual sin and, having piqued their curiosity in this way, to hope they will purchase the linked products, thus increasing his bank account balance. Now there’s a great priestly role model for you! (Please don’t think for a minute Mr. Z actually cares about your computer — he obviously doesn’t even give a hoot about your soul).

In case the blog post in question should mysteriously disappear from his site, we have taken a screenshot of it. As you can see, we have added some red markings and numbered them — below we provide comments on each. 



This is the indecent title of the blog post which serves as Zuhlsdorf’s attention grabber to entice people to click and see what the post is about. People are naturally curious about sexual matters, which is precisely what Mr. Z is counting on. So people will click, only to find out that the “priest” blogger wants to sell them electronics.

(2) This is one of the first things you see when you look at the blog post: Z’s Amazon search box. Anything you buy through that, he will get a commission on, typically around 6.5%.

(3) Here Z assures his visitors from the United Kingdom that he has a search box for the UK version of Amazon as well. Wouldn’t want to miss out on all the cash from your British fans, now would you?!

(4) A hard-to-miss “Donate” button. In addition to sales commissions, Mr. Z also begs his supporters for direct cash. Poor guy — his “bishop” must not have enough money to pay him a salary!

(5) Here “Fr.” Z notifies his visitors that though one-time donations to him are great, it would be even better if he could be sent cash on a recurring basis, by means of convenient direct debit through Paypal. Ker-ching!

(6) This is a direct product link to AmaZon he wants you to click on so you can spend $60 (as of the time of this writing) on an uninterruptible power supply he gets paid a commission on. 

(7) In case you want to spend more, “Fr.” Zuhl$dorf offers you this alternate product for $180, on which he will make, roughly estimating, $10 per item sold.

John Zuhlsdorf has stated before (on a broadcast with Michael Voris) that he gets tens of thousands of hits a day on his blog. So let’s do some math to see just how lucrative his “Father Z” business might be for him — we’ll be very charitable and make some very conservative assumptions that will err on the side of less money for him:

Let’s assume that...

  • he gets 20,000 hits a day
  • on average, he sells $50 worth of products through Amazon for every 1,000 hits (=each hit produces an average of 5 cents of Amazon sales revenue)
  • his average Amazon commission is 6.5% (standard)

This would come to

$50 x 20 x 0.065 = $65 per day

Now assume these $65 per day for 365 days...

= $23,725 per year minimum Amazon commission

Not bad for a single man who doesn’t really have anything to do all day. Plus, remember that this is a minimum amount based on very conservative estimates, and this does not even include the sales commissions he gets on everything else he sells on his blog through stores other than Amazon, such as Mystic Monk Coffee, his Cafe Press Fr. Z’s Store, Ammunition Depot, and — nor does it include the donations people send him directly, or the salary he (presumably) gets from his bishop in Italy, or fees he might get paid for speaking at conferences and/or parishes.

Overall, Zuhl$dorf seems to have a pretty comfortable online business. Other people have to work long and hard, and support families, for the kind of money you can figure coming in for Wine-and-Dine Zuhlsdorf from putting up sales links and blog commentary all day (and don’t forget the Z Cam!). It’s sad to have to say this, but indications really are that “Fr. Z’s Blog” is primarily a business, where the smells and bells of Catholicism are used to lure people to provide a comfortable living for a man who loves to tout his “priesthood” (from John Paul II!) without ever much doing the typical work of a priest. The fact that, as he points out on his [old] Facebook page (the new one is here), he completed undergraduate and graduate college studies in theater (!) helps to underscore, rather than undermine, our point: He needs your cash, because the show must go on!


John Zuhlsdorf enjoying the fruits of his online business

So, if you ever happen to come across his blog again, just remember this little six-letter acronym as your reality check:
WDTPRS — What Does The Phony Really Sell?

To use a quote, duly adapted to the case at hand, based on Mt 16:26 and attributed to St. Thomas More addressing Richard Rich (in the movie A Man for All Seasons): “Why John, it profits a man nothing to give up his soul for the whole world… But for Sales?!


His view for awhile...

