BACK

HOME

OLDER BULLETIN POSTINGS THAT REMAIN TIMELY CONTINIUE BELOW:

“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace …”

“To prevent [specified chastisements], I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.”

“In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”

Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima, July 13, 1917

"In the end.... (Russia) will be converted and a period of peace will be granted to the world."

On the Orthodox Church in Ukraine and Russia, state operated religious institutions.

For example, we’re talking about specifically the Orthodox Church. Back in 1948, there was essentially a coup in Constantinople (Istanbul) that removed the patriarch then, Maximos, who was considered to be too friendly toward the Russian Church—which, let’s be honest, at the time was under the control of the Soviet authorities—and replaced him with the archbishop here in America, Athenagoras, who was actually flown over there on Truman’s plane and installed by the U.S. government, the Greek government and the Turkish government acting in concert, and [the Ecumenical Patriarchate] has been an asset of the United States, the State Department and the CIA, ever since 1948. Of course, this is also consistent with Constantinople’s kind of “neo-papal” aspirations within the Orthodox Church, which is itself a-historical.

At the same time, you’ve got Russia, which—again in a very peculiar structure among the local Orthodox churches—is itself a majority of the entire Orthodox Church, a good chunk of that being in Ukraine.

Now in Ukraine, the Orthodox Church is called the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It is an autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church; it is self-ruling in virtually all aspects. That church is the canonical Church in Ukraine. Its status has not changed.

What has happened is, with U.S. support, Constantinople has tried to create a rival Orthodox church in Ukraine from a group of—actually several groups of—schismatics that they tried to cobble together into a new church. That’s where we stand right now. We have two competing Orthodox churches in Ukraine. The canonical one aligned with Moscow, which is very much the majority, and a much smaller one supported by the United States and Constantinople, which is not acceptable to most of the rest of the world—in Romania and Jerusalem and Serbia and Bulgaria and the other places of the Orthodox Church.

Again, I know this is very complex “inside baseball,” but what it shows is frankly a degree of sophistication, and again, cynicism of the Western powers that they’re willing to manipulate this in order to make some kind of a political game. Because I think the way they see it is, just as the Maidan in 2014 was a political coup to try to separate Russia from Ukraine, this is, if you will, a spiritual coup to try to accomplish the same thing: to take two very closely kindred people in language, culture and especially religion, and set them at odds against each other. It’s not working, it’s not successful, but it is creating a lot of discord, a lot of unhappiness and hurt, and even to some extent, violence.

James George Jatras, JD, interview, January 28, 2022. Mr. Jatras is member of the Greek Orthodox Church who is a Washington, DC-based attorney, political analyst, and media & government affairs specialist. He formerly served as a senior foreign policy adviser to the US Senate Republican leadership, and before that served as a diplomat in Mexico, the Office of Soviet Union affairs, and the Office of the Under Secretary for Political Affairs.

COMMENTARY:

"Errors of Russia" spoken by the Blessed Virgin at Fatima does not refer primarily to atheistic communism as presupposed by so many Catholics during the 20th century. It may not refer to it at all. Atheistic communism was not so much an "error of Russia" as a punishment permitted by God against the Russian people for the errors of the Orthodox schism and heresy which, since the fall of Constantinople, the Russians became the primary defenders and propagators. Orthodoxy began in schism and has ended in extensive heretical opinions. Importantly, the Orthodox deny the primacy of jurisdiction of the Pope in Rome and they deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the blessed Virgin Mary without which devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary becomes absurd. And, like all heretical sects, deny the in dissolvability of Marriage permitting two divorces and three marriages. Marriage is the metaphor used by God to describe His relationship to His Church and to each of the faithful individually. The consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope in union with the bishops of the world as requested by the Blessed Virgin Mary directly opposes an act of unity with the pope of Rome against those who deny the necessity of this unity as being of divine origin and necessary for salvation. It further affirms the dogma of the Immaculate Conception denied by the Orthodox and consequently, the devotion to the Immaculate Heart. The irony of Vatican II is that John XXIII assuming that the "errors of Russia" referred to atheistic communism refused to criticize this error in return for permitting the Orthodox heretics to attend his Council. The Vatican thereby publically accepted the "errors of Russian" and hold that these errors do not prejudice salvation for the Orthodox. No one benefitted from this stupidity which began be denying the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

“Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: ‘Ye shall blot them out to the last man.’”

Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli Prime Minister 1986-1992, 1943 Quote taken from “Document: Shamir on Terrorism (1943)” Middle East Report 152

“With them that hated peace I was peaceable: when I spake unto them, they fought against me without cause.” (Ps. cxix) “Forty years long was I nigh unto that generation, and said: They do always err in their heart; and they have not known My ways to whom I swore in My wrath that they should not enter into My rest.” (Ps. xciv)

“In the later editions of the Talmud the allusions to Christianity are few and cautious compared with the earlier or unexpurgated copies. The last of these was published at Amsterdam in 1645. In them our Lord and Saviour is ‘that One,’ ‘such a One,’ ‘a fool,’ ‘the leper,’ ‘the deceiver or Israel,’ &c.; efforts are made to prove that He is the son of Joseph Pandira before his marriage with Mary. His miracles are attributed to sorcery, the secret of which He brought in a slit in his flesh out of Egypt. His teacher is said to have been Joshua, the son of Perachlah. This Joshua is said to have afterwards excommunicated Him to the sound of 800 rams’ horns, although he must have lived seventy years before His time. Forty days before the death of Jesus a witness was summoned by public proclamation to attest his innocence, but none appeared. He is said to have been first stoned and then hanged on the eve of the Passover. His disciples are called heretics, and opprobrious names. They are accused of immoral practices; and the New Testament is called a sinful book. The references to these subjects manifest the most bitter aversion and hate.”

Dr. Joseph Barclay, LL.D, Rector of Stapleford, Hertfordshire, London, The Talmud, 1878, from Introduction, p. 30

---

Archdiocese of Baltimore files new proposed plan for Chapter 11 reorganization

NCR | Baltimore | May 19, 2026

The Archdiocese of Baltimore submitted a proposed plan for reorganization May 15 in an effort to complete its Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, with the goal of equitably compensating victims of child sexual abuse by clergy and others affiliated with the Catholic Church in Maryland.

The proposal includes establishing a survivor compensation trust totaling at least $168.9 million to evaluate and resolve claims. That amount would be funded by contributions from the archdiocese and its insurers.

Additional funds will be contributed by participating parishes, schools and related Catholic entities. That amount is still to be calculated.

A statement from the archdiocese at the time the plan was filed said, "At its core, the proposed plan seeks to provide equitable compensation to survivors while sustaining the Church's mission and ministries. It reflects a commitment to transparency and a realistic assessment of available resources."

It continued: "While the archdiocese remains firmly committed to reaching an agreed-upon resolution through mediation, no final agreement has yet been achieved. The proposed plan is intended to advance discussions, provide a framework for resolution and support continued dialogue among all parties."

The plan includes $43.9 million from the archdiocese and at least $125 million combined from two insurance companies that covered parishes, schools and the archdiocese during the times covered by some of the claims.

Funds to the trust from the archdiocese would come from unrestricted assets. The plan does not anticipate the Baltimore Archdiocese selling any real estate, according to Christian Kendzierski, archdiocesan executive director of communications.

The parishes or other entities would also contribute from unrestricted assets.

Other insurance carriers are expected to contribute to the trust as well, he said, although the specifics cannot be revealed now because the conversations are part of the mediation process, which is confidential.

The archdiocese's proposed plan also includes "non-monetary obligations to further enhance the existing child safety and protection policies and procedures within the archdiocese," which is something the survivors' committee, known as the Unsecured Creditors Committee, has requested.

Baltimore Auxiliary Bishop Adam Parker, who has testified in the court process and has been present for many hearings, said the archdiocese discussed with the Creditors Committee the possibility of retaining an independent, third-party consultant who is an expert on the subject matter to review archdiocesan policies and procedures for screening and training.

The court approved in February a joint motion by the archdiocese and the committee to designate Guidepost Solutions as that agency.

"We welcome the opportunity to review our zero-tolerance policies. Our goal is to have the safest possible environment for our young people, and to ensure that what happened in the past would never be repeated," he told the Catholic Review, media outlet of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. [.....]

COMMENT: Nowhere in the article is the word "homosexual" found. There is now a discussion of the "possibility of retaining an independent, third-party consultant who is an expert on the subject matter to review archdiocesan policies and procedures for screening and training." The very nature of bankruptcy proceedings is to have outside experts to review the cause and the proposed correct of the financial collapse. Since 90% of the sexual abuse cases are homosexual clerics committing the crime of pederasty let me suggest an "expert" opinion of the solution: remove all homosexuals from the clerical state and institute screening methods to exclude all homosexuals from seminary training. Do not hold your breath waiting for this to happen. The clerics who have committed these crimes and those who have contributed to them by COUNSEL, COMMAND, CONSENT, PROVOCATION, PRAISE OR FALTTERY, CONSCEALMENT, PARTAKING, SILENCE, and DEFENSE OF THE ILL DONE share in the guilt and must be punished. But they are not nor will they ever be as long as there is money to be had. If the goods of the Church were held by the individual parishes and these parishes were responsible for rectitude of its clerics and staff then none of this would ever happen. It began by bishops steeling the wealth of the Church for their own personal use and this was accomplished in Maryland by the bishops replacing permanent priests who were pastors with temporary clerics thinking about their next assignment. The primary loyalty of the priest was transferred from his parishioners to the his local ordinary. When the wealth is gone, the homosexuals will look for another sinecure.

MESSAGE OF POPE LEO XIV
ON THE OCCASION OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

_________________

To The Most Reverend and Right Honourable
Dame Sarah Mullally
Archbishop of Canterbury

“Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from
Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, in truth and love.” (2 Jn 1:3)

With this assurance of God’s abiding presence, I send prayerful greetings to Your Grace on the occasion of your Installation as Archbishop of Canterbury.

I know that the office for which you have been chosen is a weighty one, with responsibilities not only in the Diocese of Canterbury, but throughout the Church of England as well as the Anglican Communion as a whole. Moreover, you are commencing these duties at a challenging moment in the history of the Anglican family. In asking the Lord to strengthen you with the gift of wisdom, I pray that you may be guided by the Holy Spirit in serving your communities, and draw inspiration from the example of Mary, the Mother of God.

Sixty years ago, during their historic encounter in Rome, our predecessors of happy memory, Saint Paul VI (sic) and Archbishop Michael Ramsey, committed Catholics and Anglicans to “a new stage in the development of fraternal relations, based upon Christian charity” (Joint Declaration, 24 March 1966). That fresh chapter of respectful openness has borne much fruit over the past six decades and continues to this day.

On that same occasion, Pope Paul and Archbishop Ramsey also agreed to initiate a theological dialogue. Indeed, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) has contributed enormously to a growth in mutual understanding since its creation. The rewards of this valuable work have set us free to witness together more effectively (cf. International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, Growing Together in Unity and Mission, 93). This is especially vital given the manifold challenges facing our human family today. I am grateful, therefore, that this important dialogue continues.

At the same time, we also know that the ecumenical journey has not always been smooth. Despite much progress, our immediate predecessors, Pope Francis and Archbishop Justin Welby, acknowledged frankly that “new circumstances have presented new disagreements among us.” Nevertheless, we have continued to walk together, because differences “cannot prevent us from recognizing one another as brothers and sisters in Christ by reason of our common baptism” (Joint Declaration, 5 October 2016). For my part, I firmly believe that we need to continue to dialogue in truth and love, for it is only in truth and love that we come to know together the grace, mercy and peace of God (cf. 2 Jn 1:3), and thus can offer these precious gifts to the world.

What is more, the unity which Christians seek is never an end in itself, but is directed towards the proclamation of Christ, in order that, as the Lord Jesus himself prayed, “the world may believe” (Jn 17:21). In addressing the Primates of the Anglican Communion in 2024, Pope Francis declared that “it would be a scandal if, due to our divisions, we did not fulfil our common vocation to make Christ known” (Address to Primates of the Anglican Communion, 2 May 2024). Dear sister, I willingly make these words my own, for it is through the witness of a reconciled, fraternal and united Christian community that the proclamation of the Gospel will resound most clearly (cf. Message for the 2026 World Mission Day, 2).

With these fraternal sentiments, I invoke upon you the blessings of Almighty God as you take up your high responsibilities. May the Holy Spirit come down upon you and make you fruitful in the Lord’s service.

From the Vatican, 20 March 2026
Memorial of Saint Cuthbert, Bishop

LEO PP. XIV

COMMENT: Pope Leo/Prevost is cut from the same dishrag as his predecessor Francis/Bergoglio. When Leo says, "That fresh chapter of respectful openness has borne much fruit over the past six decades and continues to this day," the "fruit" he is talking about is the destruction of the Catholic Church. Leo says "we need to continue to dialogue in truth and love," while he is a bald liar and the love of God cannot abide in him. The Anglican Church was founded by a serial wife killer, murderer, adulterer, thief, and tyrant who made himself the head of the Church. To this day the king of England is the head of this Church that continues in the spirit of its founder. Anglicans cut off from God's grace sink daily in the same moral depravity.

St. Cuthbert was not an Anglican. He was a Catholic saint and is the Catholic patron saint of Northumbria in England where he was a monk and later the abbot of the Abby of Lindisfarne from 648 until his death in 686. He is possibly the most venerated saint in England. The "Life of Cuthbert," written at Lindisfarne by an unknown author, is the oldest extant piece of English historical writing. There is also a historical record of his life and miracles by St. Bede. When St. Cuthbert died in 687, he was initially buried at the Abby of Lindisfarne. There were many documented miracles at his tomb and his body later found to be incorrupt resulted in the island of Lindisfarne becoming a major destination for pilgrimages for hundreds of years. Lindisfarne was abandoned and St. Cuthbert's body transferred in 793 to Benedictine Durham Priory to avoid desecration from Viking raids. Durham Priory re-established the monastery at Lindisfarne as a priory in 1093. With the dissolution of the monasteries in 1563, Lindisfarne Priory was closed and used as a naval storehouse. Durham Priory, attached to Durham Cathedral, was destroyed and the Cathedral was given to the Anglicans. The Anglicans have no claim on St. Cuthbert and despise everything in his life. Leo/Provost by publically recognizing the legitimacy of this absurd posturing of a laywoman as a bishop exercising jurisdiction given by a perverted king is a continuation of the destruction established by Henry VIII. Leo/Provost is an enemy of the Catholic faith. Pray God to convert him and, if he wont be converted, send him to his appointed place.

Prophecy and our times!

An unhappy time is coming of revolt and dissension in the Church.  Oh my children, do not let yourselves be led astray by innovations.  Rally and hold fast.  Stay on the same road, the same footpaths as your pious fathers trod.  Preserve and maintain what they have taught you.  It will be enough if you resist the attacks, the tempests, the hurricanes that will arise with such violence.

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 Apostles to have expired.  But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.

St. Nicholas of Flu, 15th Century

During the fifth period, we saw only calamities and devastation; oppression of Catholics by tyrants and heretics; execution of Kings, and conspiracies to set up republics . . . Are we not to fear, during this period, that the Mohammedans will come again, working out their sinister schemes against the Latin Church? . . . During this period men will abuse the freedom of conscience conceded to them . . . there will be laxity in divine and human precepts.  Discipline will suffer.  The holy canons will be completely disregarded, and the clergy will not respect the laws of the Church.  Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh. . . But, by the hand of God Almighty, there occurs so wondrous a change during the sixth period that no one can humanly visualize it.

The sixth period of the Church will begin with the powerful Monarch and the holy Pontiff . . . and it will last until the revelation of Antichrist.  In this period, God will console His Holy Church for the affliction and great tribulation she has endured during the fifth period.  All nations will become Catholic.  Vocations will be abundant as never before, and all men will seek only the Kingdom of God and His justice.  Men will live in peace, and this will be granted because people will make their peace with God.  They will live under the protection of the Great Monarch and his successors.

All nations will come to worship God in the true Catholic and Roman faith.  There will be many Saints and Doctors on earth.  Peace will reign over the whole earth because God will bind Satan for a number of years until the days of the Son of Perdition.   No one will be able to pervert the Word of God since, during the sixth period, there will be an Ecumenical Council which will be the greatest of all councils.  By the grace of God, by the power of the Great Monarch, by the authority of the Holy Pontiff, and by the union of all the most devout princes, atheism and every heresy will be banished from the earth.  The Council will define the true sense of Holy Scripture, and this will be believed and accepted by everyone.

Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, holy priest of the seventeenth century

In the twentieth century there will be a time of great corruption of customs, and this devotion will be the safeguard of this land during the times to come when it will no longer be a colony, but a free and libertine republic.  Let us weep, pray, and do penance so that this time will not be of long duration.

The secular clergy will leave much to be desired because priests will become careless in their sacred duties.  Lacking the divine compass, they will stray from the road traced by God for the priestly ministry, and they will become attached to wealth and riches, which they will unduly strive to obtain.  How the Church will suffer during this dark night!  Lacking a Prelate and Father to guide them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, wisdom and prudence, many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger.  This will mark the arrival of My hour.

Therefore, clamor insistently without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the privacy of your heart, imploring the Celestial Father that, for love of the Eucharistic Heart of my Most Holy Son and His Precious Blood shed with such generosity and the profound bitterness and sufferings of His cruel Passion and Death, He might take pity on His ministers and bring to an end those Ominous times, sending to this Church the Prelate who will restore the spirit of its priests. . . [When all seems lost, it will be] the happy beginning of the complete restoration.  This will mark the arrival of my hour, when I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under my feet and fettering him in the infernal abyss.

Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Good Success, to Venerable Marianne de Jesus Torres (1563-1635)

It was revealed to me that through the intercession of the Mother of God all heresies will disappear. The victory over heresies has been reserved by Christ for his Blessed Mother… The power of Mary in the latter days will be very conspicuous. Mary will extend the reign of Christ over the heathens and the Mohammedans, and it will be a time of great joy when Mary is enthroned as Mistress and Queen of hearts. Venerable Maria of Agreda, seventeenth century

When arguing with a Neo-Modernist Novus Ordite Remember -

Modern Mind, Modern Thought: Don't be surprised when you at last discover that the Modern Mind is Mindless and Modern Thought is Thoughtless!

Modem Thought shirks definition. In all truth it is a giant’s task to extract a clear-cut and intelligible statement of what it exactly means by the terms it uses. For a definition requires thought; it requires a close examination and analysis of the nature of the thing to be defined, an accurate discrimination between its essentials and accidentals, and a painstaking comparison of that thing with similar things in order to discern what it has in common with them, and then to pick out just that specific note which makes it the thing that it is and different from everything else. All that, I say, calls for accurate and connected reasoning, and Modern Thought is quite unequal to the task. For it moves in a twilight of half-intelligence where it sees vague shapes and transforms them into monsters. Make the experiment of this for yourselves; if you will, take up the print of Modern Thought, some of which I shall presently indicate, and see what travesties it can make of the ideas of “dogma,”“faith,”“theology,”“metaphysics,”“God,”“morality,” etc., as well as of “civilization,”“culture,”“science” and “progress.” To whatever other tortures it may subject these words, or with whatever welter of brilliant sentences it may mix them—define them it does not.

All this is the same as saying that Modern Thought is flippant, cynical, skeptical, irrational and thoughtless—no one of which is the mark of thought truly so-called. In the face of searching questions, Modern Thought is as irresponsible as Boccacio’s “Cymon,” who:

Shunned the Church and used not much to pray,

He trudged along, unknowing what he sought,

And whistled as he went for want of thought.

It is difficult to speak of a flippant thing without oneself seeming to indulge in flippancy. Yet, were I to take Modern Thought very seriously and to define its most serious aspect, I could do no more than say that it is an attitude of mind which prefers to interpret life and judge the world not in the light of principles, tradition and authority, but according to a mood prompted by the moment and by the expediency of immediate environment—or the gravitation of man’s lower nature.

In justice to Modern Thought let it be said that at is not consistent with itself, for, while it spurns authority, it will nevertheless place the blindest reliance on any “authority” that serves its mood and temper, and this mood can, with the greatest ease, swing from the namby-pambiest optimism to the murkiest pessimism. And, if besides being observant persons you are moderately well read in history, it will soon break upon your realization that, after all, there is nothing modern about this mental affliction. It is as ancient as the day when Adam and Eve maimed their souls and bodies in Paradise in a fit of independence; it is as ancient as Heracitus, Epicurus, and the classic pagans. Its mood and their mood are essentially the same, the setting alone is different, the chief difference being that to-day the printing-press, the cinema and the radio (the T.V. and the Internet) offer the neo-paganism so many more facilities to waft itself abroad and spread the contagion of its mood.

Rev. Demetrius Zema, S.J., The Thoughtlessness of Modern Thought, Conference at Fordham University, 1933

Rene Descartes, the Catholic, and Immanuel Kant, the Protestant, the twin pillars of modern philosophical atheism!

“I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy he did his best to dispense with God. But he could not avoid making Him set the world in motion with a flip of His thumb; after that he had no more use for God.”

Blaise Pascal, Pensees

Synod on Synodality attempting to make the unthinkable thinkable

Cardinal Eijk accuses the synodal report on homosexuality of undermining Catholic doctrine

by INFOVATICANA | May 15, 2026

Cardinal Willem Eijk has launched a critique against the report prepared by Study Group 9 of the Synod on Synodality and accuses its authors of weakening the Church’s moral teaching, especially on issues related to homosexuality.

In an analysis published by National Catholic Herald, the Archbishop of Utrecht denounces that the document introduces “dangerous ambiguities” about Catholic doctrine and opens the door to reinterpretations incompatible with the Church’s permanent teaching on sexuality, marriage, and moral law.

Eijk’s intervention comes amid the growing controversy sparked by the report coordinated by Cardinal Carlos Castillo, Archbishop of Lima, especially due to the testimonies included in the text and the criticisms directed at the Courage apostolate.

“Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil”

The Dutch cardinal particularly criticizes the report for reproducing without correction statements according to which sin would not reside in the homosexual relationship itself, but in “the lack of faith in a God who desires our fulfillment.”

For Eijk, this statement directly contradicts Catholic doctrine.

“Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil; this is an already established Catholic doctrine,” the prelate states. Although he recognizes that every Christian needs to trust in God’s grace to avoid sin, he emphasizes that this does not eliminate the objective gravity of certain acts.

The cardinal also accuses the report’s drafters of deliberately introducing doctrinal confusion by presenting those testimonies without clarifications or references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Eijk denounces the attack on Courage

Another of the points most criticized by the Archbishop of Utrecht is the treatment that the report gives to Courage International, an apostolate approved by the Church that accompanies people with same-sex attraction to help them live in accordance with Christian chastity.

The synodal document includes the testimony of a person who implicitly accuses Courage of promoting “conversion therapies,” a claim that the movement has already publicly rejected, qualifying it as “slander and defamation.”

According to Eijk, the report implicitly conveys the idea that homosexual relationships can be normalized within the life of the Church, something he considers incompatible with consistent Catholic teaching.

Criticism of the synodal process method

Beyond the specific issues on homosexuality, Eijk criticizes the general approach of the document, which he accuses of replacing moral doctrine with a model focused solely on personal experiences and listening processes.

The cardinal particularly rejects that the authors question the application of universal moral norms and present doctrine as something “rigid” or merely “abstract.”

According to the prelate, this way of framing pastoral care ends up weakening moral truth and creating the impression that the Church’s teachings can be modified according to cultural circumstances or subjective experiences.

“The truths about marriage and sexuality were established by God once and for all,” Eijk asserts.

The cardinal also recalls that St. John Paul II already condemned this type of approach in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, where he rejected so-called “pastoral solutions” contrary to the Magisterium.

“Doctrine cannot be revised through synodal processes”

Eijk warns that the consequences of the report go far beyond the debate on homosexuality. In his view, relativizing universal moral norms ends up affecting the entire ethical teaching of the Church, including the defense of human life.

For this reason, he considers that the document must be “firmly refuted” and assures that several cardinals and bishops are already preparing objections directed to the Roman Magisterium.

“The Church’s teaching is not subject to revision through synodal processes,” the Dutch cardinal concludes. “It is the truth that sets us free.”

Hermeneutics of Continuity/Discontinuity

Catholic Church Teaches:

“That the mystical body of Christ and the Catholic Church in communion with Rome are one and the same thing, is a doctrine based on revealed truth.” Pius XII, Humani Generis

(Modernism teaches that) “the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.” Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi, 1907

With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors, which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas. Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, 1907

The Vatiacan II Church Teaches:

“Church of Christ… subsits in the Catholic Church.” Lumen Gentium, Vatican II

NOTE: The author of this term, “subsist in,” was Pastor Wilhelm Schmidt, a Protestant minister who made the suggestion to Cardinal Augustin Bea, the ecumenist, modernist biblical scholar, patron of Fr. Annibale Bugnini, and confessor to Pope Pius XII, who in turn recruited the support of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger who then convinced Cardinal Josef Frings of Cologne to bring the matter to the Council. This story was personally verified by Fr. Franz Schmidberger, First Assistant to the Superior General of the SSPX, by directly contacting Pastor Schmidt.

The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute “Roman” missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body. Thus they are telling us that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the “Roman” Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic Christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. Yves Cardinal Congar

Church of Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian communities. (Bold face in original).

Avery Cardinal Dulles, a member of the International Theological Commission

It is difficult to say that the Catholic Church is still one, Catholic, apostolic, when one says that the others (other Christian communities) are equally one, Catholic and apostolic, albeit to a lesser degree. ---- at Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopoly over the Christian religion. Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx

Concretely and actually the Church of Christ may be realized less, equally, or even more in a Church separated from Rome than in a Church in communion with Rome. This conclusion is inescapable on the basis of the understanding of Church that emerges from the teaching of Vatican Council II. Fr. Gregory Baum

And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio) the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world. On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not! Pope Benedict XVI, addressing Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Offers Clarification (?):
QUESTION: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
RESPONSE:
Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

REPLY:

Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, and many other Protestant groups recite the Nicene Creed professing a belief in the “one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church.” They clearly do not define the word “catholic” in the same sense as Roman Catholics do. Is the CDF giving a Catholic or Protestant meaning to the word “catholic” when it explains the words “subsist in”? Is the comment of Cardinal Congar explaining the significance of the failure to use the word “Roman” important to our understanding of the CDF’s response? Is this a cleaver corruption of dogmatic truth through dissembling corruption of language? Should we be grateful to Cardinal Congar for his open and honest comments? Since the “ecumenism of return” is rejected then, do Protestants that do not have to “return” to the Roman Catholic Church already belong to the “Church of Christ”? Is there salvation in the “Church of Christ” separated from the Roman Catholic Church? It is a Dogma, an article of divine and Catholic faith, that there is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which there is no salvation.