You may wonder why we even bother criticizing Mr. Zuhlsdorf, why we pay any attention to him. Are we guilty of envy perhaps?! No, the truth is simply this: “Father” Zuhlsdorf has tremendous influence in the blogosphere over the souls of a lot of good-willed, pious people who seek to be genuine Roman Catholics. His site gets tens of thousands of hits a day, as we already said, and his Twitter followers are roughly 24,000 as of the time of this writing. Do not underestimate the damage this man inflicts on the few who are left in the world who mean to be good traditional Catholics — and now instead waste their precious time reading his blog posts about bird feeders, target shooting, movie reviews, and the breadcrumbs he found on his economy-class plane seat. (Hey, whatever it takes to make sure people don’t have time to read pre-Vatican II Catholic theology!)

It is charlatans like “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf who keep so many attached to the Novus Ordo Sect; following him is considered “hip” and “cool” by people who think themselves traditional and orthodox (by Novus Ordo standards) — all because of the externals (“Look, he wears a biretta, stands up to Nancy Pelosi, and was ordained by the Pope! Oh my gosh, he knows so much Latin!”). It is especially people like him who make the Vatican II religion look credible as the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that’s a real shame.

The faster he is unmasked, the better for all.

Bergoglio talks tough — but is he credible?

Interview No. 10:


“I will use a Stick against Pedophile Priests”

So much for the vacation month of July being “quiet” as far as news from the Vatican and its Modernist-in-Chief, Jorge Bergoglio. After explicitly admitting he’s “not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism” (no, really?!) and high-fiving Protestant televangelist James Robison, Francis has given yet another interview, once more to Eugenio Scalfari, the former-Catholic-turned-atheist editor of the Italian La Repubblica newspaper. This happened on July 10. In total, according to our reckoning, it is the tenth interview Francis has given, though we have left out some press conferences and a video message or two which others may also count as interviews (it’s simply too difficult to keep it all straight and keep up with it all — the man just can’t keep his jaws together).

At this point, no comprehensive and reliable English translation has been made available, but here are some links to the interview and its content:

Apparently Francis presents himself in this interview as the big tough guy ready to fight all the pedophiles and sex abusers in his church. Unfortunately, this picture is not exactly credible, as the following links reveal:

So, while it’s easy to talk tough and hope no one cares to look at the past, it is always actions, past and present, that indicate a man’s true position, rather than what he says.

Of special note in this interview article are perhaps the last lines Scalfari penned, relating how he and Francis parted: “We hug again. I confess that I was moved. Francis caressed my cheek and the car started.” 

How sweet. Don’t cry for me, Argentina!

See Also:

Hey, thanks for clarifying…


Francis: “I’m Not Interested in
Converting Evangelicals to Catholicism”


For all those neo-cons in the Novus Ordo Church who were still in denial over Francis’ repeated affirmations that he opposes converting non-Catholics to Catholicism, “Pope” Jorge Bergoglio reiterated his position once more, this time in a conversation he had with Evangelical Protestant Brian Stiller, who is the Global Ambassador of the World Evangelical Alliance.

Stiller visited Francis in the Vatican in June 2014 and published a blog post about his encounter, entitled “Lunch with the Pope”, on July 9. There are two salient passages in Stiller’s account worth quoting:

We talked about Christians marginalized, pressed under the weight of government power or the majority presence of other faiths. He listened and then told a remarkable story. In his years in and out of Rome, he became friends with the pastor of a Pentecostal Church in Rome. In time he came to learn that the church and pastor felt the power and presence of the Catholic Church, with its weighty presence, obstructing their desire to grow and be a witness. “So,” he said, “this July I will preach in his church on a Sunday and offer an apology from my church for the hurt it has brought to their congregation.

It’s fair to ask what kind of Catholic Church we as Evangelicals want to see. At lunch I asked Pope Francis what his heart was for evangelism. He smiled, knowing what was behind my question. His comment was, “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those. Rather, let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.” (Of course Evangelicals do evangelize Catholics and Catholics do the same to us. However, that discussion we will raise another day.)

(Brian C. Stiller, “Lunch with the Pope”, Dispatches from the Global Village, July 9, 2014; red bold print added.)

So, in the first passage, Francis is quoted as saying that he will apologize to a Protestant congregation for the Catholic Church’s “oppressive presence” in Rome that apparently curbed the heretical sect’s influence and obstructed its efforts to recruit more people. By doing this, Francis once again demonstrates that he is not a Roman Catholic, because he can only do this under the supposition that non-Catholic religions and denominations have a right to exist and to preach their false teachings and recruit new adherents, which is, if not outright heresy, at the very least, a most grave and damnable error favoring heresy (see, for example, Pope Gregory XVI’s Encyclical Mirari Vos and Pope Pius IX’s Encyclical Quanta Cura).