“The Devil is fighting a decisive battle”
Sr. Lucy also told me:

“Father, the Devil is fighting a decisive battle against the Virgin and, as you know, what most offends God and what will gain him the greatest number of souls in the shortest time is to gain the souls consecrated to God. For this also leaves unprotected the field of the laity and the Devil can more easily seize them.
“Also, Father, tell them that my cousins Francisco and Jacinta made sacrifices because they always saw the Blessed Virgin was very sad in all her apparitions. She never smiled at us. This anguish that we saw in her, caused by offenses to God and the chastisements that threaten sinners, penetrated our souls. And being children, we did not know what measures to devise except to pray and make sacrifices. …”
Referring to the vision of Hell that Our Lady showed her and Jacinta and Francisco, she said:
“For this reason, Father, it is my mission not just to tell about the material punishments that will certainly come over the earth if the world does not pray and do penance. No, my mission is to tell everyone the imminent danger we are in of losing our souls for all eternity if we remain fixed in sin.
“Father, we should not wait for a call to the world from Rome on the part of the Holy Father to do penance. Nor should we wait for a call for penance to come from the Bishops in our Dioceses, nor from our Religious Congregations. No, Our Lord has often used these means, and the world has not paid heed. So, now each one of us must begin to reform himself spiritually. Each one has to save not only his own soul, but also all the souls that God has placed on his pathway.
“Father, the Blessed Virgin did not tell me that we are in the last times of the world, but I understood this for three reasons:
“The first is because she told me that the Devil is engaging in a battle with the Virgin, a decisive battle. It is a final battle where one party will be victorious and the other will suffer defeat. So, from now on, we are either with God or we are with the Devil; there is no middle ground.
“The second reason is because she told me, as well as my cousins, that God is giving two last remedies to the world: the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And, being the last remedies, that is to say, they are the final ones, means that there will be no others.

“And the third, because in the plans of the Divine Providence, when God is going to chastise the world He always first exhausts all other remedies. When He sees that the world pays no attention whatsoever, then, as we say in our imperfect way of talking, with a certain fear He presents us the last means of salvation, His Blessed Mother.
 If we despise and reject this last means, Heaven will no longer pardon us, because we will have committed a sin that the Gospel calls a sin against the Holy Spirit. This sin consists in openly rejecting – with full knowledge and will – the salvation that is put in our hands.
 “Also, since Our Lord is a very good Son, He will not permit that we offend and despise His Blessed Mother. We have as obvious testimony the history of different centuries where Our Lord has shown us with terrible examples how He has always defended the honor of His Blessed Mother.
“Prayer and sacrifice are the two means to save the world. As for the Holy Rosary, Father, in these last times in which we are living, the Blessed Virgin has given a new efficacy to the praying of the Holy Rosary. This in such a way that there is no problem that cannot be resolved by praying the Rosary, no matter how difficult it is - be it temporal or above all spiritual - in the spiritual life of each of us or the lives of our families, be they our families in the world or Religious Communities, or even in the lives of peoples and nations.
“I repeat, there is no problem, as difficult as it may be, that we cannot resolve at this time by praying the Holy Rosary. With the Holy Rosary we will save ourselves, sanctify ourselves, console Our Lord and obtain the salvation of many souls.
 “Then, there is devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Most Holy Mother, holding her as the seat of mercy, goodness and pardon and the sure door to enter Heaven. This is the first part of the Message referring to Our Lady of Fatima, and the second part, which is briefer but no less important, refers to the Holy Father.” Sister Lucy of Fatima to Fr. Augustin Fuentes in 1957

St. Pius X identified Emmanuel Kant as the Philosophical Father of Modernism because Kant denied that objective truth can be known and communicated to others.

"Thinking men may to-day be divided into two classes: those who go back beyond Kant, and those who have received, as it were, their philosophic initiation and baptism from his Critique."

Auguste Sabatier, Dean of the Faculty of Protestant theology in Paris, quoted by Jules Leberton, S.J., Professor, Catholic Institute of Paris, The Encyclical (Pascendi) and Modernist Theology

Western Civilization is at its end! Either conversion to the Catholic faith or complete descent into barbarism are the only options!

Since civilization is the reign of social law issuing in social stability and in the security of life, limb and property, and a stable relation of mutual confidence and trust between man and man, it is quite obvious that such stability must rest upon an ethical basis, that is to say, upon the virtues of honesty, truthfulness, good-will, respect for the rights and feelings of others, self-restraint and submission to just law. It is obvious, too, and history confirms it a thousand times, that these virtues can have no stability or binding power in society so long as they rest only on the quicksand of mere external propriety and expediency. No, my good Friends, the virtues which make up a civilization require a more solid foundation than mere convenience and self-interest, and this bed-rock of civilization can only be the moral law accepted as an imperative duty—as the Will flowing from the Nature of a Divine Lawgiver.

Rev. Demetrius Zema, S.J., The Thoughtlessness of Modern Thought, 1933

"The first rule for interpreting an author's texts is not to interpret them in such a way as to make him contradict himself."

Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, O.P, "Our Saviour and His Love for Us", p. 44

Dogma is the answer to their "senseless questions and elaborate arguments"!

"During this period the Wisdom of God guides the Church in several ways:

1) by chastising the Church so that riches may not corrupt her completely;

2) by interposing the Council of Trent like a light in the darkness, so that the Christians who see the light may know what to believe... They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification, and delimitation by man."

Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser, 8-24-1613 to 5-20-1658, Priest, Confessor, Prophet

SSPX and the Evolution of Catholic Dogma: CCC goes from ‘NOT engraved in stone’ to ‘engraved in stone’ in 28 years! Is the SSPX ‘maturing’ or growing senile?

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a non-Catholic catechism.” SSPX position, 1994 

“Cardinal Reinhard Marx declared in an interview published on March 31, 2022 in the newspaper Stern, that The Catechism of the Catholic Church ‘is not engraved in stone’ and that, consequently, ‘one can doubt what it says.’ In itself, this proposition is aberrant…. The catechism is nothing other than the teaching of the Church, dogmatic and moral, made available to the faithful.” SSPX position 2022

In 2022 there were 42,000 nuns left in the United States with an average age of over 80 years. Only 1% of these nuns were under 40 years of age.

"Love Cannot Be Silenced"? - With a decline of 73% since Vatican II and an average age of 74 years, we will soon be entertained by the silence of the grave!

The Vanishing of the Nuns

Michael Winerip | December 2, 2012

In 1965, when the average age of a baby boomer was 10, there were 180,000 nuns in the United States. Today there are about 56,000. But even more dramatic than this decline is the age of the average Roman Catholic sister — 74 years old.

Will there even be nuns in the church by the time the millennials reach middle age? Will the boomers be the last generation to know nuns as a large and powerful force in American Catholicism?

Sister Kathy Sherman of LaGrange Park, Ill., at 60, a young nun by today’s standards, came of age during the Vietnam War, playing antiwar protest songs on her guitar. These days, Sister Sherman — whose voice sounds a lot like Judy Collins — has become known for a protest song she’s written (Love Cannot Be Silenced), aimed at the Vatican’s efforts to rein in American nuns.

Soldier from the Israeli Army desecrates image of Jesus Christ during their current invasion of southern Lebanon. This is what they do when not killing women and children and other non-combatants.

Novus Ordo "Saint" John Paul II taught the novel heretical doctrine that by the Incarnation, when the "Word was made flesh," all men became "Son(s) of the living God" regardless of faith or reception of the sacraments or their morality!

All of you who are still seeking God, all of you who already have the inestimable good fortune to believe, and also you who are tormented by doubt: please listen once again, today in this sacred place, to the words uttered by Simon Peter. In those words is the faith of the Church. In those same words is the new truth, indeed, the ultimate and definitive truth about man: the son of the living God—"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

John Paul II, first homily, October 27, 1978

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives.., and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra

On the Necessity of the Sacrament Baptism for Salvation: St. Gregory Nazianzen

“If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? If you prefer, we will put it this way: If, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You would then be satisfied to desire glory, as though that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it!” 

St. Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop, Confessor, Father & Doctor of the Church, Oration on Divine Light

Doctrine may develop in itself in "due proportion".... with "no variety of its definition." Dogma cannot develop in itself because its "proportion" and "definition" are fixed by God. It can only develop in its implications!

“Shall we then have no advancement of religion in the Church of Christ? Let us have it indeed, and the greatest . . . But yet in such sort that it be truly an advancement of faith, not a change (sed ita tamen ut vere profectus sit ille fidel, non permutatio), seeing that it is the nature of an advancement, that in itself each thing (severally) grow greater, but of a change that something be turned from one thing into another. . . . Let the soul’s religion imitate the law of the body, which, as years go on, develops indeed and opens out its due proportions, and yet remains identically what it was. . . . Small are a baby’s limbs, a youth’s are larger, yet they are the same. . . . So also the doctrine of the Christian religion must follow those laws of advancement; namely, that with years it be consolidated, with time it be expanded, with age it be exalted, yet remain uncorrupt and untouched, and be full and perfect in all the proportions of each of its parts, and with all its members, as it were, and proper senses; that it admit no change besides, sustain no loss of its propriety, no variety of its definition. Wherefore, whatsoever in this Church, God’s husbandry, has by the faith of our fathers been sown, that same must be cultivated by the industry of their children, that same flourish and ripen, that same advance and be perfected.”

St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, nfl. 28, 29

“The doctrine which God has revealed has not been proposed as some philosophical discovery to be perfected by the wit of man, but has been entrusted to Christ’s Spouse as a Divine deposit to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared. Hence sacred dogmas must ever be understood in the sense once for all (semel) declared by Holy Mother Church; and never must that sense be abandoned under pretext of profounder knowledge (altioris intelligentiae).”

Vatican Council I, Sess. iii. chap. 4

DOGMA AND DEVOTION or the Worshop of God 'in Spirit and in Truth'

Now our Divine Lord, speaking to the woman of Samaria, said, ‘You adore that which you know not;’ because they were ‘an idolatrous people, of mixed race, partly of Israel, partly of the nations brought and planted in a portion of the Promised Land. They had intermarried with the people of Israel, they had received the books of the Pentateuch, and they had a sort of fragmentary knowledge of the old revelation; but they did not rightly know the True God; and so much as they did know of the True God, they did not know truly. Therefore they could not worship Him ‘in spirit and in truth.’ For this cause our Divine Lord said, ‘You worship that which you know not;’ and He then further said, ‘We adore that which we know, for salvation is of the Jews.’ The full and pure light of revelation is in Jerusalem. The true knowledge of the True God is with us; and yet the time is coming when ‘they that adore shall adore neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem, but everywhere in spirit and in truth.’

From these words I draw one conclusion, namely, that knowledge is the first and vital condition of all true worship. You will remember how S. Paul at Athens found an altar ‘to the unknown God,’ and how he commended the people for their intentions of piety, but reproved them for their ignorance. He said, ‘Him whom you ignorantly worship, Him I declare unto you.’ Without knowledge there can be no adoration ‘in spirit and in truth;’ and just in the measure of our knowledge will our adoration be more or less perfect, that is, intelligent and spiritual. If our knowledge be full and perfect, so will our adoration be. From this let us draw two consequences, and then pass on.

The first is this. How great is the superstition of those who for centuries have pleased themselves by accusing the Catholic Church of teaching that ‘ignorance is the mother of devotion.’ The other consequence is: that the mother of all true knowledge relating to God, and therefore the mother of all true worship, is the Holy Catholic Church alone. Is it not a masterpiece of craft that the father of lies should have so darkened the understandings of our adversaries as to lead them into the profound superstition of believing that we keep people in ignorance in order to make them devout? My purpose, then, will be to trace out the connection between what the world scornfully calls dogma and devotion, or the worship of God ‘in spirit and in truth.’

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Glories of the Sacred Heart, Chapter 3, Dogma, the Source of Devotion

DOGMA: "A genuine message from the First Cause of the universe"

If the teaching proposed by the Church as dogma is not actually and really the doctrine supernaturally revealed by God through Jesus Christ Our Lord, [........]then there could be nothing more pitifully inane than the work of the Catholic Magisterium. [........]
This common basis of the false doctrinal Americanism and of the Modernist heresy is, like doctrinal indifferentism itself, ultimately a rejection of Catholic dogma as a genuine supernatural message or communication from the living God Himself. It would seem impossible for anyone to be blasphemous or silly enough to be convinced, on the one hand, that the dogmatic message of the Catholic Church is actually a locutio Dei ad homines, and to imagine, on the other hand, that he, a mere creature, could in some way improve that teaching or make it more respectable. The very fact that a man would be so rash as to attempt to bring the dogma of the Church up to date, or to make it more acceptable to those who are not privileged to be members of the true Church, indicates that this individual is not actually and profoundly convinced that this dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is a supernatural communication from the living and Triune God, the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth. It would be the height of blasphemy knowingly to set out to improve or to bring up to date what one would seriously consider a genuine message from the First Cause of the universe.

Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism

DOGMA, the proximate rule of faith for all the faithful:

According to Fr. Joseph Fenton, editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review:

· Dogmas are “truths,” not precepts.

· Dogmas are “teachings we are obliged to believe with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.”

· Dogmas are defined “truths” which the “apostles of Jesus Christ preached to His Church.”

· Dogmas are “truths” that have been “supernaturally communicated or revealed by God Himself.”

· Dogmas “constitute the central or primary object of the Church’s infallible teaching activity.”

A dogma is by definition immutable and unchangeable. The denial of any dogma makes one a heretic by definition.

· Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of deeper understanding.  Therefore... let the understanding... be solely in its own genus, namely the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding. Vatican I, Dei Filius

· Let nothing of the truths that have been defined ( i.e.: dogmas) be lessened, nothing altered, nothing added; but let them be preserved intact, in word and meaning.  Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos

· [Dogma must be understood] by the very sense by which it is defined and must be held to be by itself a sufficient demonstration, very sure and adapter to all the faithful.  Ven. Pope Pius IX, Inter Gravissimas, 1870

· If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of knowledge, different from what the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.  Vatican I, Dei Filius

· [Regarding dogma] nothing else is to be believed other than the words; and I hold that this absolute and unchangeable truth, which was preached by the Apostles from the earliest times, is to be understood in no other way than by the words.  Oath Against Modernism

Sources of the corruption of Catholic DOGMA:

Baptism is Necessary for both justification and salvation!

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. [.....]

The instrumental cause (of justification) is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified. We must believe that to those justified nothing more is wanting from being considered as having satisfied the divine law by those works which have been done in God according to the state of this life, and as having truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace) [Rev. 14:13] (Denz. 809).

Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, copied from Vatican source

Comment: Neo-modernist as a rule habitually take Catholic doctrinal teaching out of context. They even do this with dogma which never admits to contextualization. Doctrinal examples can be easily provided where Neo-modernist have taken a single sentence out of a paragraph and given it a meaning that contradicts the paragraph from which it was taken. In this example they take a word out of context to imply an overturning of the intentional meaning of the sentence from which it is taken.

In this quotation from the Council of Trent, the Vatican publication puts the word "faith" in parenthesis after the pronoun "which" in the first sentence. Their purpose is to convey the meaning that no man is justified without faith (which is true) but some men are justified without baptism (which is NOT true). It is this type of word manipulation from which Pope Francis embraced the Lutheran heresy of "justification by faith alone." And since the Council of Trent teaches that justification is all that is necessary for salvation therefore, since a man is justified by faith alone, he therefore obtains salvation by faith alone and consequently they believe that the sacraments are NOT necessary for salvation!

The Vatican makes the prepositional phrase, "without which no man was ever justified" modify "faith" as if it has no other bearing on the rest of the predicate which is grammatical non-sense! Well, what faith is the sentence talking about? It is talking about the "sacrament of faith"! And what is the "sacrament of faith"? The answer is the "sacrament of baptism" without which "no man was ever justified" modifies as part of the predicate!

And thus, the Council of Trent dogmatically declared:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Canon 4

This dogma condemns three propositions: 1) If you say that the baptism is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema; 2) If you say that baptism is not necessary for justification, "OR" 3) If you say that the desire for baptism is not necessary for justification, let him be anathema.

Those like Pope Francis who follow Martin Luther's heresy on justification and salvation claim that in this dogma, the coordinating conjunction "or" must be taken in an exclusive sense meaning that the "desire" for baptism makes the sacrament itself unnecessary for justification as a necessity of means. Luther's heresy of justification by faith alone is supposedly defended by Catholic dogma! But this interpretation is impossible!!!

It is true that the coordinating conjunction “or” can grammatically be used in an exclusive or inclusive sense. It is more often exclusive, but either way, the sense is always reciprocal. For example, if you were to win a new car and the dealer says you can have it in red or white, if you take the white, you cannot have the red. Reciprocally, if you take the red, you cannot have the white. This is taking the conjunction exclusively.
In the dogma cited, the assumption of the heretics is that the conjunction “or” is exclusive in that you can have the "desire" without the sacrament and be justified. Therefore, if this were correct, the reciprocal would have to occur, that is, the sacrament without the desire would then end in justification. We know that this cannot happen. If for example, a Jew while staying a Jew, is baptized because he wants to escape persecution and has no desire to receive the sacrament, then the sacrament itself without the desire will not end in justification because he has rejected the faith. Therefore, the conjunction “or” in this dogma must necessarily be inclusive and cannot be exclusive because, only in the inclusive sense is the relationship reciprocal. That means there must be both the sacrament present and the desire for the sacrament present to end in justification.

The dogma confirms the teaching of the narrative text that both the sacrament of baptism and the desire for the sacrament are necessary for justification, "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." It confirms that a state of justification is all that is necessary for salvation. And it confirms that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation.

Heresy is the Denial of Dogma as the Rule of Faith; Modernism is the "Synthesis of all Heresies" because it denies ALL DOGMAS! It denies what Dogma essentially is!

[Modernism is the] synthesis of all heresies [whose] system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion.... [Modernists] partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are all the more mischievous the less they keep in the open.... They put themselves forward as reformers of the Church [though they are] thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church.... They assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ.... [They are] the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church... They lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the Faith and its deepest fibers.... The most absurd tenet of the Modernists, that every religion according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. It is thus that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. From this they derive the law laid down as the universal standard, according to which religious consciousness is to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and that to it all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church. St. Pius X, Pascendi

Therefore: In the Novus Ordo Church of Sweet Dreams where harshness is always frowned upon harshly!

· Religious Liberty is the doctrinal validation of “Religious Consciousness.”

· Ecumenism is the collectivization and synthesis through dialogue of the individual’s “Religious Consciousness.”

· “Faith” is the affirmation of the subjective “Religiousness Consciousness” on the authority of the believer.

· “Dogma” is the historical and transitory collective expression of “Religiousness Consciousness” for a particular age.

· “Tradition” is the historical perceptions from which the present “Religious Consciousness” has evolved.

The Church at Vatican Council I (1869-70) defined that a dogma is a truth formally revealed by God which must be believed with “divine and Catholic faith” as necessary for salvation. A dogma is, by definition, immutable and unchangeable. Dogmas are not maxims, nor are they axioms where they are to be understood simply as general points of belief. Pope St. Pius X solemnly condemned this notion in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (False Doctrines of the Modernists, September 8, 1907: DNZ 2079-81). Rather, each dogma is a specific truth revealed by God and proposed by the Church whose very nature allows for no change and is the same for all time.

Adam Miller, Catholic Apologist, Dogmatic Deception

“The time is fast approaching when the omnipotent God will punish the world with justice and righteous anger, for the sins and crimes that stain His holy sanctuary. The corruption of morals will reach such an extreme that the atmosphere will be saturated with the stench of impurity, and these evil times will bring a chastisement like no other.
Confusion will reign in the sanctuary, and many of those entrusted with the care of souls will become lost themselves, dragging many others with them into error. The light of true faith will seem almost extinguished, and the flock, abandoned by many shepherds, will be scattered. In these moments of tribulation, those who remain faithful will suffer unspeakably. They will be persecuted, ridiculed, and oppressed, for the world will hate the truth and those who uphold it.
But do not fear, for just when all seems lost and paralyzed, when the wicked believe they have triumphed, this will mark the arrival of my hour, when I will overthrow the proud and accursed Satan, trampling him under my feet and chaining him in the infernal abyss. This restoration will be swift and marvelous. It will bring joy to the faithful and shame to those who warred against God and His Church.”

Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Marianna

When Pope Leo XIV denied the BVM her title of Co-Redemtrix, he was following Francis!

Hermeneutics of Continunity/Discontinunity

Blessed Virgin Mary, Co-Redemptrix, “The Mother of all the living”!

Pope Francis theological tripe:

“Being faithful to her Master, who is her Son, the only Redeemer, she never wanted to take anything for herself from her Son. She never presented herself as a co-redemptrix…. When they come to us with the story according to which we should declare this, or that other dogma, let us not get lost in foolishness.”

Pope Francis, denying the title of the Blessed Virgin as Co-Redemptrix

Wisdom of Catholic Truth:

· “Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.” St. Irenaeus, 2nd century

· “Death through Eve, life through Mary.” St. Jerome, 4th century

· “Through the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are redeemed from the tyranny of the devil.” Modestus of Jerusalem, 7th century

· “Hail thou, through whom we are redeemed from the curse.” St. John Damascene, 8th century

· “Through her (the Blessed Virgin Mary), man was redeemed.” St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 12th century

· “That woman (namely Eve), drove us out of Paradise and sold us; but this one (Mary) brought us back again and bought us.”

St. Bonaventure, 13th century

· “The Blessed Virgin merits for us de congruo what Christ merited de condign.” Pope St. Pius X, Ad diem illum

· “(The Blessed Virgin Mary) offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love like a new Eve for all children of Adam.” Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis

COMMENT:

Many ignorantly date the title of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix to the 16th century. It is actually much older. The theological truth that the title describes is found in Scripture, the Church Fathers and the constant tradition of the Catholic Church. It may have become more evident in the 16th century only because the Protestants deny it.

Pope Francis denied the title because he had common ground with Protestant heretics. He is on public record affirming his belief in Luther’s heretical doctrine of Justification which denies any incorporation of the baptized into Jesus Christ with the end to share in His sanctification and glorification. Catholic truth teaches that every Catholic “who has been baptized in Christ, has put on Christ” (Gal 3:27). And every Catholic who has “put on Christ” must then “deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow (Jesus Christ)” (Matt 16:24) so that he can “fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church” (Col 1:24). Every baptized Catholic is called upon to be a co-redemtrix with Jesus Christ and this constitutes the greatest honor for any of the faithful. Pope Pius XII said:

Because Christ the Head holds such an eminent position, one must not think that he does not require the help of the Body. What Paul said of the human organism is to be applied likewise to the mystical Body: “The head cannot say to the feet: I have no need of you.” It is manifestly clear that the faithful need the help of the Divine Redeemer, for He has said: “Without me you can do nothing,” and according to the teaching of the Apostle every advance of this Mystical Body towards its perfection derives from Christ the Head. Yet this, also, must be held, marvelous though it may seem: Christ has need of His members. First, because the person of Jesus Christ is represented by the Supreme Pontiff, who in turn must call on others to share much of his solicitude lest he be overwhelmed by the burden of his pastoral office, and must be helped daily by the prayers of the Church. Moreover as our Savior does not rule the Church directly in a visible manner, He wills to be helped by the members of His Body in carrying out the work of redemption. This is not because He is indigent and weak, but rather because He has so willed it for the greater glory of His spotless Spouse. Dying on the Cross He left to His Church the immense treasury of the Redemption, towards which she contributed nothing. But when those graces come to be distributed, not only does He share this work of sanctification with His Church, but He wills that in some way it be due to her action. This is a deep mystery, and an inexhaustible subject of meditation, that the salvation of many depends on the prayers and voluntary penances which the members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ offer for this intention and on the cooperation of pastors of souls and of the faithful, especially of fathers and mothers of families, a cooperation which they must offer to our Divine Savior as though they were His associates.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis

“The salvation of many depends on the prayers and voluntary penances which the members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ offer for this intention.” Those who will not “take up their cross” and enter into applying this “treasury of the Redemption” for the salvation of others are not “worthy of Jesus Christ.” “No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).

Now if it can be predicated that every one of the faithful is called upon to be a co-redemptrix, a fortiori, what can be predicated concerning the Mother of God, the ever Blessed Virgin Mary, the new Eve, the new Mother of all the Living who are reborn of God to the life of grace? The Blessed Virgin, our Lady of Sorrows, is the exemplar Co-Redemptrix sine qua non. It was her fiat at the Annunciation and repeated at the foot of the cross that brought Christ from the Father and offers Him again to the Father as a sacrificial reparation for the salvation of all.

For Pope Francis our Lady’s title was “foolishness.” And why? “But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined” ( 1 Cor 2:14).

Cursed be the man who denies the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Lady of Sorrows, her rightful title conferred upon her by God as Co-Redemptrix.

Sensus fidei for the Neo-Modernist: Goal is to direct the mob and use the mob to confirm their heterodoxy!

“The Second Vatican Council highlights that ‘all human beings are called to the new people of God’ (LG, 13). God is truly at work in the entire people that he has gathered together. This is why ‘the entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people’s supernatural discernment in matters of faith when from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful, they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals’ (LG, 12).” Vademecum on Synodality Syndod

COMMENT: The word “universal” is corrupted to exclude the attribute of time. A universal by definition necessarily includes the attribute of time without which it is not a universal. The sensus fidei that excludes time considering only the current mass of Catholics at one specific historical period looks only to popular trends and not Catholic truth. If every Catholic in the Church at one given time holds a doctrine or moral position that is contrary to the traditional teaching or practice, then it is not evidence of the sensus fidei but rather evidence of general apostasy and nothing more. “When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Lk 18:8). The implied answer is No! He will find apostasy and He will not call it a new sensus fidei.

Novus Ordo 'Dogma': Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Gutting Catholic Truth!

"[.....] With all this in mind, it must be said that the dogmatic formulas of the Magisterium of the Church have been apt from the beginning to communicate the revealed truth and, as long as they are maintained, they will always be fit for those who interpret them correctly. However, it does not suggest that each of them has been or will remain so to the same extent. For this reason theologians try to determine exactly what is the intention to teach really contained in the various formulas, and provide with this work a remarkable help to the living Magisterium of the Church, to whom they (the theologians) are subordinate. For this very reason it may also be that some ancient dogmatic formulas and others related to them remain alive and fruitful in the habitual use of the Church, provided that new exhibitions and statements are added in due course and that they preserve and illustrate their primary meaning. On the other hand, it has also happened sometime that in this same usual use of the Church some of these formulas have given way to new expressions that, proposed or approved by the sacred Magisterium, express their sense clearer and more fully.

"As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater clarity or more developed. The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulas (or some category of them) cannot signify truth in a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort of alter it; secondly, that these formulas signify the truth only in an indeterminate way, this truth being like a goal that is constantly being sought by means of such approximations. Those who hold such an opinion do not avoid dogmatic relativism and they corrupt the concept of the Church's infallibility relative to the truth to be taught or held in a determinate way.

"Such an opinion clearly is in disagreement with the declarations of the First Vatican Council, which, while fully aware of the progress of the Church in her knowledge of revealed truth, nevertheless taught as follows: "That meaning of sacred dogmas...must always be maintained which Holy Mother Church declared once and for all, nor should one ever depart from that meaning under the guise of or in the name of a more advanced understanding." The Council moreover condemned the opinion that "dogmas once proposed by the Church must, with the progress of science be given a meaning other than that which was understood by the Church, or which she understands." There is no doubt that, according to these texts of the Council, the meaning of dogmas which is declared by the Church is determinate and unalterable." [.....]

Declaration in Defense of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church Against Certain Errors of the Present Day, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mysterium Ecclesiae, June 24, 1973

COMMENT: The word "magisterium" is used equivocally in this document. There is the Magisterium (with a capital "M") of the Church grounded upon the Church's divine attributes of Infallibility and Authority to teach without the possibility of error in the name of God. This is what is meant when Jesus Christ said, "He who heareth you, heareth Me." When a pope engages the Magisterium of the Church he is entering into the one and same Magisterium that every pope in the history of the Church has entered since Pope Peter the Apostle to this present day.

There is also the magisterium (with a lower case "m") of churchmen teaching by virtue of their grace of state. This teaching has been deserving of a presumption of correctness and respectful adherence throughout the history of the Church, however, this teaching is the product of men and is capable of error. Since Vatican II the repeated teaching by the magisterium of churchmen has been heretical more often than not. Under Pope Francis it has not only been doctrinally heretical but at time grossly immoral.

Ultimately, only the pope can engage the Magisterium of the Church. The teaching that proceeds from the Magisterium is infallible and is called Dogma and constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Dogma is God giving explicit clarity of definition to His revealed doctrine. God is the formal and final cause of Dogma. The pope is the necessary but wholly insufficient material and instrumental cause of Dogma. Since God is the cause of Dogma, Dogma is infallible in both the truth it teaches and the words by which that truth is taught. That is, Dogma is irreformable in both its form (the truth) and its matter (the words) employed. Dogma ends theological discussion on the doctrine defined. Theologians may develop the implications that are necessarily derived from Dogmatic Truth but the Dogma in itself remains fixed in its truth and its manner of expression. Therefore, the proper tools for understanding Dogma are definition and grammar, and not necessarily theological competency.

This citation is three paragraphs from the document from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published in 1973. It both defends the infallible truth of Dogma in the second and third paragraph by citing the teaching of Vatican I, while at the same time, it undermines and corrupts Dogmatic truth in the first paragraph!

It corrupts Dogma when it recognizes and presupposes that Dogma is the proper subject matter for speculation by theologians and development by the "living magisterium," (the pope teaching by his fallible grace of state), to articulate a different non-literal meaning. Theologians are permitted to critically contextualize Dogma to "interpret them correctly." Theologians are directed to examine the "intention" of the Dogmatic formulation. Is this even possible? Well no, it is not. The "intention" is God's and no one can know the mind of God beyond what God has revealed. The "intention" of what is in fact the wholly insufficient material and instrumental cause of Dogma is irrelevant and completely immaterial to the question. Imagine asking the chisel and the block of marble what its "intention" was in producing Michelangelo's Pieta! So we end up with fallible theologians and the fallible "living magisterium" determining that "some of these formulas (Dogmas) have given way to new expressions." We have the fallible reformulating the infallible. This has been the rule of the churchman for the last fifty years since the publication of this document and the sub rosa practice for about 35 years before that. We are fortunate that God has a perfect memory. His truth is not compromised by lying churchmen. They claim to be speaking in the name of God to make God a liar like themselves. It will not work. The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition. The proximate rule of faith is Dogma. Heresy is defined as the denail of Dogma! Our duty is to keep the faith inviolate and uncompromised for which God has promised the eternal reward of His divine presence. Those who corrupt God's revealed Truth will have their eternal reward as well.

O Mary, Mary, bearer of the fire of love, and dispenser of mercy! Mary, co-redemptrix of the human race, when you clothed the Word with your flesh, the world was redeemed. Christ paid its ransom with His Passion, and you paid it with the sorrows of your body and soul.

St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, Instructed by God Himself

Vatican II peritus, Hans Kung, who denied the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, appealed to John Henry Cardinal Newman as his theological predecessor, invoking the same liberal modernist principles!

In John Cardinal Newman's Grammar of Assent are found all of the elements that determined the character of Newman's thought. The basis of his-peculiar form of liberalism that troubled Church authorities in his day manifests itself in this his most mature essay, written in 1870, five years after the Apologia. The underlying current of the entire essay reveals an aversion for the traditional methods of philosophy and theology on account of their being, as he would say, too abstract and impersonal.[.....]

It was also Newman's liberal personalism that made him reluctant to accept the definition of Infallibility in its fullest sense and import, as can be seen from a letter he wrote in 1871 (after the dogma of infallibility was defined) to Mr. Mashell, an Oxford convert who had published a pamphlet against Cardinal Manning. After Newman writing "I never; expected to see such a scandal in the Church.[.....]

An entire thesis, if not a small book, is required to do justice to the topic of Newman's position in the Grammar of Assent; here only the chief position will be discussed and contrasted with the philosophy of St. Thomas and those who follow him and the exigencies of reality. The philosophical principles which the Church from time immemorial has upheld and which Newman rejected, or seems to reject, are as follows:

1. that the abstract and speculative is superior to the concrete and practical;

2. that true science depends upon the admission that the nature of things can be known by the mind by abstracting from the here and the now;

3. that the natural order and the moral law are independent of men's perception of it and are not based upon a man's personal characteristics;

4. that causation in nature is discernable by the human mind without an a priori reference to itself;

5. that the existence of God is demonstrable by an investigation of nature and not merely by examining a man's consciousness and his awareness of his conscience;

6. that final causes are operative in the whole of creation and that God is the final cause, or purpose, of all things;

7. that logic is a noble and useful art which is grounded upon reality and aids the human mind to understand the conspectus of reality without falsity;

8. and that the dogmas and doctrines of the Church are apprehended by 'believers as they are in themselves, and not in an uncertain personalist fashion.

I hope that the reader untrained in the fundamental principles of philosophy will be able to perceive that Newman's thinking, however subtly and elegantly expressed, is opposed to and incompatible with true Catholic philosophy.

Richard Sartino, Another Look at John Henry Cardinal Newman

Is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to be taken literally or metaphorically?

NEO-MODERNISM: It's Formal Manifesto from Norte Dame University

What implications does the true nature of papal infallibility have for our life and practice as faithful Catholics? We can say the following.

First, the Church has a confident humility about papal infallibility. On the one hand, we believe that the Church does understand and declare what is true. On the other hand, we also believe that verbal formulations of divine truths, even the infallible formulations, are not the Truth per se, but limited, conditioned expressions of the truth.

Second, it is the real truths that are infallible, not the verbal formulations that contain them. An infallible statement is not at all wrong, but the way it might be said, even in an infallible definition, might not be perfectly adequate.

In the end, every Catholic can say with Augustine, “If you comprehend it, it is not God,” and with Vatican I, that the pope possesses infallibility. Thanks to the gift of infallibility of the Church exercised by the Magisterium, we worship him who is beyond our comprehension in spirit and in truth.

Christopher Baglow, Director of the Science & Religion Imitative of the McGrath Institute for Church Life at the University of Notre Dame, Infallibility, Ideology, and the Road to Ecclesial Harmony, January 22, 2024

COMMENT: The denial of DOGMA is the definition of Heresy. If DOGMA need not be taken literally than neither does any Heresy and the Creed we profess at every Mass is meaningless. The end of Neo-Modernism is no different from its precursor, Modernism. Both seek the destruction of DOGMA and the Catholic Faith. Taking DOGMA literally, such as, the DOGMA that Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead on the first Easter morning, does not place God within the comprehension of man. It places man under the obedient conformity to God's truth and delivers him from the opinion of idiots.

St. Dominic Painting

The picture in the vestibule is a canvas print of a painting of St. Dominic (d. 1221) by Fra Bartolomeo Della Porta (d. 1517). Fra Bartolomeo was considered the greatest Dominican painter after the great Blessed Fra Angelico (d. 1455). He was brought into the Dominican Order by Jerome Savonarola, O.P. (d. 1498) and was one of his most ardent admirers. Tradition relates that Fra Bartolomeo was one of the armed friars and citizens that tried to defend the convent of San Marco when Savonarola was captured by his enemies. He most certainly was a witness when the Borgia Pope, Alexander VI, got his revenge by having Savonarola burned as a “heretic.” Fra Bartolomeo gave up painting for many years after the death of Savonarola because, with his death, also ended the elevated principles of artistic purpose which he brought to Florence. Only under obedience did he once more begin to paint. One of his best known paintings is that of Savonarola. That painting hung in the cell of St. Catherine de Ricci (d. 1589), one of the greatest Dominican saints who bore the stigmata for 47 years. Her body remains incorrupt to this day. The painting of St. Dominic emphasis the spiritual importance of silence in the Dominican life as of essential importance to fulfill the key to the Dominican vocation “to live, defend and propagate the faith.” The axiom, “the word of the Preacher must flow from a soul of silence.” St. Dominic, pray for us.

Our Lady of Good Success to the Catholics of Today

My Beloved Daughter, I am Mary of Good Success, your Mother and your Protectress, I carry my most Holy Son in my left arm and the scepter of the world in my right arm…. The sanctuary lamp which you just saw go out has several meanings.

Firstly, towards the end of the nineteenth century and during a large part if the twentieth century there will arise various errors and the whole universe will become Republican. The precious light of faith will be going out following on the almost complete destruction of morals; in that time there will be many tribulations, moral tribulations also, both public and private. The little group of people who keep the true worship of faith and the virtues will have to suffer cruelly and indescribably. The constant martyrdom will bring many to an early death, they will be counted amongst the martyrs, they have sacrificed themselves for Church and country. In order to deliver oneself from the slavery of these errors one will need great strength of will, perseverance, courage and a great trust in God. These are gifts of the merciful love of my Divine Son, He has provided them for the renewal. In order to test the faith and the trust of the just and good men there will be moments when everything seems to be lost and paralyzed but that is the moment in which the happy beginning of the complete renewal starts.

Secondly, my communities will be abandoned, sunk in an abyss, a deep ocean of bitterness and they will seem to be satiated with sufferings and afflictions. How many good vocations are lost because of lack of good and prudent spiritual direction; the Novice Mistresses should take great care of the prayers of the novices and they should show understanding of souls.

The Third reason for the extinguishing of the sanctuary lamp is the spirit of impurity of those times, the air will be filled with this unclean spirit. A flood of filth will overflow the streets, the squares, and all public places so that there will be no virginal souls left in the world.

Fourthly, in all layers of society errors will strive with great cunning to penetrate into the families in order to corrupt the youth too; Satan will congratulate himself that he can feed himself in the fouled way on the hearts of the children. The innocence of children will hardly exist anymore. Priestly vocations will be lost. That will be a true misfortune and priests will turn away from their holy duties and enter upon a false, wrong course, and therefore the Church will go dark. No prelate and father will be watching any longer with love, strength and prudence over this flock, and many of the prelates will lose the spirit of God and bring their own souls into danger. Pray constantly, call upon heaven without tiring, and weep without ceasing inwardly in your heart and pray to the Heavenly Father through the Eucharistic Heart of my Divine Son Who has nobly shed blood.

Out of the bitterness and pains of His sufferings and death, pray that He will have compassion upon His servants, that He will bring an end to this terrible scourge by sending to the Church a prelate to renew the spirit of His priests. My Divine Son and I will surround this beloved son with a special love, we shall pour out a heap of many graces of humility of heart and docility towards God’s inspirations, and the strength to defend the rights of the Church so that he will know how to defend the rights of the Church with a heart which enables him to behave like another Christ towards the mighty people of this world and the little people of this world without despising the unfortunate ones. He will, with a divine gentleness, lead into the convents and monasteries souls consecrated to God for the service of God without making the yoke of the Lord heavy upon them. He holds in his hands the scales of sanctity in order that everything happen according to the weight and measure so that God be glorified.

This prelate and father will form a counter-weight against the lukewarmness of priests and religious who are meant to be dedicated to God. As a result of the guilt of these faithless men, Satan will gain upon earth control of this world like a dark cloud which darkens the sky and darkens all of the people who are consecrated to the Most Holy Heart of my Divine Son. All will have to suffer chastisements because all kinds of crimes have been allowed. They will suffer pestilence, hunger, civil strife, degeneration of morals and the loss of countless souls. In order to blow away the black clouds which block the shining holiness and the freedom of the Church there will be a fearful war in which much blood will flow of priests and religious. This night will be so terrible that people will think that wickedness is conquering. Then strikes my heart and in a most sudden way I shall annihilate the pride of Satan, I shall assist and liberate the Church and country from his cruel tyranny.

The Fifth reason why the sanctuary lamp went out is that influential men will watch with indifference, uncaringly, the oppression of the Church, the persecution of virtue and the triumph of wickedness. Because these influential people will not use their position of influence in order to combat evil or to renew the faith, the people will gradually become indifferent to the demands of God, they will take on an evil spirit and let themselves be swept away in all kinds of passion and vice. My beloved daughter, were you to live that terrible time you would die of pain or grief over the circumstances which I have described to you. The love of my Holy Son and mine which we have for this world which is our property demand from now on sacrifices and good works in order that the duration of this terrible catastrophe will be shortened.

The Blessed and ever Virgin Mary, under the title of Our Lady of Good Success, to Sister Maria Anna of Jesus, in the Convent of the Immaculate Conception in Quito on the 2^nd February, 1634. Sister was praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament when suddenly the sanctuary lamp went out.

Pope Leo honors new female pro-abortion ‘archbishop’ of Canterbury

To pretend that this is somehow a blessed vocation and praise Mullally in it and invoke God's blessing and the inspiration of the Blessed Virgin Mary on it is unspeakably evil.

LifeSiteNews | Vatican City | Mar 26, 2026 - Pope Leo XIV has issued a congratulatory letter to Sarah Mullally – the first woman ever appointed “archbishop of Canterbury” and a vocal supporter of abortion and the LGBT agenda. In the letter, Leo praises Mullally’s “weighty” responsibilities, and explicitly invokes the Blessed Virgin Mary as a source of “inspiration” for her new role.

The March 20, 2026 message, published on the Vatican website, was released after Mullally’s installation yesterday. It makes no reference whatsoever to the Catholic Church’s perennial teaching that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void” (Apostolicae Curae, 1896), that the ordination of women is impossible and contrary to the will of Christ, or to Mullally’s own public record promoting grave moral evils of abortion and homosexual acts.

Instead, Leo XIV opens with the salutation:

“To The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dame Sarah Mullally Archbishop of Canterbury”

He continues:

“I know that the office for which you have been chosen is a weighty one, with responsibilities not only in the Diocese of Canterbury, but throughout the Church of England as well as the Anglican Communion as a whole… In asking the Lord to strengthen you with the gift of wisdom, I pray that you may be guided by the Holy Spirit in serving your communities, and draw inspiration from the example of Mary, the Mother of God.”

This invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary – the Theotokos, the model of perfect obedience to God’s Will – is particularly scandalous. To hold up the Mother of God as inspiration for a woman pretending to exercise a priestly and episcopal office that the Church has always declared Christ reserved to men – not to mention for a leader who actively promotes abortion and same-sex “marriage” – is a mind-bending scandal.

Leo XIV quotes Pope Francis saying “it would be a scandal if, due to our divisions, we did not fulfil our common vocation to make Christ known.”

He adds:

Dear sister, I willingly make these words my own, for it is through the witness of a reconciled, fraternal and united Christian community that the proclamation of the Gospel will resound most clearly.

With these fraternal sentiments, I invoke upon you the blessings of Almighty God as you take up your high responsibilities. May the Holy Spirit come down upon you and make you fruitful in the Lord’s service.

COMMENT: Those who praise heretics and schismatics are heretics and schismatics. Those who seek "unity" with heretics and schismatics are heretics and schismatics. Leo the Iceman and worshiper of Pachamama who has publicly repudiated the titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co- Redemptrix and Mediator of All Grace now publically blasphemes the Mother of God. We pray for his conversion and we pray that God will cleanse His Church of these homosexual perverts. The latter is certain; the former is unlikely.

Around four o’clock in the afternoon on January 3^rd 1944, in the convent chapel of Tuy, in front of the Tabernacle, Our Lady urged Sister Lucia to write the text of the Third Secret and Sister Lucia recounts:

“I felt my spirit inundated by a mystery of light that is God and in Him I saw and heard the point of a lance like a flame that is detached touch the axis of the earth and it trembles: mountains, cities, towns and villages with their inhabitants are buried. The sea, the rivers and clouds exceed their boundaries, inundating and dragging with them in a vortex, houses and people in a number that cannot be counted; it is the purification of the world from the sin in which it is immersed. Hatred, ambition, provoke the destructive war. After I felt my heart racing and in my spirit a soft voice that said: ‘In time, one faith, one baptism, one Church, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. In eternity, Heaven!’ This word ‘Heaven’ filled my heart with peace and happiness in such a way that, almost without being aware of it, I kept repeating to myself for a long time: Heaven, Heaven!!”

A Path Under the Eyes of Mary (Um Caminho sob o olhar de Maria), published in 2013 by the Carmel of Coimbra

"Know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God?"

James 4:4

UNEARTHED: 1995 photo shows Pope Leo XIV participating in Pachamama ritual

Exclusive to LifeSiteNews, this explosive revelation will feature prominently in Fr. Charles Murr's forthcoming book on the new pontiff.

LifeSiteNews | Wed Mar 18, 2026 — In an explosive revelation that will feature prominently in his forthcoming book on the new Pontiff, Faith & Reason co-host Father Charles Murr has confirmed that Pope Leo XIV – then Father Robert Francis Prevost, OSA, actively participated in a pagan Pachamama “Mother Earth” agricultural ritual while attending an official Augustinian theological symposium.

The story was first brought to light by Fr. Murr, who has spent months meticulously compiling documentation for his upcoming book on Leo XIV. Three Augustinian priests have now independently confirmed to Fr. Murr that Robert Prevost is clearly visible among the kneeling participants in the central photograph. Although none of the three were present at the 1995 ritual itself, they immediately and unmistakably recognized their confrere from the published image.

The image appears in the official proceedings of the IV Simposio-Taller “Lectura de San Agustín desde América Latina” (São Paulo, January 23-28, 1995), published as the book Ecoteología: Una Perspectiva desde San Agustín (México, 1996). The official caption beneath the photo of kneeling participants reads:

Celebración del Rito de la pachamama (madre tierra), que es un rito agrícola ofrecido por las culturas del Sur-Andino en el Perú y Bolivia.

Celebration of the Rite of Pachamama (Mother Earth), which is an agricultural rite offered by the cultures of the South-Andean region in Peru and Bolivia.

The same volume includes a large group photograph explicitly captioned “Foto de todos los participantes del Simposio Sao Paulo Brasil,” placing the future Pope squarely among the attendees of an event that openly celebrated the Pachamama ritual as part of its “ecotheology” program.

Fr. Murr told Faith & Reason: “The man who is now Leo XIV was documented kneeling in a pagan earth goddess ritual in an official gathering of his own religious order. The implications for the direction of the Church under this pontificate are profound.”

Fr. Murr has obtained high-resolution scans of the proceedings (including the clear kneeling Pachamama photograph) from the Salesian Central Library in Buenos Aires, Argentina (stamped call number 276.04 ACU :504 / 30.161, Biblioteca Central Salesiana, No. 30161).

Yet another photo from the event, showing all the participants of the symposium, also confirms Prevost’s attendance.

LifeSite confirmed the photos of Leo at the ritual were in fact him by comparing images from the same period found in the Augustinian Spanish-language magazine OALA, where he is named “Roberto Prevost.”

On the Faith & Reason episode today, Fr. Murr noted how this violates the First Commandment and how the martyrs of the Church gave their lives rather than participate even slightly in ceremonies to false gods.

COMMENT: Everyone has know that Leo/Prevost was cut from the same cloth as Francis/Bergoglio: they are both worshipers of the pagan earth goddess, Pachamama. And every faithful Catholic knows that "All the gods of the gentiles are devils" (Psalm 95:5). And every faithful Catholic who is familiar with knows that the punishment of God that is now upon us will soon cleanse His Church of all the devils and their worshipers.

Pope Leo, like his predecessor Francis, is a member of the "gay mafia," a Defender of the Homosexual Heresy

The Homoheresy in the Church Today -- Benedict XVI Established a Clear Ban for Their Ordination

Homoheresy is the Rejection of the Church's Teaching on Homosexuality

Introduction / Translation: Giuseppe Nardi

(Rome) The Polish Catholic journal Fronda several years abo published a long essay, which was also taken up by the German Catholic journal Theologisches. The subject of the review was the "Homohäresie" and the existence of a "gay mafia" in the Catholic Church. The author described the existence of a network of homosexual priests at all levels of the Church hierarchy, including the Roman Curia, who cover for  each other.

The author of the explosive essay is the Polish priest Fr. Dariusz Oko, assistant professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Theological Academy of Cracow and the Pontifical University of John Paul II of Krakow and pastor at St. Hedwig's parish in this city. In his essay, Oko recalled that more than 80 percent of the so-called pedophilia cases of clerics in the US are in reality cases of ephebophilia and are aimed at male adolescents. The numbers coincide with those of the CDF, which speaks of 90 percent,  facts that had been systematically suppressed in public. "Factual investigations show that the extent of the problem in the Catholic Church is still the lowest. Why then is she the one mainly spoken of? According to research,  in a thousand cases of pedophila or ephebophilia there is only one is related to the Catholic Church in the United States, about 3-5 per ten thousand," says Oko in Theologisches (42) 9-10/2012. 

However Fr. Oko also showed the difficulties of priests and seminarians, who oppose the homosexual network in the church: "If the rector or other supervisor try to expel one, then it may be that they themselves are expelled and not the homo-cleric. Or should a vicar try to defend young people from the parish from a priest who commits sexual assault, he is harassed, disciplined and treated and not the priest, because the decisions makers to whom they refer, are themselves part of the gay lobby."

"If some indiscretions are verified, which is leaked  from the Vatican palaces, it would be an international network with hundreds of clerics of all rank levels," said the Vatican expert Marco Tosatti. Tosatti conducts an interview with, Dariusz Oko on this subject.  The pontificate of Benedict XVI was kept under continuous bombardment with the pedophile scandal.  With the new pontificate it was "completely forgotten", says  Tosatti.

Marco Tosatti: Two years ago you had mapped the situation in the Church in your thorough study. Has something changed since then?

Fr. Dariusz Oko: Certainly my study has touched on a widespread problem that exists almost everywhere. Only in this way can it be explained that they made the rounds around the world within a few weeks. In many countries, translations were made: from English to German, Italian and Czech, Slovak and Estonian ... It seems to me that the problem is addressed in my study is perceived more consciously.

Marco Tosatti: You talk in your work of Homoheresy. What are their characteristics?

Fr. Dariusz Oko: The Homoheresy is a rejection of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. The representatives of Homoheresy do not accept that the homosexual inclination is a personality disorder. They doubt that homosexual acts are unnatural. The defenders of Homoheresy are for the ordination of homosexuals. The Homoheresy is an ecclesiastical version of homosexualism.

Marco Tosatti: In 2005 the Congregation for Catholic Education published  an important document by Pope Benedict XVI that prohibits the ordination of homosexuals. Why this document?

Fr. Dariusz Oko: Since the 70s of the 20th century, a new type has entered in many seminars and monasteries around the world, who view human sexuality contrary to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. The consequence  was that it started on all continents in so many diocesan seminaries and monasteries, to represent the idea that there are two equivalent sexual orientations: a heterosexual and a homosexual. Thus, it was that clerics were only chaste, to be understood as abstaining from unclean actions, and demanded the ability to live celibacy, without further  asking about their sexual orientation or their inclinations. In this way, it became necessary to define homosexuality as an inclination and personality structure explicitly as an objective obstacle to the ordination.

Marco Tosatti: Was this requirement from 2005, which prohibits the priesthood for homosexuals, used to your knowledge?

Fr. Dariusz Oko: I am not responsible for training at seminaries. Therefore, I do not know how this ban is handled in different countries. This question should be directed to those responsible for the formation of future priests.

Marco Tosatti: Since you have published your survey, the Pope has changed. Do you see any difference in attitude between the two popes in connection with the problem?

Fr. Dariusz Oko: It is difficult to speak of any difference. Fundamentally, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not change and the forbids the ordination of homosexuals. The Magisterium in force led to a contrast to previous distinction between active and passive homosexuality a distinction between a temporary homosexual inclination, which occurs in late puberty, and the deep-rooted inclination. Both forms of homosexuality and not only active homosexuality represent an obstacle for the priesthood. Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Therefore, not only the ordination of men with homosexual inclination, even if only temporarily, is strictly forbidden, but  their admission to the seminary as well.

Anti-Semitism’s “Working Definition”

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) (until January 2013, known as the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research or ITF) is an intergovernmental organization founded in 1998 which unites governments and experts to strengthen, advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance worldwide and to uphold the commitments of the Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust. The IHRA has 34 member countries, one liaison country and seven observer countries. (Wikipedia)

The IHRA’s working definition for Antisemitism that has been adopted by member countries:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” Such as:

· Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, such as by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

· Applying double standards by requiring of Israel behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

· Comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

This “working definition,” although worded a little differently in light of their differing perspectives, is very close to the definition coined by Joe Sobran who said: “An anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.” The IHRA’s definition it not grounded on any objective standard but solely on the subjective “perception of Jews.” You can expect this “working definition,” which has been adopted by U.S. government agencies to work its way into the United States legal code notwithstanding any legal niceties such as freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, etc. The Jewish religion is a race base belief that Jews possess a special salvific relationship with God because of their DNA irrespective of what they believe or what they do. Jesus Christ was killed by the Jews in part because he told them that this was not so. And like Jesus our Lord, the Catholic Church will necessarily fall under this definition of Anti-Semitism as well. Soon enough, the Novus Ordo Church of the New Advent will be calling faithful Catholics anti-Semites.

U.S. Politics: Jewish revolutionary, Saul Alinsky, died 6-12-1972 and will soon be celebrating his 54^th year in hell. His book, Rules for Radicals, enumerates twelve rules for effective political organization:

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

The purpose of the “rules” is to impose the eight levels of control that must be accomplished in the formation of a Godless socialist state.

1. Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people.

2. Poverty —Increase the Poverty level as high as possible:’ poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3. Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4. Gun Control— Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5. Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

6. Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.

7. Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the government and schools.

8. Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

The new kill chain: America is using AI to bomb targets in Iran

ET Online | Mar 07, 2026

When the US launched its military campaign against Iran, called Operation Epic Fury, the conflict quickly became something more than a conventional war. The operation is emerging as one of the most consequential real-world tests of artificial intelligence (AI) in modern warfare.

In the Iran campaign, AI technology has played a critical role by supporting the initial screening of incoming data, allowing human analysts to focus on higher-level analysis and verification, according to Captain Timothy Hawkins, a Central Command spokesperson. “Centcom uses a variety of AI tools, and that is exactly what they are, tools, to assist human experts in a rigorous process aligned with US policy, military doctrine and the law,” Hawkins said in an interview with Bloomberg News. He declined to name the tools or the companies that provide them to the military. [.....]

“Bottom line, these tools help leaders -- humans -- make smarter decisions faster. The tools do not replace them or make targeting decisions,” said Hawkins, adding that target selection relies on a very specific, rigorous, legal process that involves commanders and leaders.

COMMENT: The primary company providing the AI "tool" is Palantir. Palantir's CEO is Alex Karp, a Jewish Zionist, who said in a recent interview, "What makes America special right now is our lethal capabilities, our ability to fight war... and the AI revolution is uniquely American." Karp said his company's tools are uniquely links the "U.S. and Middle East partners that were hit by Iranian airstrikes." That "Middle East partners" is Israel. This AI tool of Palantir was responsible for identifying Gaza targets for the Israeli IDF which included killing tens of thousands of women, children and the elderly. Karp vigorously opposed the college protesters against the Gaza genocide calling their views a "pagan religion" and "an infection inside of our society." At the AI Expo for National Competitiveness, he remarked that "the peace activists are war activists" and said that "protestors should be sent to North Korea" (WIKI).

It is the AI tool of Palantir that selected the mostly girls school in Minab, Iran as an acceptable target that was struck by two Tomahawk missiles killing 164 adolescent girls, 14 teachers on the first strike and the killing rescue personal and volunteered helpers on the second strike forty minutes after the first. The school is adjacent to a military complex and most likely the children where the daughters of military personal. A few hours after the Minab strike a missile struck a girls gymnasium in Lamerd, Iran where "dozens of teenage girls were attending their regular training sessions of volleyball, basketball, and gymnastics in the main sports hall in Lamerd, a city near the Persian coast" killing 18. Other targets include Shahid Bahonar Middle School, Parand, Arian Pouya Elementary School, Parand, Kindergarten, Narmak neighbourhood, and a Children's park (called "Police Park"), Tehran. There are 13 hospitals and other health facilities verified by the World Health Organization (WHO) that were targeted by the US-Israeli attacks. Also struck by missiles were common public facilities including Tehran Grand Bazaar, Ba'ath Stadium, Tehran, and the Azadi sports complex, Tehran.

What is now evident is that the U.S. is using Israeli programmed AI by Zionists to implement terror on the Iranian people. These targets have no military value. These attacks are total violations of Catholic moral teaching, international law and U.S. law. Trump's war on Iran was launched without any moral justification whatsoever and is being conducted without any moral constraints.

JUST WAR RULES

"It is not to be doubted that the world is in a certain sense a single community, and possesses the right to prescribe equitable and appropriate laws for its members, like those which constitute the law of nations.... It is unlawful to kill the innocent in war.... Slavery is not a legitimate consequence of war, that hostages cannot rightfully be put to death because of a breach of faith by an enemy.... The violators of international law sin mortally as well in peace as in war and that it is not lawful for any nation to refuse to observe the law of nations."

Fra Francisco de Vitoria, O. P. notes from his lectures

Fra Francisco de Vitoria, O. P., a Spanish Dominican friar, Father of International Law, held the chair of theology at the University of Salamanca where he died 1546. Fra Francisco is credited with establishing the Three Rules of a Just War developed from the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine and applying them during the Age of Exploration, which often became under the unscrupulous, the Age of Exploitation. He accepted without question that legitimate armed defense of property, life and honor, but taught that offensive war must fulfill the conditions of being declared by the right authority, being carried out in the right manner, and having a just cause.

The unprovoked war against Iran started by Israel and the United States fails with respect to every criteria.

It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from the Conciliar Church for as long it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, January 1, 2015

Bishop Williamson explains why the “XSPX,” is called the “New Society,” - “Novus Societas”

"The Catholic Church is much broader than just the Traditional movement. [….] We will never make Tradition attractive or convincing if we remain stuck in the 1950’s or 1970’s. [….] Tradition cannot be confined within the 19th and 20th century Church condemnations of liberalism. […..] Our time is different, we cannot stand still, much that is modern is not immoral. […..] So we must re-position ourselves, which is a practical problem and not a question of Faith. […..] The “Resistance” movement has fabricated its own “faith” by which to condemn the Newsociety. […..] SSPX HQ never betrayed Tradition in 2012 because its actions were attacked from both sides. […..] The official Newsociety texts of 2012 were not dogmatic. […..] Rome was much less aggressive in 2012 to the XSPX than it was in 2006. [……] The Newsociety follows the Spirit and draws on Tradition."

Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, SSPX First Assistant to Bishop Bernard Fellay, critical comments addressing the “resistance” that has risen against the SSPX’s accommodations with modernist Rome. Quotations taken from commentary by Bishop Williamson

VATICAN II COUNCIL: WHAT IS ITS AUTHORITY?

Vatican II Council was a "pastoral council." It was a council of churchmen teaching by their grace of state. At no time before, during or after the council did anyone ever teach anything by virtue of the Divine Magisterium of the Church, that is, teach by the Holy Ghost. Every Catholic is obligated to reject anything from this council that so much as equivocates or undermines any Catholic dogma. The Vatican II Council is to judged by its pastoral success or failures. The implementation of the pastoral corruptions of this council have directly lead to the greatest apostasy in the history of the Catholic Church. Those that claim that the "teaching of Vatican II" is good are those whose intention is to destroy the Church.

"No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin." -

Fr. James F. Wathen, The Great Sacrilege

On Penance

St. Paul says: I beseech you to offer your bodies to God as a sacrifice of mortification and penance, but in such wise that this sacrifice may be holy and acceptable in His sight. That it may become so, he adds, this painful sacrifice of mortification must be reasonable, that is, made with discretion and without excess....

However, to the effect that penance may be discreet and reasonable, conformably with the instruction left us by the Apostle of the Gentiles, it must fulfill two conditions, according to the rules which the Holy Fathers have prescribed for its practice. First, it should mortify the body, but not injure the health. Secondly, it must not hinder our fulfillment of the duties attached to our state of life. St. Basil expresses himself clearly in his Constitutions as to the former of these conditions; he will have penance taken in a measure proportioned to the strength of the body. Notice that by continence the holy Doctor here means bodily austerities. We should imitate the camel, which kneels to receive its burden, but which, when sufficiently laden, rises to its feet, and refuses to take more. As St. Bernard says, the body must be afflicted by penance in such degree as to prevent its unruly turning against the spirit; but it is not to be disabled or annihilated, so as to hinder it contributing to the exercise of the inner virtues, which are by far the most useful. St. Gregory the Great is of the like mind, when he says that in the use of penance we should keep within these bounds: we should not slay the flesh, but only its unruly passions.

Rev. John Baptist Scaramelli, S.J., Guide to the Spiritual Life

Because the life of prayer and union with God is what I love most of all; because I find it the most perfect; because it is a life of heaven, in a certain way, since a Carmelite is concerned only with being united to God and contemplating Him always and singing His praises. That thirst for prayer continually grows in me; my recollection is always continuous now, because whatever I do, I do with my Jesus and offer it to Him with love. When, for any reason whatever I am unable to make my prayer, I suffer at not being able to be with my God.

The solitude of Carmel helps recollection. That isolation from creatures helps Carmelites exchange with God alone and, as a result, to attain greater union with Him, because this is the heart of perfection. I believe that solitude won't tire me, as I'm always searching for it. I often become troubled when dealing with creatures, because I’m with God when I’m alone.

The poverty of a Carmelite is very great. She can possess nothing, which means that her whole capacity for possessing things is filled by God alone. By being poor, she is made even more like to her Divine Spouse who had nowhere to lay His head. A Carmelite must possess God alone.

The penance to which she submits herself and the austerity of her life are a greater means of having her body made submissive to the soul in order to become more like her Divine Spouse who became a victim for our sins. She does penance for her own sins and for those of the world. And in this way she shows her love for God who has filled her with so many favors.

Her sacrifice is perpetual, without mitigation, from the time her religious life begins until she dies as a victim according to the example of Jesus Christ. And she does all this in silence with no one aware of it. Yet how many are there who think of this life as useless. Nevertheless, she’s like the Lamb of God. She removes the sins from the world. She sacrifices herself to bring back to the sheepfold those sheep who have gone astray. But just as Christ did not know the world, neither does she know it. This abnegation enchants me completely. There is no room for self-love. She doesn’t even see the fruit of her prayer. In heaven alone will she know this.

The goal she proposes to herself is very great: to pray and sanctify herself so that the divine sap may be communicated through the union that exists between the faithful and all the members of the Church. She immolates herself on the cross, and her blood falls on sinners, pleading for mercy and repentance, for on the cross she is intimately united to Jesus Christ. Her blood, then, is mixed with His Divine Blood.

All these consideration that I make, Father, are the ones that induce me to prefer Carmel, since I believe that in that life, I will attain holiness. I have chosen the Carmelite life because I see that, in choosing it, I will find the cross; and I would travel, I believe, through the whole world with God's grace in search of it and to possess it, because on the cross is Jesus Christ.

Juana Fernández Solar (St. Teresa of the Andes), letter written at fifteen years of age to a priest explaining why she wanted to become a Discalced Carmelite nun.

Hermeneutics of Continuity/Discontinuity

Modernist Heresy

“The medieval concept of substance has long since become inaccessible to us. In so far as we use the concept of substance at all today we understand thereby the ultimate particles of matter, and the chemically complex mixture that is bread certainly does not fall into that category.” Benedict/Ratzinger, Faith and the Future

Catholic Truth

If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema

Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith

Modernist Heresy

“At this time the idea of salvation history had moved to the focus of inquiry posed by Catholic theology and this had cast new light on the notion of revelation, which neo-scholasticism had kept too confined to the intellectual realm. Revelation now appeared no longer simply as a communication of truths to the intellect but as a historical action of God in which truth becomes gradually unveiled.”

Benedict/Ratzinger, Milestones (Memoirs 1927-1977), published 1998

Catholic Truth

For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to be departed from, under the pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.

Vatican I

“Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.”

Oath Against Modernism

DOGMA is the proximate "rule of faith"!

When the Pope personally falls from the faith, the "Catholic religion (is still) preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See" in her Magisterial documents.

The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" [Matthey 16:18], cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See.

Opening sentence of the "Formula Hormisdae", the decree of Pope Hormisdas to the Eastern Churches that had followed the Acacian Schism, 516 A.D., for their correct profession of faith. The document was cited at Vatican I.

Synod Office releases first two Final Reports of the Study Groups

The General Secretariat of the Synod publishes the first two Final Reports of the Study Groups established by Pope Francis following the First Session of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops: that of Study Group No. 3 on 'The mission in the digital environment' and that of Study Group No. 4 on 'The revision of the Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis in a missionary synodal perspective.'

Vatican News | March 3, 2026

The General Secretariat of the Synod has today released the first two Final Reports of the Study Groups established by Pope Francis following the First Session of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

The reports published were that of Study Group No. 3 on 'The Mission in the Digital Environment' and Study Group No. 4 on 'The Revision of the Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis in a Missionary Synodal Perspective.'

Pope Leo XIV has directed the publication of these Final Reports to share with the entire People of God the fruits of the reflection and discernment undertaken during the Synod, in a spirit of transparency and accountability. The Final Reports are published in English and Italian, with an indication of the original language and the working translation.

A summary, available in various languages, accompanies each Report to facilitate access. With the presentation of their Final Reports, Study Groups No. 3 and No. 4 conclude their mandate and are therefore to be considered dissolved.

The General Secretariat will continue to release the Final Reports progressively, with the next publication scheduled for 10 March 2026.

Cardinal Mario Grech, Secretary General of the Synod, said that the Reports, “beyond the value of their content," "testify to the shared journey undertaken with the Dicasteries.

"It is not the first time that the Dicasteries have collaborated on a common project, but here," he added, "there is something more: an authentic exercise of shared listening, reflection, and discernment. It is synodality put into practice, not merely bureaucratic cooperation.”

The Mission in the Digital Environment

The Report of Study Group No. 3 addresses a central question that emerged during the XVI Assembly, namely how to live the Church’s mission within a culture increasingly shaped by the digital sphere.

The Group, drawing on a broad consultation involving pastoral workers, experts, and ecclesial realities from all continents, gathered experiences, analyzed challenges, and formulated concrete recommendations.

Key themes include the need to integrate digital mission into the Church’s ordinary structures, an in-depth analysis of territorial jurisdiction in light of online communities, and the formation of pastors and pastoral workers in digital culture.

The Report concludes with a series of operative proposals articulated at three levels: the Holy See, Episcopal Conferences, and dioceses. It also includes an extensive section on the methodology adopted and the entities consulted.

Formation to the Priesthood

Rather than proceeding with a revision of the Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis (2016), which is still considered valid in its fundamental principles, Study Group No. 4 opted to elaborate a Proposal for a Guiding Document for its implementation in a missionary synodal key, in line with the Final Document of the XVI Assembly.

The document is structured in two parts. The Preamble offers an ecclesiological-pastoral framework and identifies a series of necessary conversions in priestly formation: relational, missionary, toward communion, toward service, and toward a synodal style. At its heart lies a central insight: the identity of the priest is formed “in and from” the People of God, not in separation from it.

The Guidelines in the second part translate these conversions into concrete operative pathways.

Some of the most significant proposals include alternating residence between the seminary and parish communities or other ecclesial contexts; shared formative experiences and moments with lay faithful, consecrated persons, and ordained ministers, starting from the propaedeutic stage; the inclusion of qualified and competent women as co-responsible at all levels of formation, including within formation teams; and the acquisition of skills for co-responsibility and communal discernment.

The Group also proposed a pathway for the dissemination and implementation of the operative directions offered.

Nature and publication of the Final Reports

Along with the Final Report of Study Group No. 3, the General Secretariat also published a Note outlining the origin and mandate of the Study Groups, the nature of the Reports, and the envisaged operational follow-up.

In the note, it highlights that the Final Reports are the fruit of a structured process: the listening to diverse competencies and professional expertise, the analysis of numerous contributions, academic research, dialogue with various ecclesial bodies, from Episcopal Conferences to Catholic universities, and, above all, discernment and prayer.

They are to be understood as working documents.

Pope Leo XIV, has directed that the Final Reports be published progressively, as they are presented to the General Secretariat of the Synod, in a spirit of transparency.

In order that the content that has emerged may be translated into concrete orientations, decisions and processes, the Holy Father has requested the competent Dicasteries and the General Secretariat of the Synod to draw up, on the basis of the Final Reports, operative proposals, also giving an account of the choices made and of any elements not received.

This joint effort, the General Secretariat's note continues, ensures coherence with the synodal dynamism and rootedness in the Church’s missionary perspective.

The operative proposals thus formulated will be submitted to the Holy Father, who will evaluate and may approve them.

With the submission of the Final Report to the General Secretariat of the Synod, the Study Groups that have delivered it conclude the mandate entrusted to them and are therefore to be considered dissolved.

COMMENT: This article is reproduced as a penitential offering for Lent. It is a collection of bureaucratic drivel but its purpose is in fact malignant. Vatican II, the pastoral council, that from a faithful Catholic's perspective is a pastoral failure because since its implementation the Church has suffered the greatest apostasy in the history of the Church. For Leo, the Vatican II Council is in fact a wonderful success because his purpose is the destruction of the Church. That is why for the Novus Ordites, Vatican II Council "cannot be questioned." The important point of this publication on Synodality is the fundamental change in the conception of the priesthood. The heart of the Catholic priesthood is nicely summed up by St. Paul:

For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest: but he that said unto him: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

As he saith also in another place: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. Who in the days of his flesh, with a strong cry and tears, offering up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death, was heard for his reverence. And whereas indeed he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered: And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation. Called by God a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech (Heb 5;1-10).

There is nothing from St. Paul that calls for a "necessary conversions in priestly formation: relational, missionary, toward communion, toward service, and toward a synodal style." Don't forget that the Novus Ordo "missionary" believes that proselytism is "solemn nonsense" and therefore, a Novus Ordo "missionary" has no mission from God. There is nothing from St. Paul that calls for "inclusion of qualified and competent women as co-responsible at all levels of (priestly) formation, including within formation teams; and the acquisition of skills for co-responsibility and communal discernment" What is entirely absent from the Novus Ordo synodal priest is his essence and that is the power in "offering up gifts and sacrifices for sins." The Novus Ordo priest is not "called by God, as Aaron was." He is not called upon to share in the sacrificial priesthood of Jesus Christ that is in its essence is a sacrificial and sacrificing priesthood. This synodal intent in ordination cannot make a man a priest any more than it can make a lady priestettes.

Explains why Newman is now a "Doctor" of the Novus Ordites

He (Henry Cardinal Newman) was led into his error by the false philosophy of the age, which asserts that the mind apprehends truth only under subjective forms, and by his Protestantism, which misapprehends the real character of those new definitions and further explications of the faith opposed by the Church to novel heresies and errors as they arise (i.e.:DOGMA). Confounding the simple belief of the truth with the intellectual process of comprehending it, he fell into the mistake of supposing that heresy has always an honest origin, that it always springs from the necessary and laudable effort of the mind, an effort which every true believer must make, to ascertain and comprehend the truth, and that it always presupposes the faith on the point it contradicts was previously unknown even to the pastors of the Church; — a sad mistake, for the Church has never hesitated as to the faith to be opposed to the novel heresy, which proves that she knew it prior to the heresy, and the heresy never originates in ignorance of the faith or in an honest endeavor to ascertain it, but in the desire to establish a favorite theory, or to follow one's own private judgment.

Orestes Brownson, on the fundamental err of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who Modernist Heretics regard as their principle inspiration, from Newman's theory, written as a Protestant, Essay on the Development of Christine Doctrine

The SINS of the Novus Ordo Church:

Characterized first and foremost by its SINS against the Theological Virtues and its SINS against the Virtue of Religion - the most Malicious of all SINS because they have God as their direct objects!

From a theological point of view, evils may be divided into two classes : Voluntary evils (Sins) and Involuntary evils (Pain and Suffering). The evils of the first class are really "the" evil, that is, objects to be avoided and hated. They are also the greatest evils, because they injure at the same time their own author and the Author of nature. God cannot cause, but only permit and oppose them. The evils of the second class are only evils of the subject which naturally abhors them, yet they are not so detestable as to be avoided in all cases. God may cause them and use them as means to His ends; notably, as a penalty for sin. In the original order established by Him, there was no room for evils of this class. They came into the world with sin. As a matter of fact, then, all evils existing in this world spring from sin, the greatest and original evil. Hence the above division is equivalent to another which distinguishes "Evils of Guilt" and "Evils of Penalty" (mala culpae, mala poenae). Many evils may, however, be at the same time a guilt and a penalty. Sin in its theological and proper sense, consists in the conscious and voluntary transgression, lesion, or denial of the moral order imposed upon the creature by Divine Law. The philosophical notion of sin does not contain the element of Divine command. What to the theologian is a voluntary transgression of the law of God is looked upon by the philosopher as a transgression of the rational and natural order. Yet even in sound philosophy the notion of sin ought not to be dissociated from disobedience to the Lawgiver, for sin is always an action against the dictates of conscience, and these are but the commanding voice of God (Rom. ii. 14-16).

Hence the essence of sin consists in the more or less express opposition of the human will against the Divine Will, an opposition which implies a certain neglect or contempt of the Divine Will itself. This contempt involves an "aversion from God as the ultimate End," that is, a refusal of the submission and love which are His due. Sin averts or turns away the creature from God as the Highest Good in Himself, and from God as the Highest Good of the creature itself, in Whom alone it can find perfect beatitude. It seeks outside God a satisfaction or pleasure incompatible with the possession and fruition of God. On God's side, the contempt of His will by the creature constitutes an offence and an insult, according to the saying, "The lawbreaker offends the lawmaker." And this offence always includes an "injury;" that is, it injures or damages the external glory of God. For this reason, Holy Scripture describes sin as injustice, and iniquity. Again, sin being always committed under the very eyes or in the face of God, it must needs excite His displeasure, abhorrence, indignation, and anger. These affections in God are not accompanied by the same feelings as in man, yet they exist in Him eminently; and it is not the defect of malice in sin, but God's own immutability, which prevents Him from being affected with infinite pain by the sinner. In sins against the theological virtues, and against the virtue of religion, the aversion and offence assume a direct character, because God is the immediate object of these virtues. Sin is clearly the greatest of evils — and an absolute evil, because it deprives the Greatest and Absolute Good of the honour due to Him.

Scheeben's Manual of Catholic Theology by Rev. Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D. and Rev Thomas B. Scannell, D.D.

Separation of Church and State is impossible. Every state has an established religion with a creedal profession containing articles of faith that it demands its citizens profess. These articles of faith cannot be proven to be true or even demonstrated as consistent with natural law. The U.S.A. is no exception to this rule. We have a state religion but it is called by another name. The secular dogma, ‘Separation of Church and State’, is nothing more than a tool to prevent competition against the state religion in the public forum. The state demands a “faith” in “general values” that are always “relative and changing.”

All organization is action and all action is rude. […..] There is a hierarchy of values which have been expressed in nearly every revolutionary slogan in history…. These values are up on top. The democratic way of life is nothing more than a process, a device, a modus operandi, designed as the best way, we believe, of achieving those values, of growing into them so to speak. Now, those values that I have mentioned cannot be discussed, they cannot be argued, they cannot be debated, they are articles of faith. [..…] In a free and open society, equality is a value you cannot discuss or debate or put on a ballot. If you do not accept our values then you can have no voice in a democratic process. Then get out of our system and go someplace else. [……] These values and goals, out of necessity, are always stated in general terms. Every literate revolutionary knows that you cannot be any more than general (in your) terms because all values are relative and are changing.

Saul Alinsky, Jewish revolutionary, explaining the ‘religion’ of the modern democratic state, 1/17/69, UCLA

Society has already reached a sense of being “defeated” and “futureless.” The Novus Ordo Church is an essential cause and contributor to this sense rather than a light of hope of union with Jesus Christ!

[You must help]  the people in the community… feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. [An] organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives –agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate. [You must] fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame of fight.

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Traditionalist Catholic group doubles down on illicit consecrations, setting course for potential schism

Vatican News | Vatican City | Justin McLellan | February 19, 2026

The traditionalist Catholic society long a thorn in the side of the Vatican will move forward with plans to create its own bishops without approval from the pope. The plan escalates its standoff with Rome and sets the group on a path toward an outright break from the Catholic Church.

The Feb. 19 announcement marks the latest turn in a back-and-forth between the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican that sought to avoid a full-blown rupture between the two. Now, the situation poses a major test for Pope Leo XIV, who has made church unity a priority of his pontificate. 

Fr. Davide Pagliarani, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, said in a letter that the society would not postpone its announced bishop consecrations. The letter was sent to Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees the Vatican's relationship with the group.

The two met one-on-one on Feb. 12 to discuss a resolution to the society's threat of consecrating new bishops in defiance of Rome.  

In their meeting, the cardinal offered to engage in a theological "path of dialogue" with the society to establish "the minimum requirements necessary for full communion with the Catholic Church" on the condition the society suspend their planned episcopal consecrations.

Notably, Fernández met with the pope on Feb. 19, the day the letter was made public.

The Society of St. Pius X has long operated in a canonical gray zone. While its priests have been granted faculties in certain cases, including permission for the valid administration of confession and marriage, the society continues to function without full canonical recognition and in open defiance of church authorities.

Pagliarini wrote that the society is not seeking canonical regularity in the church,which he said "in the current state of affairs, is impracticable due to doctrinal divergences."

The Society of St. Pius X, which counts 733 priests worldwide according to its latest figures, rejects key teachings of the Second Vatican Council. That includes the church's teaching on interreligious dialogue and the postconciliar liturgical reform promulgated in 1970 and now celebrated by nearly all Latin-rite Catholics.

Among the topics Fernández proposed for discussion with the Society of St. Pius X were "the different degrees of assent required by the various texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and their interpretation."

In response, Pagliarani wrote that the society and the Vatican "cannot agree doctrinally" in light of the insistence that "the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged."

The society's decision sets up a direct confrontation with the Vatican ahead of its planned July 1 bishop consecrations, a move widely interpreted as an attempt to pressure Rome into addressing the Society of St. Pius X's shrinking number of bishops. [......]

COMMENT: It is unfortunate that the SSPX is incapable of effectively defending the Catholic Faith against the Neo-Modernists that control the Vatican. It is absurd to say, "we 'cannot agree doctrinally' in light of the insistence that 'the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.'" It is not a question of exchanging legitimate theological opinions on open questions. It is question defending the faith against the claims of heretics. Vatican II and the Novus Ordo communion service are heretical. SSPX should confront aberrant theological opinions and the corruption of divine worship of the Neo-Modernists with Catholic dogma. They should begin by asking how is it possible that a pastoral council of churchmen teaching merely by their grace of state that called everything in the Church into question itself cannot be questioned, especially when its implementation has caused the greatest destruction of faith and worship in the history of the Church? Their reason for this is no mystery. It is perfectly legitimate to conclude that the destruction of the Church is the intention of the Neo-Modernists. That is why they will not question Vatican II is because, in their estimation, it is magnificent success! It is doing exactly what it was intended to do.

Pope Leo has begun a series of Vatican II "catechesis." The most recent on February 18 was on the document, Lumen gentium, the constitution on the Church, and subtitled, "The mystery of the Church, sacrament of the union with God, and the unity of all humanity," wherein he cited this Lumen gentium teaching:

"The Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race." Vatican II, Lumen Gentium

Is this true? No it is not. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. This is an identity and it is heresy to obfuscate this truth by claiming, as Lumen Gentium did, that the "Mystical Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" implying there are other members of the Church of Chrst that are not Catholics. The members of the Catholic Church, and therefore, the Mystical Body of Christ, profess the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith; they have, while professing this faith, by the sacrament of Baptism been made members of this Body; and they as members of this Body are subject to her ecclesiastical superiors. Those that have not been baptized are not members of the Church; those that are baptized and reject the truths revealed by God are apostates and/or heretics and are not members of the Church; those that reject the universal jurisdiction of the pope are schismatics and are not members of the Church. The Church is NOT a "sign.... of a very close knit union.... of the whole human race" because the "whole human race" is not a member of the Church. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Those members of the "whole human race" who reject the Catholic faith stand only in potentia to this membership and the possibility of salvation. The duty of the pope is to preach the gospel message for the purpose bringing those in potentia to membership in the Church to being members in actu. This is why for the post Vatican II Novus Ordo popes proselytism is "solemn nonsense" because if the "whole human race" is somehow already united to the Church they do not need to be converted. Pope Leo in affirming this corrupt pastoral opinion from Vatican II is joining himself with its heresy, and as St. Thomas made perfectly clear, "all heretics are schismatics." Furthermore, it is an absurdity, a violation of the first principles of the understanding, to affirm that disobedience to the pope who is a heretic, and therefore a schismatic, is a schismatic act! It would be to claim that a schismatic pope makes the entire Church schismatic.