In the second passage, Francis once more displays his much-appreciated candidness when he states explicitly: “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism.” Yeah, we had a hunch he wasn’t about to start a new round of Crusades any time soon. This open admission on his part shows that, as we have pointed out before, Francis speaks out of both sides of his mouth, because he is also on the record saying that we must constantly “preach the Gospel” — obviously, then, he is either simply a liar, or to him the Gospel is a completely different thing from what it actually is. But either way you look at it, he is clearly relinquishing his first duty (supposing him to be the Pope for a minute), which is bringing people to the True Faith and thereby to salvation (cf. Mt 28:19-20). He is a heretic who helps the body but destroys the soul (cf. Mt 10:28).

The Modernist Jorge Bergoglio then continues: “I want people to find Jesus in their own community.” Well, isn’t that interesting — some time ago, Francis was saying you can’t find Christ outside the Church, something the usual neo-con apologists jumped on right away as a supposed reaffirmation by Francis of the dogma No Salvation Outside the Church.

Are you confused by Mr. Bergoglio? There’s a perfect explanation for this: He’s a Modernist, and Modernists love vagueness, contradiction, and ambiguity, whereas Catholics extol clarity, consistency, and certitude. Yet, this particular contradiction can actually be reconciled fairly easily when you realize that when Francis says “church”, he doesn’t necessarily mean “Catholic Church.” For him, all Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox sects are also part of the church, as we pointed out in a post many months ago (see Francis says Christ not found outside the Church — What Does He Mean?). Once again, we have been proven right.

Francis stated furthermore: "There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those.” This statement is scandalous and noteworthy on two accounts: 

(1) It flatly contradicts the directives given by Pope Pius XII in 1949, according to which not one iota of Catholic truth is allowed to be denied, minimized, or glossed over when discussing religious matters with Protestants; in addition, it contradicts Pope Pius XII’s teaching in 1944:

Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, “although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ.” Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ's faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae, n. 16; underlining added.)

(2) Doesn’t Francis’ assertion that they will never agree on “so many doctrines” run contrary to all the ecumenical efforts of the Vatican, which have
doctrinal agreements and “unity” as their stated goal?

Clearly, we have a Modernist at work here, and one who loves to hear himself talk. All this confusion starts to make sense, though, when you realize that Mr. Bergoglio is not a Catholic. That’s the key to understanding it all. His mission is to confuse people, to spread error, and to destroy Catholicism under the guise of being “merciful” and “humble.”


Francis’ reaction after hearing that
billions of people think he’s a Catholic

Now that this latest “I don’t want to convert anyone” story is out, watch the professional Novus Ordo apologists scramble to “explain” what Francis “really” meant: 

  • “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf, after putting down his Kindle for a minute, will rush to tell you that we really can’t assume these quotes by Mr. Stiller are accurate and since he probably didn’t record Francis’ words, the whole thing can’t be taken seriously — and then “Fr. Z” will give you a link to click on so you can buy him something from his Amazon wishlist;
  • Jimmy Akin, who has already bent over backwards “explaining” that when Francis said to Eugenio Scalfari, “I don’t want to convert you”, he really meant, “I do want to convert you”, will offer ‘9 things to know and share’ and tell you that Francis probably didn’t say “convert” but “proselytize”, or at least meant “proselytize”, and so that what he was really saying is that he doesn’t want to strong-arm any Evangelicals to become Catholics; or, in case you don’t fall for this, Akin will tell you that Francis is just cleverly employing a psychological trick: get people to open up and let their guard down by assuring them you won’t try to convert them, and then go ahead and try to convert them anyway;
  • Mark Shea, after vociferously denouncing as self-righteous pharisees all who think they know more Catholic theology than Francis, will “explain” that Francis uses a different approach for making converts, one based on “mercy”, not dogma, one that traditionalist nincompoops obviously can’t understand;
  • Michael Voris will, of course, ignore the story, hoping you won’t hear about it and just watch his videos instead;
  • Update: The Rev. Dwight Longenecker weighs in with what amounts to a “who knows if this is really true” argument, though kudos to him for pointing out that you can’t respect a religion whose adherents think so little of it that they don’t want people to convert to it

Mark our words: If this story gets enough attention, the usual suspects will spring into action and “explain” it all for you, something they’ve had to do a lot of since March 2013. (Though some, Deo gratias, have finally given up.)