For the Indult Catholic Community: This is who they are dealing with!

Is church unity worth a Latin Mass?

Religion News Service |Thomas Reese | February 6, 2026

"Paris is well worth a Mass" was reportedly the attitude of King Henry IV when he was trying to secure the French throne. As a result, he converted from Protestantism to Catholicism in 1593. 

Today, the Eucharist, which is supposed to be the sacrament of unity, is too often a battlefield between Catholics who support the Traditional Latin Mass and those who want to see it disappear. Both sides need to ask themselves whether the fight is worth something more important than Paris: the unity of the church.

You must be my age to remember before the Second Vatican Council, when the liturgy was entirely in Latin in Catholic churches, except in those using Eastern Rite liturgies, where it was often in Greek. In Rome, it had been changed from Greek into Latin in the third and fourth centuries so the common people could understand it — a pragmatic decision, not a theological one.

When I was young, we took it for granted that the Mass was in Latin. It was something that made us different from Protestants. We could go to the same Mass anywhere in the world. The Scripture readings were in Latin, although on Sunday the priest would reread the Gospel in English before giving his sermon. Otherwise, unless you had a translation, you had no idea what the readings were.

The Eucharistic prayer was the priest' s prayer, which he said with his back to us. The altar boy would ring the bells to notify us when the priest raised the host and chalice for us to adore. The bell also rang to call us to Communion.

Other than that, the priest did his thing and the congregation passively watched or prayed in silence.

In high school from 1958 to 1962, I had a St. Joseph's Missal with Latin on one side of the page and English on the other so that I could follow what the priest was praying when I went to daily Mass, but that was not the norm. My parents had prayerbooks they read during Mass that had no connection to what the priest was doing. Others in the church silently said their rosaries during Mass.

And prior to the 20th century, Communion was infrequent. My parents were among the first children allowed to go to Communion. Those who want to bring back the Tridentine liturgy, if they want to be truly traditional, should go to Communion less frequently and not allow their children to go to Communion. Otherwise they are accepting early 20th-century innovations.

Although I entered the Jesuits prior to the Second Vatican Council and went through a very traditional novitiate, I did not find the liturgical changes difficult to accept. Our conservative novice master taught us a course on the history of the Mass using Josef A. Jungmannn's "Mass of the Roman Rite," which was published in English in 1951. It taught us that the Mass was always changing throughout history.

The transition was also made easier by our traditional novitiate's emphasis on obedience. If the church decided to change the liturgy, we were to accept it without question. To do otherwise would be disobedient.

The Jesuits in charge of formation were no help during the transition. They were clueless about what was happening. The classics professors argued about how we should pronounce "Amen" in English. The first time our superior said the Eucharistic prayer in English, he got as far as the institutional narrative and switched to "Hoc est enim corpus meum." The next day, he was able to do it all in English.

Some of my classmates had problems with the transition. Before ordination in 1973, one confessed that it just wasn't the same because in the old church, after ordination, he would be allowed to touch the consecrated bread for the first time. Now anyone could receive Communion in the hand. It was as if part of his priesthood had been taken away.

But for the most part, the liturgical changes were accepted and implemented with excitement and joy. They were the most visible reforms of Vatican II. And after a bit of confusion, they were accepted overwhelmingly by Catholics in the pews.

But there were two groups of holdouts.

First, there were those who found the change difficult because they were used to the old ways and the reforms were not well explained. Popes Paul VI and John Paul II wanted to deal with these people with pastoral sensitivity and patience, but the popes made clear that eventually, the old Mass was to fade away.

The other group of holdouts was more problematic. They objected to the new liturgy in principle and felt it was blasphemous. In truth, these ideologues objected to all the reforms of the council, not just liturgy. They were divisive and contentious.

Some of these dissenters were led into schism by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, despite all the Vatican's efforts to appease him. To undermine Lefebvre and win back schismatics to the church, the Vatican permitted more frequent celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. This strategy was partially successful, as exemplified by Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which celebrates the old Mass but is in unity with the pope.

But there was an unanticipated side effect: Some who grew up after Vatican II began to attend these Latin Masses. Most were not ideologues, but pious, theologically unsophisticated Catholics who were attracted by the ritual and mysterious ceremony that allowed them to focus on adoration and private prayer without the distraction of communal participation.

It is a mistake for liturgical reformers to lump this third group in with the ideologues who reject Vatican II. These are good, devout people who want to come closer to Jesus and find spiritual nourishment in the old liturgy. Their existence is a result of our failure to better explain the reforms and to make the new liturgy more appealing to them. We should have encouraged them to go to Benediction and explained how it is different form Mass.

Pope Benedict XVI erred in taking away the local bishop's control over the Latin Mass and allowing any priest to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass anywhere, any time. Pope Francis erred in seeing only the ideologues and not the pious Catholics who liked the old Mass.

Now, poor Pope Leo XIV must figure out how to deal with this mess in a pastoral way that does not empower the ideologues and affirms that the Traditional Latin Mass must eventually fade away. This is why he gets the big bucks.

Leo should keep in place the Francis mandate that seminarians are to be trained and ordained for the reformed liturgy. If they prefer the old Mass, they should not be ordained.

On the other hand, Francis' ban on the Latin Mass in parishes could have more flexibility. It might make sense to return the authority over this to diocesan bishops, although some may prefer to blame the Vatican for not allowing it. And yet, this is exactly the kind of issue that should be handled in a synodal fashion at the local level. And diocesan bishops can more easily determine whether those asking for the Latin Mass are pious Catholics or ideologues, and respond accordingly.

In any case, I would keep some limits on the availability of the Latin Mass. It should be banned on major feasts like Christmas, Holy Week, Easter and holy days, so that the entire community can gather for and take part in these feasts. And, the Latin Mass should not be available every Sunday. Everyone should experience the new liturgy on a regular basis, at least once a month, especially families with children. If one totally rejects the reformed liturgy, then one is out of step with the church.

Meanwhile, Leo should relaunch liturgical reform. The 1998 English translation of the Roman missal by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy should be permitted. Individual prefaces should be written for each Sunday in the A, B and C cycles of Scripture readings. New Eucharistic prayers that are more scriptural should be written.

Henry IV compromised his faith to win Paris. Catholics of all stripes should be able to compromise on the liturgy to maintain the unity of the church. We must respect and love one another, despite our liturgical differences. And everyone should know that we are Christians by our love, not know that we are Catholics by our fights.

COMMENT: Thomas Reese, S.J., the author of this editorial, is a progressive liberal Jesuit who is about 81 years of age. His entire religions life directly tied to liberal causes. For example, he is involved with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at the Jesuit Santa Clara University which holds as a first principle the Vatican II humanistic philosophy of the dignity of the human person which ends up in defending abortion rights. He is also the former editor-in-chief from 1998 to 2005 of the Jesuit magazine America. The Jesuit order he is a member of during his religions life has become largely a homosexual collective.

His recounting of his liturgical formation is interesting. He was formed by his Jesuit novice master at the beginning of Vatican II. His novice master, using Josef Jungmann, S. J. as his authority, is credited for his liturgical views. Jungmann was a professor of pastoral theology in Austria who wrote the two-volume The Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origin and Development. He held that the primary purpose of the liturgy from the beginning of the Church was pastoral. He was active in the liturgical reform with Rev. Annibale Bugnini from the beginning of the liturgical commission in 1948. He envisioned a Novus Ordo Mass with a primary pastoral purpose. He was largely a self instructed liturgical "expert" who functioned as a peritus at Vatican II and the major contributor to its Constitution on the Liturgy. Jungmann's idea of a pastoral liturgy was to return to the liturgical practices around the 4th to the 6th century. Over the last 40 years beginning in the 1980s, there has been a tremendous amount of liturgical academic research and publications as well as the reprinting of liturgical works. The upshot of this is that Jungmann was exposed as a fraud selective picking and choosing anecdotal historical elements that served his ideology and not the Catholic faith or true liturgical development. One example, he wrote that the ancient Roman rite was offered versus populum and not ad orientem. When real liturgical scholars demonstrated his error he argued that versus populum may not be what was done but should be done now for pastoral reasons. Msgr. Klaus Gamber made it clear in his work on the Roman rite that this practice can be traced to Luther and the Protestant reformation and nowhere before. Jungmann was an ecumenical ideologue and not ashamed to publish lies if they helped his cause.

An ideology is a man conceived intellectual system pertaining to some specific form of thought and/or action based upon human presuppositions that are held be faith alone, that is, they cannot be demonstrated or proved. A Catholic is not an ideologue because his presuppositions rest upon divine authority. Reese, like the former Jesuit pope, holds traditional Catholics as ideologues while it is Reese himself, like Francis/Begoglio, who is tied to a hopeless, loosing, antiquated, boring ideology. Francis/Bergoglio is the only one who ever tried to identify the "traditional" ideology as a form of the Pelagian heresy. That was so stupid it merited no intellectual exposition by anyone. Liberals like Reese effectively deny original sin. They are faced with the reality of a fallen human nature and thus constantly spend themselves on determining its causes and proposing their remedies. Since their diagnosis excludes the need for divine redemption and salvation, it is always wrong and their remedies always fail. Yet the liberal never repents his folly. The failures are always attributed to others who did not implement the plan with sufficient rigor, for sufficient time, and with sufficient purity. They never take responsibility for the ruin they cause in countless lives.

Reese is a shining example of this. He has been a Catholic religious with the Jesuits from the beginning of Vatican II Council and standing in the worst collapse in Catholic faith and morals in the shortest period of time recommends a "relaunch" (of the) liturgical reform." The PEW pole that Reese sites determined that only about 30% of those who identify as Catholics believe in the dogma of transubstantiation. The purpose of the American bishops poll was to bump these numbers up. They did this by avoiding any technical terminology that would be found in a grade school catechism and asking multiple questions to arrive at the conclusion that the respondent, who were restricted to those who actually attended a weekly communion service, had some sense of Catholic teaching. Reese is responsible for this as much as any of his fellow religious and yet he still thinks his opinions have value! This idiot will soon follow Francis/Bergoglio to his eternal judgment. At that judgment the fruits of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo service will condemn him because it is by these fruits that he is known. He will plead to the just Judge that he was only being "obedient" religious and anyway, since Francis/Bergoglio pointed out, "time greater than space", he just did not have enough time to see that things were going wrong? He will be told, 'No, space is greater than time', for you, "time" is over and your "space" is awaiting and prepared for you and it is not with the blessed.

---

Letter from Father Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernández

February 19, 2026

Source: FSSPX News

Response of the General Council of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Menzingen, 18 February 2026
Ash Wednesday

Most Reverend Eminence,

First of all, I thank you for receiving me on 12 February, and for making public the content of our meeting, which promotes perfect transparency in communication.

I can only welcome the opening of a doctrinal discussion, as signalled today by the Holy See, for the simple reason that I myself proposed it exactly seven years ago, in a letter dated 17 January 2019. At that time, the Dicastery did not truly express interest in such a discussion, on the grounds—presented orally—that a doctrinal agreement between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X was impossible.

For the Society’s part, a doctrinal discussion has always been—and remains—desirable and useful. Indeed, even if we do not reach an agreement, fraternal exchanges allow us to better know one another, to refine and deepen our own arguments, and to better understand the spirit and intentions behind our interlocutor’s positions—especially their genuine love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church. This holds true, at all times, for both parties.

This was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion during a calm and peaceful time, without the pressure or threat of possible excommunication, which would have undermined free dialogue—as is, unfortunately, the situation today.

That said, while I certainly rejoice at a new opening of dialogue and the positive response to my proposal of 2019, I cannot accept the perspective and objectives in the name of which the Dicastery offers to resume dialogue in the present situation, nor indeed the postponement of the date of 1 July.

I respectfully present to you the reasons for this, to which I will add some supplementary considerations.

1. We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council. This disagreement, for the Society’s part, does not stem from a mere difference of opinion, but from a genuine case of conscience, arising from what has proven to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church. This complex knot has unfortunately become even more inextricable with the doctrinal and pastoral developments of recent pontificates. 

I therefore do not see how a joint process of dialogue could end in determining together what would constitute “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, since—as you yourself have recalled with frankness—the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.

2. This dialogue is supposed to clarify the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. But this interpretation is already clearly given in the post-Conciliar period and in the successive documents of the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council is not a set of texts open to free interpretation: It has been received, developed, and applied for sixty years by successive popes, according to precise doctrinal and pastoral orientations.

This official reading is expressed, for example, in major texts such as Redemptor hominis, Ut unum sint, Evangelii gaudium, or Amoris lætitia. It is also evident in the liturgical reform, understood in the light of the principles reaffirmed in Traditionis custodes. All these documents show that the doctrinal and pastoral framework within which the Holy See intends to situate any discussion has already been firmly established.

3. One cannot ignore the context of the dialogue proposed today. We have been waiting for seven years for a favourable response to the proposal of doctrinal discussion made in 2019. More recently, we have written twice to the Holy Father: first to request an audience, then to clearly and respectfully explain our needs and the real-life situation of the Society. 

Yet, after a long silence, it is only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional. Indeed, the hand extended to open the dialogue is unfortunately accompanied by another hand already poised to impose sanctions. There is talk of breaking communion, of schism, and of “serious consequences”. Moreover, this threat is now public, creating pressure that is hardly compatible with a genuine desire for fraternal exchanges and constructive dialogue. 

4. Furthermore, to us it does not seem possible to enter into a dialogue to define what the minimum requirements for ecclesial communion might be, simply because this task does not belong to us. Throughout the centuries, the criteria for belonging to the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What must be believed in order to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in constant fidelity to Tradition.

Thus, we do not see how these criteria could be the subject of joint discernment through dialogue, nor how they could be re-evaluated today so as not to correspond to what the Tradition of the Church has always taught—and which we desire to observe faithfully in our place.

5. Finally, if a dialogue is envisaged with the aim of producing a doctrinal statement that the Society could accept regarding the Second Vatican Council, we cannot ignore the historical precedents of efforts made in this direction. I draw your attention to the most recent: the Holy See and the Society had a long course of dialogue, beginning in 2009, particularly intense for two years, then pursued more sporadically until 6 June 2017. Throughout these years, we sought to achieve what the Dicastery now proposes. 

Yet, everything ultimately ended in a drastic manner, with the unilateral decision of Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who, in June 2017, solemnly established, in his own way, “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, explicitly including the entire Council and the post-Conciliar period. This shows that, if one persists in a doctrinal dialogue that is too forced and lacks sufficient serenity, in the long term, instead of achieving a satisfactory result, one only worsens the situation.

Thus, in the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church.

As a cardinal and bishop, you are above all a pastor: allow me to address you in this capacity. The Society is an objective reality: it exists. That is why, over the years, the Sovereign Pontiffs have taken note of this existence and, through concrete and significant acts, have recognised the value of the good it can accomplish, despite its canonical situation. That is also why we are speaking today.

This same Society asks you only to be allowed to continue to do this same good for the souls to whom it administers the holy Sacraments. It asks nothing else of you—no privileges, nor even canonical regularisation, which, in the current state of affairs, is impracticable due to doctrinal divergences. The Society cannot abandon souls. The need for the sacraments is a concrete, short-term need for the survival of Tradition, in service to the Holy Catholic Church.

We can agree on one point: neither of us wishes to reopen wounds. I will not repeat here all that we have already expressed in the letter addressed to Pope Leo XIV, of which you have direct knowledge. I only emphasise that, in the present situation, the only truly viable path is that of charity.

Over the last decade, Pope Francis and yourself have abundantly advocated “listening” and understanding of non-standard, complex, exceptional, and particular situations. You have also wished for a use of law that is always pastoral, flexible, and reasonable, without pretending to resolve everything through legal automatism and pre-established frameworks. At this moment, the Society asks of you nothing more than this—and above all it does not ask it for itself: it asks it for these souls, for whom, as already promised to the Holy Father, it has no other intention than to make true children of the Roman Church.

Finally, there is another point on which we also agree, and which should encourage us: the time separating us from 1 July is one of prayer. It is a moment when we implore from Heaven a special grace and, from the Holy See, understanding. I pray for you in particular to the Holy Ghost and—do not take this as a provocation—His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.

I wish to thank you sincerely for the attention you have given me, and for the interest you will kindly take in the present matter.

Please accept, Most Reverend Eminence, the expression of my most sincere greetings and of my devotion in the Lord.

Davide Pagliarani, Superior General
+ Alfonso de Galarreta, First Assistant General
Christian Bouchacourt, Second Assistant General
+ Bernard Fellay, First Counsellor General, Former Superior General
Franz Schmidberger, Second Counsellor General, Former Superior General

COMMENT: Among Protestants there are a few doctrinal positions that unite them all: They without exception profess that God did not establish His Church with the divine attributes of infallibility, indefectibility and authority. Beyond this level of agreement Protestants differ radically from one another in doctrine, worship, and morality. The Protestant modus vivendi then is to respect the errors of each other since none claim the attribute of infallibility regarding truth in belief and practice. Christ's Church is altogether different. The Church speaks with authority the truth of God's revelation and of this truth will not be compromised one iota. The Novus Ordo Church, like all Protestants, seeks an accommodation with the world and its lies. The only thing they hate with one voice is the Catholic Church because it does not. G.K. Chesterton said, 'The Catholic Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she tolerant in practice because she loves. The world is tolerant in principle because it does not believe; it is intolerant in practice because it does not love.' The Novus Ordo Church, like the Protestants, is of the world that Jesus Christ said, "I pray not for the world" (John 17:9). It is complete folly for the SSPX to beg from the Novus Ordites a tolerance in belief based upon a charity in practice because without faith, there is, and never can be, charity. The dialogue with the SSPX began in 1997 and will go on as long as the SSPX stands upon opinion and not on God's revealed truth.

Hermeneutics of Continuity/Discontinuity

Explains why Novus Ordo Catholics have dumped the season of Septuagesima and do not do penance for Lent – they have ‘dialogued’ themselves out of Original Sin!

Original Sin:

Benedict/Ratzinger teaches:

The account (of Genesis 3) tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin’. What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relatives are imprisoned because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without – from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are ‘present.’ Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives – themselves – only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event – sin – touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin- damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.”

Benedict XVI/Ratzinger, Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (1995)

Catholic Church teaches divine Truth with precision and clarity:

“For that which the Apostle has said, ‘By one man, sin entered into this world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned.’ (Rom 5:12), is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the Apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration which they have contracted by generation. For, ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:5).

Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin

“I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

COMMENT:

Benedict/Ratzinger’s (B/R) heretical theology presupposes modern doctrine of scientism that material reality consists of atoms and the void in constant evolutionary progress. He therefore denies the existence of substantial reality in the place of substance, he offers the accident of relationship as the fundamental essence of all reality beginning with the reality of God. Being is rejected for becoming. The pursuit of Truth is favored over its possession. This theology of B/R is applied to man and sin including Original Sin. For the Catholic, sin is a transgression of the will of God in a more or less serious degree. A serious violation of God’s will is a mortal sin ending the life of grace in the substantial soul of an individual man. The relationship of friendship with God is ended but God remains in a relationship with all creatures including sinners because without a relationship with God they would not exist. But while sin ends the life of grace in the soul, the sin itself does not touch God.

And where does “relationality” lead? B/R’s “essential” Christianity? It is a religion of fantasy that has no real doctrinal or moral impediments and offers ‘dialogue’ as a nostrum for healing all problems of “relationality.”

But who in their right mind would want to join the ‘Church of Relationality’, which explains why the Novus Ordo Church has massive defections and few conversions. It also explains why for Francis/Bergoglio “proselytism is solemn nonsense.” How can you “proselytize” for a religion that does not know what it believes or for what end it was established?

As for “relations,” if we want to “essentialize our faith,” Jesus Christ makes perfectly clear just what is really “essential”: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). The “essential… relation” is with Jesus Christ, not man, and this “relation” is only possible by believing what Jesus Christ has revealed and doing what Jesus Christ commands.

Seewald: “The Church prays for Christians to be reunited. But who ought to join up with whom?”

Benedict/Ratzinger: “The formula that the great ecumenists have invented is that we go forward together. It’s not a matter of our wanting to achieve certain processes of integration, but we hope that the Lord will awaken people’s faith everywhere in such a way that it overflows from one to the other, and the one Church is there. As Catholics, we are persuaded that the basic shape of this one Church is given us in the Catholic Church, but that she is moving toward the future and will allow herself to be educated and led by the Lord. In that sense we do not picture for ourselves any particular modes of integration, but simply look to march on in faith under the leadership of the Lord – who knows the way.”

“We can only humbly seek to essentialize our faith, that is, to recognize what are the really essential elements in it – the things we have not made but have received from the Lord – and in this attitude of turning to the Lord and to the center, to open ourselves in this essentializing so that he may lead us onward, he alone.”

Benedict/Ratzinger, God and the World, interviewed by Peter Seewald, pp 452-453

Lastly, if there is no Original Sin and the Church of Jesus Christ lies somewhere in the unknown future, the sacrament of Baptism becomes meaningless! What the Church has taught always and everywhere is now regarded as “unenlightened” and “problematic” for him.

Mr. Seewald: “In canon 849 of Church canon law it says: ‘Baptism… [is] necessary to salvation in fact or at least in intention.’ But what happens, when a man dies unbaptized? And what happens to the millions of children who are killed in their mothers’ wombs?”

Benedict/Ratzinger: “The question of what it means to say that baptism is necessary for salvation has become ever more hotly debated in modern times. The Second Vatican Council said on this point that men who are seeking for God and who are inwardly striving toward that which constitutes baptism will also receive salvation. That is to say that a seeking after God already represents an inward participation in baptism, in the Church, in Christ.
To that extent, the question concerning the necessity of baptism for salvation seems to have been answered, but the question about children who could not be baptized because they were aborted then presses upon us that much more urgently.
Earlier ages had devised a teaching that seems to me rather unenlightened. They said that baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God. Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo.
In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Note: Not so, even the compromised CCC teaches the necessity of Baptism for salvation), when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament.”

Benedict/Ratzinger, God and the World, interviewed by Peter Seewald, pp 401-402

Catholic Church teaches divine Truth with precision and clarity:

Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God….. Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Jesus Christ, (John 3:3, 5)

If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Canon II on the sacrament of Baptism

If anyone saith, that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Canon V on the sacrament of Baptism

Limits of Papal Authority imposed by the Faith itself!

“The gravity of sin is determined by the interval which it places between man and God; now sin against faith, divides man from God as far as possible, since it deprives him of the true knowledge of God; it therefore follows that sin against faith is the greatest of all sins.”

St. Thomas Aquinas

“If the Faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.”

St. Thomas Aquinas

“Were the pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands is to be ignored.”

Juan Cardinal de Torquemada (1388–1468)

“You must resist, to his face, a pope who is openly tearing the Church apart—for example, by refusing to confer ecclesiastical benefices except for money, or in exchange for services… A case of simony, even committed by a pope, must be denounced.”

Thomist Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534)

“If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defense.”

Francisco Suárez, S.J. (1548–1617)

“In answer to the question, ‘What should be done in cases where the Pope destroys the Church by his evil actions?’ [I reply]: ‘He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion, nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension.… He does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandate prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law.’”

Sylvester Prieras, O.P. (1456–1523), Dominican theologian, appointed master of the Sacred Palace by Pope Leo X who wrote the rebuttal to Luther’s 95 Theses

“As it is lawful to resist the pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior.”

St. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), Doctor of the Church

And then, pure papalolatry!
“There is in the world … one man in whom the greatness of God is reflected in the most outstanding way of all. He participates in the authority and in a certain sense in the personality of Christ. This man is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Pope. … His power extends to the ends of the world and is under the protection of God, Who has promised to confirm in Heaven whatever he will decree upon earth. His dignity and authority, then, are almost divine. Let us bow humbly before such greatness. Let us promise to obey the Pope as we would Christ. … We cannot dispute or murmur against anything which he teaches or decrees. To disobey the Pope is to disobey God. To argue or murmur against the Pope is to argue or murmur against Jesus Himself. When we are confronted with His commands, we have only one choice—absolute obedience and complete surrender.”

Cardinal Antonio Bacci (1885-1971), the Vatican’s chief Latinist under four successive popes (Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI) and the co-author of the Ottaviani Intervention with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the head CDF.

SSPX bid farewell to Bishop Richard Williamson as only they could do!

His defiance of the Society's authorities ultimately made a separation inevitable. God forgive him for the errors and confusion he caused in the years that followed with his Kyrie eleison comments, and even more so for his episcopal consecrations, which lacked and still lack any objective necessity and any sensus ecclesiae.

Fr. Franz Schmidberger, former superior general of the SSPX, published in his weekly newsletter, on the death of Bishop Richard Williamson on January 29, 2025

COMMENT: The good bishop Williamson has only been dead for a little over one year. At the time of his death the SSPX judged him to be in need of God's forgiveness for the sin of consecrating bishops

"which lacked and still lack any objective necessity and any sensus ecclesiae." They now threaten Rome with doing their own episcopal consecrations because their own "sensus ecclesiae" has now discovered that there is in fact an existing "objective necessity"! Nothing has changed with regard to the Church but something has changed with regard to the SSPX. They are concerned only with their "objective necessity"!

Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issues statement following today’s meeting at the Vatican between SSPX Superior General Fr. Davide Pagliarani & DDF Prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández on 2-12-2026

STATEMENT OF THE DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH Regarding the Meeting between the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Superior General of the FSSPX On 12 February 2026, a cordial and sincere meeting took place at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith between the Prefect, His Eminence Cardinal Victor Manuel FERNANDEZ, and the Superior General of the FSSPX, Reverend Don Davide PAGLIARANI, with the approval of the Holy Father Leo XIV. After clarifying certain points presented by the FSSPX in various letters, particularly those sent between 2017 and 2019 — including, among other topics, the question of the divine will concerning the plurality of religions — the Prefect proposed a pathway of specifically theological dialogue, following a precise methodology, on issues that have not yet received sufficient clarification. These include: the distinction between an act of faith and the “religious submission of mind and will,” as well as the differing degrees of adherence required by various texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and their interpretation. At the same time, he proposed addressing a series of topics listed by the FSSPX in its letter of 17 January 2019. The aim of this dialogue is to highlight, in the topics under discussion, the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church, and consequently to outline a canonical statute for the Fraternity, along with other aspects requiring further study. The Holy See reaffirmed that the ordination of bishops without the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff, who possesses ordinary, supreme, universal, immediate, and direct power (cf. CIC, can. 331; Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, chs. I and III), would constitute a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism), with serious consequences for the Fraternity as a whole (John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, 2 July 1988, nn. 3 and ff.; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996, n. 1). Therefore, the possibility of undertaking this dialogue presupposes that the Fraternity suspend the announced episcopal ordinations. The Superior General of the FSSPX will present the proposal to his Council and will provide his response to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the event of a positive response, the steps, stages, and procedures to be followed will be established by mutual agreement. The Church is asked to accompany this process, especially in the coming times, with prayer to the Holy Spirit, who is the principal agent of true ecclesial communion willed by Christ.

Viganò Urges SSPX To Cut Off 'Dialogue' With Fernandez, Proceed With Consecrations

'True ecclesial communion is not measured by canonical recognition granted by a Hierarchy that has lost the Faith, but by integral fidelity to divine Revelation.'

I cannot but note with sorrow and indignation the Statement released today by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, at the end of his meeting with Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. After decades of humiliation, inconclusive dialogues, partial concessions revoked by “Traditionis Custodes,” deafening silences regarding doctrinal and liturgical deviations widespread throughout the Church, and even more serious doctrinal and moral errors promoted by the Supreme Throne, Rome now claims to make the suspension of the episcopal consecrations announced by the SSPX for next July 1st a preliminary condition for dialogue. These consecrations are not acts of rebellion, but a supreme act of fidelity to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, which has been deprived for almost sixty years of Bishops who preach integral Doctrine and administer the Sacraments without any compromise with error. The Dicastery’s Statement subtly repeats the same modernist scheme seen in 1988: it offers a “theological dialogue” on issues the Holy See has always refused to seriously address—religious freedom, destructive episcopal “collegiality,” pan-heretical ecumenism, the Nostra Ætate declaration that equates false religions with the one true Faith, and the Abu Dhabi Document—while threatening “schism” for the only gesture that is able to guarantee the certainty of Apostolic Succession. But who wields “schism” as a weapon today? Who excommunicated the Bishops consecrated in 1988 for defending Tradition and its beating heart, the Catholic Mass? Who excommunicated me and silenced me, while promoting declared heretics and covering up abuses of every kind? Who forced the faithful to submit to an authority that has renounced immutable Catholic doctrine in the name of a “new humanism” and a “synodality” that is nothing other than the cancer of democracy applied to the Catholic Church in order to destroy from within its divine hierarchical Constitution and Petrine Primacy? The true schism is not that of those who consecrate Bishops to guard and transmit the Catholic Faith in its entirety, but rather the schism of the conciliar and synodal Hierarchy, which has denied Apostolic Tradition, replacing sound Doctrine with heretical ambiguities, true Catholic Worship with a Protestantized liturgy, and legitimate Authority with a totalitarian power exercised against the faithful who refuse to apostatize. The Society of Saint Pius X does not need the permission of those who have renounced the Faith to do what Providence asks of it: namely, to perpetuate the episcopal line faithful to Tradition. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre acted not out of schism, but out of necessity – same state of necessity that persists today, aggravated by the systematic persecution of the Traditional Mass and the imposition of false doctrines that contradict the perennial Magisterium.

GENERAL COMMENT: The SSPX is buried in the Neo-modernist heresy that believes that the dogmas of our faith contain both divine and human elements and must necessarily continually evolve by a distillation process where the divine elements are progressively purified by removing the historically dated human encrustations. This Neo-modernist heresy is the unstated pre-supposition for the Vatican II pastoral council. For the Neo-modernist, the proximate rule of faith is no longer Dogma, but however the current pope interprets the dogma to mean. That being the case, the SSPX, having abandoned dogma as their proximate rule of faith must turn to the present pope to tell him the current version of the Catholic faith. Neo-modernism is just a variation of the heresy of Modernism which St. Pius X called "the synthesis of all heresies." It is the "synthesis of all heresies" because it denies all dogmas as dogmas. It attacks the very nature of what dogmas are. Dogma contains no human elements. They are divine revelation that is formally defined by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. They are the infallible word of God in both the truth expressed and the words used to express that truth. The pope is only the necessary but wholly insufficient material and instrumental cause of dogma. It is God who is the formal and final cause of dogma. Therefore, the pope is just as much a subject to dogma as any of the faithful. Truth is the only weapon possessed against an abusive authority and the SSPX has entered into a "dialogue" with an opponent that claims for itself personally the divine attribute of infallibility and the right to dictate their personal conceptions of truth even against the divine infallible revelation of God. Archbishop Viganò is politely telling the SSPX that it is the FAITH itself that is being attacked and they need to wake up. The SSPX has been in constant interminable doctrinal discussions with Rome since 1997. The reason Rome dialogues with the SSPX is because the SSPX is defenseless having abandoned the infallible truth of Catholic dogma as their weapon. This dialogue between Rome and the SSPX never raises above the level of exchanging opinions. Because our Mission of Ss. Peter & Paul stands on the truth of Catholic dogma, the local ordinaries will never enter into open discussions. Always remember: A heretic is a baptized Catholic who rejects one or more Catholic dogmas AND all heretics are schismatics! If the SSPX can learn this simple but essential truth, then they will stop seeking a place at the table of apostates and start defending the faith.

Modernism vs. Neo-modernism: A difference in method, an agreement in ends

The heresy of Modernism denies dogma directly. Neo-modernism is a more subtle heresy. The end remains the denial of dogma but the method of denial is indirect. Dogma, the revelation of God that forms the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, is formulated in categorical propositions that are always and everywhere true or false. There are two methods the Neo-modernist employs to destroy dogma. The first method is to change the category of dogma from truth-falsehood to the category of authority-obedience. They treat dogma as if it were laws, commands, precepts, injunctions, etc., etc., etc., and then limit the universal truth with all the moral restrictions that apply to laws, etc. For example, the dogma that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation is treated as a law and therefore as a law, it does not bind in cases of impossibility, necessity, unreasonable burden, psychological impediment, etc., etc.

The second method is to corrupt the dogmatic proposition be changing the meaning of the terms OR altering the universality of the copula. An excellent example of this corruption of terminology can be seen in Benedict/Ratzinger’s treatment of the word, substance.

“…the medieval concept of substance has long since become inaccessible to us. In so far as we use the concept of substance at all today we understand thereby the ultimate particles of matter, and the chemically complex mixture that is bread certainly does not fall into that category.”

Joseph Ratzinger, Faith and the Future, p. 14

It is impossible to affirm the Catholic dogma that “Lord Jesus Christ... is consubstantial with the Father” or the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation if the concept of “substance” is rejected in the sense as used by scholastic theologians found in the perennial realist philosophical tradition. And so we have Benedict/Ratzinger writing:

“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Die Sacramentale Begrundung Christliche Existenz

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches:

“By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

Council of Trent, Session XIII, chapter IV

“If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.”

Council of Trent, Session XII, Canon I

Benedict/Ratzinger’s affirmation of these dogmas is done within the corrupted context of mutilating the meaning of the terms. The entire hermeneutic of discontinuity/rupture vs. the hermeneutic of reform proposed by Benedict/Ratzinger is predicated upon accepting or rejecting his false philosophy which ultimately elevates the accident of relationship to overthrow the concept of substance. Reciting the Credo is no longer evidence of the Catholic faith without clearly defining every term.

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning – The true Revelation of God is both a Definite and Certain participation in God’s own knowledge. IT is this fundamental truth of revelation that our Neo-Modernist hierarchy reject!

What, then, is the knowledge which God has restored to man through revelation but a definite knowledge, a participation of His own? The truth which has been revealed, what is it in the mind of God who reveals it, but one, harmonious and distinct? What was that knowledge as revealed by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, but one, harmonious and distinct? What was the conception of that knowledge in inspired men, but one, harmonious and distinct also? And what was that knowledge when communicated by those who were inspired to those who believed, but one, harmonious and distinct as before? And what is this unity and harmony and distinctness of knowledge, which God revealed of Himself through Jesus Christ, but the faith we confess in our creed? Our baptismal faith, its substance and its letter, the explicit and the implicit meaning, article by article, is as definite, severe, and precise, as any problem in science. It is of the nature of truth to be so; and where definiteness ends, knowledge ceases. Observe, then, the distinction between finite knowledge and definite knowledge. Is not science definite? And yet it is also finite. The theory of gravitation, definite as it is, it is finite too. [……] Go through the whole range of physical sciences, what is it but an example of the same condition of knowledge, definiteness in conception with finiteness of reach? [….] If we have not a definite knowledge of what we believe, we may be sure we have no true knowledge of it.

But, further, it is evident that knowledge must also be certain. When we speak of certainty, we mean one of two things. Sometimes we say, that a thing is certain; at other times, that we are certain. When we say a truth is certain, we mean, that the proofs of that truth are either self-evident, or so clear as to exclude all doubt. This is certainty on the part of the object proposed to our intelligence. But when we say we are certain, we mean that we are inwardly convinced, by the application of our reason to the matter before us, of the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the truth of it. In us, certainty is rather a moral feeling, a complex state of mind. As light manifests itself by its own nature, but sight is the illumination of the eye; so certainty means truth with its evidences illuminating the intelligence, or, in other words, the intelligence possessed by truth with its evidences.

This we call certainty. I ask, then, is there not this twofold certainty in the revelation which God has given? Was not the revelation which God gave of Himself through Jesus Christ made certain on His part by direct evidence of the divine act which revealed it? Is it not also certain on our part by the apprehension and faith of the Church? Was not God manifest in the flesh that He might reveal Himself? Did not God dwell on earth that He might teach His truth? Has not God spoken to man that man might know Him? Did not God work miracles that man might believe that He was present? What evidence on the part of God was wanting that men might know that Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God? And if there was certainty on the part of God who revealed, was there not certainty also on the part of those that heard? Look back into the sacred history. Had not Prophets and Seers certainty of that which they beheld and heard? […..] What, then, is the first condition of faith but certainty? He that has not certain faith has no faith. We are told that to crave for certainty implies a morbid disposition. Did not Abraham, and Moses, and Daniel, the Apostles and Evangelists desire certainty in faith, and crave to know beyond doubt that God spake to them, and know with definite clearness what God said? Was this a morbid craving? Surely this is not to be reproved. But rather the contrary disposition worthy of rebuke. How can we venture to content ourselves with uncertainty in matters where the truth and honour of God and the salvation of our own souls are at stake? This truly is not without sin. […..] And yet, what is the very idea of Revelation but a Divine assurance of Truth? Where faith begins uncertainty ends. Because faith terminates upon the veracity of God; and what God has spoken and authenticated to us by Divine authority cannot be uncertain.

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Grounds of Faith

"The group holding power in the SSPX have decided to stage a drama, unfortunately not a good Shakespearean play, but a poor play by Fernandez. They will follow two narratives: one for liberals, the other for hardliners. Unfortunately, nothing has changed for many years – secret meetings with the Roman hierarchy and the search for a practical agreement without doctrinal agreement. This makes no sense. As Bishop Richard Williamson said, it is a betrayal of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's struggle, a betrayal of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church." -

Bishop Michal Stobnicki. Comment on the SSPX threat to consecrate new bishops

Pope Leo XIV is continuing ‘irreversible trajectory’ of Pope Francis: SSPX statement

---

In addition to spelling out the Francis/Leo crisis, the statement addresses the silence of conservative bishops in the Church, the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo, and more.

---

LifeSiteNews | John-Henry Westen | Feb 5, 2026 — Today the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) released a major statement explaining the reasons behind their announcement of upcoming episcopal consecrations. This comes from Superior General Davide Pagliarani, and it directly addresses the current pontificate of Pope Leo XIV, describing it as continuing the “irreversible trajectory” set by Pope Francis. The document outlines why the SSPX believes these consecrations are necessary, while still expressing some hope for dialogue with Rome.

In addition to spelling out the Francis/Leo crisis, the statement addresses the silence of conservative bishops in the Church, the possibility of sanctions, their hopes, the ultimate reason for their action and their perspective on the Traditional Latin Mass. Let me read the key portions directly from the statement, but I encourage you to read the full statement.

They spell out the Francis and Leo crisis

Furthermore, the major orientations already taking shape in this new pontificate – particularly through the most recent consistory – only confirm this. An explicit determination to preserve the line of Pope Francis as an irreversible trajectory for the entire Church is discernible.

It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. Missing, in particular, are both the integral preaching of Catholic truth and morality, and the worthy administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This deprivation is what constitutes the state of necessity. In this critical context, our bishops are growing older, and, as the apostolate continues to expand, they are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the faithful worldwide.

In what way do you believe that last month’s consistory confirms the direction taken by Pope Francis?

DP: Cardinal Fernández, speaking in the name of Pope Leo, invited the Church to return to Pope Francis’s fundamental intuition expressed in his key encyclical, Evangelii gaudium. Put simply, he believes that the Gospel should be proclaimed by reducing it to a primitive and essential expression, a series of concise and striking formulas – the “kerygma” – with a view to eliciting an “experience,” an immediate encounter with Christ. Everything else should be set aside, however precious it may be.

In concrete terms, all that is Tradition is considered as accessory and secondary. It is this method of the new evangelization that has produced the doctrinal emptiness characteristic of Pope Francis’s pontificate, and is keenly felt by many in the Church.

In a similar vein, one must provide new and relevant answers to the emerging questions of our time, but, according to Cardinal Fernández, this is to be done through synodal reform, rather than by rediscovering the classical and ever-valid answers provided by the Tradition of the Church. It is by these means, in the “breath of the Spirit” of this synodal reform, that Pope Francis has been able to impose catastrophic decisions upon the whole Church, such as authorizing Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, or the blessing of same-sex couples.

In summary, through the “kerygma,” the proclamation of the Gospel is isolated from the whole corpus of traditional doctrine and morality. And through synodality, traditional answers are replaced by arbitrary decisions, with a high risk of being absurd and doctrinally unjustifiable. Cardinal Zen himself considers this method manipulative and considers attributing it to the Holy Ghost blasphemous. Unfortunately, I fear that he is right.[…]

[…] the Church is in danger of busying herself with both everything and nothing. Ecological concerns, for example, or the preoccupation with the rights of minorities, of women, or of migrants, risk causing the essential mission of the Church to be lost from view. If the Society of Saint Pius X strives to preserve Tradition, with all that this entails, it is solely because these treasures are vital for the salvation of souls, and because it aims at nothing else but the good of souls, and that of the priesthood—ordered to their sanctification.[…]

[…] 2019, when Pope Francis, on the occasion of his visit to the Arabian Peninsula, signed, together with an imam, the well-known Abu Dhabi declaration. Together with the Muslim leader, he affirmed that the plurality of religions had been willed as such by divine Wisdom.

It is evident that a communion founded upon the acceptance of such a statement, or which would include it, would simply not be Catholic, since it would constitute a sin against the First Commandment and the denial of the first article of the Creed.

I consider such a statement to be more than a simple error. It is simply inconceivable. It cannot be the foundation of Catholic communion, but rather the cause of its dissolution. I believe that a Catholic should prefer martyrdom rather than accept such an affirmation.

They address the silence of conservative bishops in the church to the crisis of Pope Francis and Leo

[…] the fear of breaking a fragile stability by behavior deemed “disturbing” reduces many pastors to a constrained silence, when they should be raising their voices against scandalous teaching which corrupts faith or morals. The necessary denunciation of errors that undermine the Church – required by the very good of souls who are threatened by this poisoned nourishment – is thereby left undone. One may enlighten another in private, if able to discern the harmfulness of a given error, but it may be only a timid whisper, in which truth struggles to express itself with the required freedom – especially in the shadow of tacitly accepted, contradictory principles. Once again, souls are no longer enlightened and are deprived of the bread of doctrine for which they remain hungry. Over time, this progressively alters mentalities and gradually leads to a general and unconscious acceptance of the various reforms affecting the life of the Church. Towards these souls, too, the Society feels a responsibility to enlighten and not to abandon.

Realistically sees possibility of sanctions

[…] Cardinal Fernández’s response does not address the possibility of an audience with the Pope. It also evokes the possibility of new sanctions.

What will the Society do if the Holy See decides to condemn it?

DP: First of all, let us recall that in such circumstances any canonical penalties would have no real effect.

Nevertheless, should they be pronounced, the Society would certainly accept this new suffering without bitterness, as it has accepted past sufferings, and would sincerely offer it for the good of the Church. It is for the Church that the Society works. And there is no doubt that, should such a situation arise, it could only be temporary, for the Church is divine and Our Lord will not abandon her. […]

We are sure that one day the Roman authorities will acknowledge, with gratitude, that these episcopal consecrations providentially contributed to preserving the faith, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.

They make the comparison to the China Communist Party naming bishops without the Pope’s approval

Let us take the current case of relations with the Chinese government. Despite a genuine schism of the Chinese Patriotic Church, despite the uninterrupted persecution of the underground Church faithful to Rome, despite agreements regularly renewed and then broken by the Chinese authorities, in 2023, Pope Francis approved, a posteriori, the appointment of the Bishop of Shanghai by those authorities.

More recently, Pope Leo XIV himself ultimately accepted, a posteriori, the appointment of the Bishop of Xinxiang, designated in the same manner during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, while the bishop, faithful to Rome—who had been imprisoned several times—was still in office.

In both cases, these were clearly pro-government prelates, imposed unilaterally by Beijing to control the Catholic Church in China. It should be clearly noted that these were not merely auxiliary bishops, but residential bishops, that is, ordinary pastors of their respective dioceses (or prefectures), possessing jurisdiction over the local clergy and faithful. In Rome, it is perfectly well known for what purpose these pastors were chosen and unilaterally imposed.

The Society’s case is entirely different. For us, it is obviously not a matter of favoring a communist or anti-Christian power, but solely of safeguarding the rights of Christ the King and of the Tradition of the Church, at a time of general crisis and confusion in which these are gravely compromised. The intentions and the ends are clearly not the same.

They lay out the request ignored by the Pope since last summer

Last summer, I wrote to the Holy Father to request an audience. Having received no reply, I wrote to him again a few months later, in a filial and straightforward manner, without concealing any of our needs. I mentioned our doctrinal divergences, but also our sincere desire to serve the Catholic Church without respite, for we are servants of the Church despite our irregular canonical status.

To this second letter, a reply from Rome reached us a few days ago, from Cardinal Fernández. Unfortunately, it took no account whatsoever of the proposal we put forward, and offers nothing that responds to our requests.

Still retains hope Pope Leo will acquiesce

A Pope is first and foremost a father. As such, he is capable of discerning a right intention, a sincere will to serve the Church, and above all, a genuine case of conscience in an exceptional situation. […]

In fact, the superior general suggests that the consecration of new bishops will be a grace for the whole church when they happen

I would like to emphasize that this is a time for prayer and preparation of hearts, souls, and minds. We must prepare ourselves to receive the grace that these consecrations will occasion for the whole Church. This should be done with recollection, peace, and trust in Providence, which has never abandoned the Society and will not abandon it now.

The ultimate reason: for the salvation of souls

[…] it is for the Pope himself, as such, that we preserve this treasure until the day when its value will once again be understood and when a Pope will wish to make use of it for the good of the whole Church. […]

[…] The very law of the Church provides for it. In the spirit of ecclesiastical law, which is the juridical expression of this charity, the good of souls comes before everything else. It truly represents the law of laws, to which all others are subordinate and against which no ecclesiastical law can prevail.

The axiom “suprema lex, salus animarum” —”the supreme law is the salvation of souls”—is a classic maxim of canonical tradition which is explicitly taken up by the final canon of the 1983 Code. In the present state of necessity, it is upon this highest principle that the entire legitimacy of our apostolate and of our mission towards the souls who turn to us depends. For us, we fulfil a role of supplying for a deficiency, in the name of that same charity.

About the Traditional Latin Mass

As far as I am aware, Pope Leo XIV has maintained a certain discretion on this subject, which arouses great expectation in the conservative world. Very recently, however, a text by Cardinal Roche on the liturgy—intended initially for the cardinals participating in last month’s consistory—was made public. There is no reason to doubt that it corresponds, in its broad lines, to the orientation desired by the Pope. It is an unambiguous text, and above all, logical and coherent. Unfortunately, it is based on a false premise.

Concretely, this text, in perfect continuity with Traditionis custodes, condemns the liturgical project of Pope Benedict XVI, according to whom, the ancient rite and the new rite are two more or less equivalent forms, expressing the same faith and the same ecclesiology, and therefore capable of mutually enriching one another. Concerned for the unity of the Church, Benedict XVI sought to promote the coexistence of the two rites and, in 2007, published Summorum Pontificum. For many, this occasioned a providential rediscovery of the Mass of all time; but over time, it also gave rise to a movement calling the new rite into question—a movement deemed problematic and which Traditionis custodes, in 2021, sought to stem.

Faithful to Pope Francis, Cardinal Roche is now attempting to promote an elusive unity of the Church according to an idea contradictory to that of Benedict XVI. While maintaining the assertion of a continuity from one rite to the other through reform, Cardinal Roche firmly opposes their coexistence. He sees in it a source of division, a threat to unity, which must be overcome by returning to an authentic liturgical communion. “The primary good of the unity of the Church is not achieved by freezing division, but by finding ourselves in the sharing of what cannot but be shared.” In the Church, “there ought to be only one rite”, in full syntony with the true meaning of Tradition.

This is a just and coherent principle, since the Church, having one faith and one ecclesiology, can have only one liturgy capable of expressing them adequately. But it is a principle applied to a wrong conception of Tradition. Consistent with the new post-conciliar ecclesiology, Cardinal Roche conceives Tradition as something evolving, and the new rite as its sole living expression for our time. The value of the Tridentine rite can therefore only be regarded as obsolete, and its use, at most, a “concession”, and “in no way a promotion.”

That there is a present “division” and incompatibility between the two rites now appears more apparent than ever. But let there be no mistake, the only liturgy that adequately expresses, in an immutable and non-evolving manner, the traditional conception of the Church, of Christian life, and of the Catholic priesthood—that is, Tradition—is the liturgy of all time. On this point, the opposition of the Holy See appears more irrevocable than ever.

Direct calling into question of the Novus Ordo

[…] instead of sincerely questioning the intrinsic deficiencies of the new Mass, and therefore the overall failure of the reform, instead of facing the reality that churches are emptying and vocations are declining, instead of asking why the Tridentine rite continues to attract so many souls, Cardinal Roche sees no other solution than an urgent preliminary formation of the faithful and seminarians.

[…] For almost two thousand years, souls—often illiterate—were edified and sanctified by the liturgy, without the need for any prior formation. Failing to recognise the intrinsic incapacity of the Novus Ordo to form and edify souls and continuing to demand ever better prior formation seems to me to be the sign of an irremediable blindness. One arrives at shocking paradoxes: the reform was intended to foster a greater participation of the faithful; yet the faithful abandoned the Church en masse, because this insipid liturgy failed to nourish them—and this would supposedly have nothing to do with the reform? […]

[…] how can it then be understood that this Mass of all time stands in irreducible opposition to the new Mass, remains the sole true liturgy of the whole Church, and that no one may be prevented from celebrating it? How can it be known that the Mass of Paul VI cannot be recognized, because it constitutes a considerable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and that no one may be compelled to celebrate it? And how are souls to be effectively turned away from this poisoned liturgy, to drink from the pure sources of Catholic liturgy?

COMMENT: Complaining about conservative bishops being mute dogs is rank hypocrisy coming from the SSPX who have been dancing the two-step with Neo-modernist Rome since 1997, nearly thirty years of "doctrinal discussions"! Dogma is the proximate rule of faith for all the faithful. It is immutable in both the truth it expresses and the manner in which it is expressed. It forms the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The very definition of heresy is the denial of dogma. The heresy of Neo-modernism denies this truth. They believe that dogma evolves and changes its meaning over time as the Church develops a deeper and richer understanding of God's revealed truth. Consequently, a Catholic must always turn to the pope to know what any particular dogma means today. Thus, the pope becomes the proximate rule of faith for Neo-modernists. The SSPX, just like Rome, are Neo-modernists. The SSPX cannot call the Neo-modernist heretics because the SSPX does not hold dogma as their proximate rule of faith. They can only offer opinions and thus, for thirty years they have been exchanging opinions with Neo-modernist Rome. The SSPX during the entire pontificate of Francis/Bergoglio did and said nothing to oppose his gross heresy and immorality. Why is it suddenly an issue now? Because at that time it was not in the interest of the SSPX to stir the pot. Their pretense of being at the service of the Church has never been true. From the beginning they have worked to consolidate control of Catholic tradition imposing upon it their own distorted conceptions of doctrine and liturgy while denying any help to those who do not conform in every detail. Bishop Richard Williamson, since being expelled from the SSPX, helped our little Mission. He did not agree with us entirely but his charity was not thereby stifled. Supplied jurisdiction is entirely generated by the needs of each individual Catholic faithful and Bishop Williamson exercised that supplied jurisdiction in helping us at Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission. Bishop Williamson's charity extended to the needs of the faithful over the world and he provided six bishops, at least some of which are continuing as he did. That is really the reason the SSPX got rid of him. For the SSPX, there is no state of necessity. They have denied it certainly over the last 15 years and they cannot reclaim it now. If they want to get their house in order they should ask Bishop Michael Stobnicki, consecrated by Bishop Williamson for the eastern Slavs, and who the SSPX expelled from their seminary, to help them.

"A Dark Cloud of Fog Instead of a Head"

I saw a strange church being built against every rule.... No angels were supervising the building operations. In that church, nothing came from high above... There was only division and chaos. It is probably a church of human creation, following the latest fashion, as well as the new heterodox church of Rome, which seems of the same kind... I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful. I did not see a single Angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw a laughing figure which said: 'Do build it as solid as you can; we will pull it to the ground'.... Among the strangest things that I saw, were long processions of bishops. Their thoughts and utterances were made known to me through images issuing from their mouths. Their faults towards religion were shown by external deformities. A few had only a body, with a dark cloud of fog instead of a head. Others had only a head, their bodies and hearts were like thick vapors. Some were lame; others were paralytics; others were asleep or staggering.

Blessed Anna-Katarina Emmerick, Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy

Purgation Now with Merit, or Purgatory Later Without

When I look to God, I see no gate to Paradise, and yet he who wishes to enter there does so, because God is all mercy. God stands before us with open arms to receive us into His glory. But well I see the divine essence to be of such purity, far greater than can be imagined, that the soul in which there is even the least note of imperfection would rather cast itself into a thousand Hells than find itself thus stained in the presence of the Divine Majesty. Therefore the soul, understanding that Purgatory had been ordained to take away those stains, casts itself therein, and seems to itself to have found great mercy in that it can rid itself there of the impediment that is the stain of sin. No tongue can tell nor explain, no mind understand, the grievousness of Purgatory. But although I see that there is in Purgatory as much pain as in Hell, I yet see the soul that has the least stain of imperfection accepting Purgatory as though it were a mercy, as I have said, and holding its pains of no account as compared with the least stain that hinders a soul in its love. I seem to see that the pain that souls in Purgatory endure because of that in them which displeases God (that is, what they have willfully done against His great goodness) is greater than any other pain they feel in Purgatory. And this is because they see the truth and the grievousness of the hindrance that prevents them from drawing near to God, since they are in grace.

St. Catherine of Genoa, Purgation and Purgatory

All Are Called to be Co-Redeemers with Christ

God has entrusted to each one of us a share in the great redemptive work of Jesus. As consecrated souls, we are especially called to cooperate in Christ’s work. First of all, we must cooperate with grace, so that the fruits of the redemption can be fully applied to our souls. This is the work of our own personal sanctification. It is not limited to this one aspect, however. We are called to sanctify ourselves in order to be able to bring others to sanctity. Each one of us has a mission to fulfill for the good of others and for their sanctification. We must collaborate with Christ in extending the fruits of the Redemption to as many souls as possible. This work is entrusted to us by the heavenly Father, and we must apply ourselves to it with the interior disposition of Christ: a total, generous, exclusive dedication, a dedication capable of making even the greatest sacrifices. All actions are of value only insofar as they help toward the accomplishment of this work. Anything that does not contribute to our own sanctification or to the sanctification of other is useless, a waste of time, and should be courageously eliminated.

Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D., Divine Intimacy

And yet, the fathers of Vatican II professed to worship the same god as the Mohammedans!

He [Muhammad] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles

The Principle Muslim objections to the Catholic Faith – Utterly carnal!

“We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness” 1 Cor 1:23.

These, then, are the points, which, as you affirm, are attacked and ridiculed by the unbelievers. For the Muslims (Saraceni), as you say, ridicule our claim that Christ is the Son of God, since God does not have a wife; and they think us mad, assuming we profess there are three gods. They also mock our belief that Christ, the Son of God, was crucified for the salvation of the human race, because if God is omnipotent, He could have saved the human race without the suffering of His Son; He could also have so constructed man that he could not have sinned. They rebuke Christians because daily at the altar they eat their God and because the body of Christ, were it even as big as a mountain, should long since have been consumed.

St. Thomas, De Rationibus Fidei (The Reasons for Our Faith)

Behold, then the whole of Christian perfection: love and sacrifice. Who cannot with God's grace, fulfil this twofold condition? Is it, indeed, so difficult to love Him Who is infinitely lovable and infinitely loving? The love that He asks of us is nothing extraordinary; it is the devotedness of love - the gift of oneself - consisting chiefly in conformity to the divine will. To want to love is to love. To keep the commandments for God's sake is to love. To pray is to love. To fulfil our duties of state in view of pleasing God, this is likewise to love. Nay more, to recreate ourselves, to take our meals with the like intention is to love. To serve our neighbor for God's sake is to love. Nothing then is easier, God's grace helping, than the constant exercise of divine love and through this, steady advance toward perfection.

Rev. Adolphe Tanquewrey, S.S., D.D., The Spiritual Life

Vatican II and the Leap of Faith for the Hermeneutics of Continuity

ON CATHOLIC UNITY

Vatican II pastoral opinion:

And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio) the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.  On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not! Pope Benedict XVI, to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005

Catholic Doctrine:

… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it… Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Vatican II pastoral opinion:

The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right. Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae

Catholic Doctrine:
And from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church. Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura

ON SALVATION

Vatican II pastoral opinion:

The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio

Catholic Doctrine:
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her... Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence

ON ACCOMODATION OF CATHOLIC TRUTH TO THE WORLD

Vatican II pastoral opinion:
May the faithful, therefore, live in very close union with the men of their time. Let them strive to understand perfectly their way of thinking and feeling as expressed in their culture. Let them blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine.... Thus their religious practice and morality can keep pace with their scientific knowledge and with an ever - advancing technology... Decree on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes

Catholic Doctrine:

The Roman pontiff can and must reconcile himself with human progress, with liberalism and with modern and human culture. – condemned. Blessed Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors

ON RELATIONS WITH FALSE RELIGIONS

Vatican II pastoral opinion:

Upon the Moslems, too, the Church looks with esteem...They adore the one God...though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God they revere Him as a prophet.... In addition they await the day of judgment when God will give each man his due.... and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. Decree on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate
Catholic Doctrine:

...that false opinion which considers all religions more or less good and praiseworthy... Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism...from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold on these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

Why is John Henry Cardinal Newman regarded by Modernists as their Spiritual Father? – Because he was! So why do “Conservative Catholics” admire Newman? Because he explained how dogma can be discarded.

“Dr. Newman is the most dangerous man in England. And you will see that he will make use of the laity against your Grace. You must not be afraid of him. It will require much prudence, but you must be firm, as the Holy father sill places his confidence in you; but if you yield and do not fight the battle of the Holy See against the detestable spirit growing up in England, he will begin to regret Cardinal Wiseman, who knew how to keep the laity in order.”

Msgr. George Talbot, Papal Chamberlain, Letter to Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, after Pope Pius IX suppressed a plan for Dr. John Henry Newman going to Oxford to establish an inter-faith oratory.

An English Catholicism, of which Newman is the highest type, is the old Anglican, patristic, literary, Oxford tone transplanted into the Church... In one word, it is a worldly Catholicism, and it will have the worldly on its side, and will deceive many.

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, on Dr. John Henry Cardinal Newman

Another influential writer during the last century was Lord Acton (Sir John Dalberg), who was famous for his critical historicism and also renowned for his friendship with (Rev. Johann von) Dollinger (a Munich priest and professor at the University, excommunicated for rejecting the dogma of papal infallibility). Acton was almost excommunicated, as Dollinger was, but managed to maintain the appearance of orthodoxy and remain in the Church. As liberal as Lord Acton was, and although he sided with Newman in fighting the dogma of Infallibility, he came to the same conclusion as (Cardianl Henry Edward) Manning regarding Newman’s heterodox position. In a letter written by Acton a few weeks before Manning’s death, after mentioning the ‘personal aversion to Manning’ displayed by Newman he said, “Many will wonder how anybody who saw much of him (Newman) could remain a Catholic — assuming that Newman really was one.” Acton, although an ally of Newman in editing the liberal journal The Rambler, was not baffled by Newman’s prosaic tact. Acton went much further than Manning in his strictures on his old ally. He described Newman as “a sophist, the manipulator and not the servant of truth.” When men of diametrically opposed beliefs, as Acton and Manning, agree in their judgment of another man whom they so well knew, the assumption that they are not both in error is not unreasonable.

John Edward Courtenay Bodley, On Cardinal John Henry Newman

DOGMA IS THE PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH; DOGMA is revealed doctrine formally defined by the Church. The pope is the necessary but insufficient means by which DOGMA is declared.

Hence, the distinction is made betewen the Remote and the Proximate Rule of Faith. The remote Rule of Faith is the Objective Deposit, [Scripture and Tradition], It contains revealed truths which - for some reason or other - were forgotten, obscure, or not sufficiently understood. Hence, they were broght into discussion, or denied without injury to the Faith until they became clear or werer defined by the Church. The Proximate Rule of Faith is the teaching of the Church sufficiently proposed and manifestly promulgated to the Faithful, [DOGMA]. If this Proximate Rule of Faith proclaims anything as belonging to the Remote Rule of Faith, it can no longer be challenged without shipwreck of the Faith. For unity of faith is whole and entire only while there is no dissent with the Proximate Rule of Faith. On this point Gregory of Valentia declares: "The Church has from darkness brought to light wth her infallible authority some doctrines which, through human negligence or malice or perversity of mind, remained concealed. And mayhap there are some still hidden in the Church."

Msgr. George Agius, D.D., J.C.D., Tradition and the Church

Worth Repeating: The SCHISM is HERE and Leo is just a dull echo of Francis/Bergoglio!

COMMENT: This book in the article below provides an interpretation of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. It is addressed to bishops with a “merciful heart” and offers an interpretation that is consistent with the interpretation approved in the private letter sent by Pope Francis to the bishops of Argentina as well as with the interpretation of Cardinal Schornborn who Pope Francis publically identified as its ‘official interpretor.’ These bishops say that the proper understanding and application is that any Catholic living in public adultery based upon their own private judgment in the internal forum can declare themselves worthy to receive Holy Communion and absolution in the sacrament of Penance and therefore cannot be denied these sacraments. It is given semi-official approval by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.

Pope Leo XIV in a message to to the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life holding a seminar entitled, “Evangelizing with Families Today and Tomorrow,” endorsed Amoris Laetitia by directly quoting his predecessor from Amoris Laetitia §76, writing the “Gospel of the family also nourishes seeds that are still waiting to grow,” praising its “basis for caring for those plants that are wilting and must not be neglected.”

Now the Novus Ordo, which may be nothing more than a memorial meal as it was initially and officially defined by Pope Paul VI, perhaps giving the Novus Ordo communion wafer to a person in objective mortal sin is not a real problem. But what is certainly a grave sin is that these persons can expect to be absolved by a confessor in the sacrament of Penance without confessing or repentance of mortal sin. This does not represent a change in the Church’s teaching. It represents the active effort of a Francis (and now Leo) and his minions to destroy Catholic doctrine and morality. As St. Thomas said, “All heretics are schismatics,” the schism has long been present with every post-conciliar pope who have repeatedly denied Catholic dogma. It is more evident each passing day and every Catholic will have to pick sides. God cannot let an open attack upon the sacrament of marriage go unpunished. Their hypocrisy is oozing from every pore. Imagine if a Catholic with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” arrives at traditional Catholicism, what kind of response can be expect from the local bishop and Rome? If you want to know read our OPEN LETTERS! After all, a “merciful heart” has its limits!

“If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” (Amoris Laetitia 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351).”

Bishops Charles J Scicluna and Mario Grech, Guide for the Interpretation of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia: An Invitatiion to the Bishops of Merciful Hearts. This received semi-official approbation by being featured in the publication, L’Osservatore Romano, 1-2017

"You know Gaza is interesting. It's a phenomenal location on the sea, the best weather—you know, everything's good. It's like some beautiful things could be done with it. It's very interesting. Some fantastic things could be done with Gaza."

President Donald Trump, On the rebuilding of Gaza for Israel

COMMENT:

According to the latest figures released by the Gaza Ministry of Health on December 23, 2025, Israel had killed at least 70,937 Palestinians and wounded 171,192; of those identified fatalities, 53% were women, children or elderly. But the estimate is difficult to make. This estimate from the Ministry of Health is collected from hospital records and in May of 2025 the United Nations reported that 94% of the hospitals in Gaze had been destroyed. It is not possible to know how many Palestinians are buried under the rubble, nor how many will die from starvation and disease. There were 2.23 million Palestinians in Gaza before the conflict and relief workers estimate the current population requiring aid at 1.87 million. The difference is 360,000.

The picture on the right is six bags containing the remains of children killed in the bombing of a school. The picture on the left is northern area of Gaze with no structure left standing. This killing and destruction was accomplished by American made planes dropping 2,000 pound American made bombs. The specific bomb used by Israelis on the school building was a Boeing GBU-39 designed to penetrate warships and hardened targets. It splinters into small fast moving shrapnel segments that can penetrate three feet of reinforced concrete. In an interview Jonathan Pollard, the Jewish spy while working as a clerk for Naval Intelligence delivered to Israel what Scott Ritter called the "Crown Jewels" of U.S. Intelligence Singles and was sentenced to life in prison in 1987, said that Israel has promised President Trump tax free concessions on anything he builds in Gaza. The picture below is the visionary Trump plan, directed by his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner, for turning Gaza everything in life Trump thinks is important. The Blessed Virgin Mary said at Fatima, "Only the Lady of the Rosary can help you" through devotion to her Immaculate Heart, the Rosary, and the First Saturdays of Reparation. Whatever good President Trump may occasionally do, in the end he cannot fix anything.

---

Pope Leo appoints pro-LGBT archbishop as secretary for Dicastery for Clergy

Archbishop Carlo Roberto Maria Redaelli's pro-LGBT views were recounted in a description of his response to the same-sex 'marriage' of a Catholic scout leader.

LifeSiteNews | Jan 22, 2026 — Pope Leo XIV has appointed a controversial and homosexualist archbishop to a prominent role in the Vatican.

Archbishop Carlo Roberto Maria Redaelli of Gorizia was named today as the new Secretary for the Dicastery for Clergy.

Raedelli and his pro-LGBT views were mentioned in a 2020 book by Luciano Moia, a senior journalist for the Italian Bishops’ Conference’s daily newspaper Avvenire. In his book, Moia argues that the Church should look at “chastity” within a same-sex relationship the same way in which it looks at chastity within marriage.

As an example of how the Church should begin to do this,  the author cited Raedelli’s response to the same-sex ‘marriage’ in 2017 of a homosexual Catholic scout leader.

In Moia’s words, Raedelli “threw everyone off. He refused the role of the judge, he didn’t absolve, but neither did he condemn. He invited the community to reflect together to understand if, even from such a divisive occurrence, one can receive aspects of grace. An intervention in search of moderation and of that invitation to welcome, discern and integrate that impregnates the magisterium of Pope Francis.”

Contrary to the attitudes of Moia and Archbishop Redaelli, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on homosexuality:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Only after stating that homosexual acts cannot be approved does the catechism move on to a discussion of chastity. In other words, chastity for people with homosexual inclinations plainly means absolute continence.

Redaelli has served as auxiliary bishop of Milan from 2004 to 2012, and as Archbishop of Gorizia, in northeastern Italy, since 2012. A canon lawyer by training, he has been at the center of several controversies over the years. For example, the archbishop has previously attracted attention for his positions on the Traditional Latin Mass.

During the Italian Bishops’ Conference General Assembly in Rome in November 2018, Redaelli had questioned the legal basis of Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

The Pope stated that the 1962 Roman Missal had never been abrogated and could be freely used. However, according to the Italian blog Messainlatino.it, Redaelli stated that the Missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII had in fact been abrogated by Pope Paul VI, rendering Summorum Pontificum juridically ineffective. On this basis, the motu proprio was described as a “juridical non-sense,” and the Traditional Latin Mass as not legitimately liberalized.

However, Redaelli’s claim is juridically wrong because it rests on a false premise. No explicit act ever abrogated the 1962 Roman Missal. Under canon law (see canon 21), “in a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed.” Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI did not grant a derogation or indult but formally recognized a right that had never been suppressed.

As Secretary of the Dicastery for Clergy, Archbishop Redaelli will hold a key administrative role within one of the most influential departments of the Roman Curia. Under articles 113–120 of Praedicate Evangelium, the dicastery oversees matters relating to diocesan clergy, including their pastoral ministry, discipline, ongoing formation, and material support. [.....]

COMMENT: Pope Leo's appointment meets two important criteria: He is accepting of homosexuals, and therefore, will not be a problem for homosexuals in the clergy that he will oversee; and, he is intent in doing away with the Indult. It is Bishop Redaelli that understands the legal standing Summorum Pontificum while the Indult conservative Catholics cannot figure it out. Summorum Pontificum was abrogated by Pope Francis' Traditionis Custodes so the argument is really moot. Be that as it may, there was never a Roman Missal published in 1962. There were several changes in the Missal in 1962 just as there were changes before 1962 and there would be in the years that followed 1962. Each change in the Missal abrogated the previous usage. The Missal that was in usage at the end of 1962, the last change being addition of St. Joseph's name to the canon in December, was changed in 1965, 1967, and 1969. Redaelli's claim that the 1962 Missal usage was juridically suppressed by Paul VI is correct. It was Benedict/Ratzinger who was dealing from the bottom of the deck when he said that the 1962 usage had not been abrogated or legally suppressed. Shortly after the publication of Summorum Pontificum Benedict/Ratzinger tried to clean up the historical record by abrogating the two documents of Paul VI that did so. What should be recognized is that Benedict/Ratzinger implied that the 1962 usage could be suppressed but lied in claiming that that did not happen. What is certain is that Benedict/Ratzinger said that those who used the 1962 Missale were exercising the privilege of a "legal right" granted by the legislator and not a moral and doctrinal right from God. He changed the 1962 usage from the Indult of JPII into a grant of legal privilege. It was Francis/Bergoglio who returned it to an Indult in Traditionis Custodes where it exists today. Those who have accepted the use of the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal by grant of Indult and/or legal privilege have no legal grounds to complain when the grant is taken away. Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission refused the offer to become an Indult community for this very reason. We offer the pre-Bugnini "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite not by grant of legal privilege or Indult but by our rights as baptized Catholics derived from of our duty to worship God as God Himself has determined that He wants to be worshiped.

St. Raymond of Pennafort: Dominican Friar, Priest, Master of the Order

A renowned doctor of canon law and notable writer, Raymond of Pennafort (1175 – 1275) joined the Dominican Order in 1222, after a distinguished academic career in Barcelona and Bologna. His two principal works are his Summa Casuum on penitential discipline and his compilation of the decretals of canon law, commissioned by Pope Gregory IX. This collection of conciliar and papal decrees became a standard work for canon lawyers for nearly seven hundred years. St. Raymond later became the third master of the Order. According to Dominican tradition, he once rebuked the king of Aragon for his immoral behavior. When St. Raymond attempted to leave the island of Majorca and return to Spain, he could not because the kind had forbidden all sailors to give him passage. St. Raymond placed his cappa, the black mantle of the Dominican habit, on the water, stepped on it, and sailed to the mainland.

CANON LAW and the Judgment of a heretical pope

Comment:

The Decretals of Gratian is a collection of canonical texts compiled in the 12th century. Pope Gregory IX in 1230 directed St. Raymond of Pennafort, the distinguished Dominican, to organize an addendum to the code to include legal codes adopted since the time of Gratian but the work became a much more extensive revision. Working from the Decretals of Gratian, St. Raymond wrote a five volume edition of the Decretals that became the Corpus iuris canonici which served as the legal code for the Latin Church’s canon law from that time until the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law in 1917. 

Decretum Gratiani, which was included in the old Corpus Iuris Canonici, affirmed that a Pope who deviates from right doctrine (i.e.: a notorious public heretic) can be judged. The canon states that the "pope judges all and is judged by no-one, unless he is found to have departed from the faith":

‘Hujus culpas redarguere præsumit mortalium nullus, quia cunctos ipse judicaturus a nemine est judicandus, nisi 

deprehendatur a fide devius (dist. XL, C. 6)’.

When the revised Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici 1917) came into force, the Church eliminated from the new legislation the phrase "unless he is found to have departed from the faith." This deletion was continued in the 1983 code. Although the phrase, "unless he is found to have departed from the faith," was not included in the 1917 and the 1983 codes, the canonical commentary still regards the phrase as legally binding:

‘Canon 1404 – The First See is judged by no one.‘

COMMENTARY: "Canon 1404 is not a statement about the personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed, the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair."

New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green eds. (New York: Paulist, 2000), p. 1,618.

The code is the compilation of laws governing the Church as social institution. Most of the laws in the code are of ecclesiastical positive human laws grounded upon human authority, however, many of the legal codes are divine positive laws grounded upon divine authority or upon natural law. If a human law is deleted from the code, the law ceases to bind. If a law of divine authority is deleted from the code, the law continue in force for the human authority of the Church cannot overturn the law of God. This self-evident principle is stated in the code itself. Consequently, the commentary cited above is a recognition that the pope cannot be judged "unless he is found to have departed from the faith" is of divine origin. It is necessarily a divine law because the papacy is a divine institution established directly by Jesus Christ and therefore governed in its essence only by divine laws. In other words, if it were not a divine law, the Church could not propose a human law to judge what was established by God.

Therefore, it is of divine law that permits a heretical pope to be judged. Importantly, although the law permits a heretical pope to be judged, it says nothing about who and how a pope is to be judged regarding heresy and it does not address penalties. It says nothing about removal from office. If the law intended the removal from office the law itself would have to state the penalty and provide a mechanism for its determination and enforcement.

So now it falls to opinions regarding the judgment of a heretical pope. Most theologians believe that it is "understood" that the removal from office necessarily follows from a judgment of heresy often citing the scriptural and traditional admonition to avoid heretics:

"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment" (Titus 3:10-11).

They argue that since the faithful cannot avoid a pope as head of the Church therefore the heretical pope must lose his office. A serious problem with this argument follows, that is, if the faithful cannot "avoid" a pope, then there must necessarily be a pope who in fact cannot be avoided. Therefore, those who would make the papacy vacant must also be able to fill the office with a true pope.

But can a heretical pope be avoided? It really becomes a problem for those who hold the pope as their proximate rule of faith and not, as they should, dogma. For if dogma is not the proximate rule of faith then the pope must be and he then can never be a heretic for whatever the pope holds the dogma or doctrine to mean is what it then means and only those who disagree with the pope are heretics. For a Catholic, dogma is the proximate rule of faith and although a heretical pope can do immeasurable damage to the Church he cannot touch individual souls of the faithful.

If we adhere to what the law says and nothing more we can say this: The definition of heresy is the denial of dogma. The heretic denies dogma and the faithful keep dogma. Those who can judge a heretical pope are the faithful. The law does not distinguish or discriminate among the faithful as to the judgment. Dogma is articulated for all the faithful. Its understanding does not require any theological competence. It requires proper definition and correct grammar. Any of the faithful, that is those who hold dogma as their proximate rule of faith, can judge a manifestly heretical pope such as Pope Francis was. Any of the faithful can know when a dogma is directly contradicted for the first principles of the understanding, such as the principle of non-contradiction, are innate in human nature. Thus all the faithful can judge, in fact must judge, a heretical pope and so that they may not follow him in his heresy for God has said that 'it is not possible to deceive His elect' (Matt. 24:24). The law does not specify the judge because the judgment rests with all the faithful, it is universal. The law does not specify a penalty because none of the faithful have the competency to impose a penalty and remove a heretical pope from office. It is God who is the formal and final cause of the pope and the office of the papacy. It is God who 'marries' the designated candidate to the papal office and only God can remove him from it just as God removed the High Priest and destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood which can never be reconstituted.

Those who hold dogma as their proximate rule of faith recognize Pope Francis as a heretic because he denies dogmatic truth. He preaches a different gospel so we "receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you" (2 John 10). Since he preaches a different gospel, "Let him be anathema" because we are first "servants of Christ" (Gal 1: 8). For in dogma, the Church has spoken and the heretic Pope Francis "will not hear the church, (therefore) let him be to thee as the heathen and publican (Matt 18:17).

The job of the faithful is to keep the faith.

Dogmas “are to give light, not to receive light from human reason”!

I answer: The obligation to believe what God says is a natural duty, it is a natural law, dictated by the common sense of reason which the Creator has deposited in every human soul. The Church only enforces this law, which existed before she herself existed, because from all eternity it was a truth that the creature is bound to believe the word of the Creator. If the Church allows no denial, no doubt, no alteration or misconstruction of any of her dogmas, it is because the veracity of the Son of God, who has revealed these truths, is attacked when any of His doctrines are denied or doubted. These dogmas are so many fixed stars in the firmament of holy Church. They cannot be reached by the perversity and frivolity of man. He may close his eyes against them and deny their existence; he may misrepresent them and look at them through glasses stained the color of every prejudice; but he cannot do away with them altogether, nor change in any way their natural brightness and brilliancy. Like the stars that deck the vault of heaven, they are to give light, not to receive light from human reason. They are the word of God, and what God says is truth, that cannot be made untruth. The mind that receives truth is enlightened thereby; the mind that denies or misrepresents it is darkened and corrupted.

Besides, every dogma of faith is to the Catholic cultivated mind not only a new increase of knowledge, but also an incontrovertible principle from which it is able to draw conclusions and derive other truths. They present an endless field for investigation so that the beloved Apostle St. John could write at the end of his Gospel, without fear of exaggeration: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did: which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, world not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

The Catholic Church, by enforcing firm belief in her dogmas—which are not her inventions, but were given by Jesus Christ—places them as a bar before the human mind to prevent it from going astray and to attach it to the truth; but it does not prevent the mind from exercising its functions when it has secured the treasure of divine truth, and a “scribe thus instructed in the kingdom of heaven is truly like a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.” …. They are new because newly enacted, declared, defined; they are old because they contain no new revelation or any assumption of power never granted by Christ, but simply old truths under new forms, the old power exercised under new circumstances.

Rev. Joseph Prachensky, S.J., The Church of the Parables and True Spouse of the Suffering Savior

---

When Pope Leo XIV met with cardinals and bishops residing in Rome at Christmas, his Master of Ceremonies, Monsignor Marco Agostini, outed them by identifying them on an open microphone as “culattoni tutti insieme” (all the faggots together). 

Anyone who questions Agostini’s statement is encouraged to read In the Closet of the Vatican by Frédéric Martel who estimated that around 80% of the clergy working in the Vatican are homosexuals. The 555-page work is the result of over 1,500 interviews with people in the Vatican and in 30 countries: among them, 41 cardinals, 52 bishops and monsignors, 45 apostolic nuncios and foreign ambassadors.

Some of Martel’s conclusions include:

· The Vatican has one of the biggest gay communities in the world….it is one huge closet.

· The Church has become sociologically homosexual. It is responsible for countless instances of sexual abuse that are undermining it from within.

· The priesthood is (now) the ideal escape route for young homosexuals. Homosexuality is one of the keys to their vocation.

· There are more and more homosexuals as one rises through the Catholic hierarchy. In the College of Cardinals and at the Vatican, the preferential process is said to be perfected; homosexuality becomes the rule, heterosexuality the exception.

Gene Thomas Gomulka, is a sexual abuse victims’ advocate, investigative reporter, author, and screenwriter. A former Navy Captain Chaplain Corps, seminary instructor, and diocesan Respect Life Director. Gomulka was ordained a priest for the Altoona-Johnstown diocese and later made a Prelate of Honor (Monsignor) by JPII.