To provide further information and context for this news story, here are several highly interesting posts published by the one-of-a-kind Call Me Jorge blog, which you should not miss out on:

You’ll also want to have a look at Tom Droleskey’s commentary on Francis’ latest candidness:

Here is a video showing Francis receiving a “blessing” from a Protestant preacher at a charismatic-ecumenical gathering in 2006 in Buenos Aires. Not much has changed since then:

One final point: Notice how in previous times when Francis spoke out against “proselytism,” the Modernist apologists always told us that proselytism doesn’t mean converting but converting through dishonest or coercive means. Except this time, Francis said “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals,” not, “I’m not interested in proselytizing.” Once again, we have been proven right in saying that when Francis says “proselytism,” he means converting people, as he made clear in August 2013, and which is what 99.99% of his listeners understand him to be saying anyway.

Not that “Pope” Benedict XVI was interested in converting Protestants, either:

Finally, please take a look at the links that follow for more insight and information.

The True Catholic Position on Ecumenism & Christian Unity:

See Also:

“And then I told them, ‘I’m a faithful son of the Church!’”

High Five, Francis!


Protestant pastor James Robison high-fiving Francis at the Vatican on June 24, 2014. During their meeting, they agreed all Catholics and Protestants need to come to know Jesus personally. Photo by LIFE Outreach International, via Religion News Service.

The following is an excerpt from an article brought to you by Religion News Service on the meeting “Pope” Francis had with American Protestant preachers Kenneth Copeland and James Robison at the Vatican. The story speaks for itself, but there’s one little correction we must offer: The author of the piece, Sarah Pulliam Bailey, is wrong in saying this was the “first-ever papal high-five.” Francis had actually done it before, as we reported in our post on December 21, 2013,
which you can see here. Not that the Argentinian Modernist is actually a true Pope, but we’ll let that slide for the moment.

The non-sedevacantist blogger Mundabor has referred to Francis’ theological freakshow as the “Justin Bieber Papacy.” Let’s hope Mark Shea doesn’t find out....

[From Religion News Service]

Pope Francis meets US televangelists, and the first-ever ‘papal high-five’ follows

by Sarah Pulliam Bailey
July 9, 2014

(RNS) What does it take to produce the first-ever papal high-five? A meeting with American televangelists, apparently.

The gesture came during a three-hour meeting of Pope Francis and Texas televangelists Kenneth Copeland and James Robison, just weeks after the pontiff met with televangelist Joel Osteen and other religious leaders. At the June 24 meeting, Robison said he was so moved by Pope Francis’ message of the gospel that he asked the translator to ask Francis for a high-five. The pope obliged, raised his arm and the two men smacked hands.


As unusual as it might seem for a pope meet with celebrity Protestant preachers, the potential awkwardness goes both ways. While some praised Robison for going to Rome, others said Protestants and Catholics have too many differences, on issues that include the role of the Bible, saints, the status of the Virgin Mary and the nature of salvation. “Very disappointed in you James and Betty. Never forget the Inquisition — Never forget!” one commenter wrote on Robison’s website.

But Robison said he and Francis found common ground in caring for the poor.

“I don’t see him as presenting himself as infallible,” Robison said of Pope Francis. “He’s been to confession. He asks for prayer. He’s anxious to apologize on (behalf) of Catholic leadership.”


The June 24 meeting leaned particularly toward charismatic Christianity. Other guests were Anthony Palmer, a bishop and international ecumenical officer with the independent Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches; Geoff Tunnicliffe, the outgoing head of the Worldwide Evangelical Alliance; and John and Carol Arnott of Catch the Fire Toronto, which grew out of a Pentecostal revival 20 years ago….



He’s done it before:
Francis high-fiving children at the Vatican in Dec. 2013
(more here)

See Also:

You can’t make this stuff up...

“Show Your Tattoo” Mass!


Just when you thought you’d seen it all, the Novus Ordo Sect finds yet another scandalous novelty to introduce into its “Mass” liturgy on the local parish level. At Saints Peter and Paul church in Obernburg, Germany, the pastor challenged a lay parishioner (in fact, the “chairman of the parochial council”) that he wouldn’t be able to get 29 people to show up at “Mass” who have — and would be willing to show to everyone — a tattoo on their body that has a “biblical theme.”

Guess what happened: The parishioner won the bet against the pastor. They did indeed find 29 people to come forward during “Mass” and strip their clothes to reveal their tattoos. The “biblical theme” requirement was interpreted rather loosely, however, allowing the images of a bear and of a scorpion (come on, God made the animals, right?!), a demonic-looking fantasy creature interpreted to be an “angel”, and a skull representing death — “in death there is hope”, the chairman of the parochial council “explains” as he gazes at the tattoo.

You can view the video of the absurd spectacle here (the actual tattoo exhibition begins at 1:49 into the clip):

Got tattoos? Strip here!
(Caution: immodesty & indecent tattoos)

No, this isn’t fiction. This isn’t a bad dream. This is the stark reality of what is marketed today as “Roman Catholicism”, under the watchful eye of His Phoniness, “Pope” Francis the Humble, for whom the real problem in his church is the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

You couldn’t make this up if your life depended on it.

Reality Check:

See Also:



Seal of Confession under Attack —
“Father Z” Cashes In

UPDATE 7/10/14: Hours after we blasted him for shamelessly cashing in on that seal of confession case, “Fr. Z” doubles down with another sales post. His blog must be a real cash cow! We can start spelling his name “Zuhl$dorf” from now on…

Never let a good Catholic crisis pass without cashing in on it: In the state of Louisiana, the Roman Catholic seal of confession is allegedly under attack, and the intrepid biretta-wearing blogging wonder Rev. John Zuhlsdorf (“Father Z”) has already found a way to make a profit from it.

Reporting on this news story about the seal of confession on his blog, Mr. Zuhlsdorf — whose ordination is doubtful because it was administered using the 1968 rite of Paul VI (see PDF here) — encourages people to purchase buttons, T-shirts, car magnets, and other goods sporting the message “I will defend the Seal” and “I will not break the Seal”, which he wants Novus Ordo priests and laity to purchase and wear. For these sales, he gets paid a commission. 

In fact, he has an entire web portal called “Fr. Z’s Store” at Cafe Press, filled with this customized merchandise he wants you to buy, which he has named “Z Swag.”


Some of the many overpriced items Mr. Z wants you to purchase.
The only thing this will accomplish for sure is fatten his wallet.

So, what’s the problem with this, you may ask? Why should anyone care? For the following reasons:

  • This is typical for “Fr.” Z, who has a history of using his blog as a sales/cash gimmick. Whether it be receiving gifts and donations from his supporters or getting a cut on the things he sells on his popular site (from secular movies to coffee to electronic books), Mr. Zuhlsdorf has consistently used his putative Catholic priesthood as a way to make money off his supporters.
  • It is tacky, that is, in extremely bad taste. If the seal of confession is being challenged by the secular power, you should denounce this terrible injustice, you should exhort people to prayer and sacrifice, and offer or call for support of a court challenge against the government. Yet, in the entirety of Zuhlsdorf’s post on the story, he does not call for prayer or any other spiritual remedy even once. Instead, he wants you to buy cheap but overpriced merchandise that increases his bank account balance. Ker-ching!
  • Even if no tackiness was intended, at the very least, he ought to donate the proceeds of the sales to the legal case against the state that is attacking the seal of confession, which is, of course, wholly inviolable, as it admits of absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. If he is donating the proceeds, he ought to say so on his blog to prevent any scandal from being taken.
  • This merchandise, though it focuses entirely on the issue at hand, that is, on the inviolability of the seal of confession, will accomplish very little. It won’t really help the legal case, which is the only way this can successfully be fought, and it is far from clear just how a layman will “defend the seal” anyway. By doing what? Wearing stuff from the Fr. Z Store?
  • The only thing this will accomplish for sure is fatten “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf’s wallet. And, we suspect, that is the primary goal anyway.

This seal of confession challenge is just one more opportunity for Mr. Zuhlsdorf to sell over-priced merchandise. He has a history of encouraging his avid readers to either send him money, send him gifts, or purchase his Z Swag. For example, when Obamacare became mandatory in the United States, “Fr. Z” was right there asking people to “help me pay for my ‘affordable’ health care.” Perhaps he forgot that his readers, most of whom probably actually work for a living, also now had to pay for their “affordable health care”, but it’s hard to think of others when you spend so much time thinking about and promoting yourself.


A typical Zuhlsdorf sales gimmick

Zuhlsdorf's blog is full of ways to make him money and promote himself. The first two things you will see in the right margin at the top of the page are an Amazon search box with a plea to please purchase all your Amazon goods through him so he gets that 6% commission, and then a “Donate” button you can’t miss, with the generous assurance, “I pray for benefactors.” 

When he’s not asking for money, selling merchandise, or encouraging you to buy him items from his Amazon wishlist, Mr. Zuhlsdorf enjoys fine dining, traveling, attending conferences, giving talks, reading electronic books gifted him by his supporters, practicing target shooting at the gun range, and, of course, blogging — about bird feeders, exquisite food, Latin, books, movies, church issues, current events, and himself. Let’s hope that in between his prolific blogging and other “priestly” occupations, he really does find time to offer a few prayers for the pitiable people he’s milking.

It is really hard to understand why a man who spends most of every day doing things that have virtually nothing to do with the priesthood (even by Novus Ordo standards), can be admired as a “wonderful Catholic priest” by so many (he currently has 24,000 followers on Twitter — how pathetic is that!). It is frightening to see how easy it is to take advantage of people’s good will and naiveté, simply by means of a conservative, traditional veneer, utilizing the “smells and bells” of Catholicism: beautiful vestments, lots of incense, and good Latin. It’s all show — no substance.

Still not convinced? Then review our prior blog posts blasting “Father” Zuhlsdorf for his pretend Catholicism, his self-aggrandizement, and his promoting and selling of an immoral (!) movie:

People need to start asking themselves how it is that a man “ordained” by the “Pope” himself for an Italian diocese ends up living thousands of miles away and instead of doing the typical work of a priest gets to blog all day, sell merchandise, and milk his hapless fans for their hard-earned cash — and has done this for years.

It’s time to face reality, folks: “Father” Zuhlsdorf is a fraud.

Watchdog Group publishes Report


Jorge Bergoglio and Clergy
Sexual Abuse in Argentina

The U.S.-based non-profit watchdog group has published a report on Novus Ordo clergy sexual abuse in Argentina, slamming Jorge Bergoglio — now “Pope” Francis — for his alleged silence during his tenure as “Archbishop” of Buenos Aires (1998-2013), the country’s largest diocese, and his time as president of the Argentine Bishops’ Conference (2005-2011).

The report was released ahead of Francis’ meeting with abuse victims in the Vatican on July 7:

In his 2010 interview book On Heaven and Earth, Bergoglio claims that priests guilty of sexual abuse were not found in his diocese: “In my diocese it never happened to me, but a bishop called me once by phone to ask me what to do in a situation like this.” While not accusing him of lying outright, the watchdog group does say it finds it “difficult to reconcile” the impression Bergoglio gives by means of this statement with the known cases of child sex abuse by Novus Ordo clergy in his country and diocese (source).

To help bring to light the full truth about the sexual abuse of minors that is reported to have taken place in Argentina, and the extent of Bergoglio’s involvement in dealing with it, has made available the following evidence:

The aim of this independent watchdog group is simply that of documenting the truth concerning child sexual abuse by Novus Ordo clergy, specifically in the United States, so that root causes can be discovered and proper remedies can be found. To learn more about them, see their “Who We Are” page and also review who has endorsed them.

As for Francis, he is not exactly known for severely condeming sexual aberrations, appointing a known Sodomite to lead the Vatican Bank, publicly holding hands with a gay-rights activist “priest", and kissing the hand of and concelebrating “Mass” with Fr. Michele de Paolis, another strong advocate of homo perversions. Bergoglio likes to greet altar boys by kissing them on the cheek and enjoys kissing children and youths in general. Francis does, however, agree that there are sins against nature — such as cutting down trees.

No wonder Elton John has called Francis “wonderful”.


NOT part of the Confirmation rite, even in the Novus Ordo:
Francis kisses boy on cheek after “confirming” him

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

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

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

2002: 10-12/02

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

Fair Use Notice:

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