COMMENT: Apparently Msgr. Agostini did not realize that the microphone was on when he said, "All the faggots together." For his indiscretion he has been dismissed from his position. While not knowing anything about Martel's book that is recommended by Rev. Gomulka, it is just another addition to the a long list, and growing longer, of documentation of the Homosexual Lobby's infiltration and control of the Novus Ordo Church. Traditional Catholics have been exposing this crime for a long time. One of the priests that help in the establishment of Saints Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission was the late Rev. Enrique Rueda authored The Homosexual Network published in 1982. Rev. Rueda inspired the work of Randy Engel who continued his work with her book, Rite of Sodomy published in 2006. The late Rev. John O'Connor, O.P., a traditional Dominican, exposed in detail the homosexual takeover of the Dominican Order in the United States and the failure of Rome to do anything about it. The Polish priest, Rev. Dariusz Oko, a theology professor at the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow, was fined in Germany in 2022 along with his published, for "hate speech" in an article that referred to homosexual priests as "a colony of parasites", "a cancerous growth" and "a homosexual plague" in the Church. He also called the "gay-affirming movement" a "homo-heresy." The book Goodbye, Good Men by Michael S. Rose is another work that documents the homosexual infiltration of the Church. Should we be surprised? Remember Bella Dodd who was a teacher, lawyer, and labor union activist, member of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. and New York City Teachers Union in the 1930s and 1940s. She became a vocal anti-communist after she underwent a conversion to the Catholic Church upon meeting Rev. Fulton J. Sheen, Bishop of Rochester, New York. Bella Dodd, under sworn testimony before Congress in the 1950s, claimed that she had helped place 1,500 committed communists into Catholic seminaries. None of these homosexuals will ever give up their sinecures in the Novus Ordo church network. Jesus Christ began and ended His public life with the 'cleansing of the Temple' driving the profane from the house of God. Call to mind what God did to Rome in 1527 when the mercenary Protestant army of Charles V sacked Rome. The destruction and death lasted about nine months. This cleansing of Rome made possible the rebuilding and reformation accomplished by the Council of Trent. The punishment that is at the door today will be a pitiless destruction of the entire Novus Ordo structure and make possible the great restoration that will follow.

"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he makes a false declaration, he sins mortally."

St. Thomas Aquinas, (ST, I-II, Q. 103, Art. 4)

Queers Always Hang Together

“Sodomy Is a Gift from God…. Those who oppose sodomy should be debarred from church seminaries.”

Rev. Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., an Oxford scholar and international celebrity appointed by Pope Francis to the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace in 2015. On 6 October 2024, Pope Francis announced that Radcliffe would be created a cardinal on December 8 but was the date was later changed to 7 December. Pope Francis, granting him a dispensation from the current requirement that all cardinals must be bishops, made him a cardinal deacon and assigned him to the Chiesa dei Santi Nomi di Gesu e Maria. He participated as a cardinal elector in the 2025 conclave that elected Pope Leo as the sole elector that was not a bishop.

Pro-LGBT Cdl. Radcliffe urges ‘openness to novelty’ in address to extraordinary consistory

Reports from inside the Vatican suggest growing unease among the cardinals after Pope Leo’s two-day gathering opened with tightly controlled group sessions led by liberal voices.

LifeSiteNews | Gaetano Masciullo | Thu Jan 8, 2026

VATICAN CITY— Pro-LGBT Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe delivered the opening meditation at the consistory in Rome by urging cardinals to remain “in the boat of Peter” amid global crises and Church divisions while suggesting “memory and openness to novelty must coexist in the life of the Church.”

On the afternoon of January 7, Pope Leo XIV opened a two-day extraordinary consistory at the Vatican, convening cardinals from around the world to reflect on four major themes – the mission of the Church in today’s world, synodality, the relationship between the Holy See and the particular Churches, and the liturgy – though only the former two were selected for detailed discussion, a decision that, according to off-the-record accounts reported by the Italian blog Messainlatino, prompted discouragement and concern among several participants.

“I am here to listen,” Pope Leo XIV told the cardinals in his opening address, stressing that the meeting was intended not to produce documents but “to continue a conversation that will help me in serving the mission of the entire Church.”

According to the blog Messainlatino, multiple unnamed cardinals described the first session as poorly prepared and structurally restrictive, noting in particular that there were no free interventions scheduled for the opening day. Discussions were conducted in small, pre-assigned working groups based on language and curial affiliation, a format some participants reportedly said did not resemble the traditional consistory model of the past.

The same source reported that, for reasons of time, the theme of the liturgy was effectively excluded from substantive group discussion, despite being listed among the four initial topics. Several cardinals allegedly lamented what they perceived as a lack of interest in the Church understood as “mystery,” and said that the overall approach appeared to be in continuity with the synodal processes of recent years.

The opening meditation was delivered by Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., a leftist prelate who has praised “gay sexuality” in blasphemous remarks, celebrated “LGBT Masses,” supported admitting homosexuals to the priesthood, and encouraged Catholics to watch homosexual movies and read homosexual novels.

In his reflection on the Gospel of Mark (6:45–52), Radcliffe urged the cardinals to “remain in the boat of Peter” amid contemporary storms facing both the world and the Church, including war, inequality, sexual abuse scandals, and ideological divisions.

Radcliffe warned against remaining “on the shore” out of fear or disagreement, arguing that unity and mutual charity among the cardinals were essential to supporting the Pope. He stated that “memory and openness to novelty must coexist in the life of the Church,” citing Evangelii Gaudium and Saint Augustine to argue that Tradition and renewal are inseparable.

Messainlatino also reports that upcoming sessions of the consistory are expected to open with reflections by pro-LGBT Cardinal José Tolentino de Mendonça and Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, both widely regarded as prominent liberal voices within the College of Cardinals.

COMMENT: Cardinal Radcliffe is a notorious homosexual. Pope Leo in selecting him as the spiritual director of the consistory is making an open declaration that the spirit of the consistory is NOT the Holy Spirit. The Mission of the Church was established by its founder, Jesus Christ. It was established with a specific commission to "make disciples of all nations." Synodality is a denial of the dogma of the universal jurisdiction of the pope. The Church's relationship with non-Catholic churches is established by God: "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." It is the relationship is between those who can be saved and those who are not. Finally, the liturgy is the work of God Who dogmatically established at the Council of Trent: "Those that say that the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites... by any pastor of the churches whomsoever: anathema sit.

---

Pope Leo begins a new catechism series dedicated to Vatican II

Pope Leo on Wednesday praised the ‘liturgical reform’ launched by Vatican II that laid the groundwork for the revolutionary Novus Ordo Missae, the new Mass.

LifeSiteNews | Emily Mangiaracina | Jan 8, 2026

VATICAN CITY— Pope Leo XIV announced Wednesday that he is beginning a catechesis series to “closely” study the Second Vatican Council, which many priests and scholars have affirmed to be in need of correction.

“We are beginning a new catechesis series dedicated to the Second Vatican Council and to a fresh reading of its Documents,” Leo wrote in an X post on January 7. “The Council’s Magisterium remains even today the North Star guiding the Church’s journey.”

“Closely studying the Council documents will help us to be attentive interpreters of the signs of the times, and to proclaim the Gospel to all,” Leo said Wednesday during his general audience.

In Leo’s strong support for Vatican II, he aligns himself with Pope Francis, who described the Council as “a visit of God to His Church,” and as “irreversible.”

The pope has not given further details thus far on the forthcoming “catechesis” of Vatican II. However, during his general audience on Wednesday, he highlighted aspects of the Council that he highly esteems.

For example, Leo praised the “liturgical reform” launched by Vatican II, which laid the groundwork for the revolutionary Novus Ordo Missae, the new Mass. The Council “set in motion an important liturgical reform by placing at the center the mystery of salvation and the active and conscious participation of the entire People of God,” Leo said in his general audience.

Liturgist and author Dr. Peter Kwasniewski has pointed out that the idea articulated in the Second Vatican Council’s Sacrosanctum Concilium that “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else” is backward.

“It cannot escape our notice that this text turns things on their head,” Kwasniewski remarked in 2019. “Where Pius X had said that what should be ‘provided for before everything else’ is the ‘sanctity and dignity of the temple,’ Vatican II says that ‘the aim to be considered before all else’ is ‘full and active participation by all the people.’ In doing so, it inverts the hierarchy of goods. Now the worship of God and its right condition becomes secondary to the people’s involvement.”

Pope Leo also on Wednesday lauded Vatican II for being responsible for a Church committed to “seeking the truth through the way of ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and dialogue with people of good will,” as if the Church needs to seek truth outside of Herself. The idea that the fullness of the truth is not found within the Catholic Church is heretical.

Leo’s description of the Second Vatican Council during his general audience and in his social media post as the “guiding star” of the Church’s path suggests he sees this council as surpassing in importance every other council of the Church, which is especially significant given that Vatican II appeared to contradict previous magisterial councils in certain respects.

Prelates such as Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò have pointed to errors in the Second Vatican Council regarding religious freedom and other religions, and in doing so have been supported by many priests and scholars.

For example, Bishop Schneider has said Lumen Gentium is “wrong” and errs by suggesting that Christians and Muslims participate together in the same act of adoration when it states that “Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God.”

It errs because Muslims worship on a natural level, at the same level of anyone who adores God with the “natural light of reason,” whereas Christians adore God on a supernatural level as His adopted children “in the truth of Christ and in the Holy Spirit.” 

“This is a substantial difference,” Schneider observed. He explained that the use of the phrase “with us” represents a relativization of the act of adoration of God and also of Christians’ “sonship.” 

In addition, Muslims reject the Trinity, which they consider to be an idolatrous idea. Christ made clear that “whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16) and “no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Schneider criticized texts suggesting that Buddhists and Hindus can attain illumination on their own, without “the grace of Christ,” as a heresy. Nostra Aetate claims that “in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery,” and that Buddhism “teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.”

The German prelate has also criticized Dignitatis Humanae for putting forth “a theory never before taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church, i.e., that man has the right founded in his own nature, ‘not to be prevented from acting in religious matters according to his own conscience, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.’” 

Archbishop Viganò agreed with Bishop Schneider in his criticism of the Second Vatican Council, noting that Vatican II’s formulation of religious freedom “contradict[s] the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.”

It is also noteworthy that Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, condones “prayers in common” with our “separated brethren” in “certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,” and during ecumenical gatherings.”

However, the Councils of the Church have repeatedly made clear that Catholics cannot pray with heretics or schismatics, let alone those of other religious practices:

· “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.” — Council of Carthage

· “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.” — Council of Laodicea

· If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion. — II Council of Constantinople

COMMENT: Pope Leo is just another heretic embracing the heresies of Vatican II, a pastoral council that has by every statistical analysis has proven to be an utter pastoral failure. A pastoral approach to pastoral problem is comparable to a business plan to the operation of the business. Now is a business plan leads to financial ruin of a business the board of directors will immediately fire the CEO, his staff and advisors, and seek another with a different business plan. What can be said about the Novus Ordo popes is that the "pastoral plan" they have adopted from Vatican II is not a failure but rather a resounding success because the purpose of the plan is to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ. What they are doing is what they have always intended to do. The Church was established in Truth by Truth Itself and does not "seek" truth from those who deny it.

---

In 2005 the Dover, PA electorate removed the School Board members that permitted Intelligent Design to be considered in as a possible explanation for the natural order found in the material universe. Scientists, while affirming that the natural order in the universe must necessarily be the result of mechanical chance, “listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals (from outer space) that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random” for evidence of intelligent life in the universe. If these scientists affirm that the DNA code of biological life, which is clearly goal directed, is “merely random” and not a sign of “intelligence” how can they be open to recognize any sign of intelligible communication!? Is this WSJ article evidence that there is no intelligence design in the Dover, PA electorate or in modern science?

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?

Eric Metaxas: Dec. 25, 2014

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology…. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” (Dutton Adult, 2014).

JP II the 'Grate' - if somehow he made it to Purgatory - ask him to turn out the lights and lock the place up when he is the last to leave.

John Paul II was a pope under whose reign we had the most horrific scandal in the Church's 2000-year history. Thousands of children were molested by priests and bishops he ordained. By the end of his pontificate, lawsuits were bankrupting Catholic Churches all over the world; and between one third and one half of the clergy (sources available upon request) were admittedly homosexual, with a significant percentage being pederasts whom the pope didn't even admit existed when he was told of their crimes, much less did anything to stop them, even when stark evidence was brought before him, as in the case of Legionnaires leader Marciel Maciel. At the same time he hid other clerics from prosecution, as in the case of Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston.

This was the pope who allowed the Vatican Bank's corruption that started under Paul VI to continue with little or no reform; and who protected its chief perpetrator, Bishop Paul Marcinkus, from prosecution. He did nothing to investigate the suspected murder of John Paul I, the very pope who made it known in the first days of his reign that he was going to clean up the financial misdealings of his curia. This was the pope who took 250 million dollars of the Vatican's money and gave it to Solidarity in Poland, thereby making the Church a political institution instead of a spiritual one. By the same token he condemned Liberation theology because if its tendency to get involved in politics.

This was the pope who went to the hut of an African witch doctor in 1985 and afterward wrote, "the prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists." In December 1984 he sent a

Vatican representative to the laying of the foundation of the largest mosque in Europe. In September 1989 he wrote to Muslim leaders and said: "In the name of the same God we adore," without any qualifications whatsoever. In May 1999 he kissed the Koran in a public ceremony; and in 2000 asked John the Baptist "to protect Islam." In February 1986 he received the red dust of the Hindu religion on his forehead in honor of the goddess Shiva. In March 1986 in New Delhi he stated that "collaboration between all religions is necessary for the good of mankind... as Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, and Christians, we unite to proclaim the truth about man."

This was the pope who invited all the world's non-Christian and pagan religions to pray for world peace at Assisi in 1986 and Assisi in 2002 (with five additional Assisi-like gatherings in the 1990s in various countries) and never once in those 16 years did he preach the Gospel to them about conversion to Christ for salvation. Instead he sent them all back to their countries encouraging them to continue to pray to their false gods, the very opposite that St. Paul did in Acts 17. He paid no attention to any of his high-placed clerical advisors who told him these acts were abominations.

This was the pope who, against two millennia of Catholic tradition, told husbands to be mutually submissive to women; dispensed with head coverings for women; and allowed women and girls to be communion ministers, altar girls, and directors of chanceries, thereby increasing the feminization of the Church amidst an already feminized clergy who were by this time at least a third homosexual, while another significant portion were receiving paternity suits.

This was the pope who profusely apologized for the ecclesiastical policies of previous popes; who had his Vatican envoy sign the 1998 Lutheran/Catholic Joint declaration which, in direct contradiction to the Council of Trent, said "man is justified by faith alone." This was the pope who told the Lutherans they had a "profound religiousness and spiritual heritage" and that Martin Luther was driven by a "burning passion of the question of eternal salvation," and who told the Lutheran bishops that Rome's excommunication of Luther had expired, and that "There is a need for a new evaluation of the questions raised by Luther and his teaching." This was the pope who implied or taught universal salvation and that hell may not be applicable to any human being. This was the pope who at the very beginning of his pontificate in the 1979 encyclical Redemptor Hominis used the word "church" 150 times but never once mentioned the word "Catholic." This was the pope who continually sided with liberals like Karl Rahner, Urs von Balthasar and Raymond Brown but who would hardly give an ear to those, such as Archbishop Lefebvre, who wanted to preserve the tradition and who decried the anti-Catholic innovations being foisted on the Catholic populace. (Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI saw John Paul II's mistake and reversed the decision against Lefebvre). This was the pope who was criticized by his own admirers for failing to discipline wayward clerics, both in their doctrinal aberrations and moral laxity (Charles Curran, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, et al). Ironically, the only cleric that was excommunicated was Lefebvre, yet he was one of the most doctrinally sound and morally upright clerics the Church had ever known.

This was the pope who in 1981, contrary to tradition, implied or taught that the Jewish Old Covenant is not revoked and that Jews have a special relationship with God, as does Paragraph 121 of his papally-signed 1994 Catechism. He continued to propagate confusing and doctrinally fallacious teaching about the Jews and Judaism through his cardinals who taught that the Jews did not need to convert to Christianity to be saved since they have their own covenant with God (Kasper, Keeler, Willebrands, George, Ratzinger, et al). This was the first pope in history to visit Israel and who then placed himself under Judaism by praying at the Jerusalem's Wailing Wall. This was the pope who, for the first time in the history of the papacy, visited and prayed in Jewish synagogues - the religion that denies more than any other that Jesus Christ is God.

Last but not least, this was the pope who changed the Church's criterion for sainthood, which now allows him and all his fellow 20th century popes to be easily canonized in the face of the fact that there have been only three popes canonized since 1294 (Pius X, d. 1914; Pius V, d. 1572; Celestine V, d. 1294). As such, the very popes who lived and reigned during the Church's worst corruptions and scandals are now being exonerated and place in heaven.

Robert Sungenis, Ph.D., Letter to Editor, Culture Wars Magazine

In pastoral letter, Charlotte's Bishop Martin ends altar rails for holy Communion

National Catholic Reporter | Patricia L. Guilfoyle | Charlotte, N.C. — December 23, 2025

Bishop Michael Martin has established guidelines for the reception of holy Communion in the Diocese of Charlotte to strengthen unity in worship, uphold the church's liturgical norms and encourage active participation by the faithful.

Martin announced the new norms in a pastoral letter that affirms the common posture of standing to receive holy Communion, encourages priests to offer Communion under both bread and wine more often, and calls for the broader use of trained laypeople to serve as Eucharistic ministers.

"The liturgy of the Church is the work of God and the work on behalf of God in the life of the Church," Martin wrote in the Dec. 17 letter. "These norms for our diocese move us together toward the Church's vision for the fuller and more active participation of the faithful."

In his pastoral letter, the bishop emphasized that the celebration of the Eucharist is a communal act of worship, not only an individual act of piety.

"Throughout the ages and within the context of our rich liturgical traditions from the East to the West, our unity as believers in Holy Communion is expressed through our postures and gestures that reflect our mystical communion and unity as fellow believers," he said.

The new guidance does not replace the diocese's general liturgical norms established in 2005, but builds upon them and aligns closely with the Catholic Church's universal norms (what is called the "General Instruction of the Roman Missal") and directives set by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The pastoral letter follows months of consultation with the diocese's Office for Divine Worship and the Presbyteral Council of priests, which represents all priests of the diocese in administrative and policy discussions.

In his pastoral letter, Martin affirmed the "normative posture" for receiving holy Communion in the United States is standing, after bowing the head as a sign of reverence.

The directive instructs any parishes that currently use altar rails for distributing Communion to discontinue the practice and remove any portable kneelers or prie-dieus by Jan. 16, noting that such practices are "a visible contradiction" to the prescribed posture of standing.

"Instead," his pastoral letter states, the church "emphasizes that receiving Holy Communion is to be done as the members of the faithful go in procession, witnessing that the Church journeys forward and receives Holy Communion as a pilgrim people on their way."

In many churches, altar rails are architectural elements that differentiate the sanctuary from the nave and once were used for Communion distribution.

Over the past decade or so, a small number of churches in the diocese reintroduced the use of rails or kneelers to distribute Holy Communion, but most diocesan churches already follow the practice of receiving Communion while standing, consistent with U.S. norms.

In his pastoral letter, the bishop reiterated that individuals may not be denied holy Communion if they choose to kneel, yet he encouraged the faithful to "prayerfully consider the blessing of communal witness that is realized when we share a common posture."

Clergy and catechists, he added, "are to instruct communicants according to the normative posture in the United States" and "are not to teach that some other manner is better, preferred, more efficacious, etc."

In guidance to pastors that accompanied the bishop's pastoral letter, the diocese's Office for Divine Worship noted that if a communicant wishes to kneel but is physically unable, the pastor should address the situation privately.

"He is to catechize and remind the person that standing to receive is no less reverent or worthy a way to receive Our Lord," advised Fr. Noah Carter, diocesan liturgy director. "In both ways, the communicant who is properly disposed to receive holy Communion gains the same graces and gifts contained in the Eucharist, regardless of standing or kneeling."

In his letter, Martin also encouraged pastors, where and when possible, to distribute holy Communion under the forms of both bread and wine more often.

While affirming church teaching that Christ is fully present — body, blood, soul and divinity — under either bread or wine, he encouraged priests to consider the "fuller sign" of distributing holy Communion under both kinds to foster "a deeper participation in the Eucharistic mystery," consistent with prevailing church practice.

The bishop specifically noted that "a significant number of parishes" did not resume distribution of the Precious Blood in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. "To foster unity, it is helpful that we all practice a similar way of distributing Holy Communion," he said.

"Parishioners who travel from parish to parish because of their own needs may otherwise rightly question why the Precious Blood is always available in one church and never available in another."

The pastoral letter specifically recommends distributing the Precious Blood for at least one Mass every Sunday and for major solemnities, including: Christmas, the Easter Vigil, Divine Mercy Sunday, Pentecost, Trinity Sunday, Corpus Christi, Christ the King Sunday, and Holy Thursday. It also encourages distributing holy Communion under both kinds for first holy Communion Masses, wedding Masses, parish patronal feast days and church anniversaries.
It reaffirms that the consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of the communicant.

It explicitly prohibits the practice of intinction — dipping the host into the Precious Blood before placing it on the communicant's tongue — at public liturgies.
In his pastoral letter, the bishop also encouraged parishes to enlist more laypeople to help clergy with distributing holy Communion.

Priests and deacons are the "ordinary ministers of holy Communion," while laypeople may serve as "extraordinary ministers of holy Communion" when needed, such as when there are too many communicants for the clergy to distribute Communion efficiently.

In many parishes, extraordinary ministers also take Communion to the sick and homebound.

The diocese's existing liturgical norms already call for extraordinary ministers in such situations and provide for people to serve in three-year terms. The new guidelines formalize practices that are already commonplace in the diocese and across the U.S.

They set eligibility and formation requirements, and direct parishes to have enough eucharistic ministers "for roughly 75 communicants" at each Mass. Parishes are also directed to invite people to serve as extraordinary ministers and offer training at least once a year.

To be appointed as such, a layperson must: be a practicing Catholic who has received the sacraments of initiation; be at least 16 years old; "demonstrate a deep reverence for and devotion to the holy Eucharist"; be "distinguished in their Christian life, faith and morals"; and take part in the diocese's safe environment training.

COMMENT: The immemorial rule of receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is kneeling and on the tongue from the hands of a Catholic priest or deacon. In the Latin Rite communion is distributed only under the appearance of bread. The current practice of the Novus Ordo Church is by Indult granted by the Vatican at the petition from the Novus Ordo National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States. An Indult is a permission to NOT obey the law. Bishop Martin's Letter begins with a lie. It ends with imposing the norms of the Lutheran church on the Novus Ordites and his determination to prevent anyone from building a Catholic sanctuary. The Lutherans do not believe in the True Presence in their services and neither does Bishop Martin. The Novus Ordo Mass was initially defined as a memorial meal, and if that is all it is, then the Lutheran norms are perfectly reasonable and there is no problem with Bishop Martin's arguments. But Bishop Martin is liar and therefore we cannot expect him to acknowledge this truth. A PEW poll in 2019 found that only 26% for all Catholics under 40 years of age (and only 63% of all Novus Ordites who go to Mass at least once each week) believe in the Catholic dogma of the True Presence. These Catholics under 40 years of age were raised on the current Indult and have lost the Catholic faith. What an established practice does in its signification is what it was intended to do. The intention of Bishop Martin is to destroy the belief in any remaining Catholics of the True Presence. The argument that standing better symbolizes that we are a "pilgrim people" has been used for more than fifty years. It was a stupid argument in the beginning and remains a more stupid argument today because the result of the practice are evident. The Novus Ordo church has yet to publically acknowledge that their church is on a pilgrimage to hell!

"ALL HERETICS ARE SCHISMATICS." St. Thomas Aquinas quoting St. Augustine

“It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”

Pope Francis, concluding remarks attributed to him in the Der Spiegel article on the Crisis in the Catholic Church.

COMMENT: As if that was not Pope Francis' intention and what in fact he had long been doing throughout his pontificate? The question remains as to what name in history will Francis be known? But let's leave that for later. The truth is that Conservative Catholics have never gotten anything in its right hierarchical order. They stupidly thought the “split” in the Church began when traditional Catholics were disobedient to legitimate exercise of authority by resisting the overthrow of our Ecclesiastical Traditions by which alone the Faith can be known and communicated to others. Conservative Catholics are only now turning to face the front of this conflict but they are unarmed for the fight. Pope Francis, who professed the same doctrine as his conciliar predecessors, only drovethe wedge far deeper into the Bark of Peter to “split” the Church. The Conservative Catholics are at last alarmed because the Ship is taking on massive amounts of water. Unfortunately, the poor Conservative Catholics who are raising their voices against the corruption of Francis and his successor Leo will surely fail. Let's call them the Dubiaists. The Dubiaists have doubts but no real convictions. They will fail because they turned their backs against the literal meaning of DOGMA long ago and cannot recognize heresy. They now have nothing from which to mount their defense for DOGMA is the one and only weapon against an abusive authority. Authority is subject only to Truth. and DOGMA is the most perfect expression of Truth available to all men.

Greetings from Pope Leo to Father Franz Schmidberger, SSPX

Pope Leo extends his heartfelt congratulations to venerable Father Franz Schmidberger, SSPX on the occasion of his fiftieth anniversary of his priestly ordination and extends his apostolic blessing.

Friedrichshafen, Germany, December 14, 2025

COMMENT: We have publically affirmed that the SSPX was formally regularized with modernist Rome no later than 2015 and most likely in 2012 although this is not commonly shared with its member priests or those faithful who attend their chaples for Mass. Fr. Schmidberger was the general superior of the SSPX after the retirement of Archbishop Lefebvre, and after his death when Bishop Fellay became the general superior, Fr. Schmidberger was his direct assistant. It was under the guidance of Fr. Schmidberger that the secret negotiations with modernist Rome began in the 1990s that would eventually lead to their regularization. This "heartfelt" greetings and congratulations from Pope Leo is in acknowledgment of Fr. Schmidberger's untiring commitment to betray Catholic tradition.

"There will be two worm-ridden popes".

Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of La Salette to Melanie

The idea that there would be two worm-ridden popes is an unofficial, unpublished prophecy of Melanie, one of two children at the apparition of La Salette in France. It pops up in one of her letters to Fr. Roubaud back on September 30, 1884, and it was brought to light by author Michel Corteville in his book, Découverte du secret de La Salette. Some say that the phrase actually translates to: “two shaky, servile, doubtful popes.” The original French reads:

Mais avant ce temps (des tribulations) il y aura deux fois une paix de peu de durée, deux Papes vermoulus, plats, douteux.*
TRANSLATION: “But before this time (of tribulations) there will be twice a peace of short duration, two worm-eaten, flat, and doubtful Popes.”

“Living Tradition,” synonym for Immanentism of the Modernist

The term, “living tradition,” a novelty of modernist construction given official standing at Vatican II, conflates the subjective understanding with the objective truth, is part of the theological justification to replace our received traditions with novelties grounded in fantasy.

“The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.

John Paul II, explaining the problems with Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of four bishops from his failure to understand the novel Vatican II definition of tradition

Hermeneutics of Continuity/Discontinuity – Even JPII did not deny this dogma!

Pope Francis Teaches:

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

The Church officially recognizes that the People of Israel continue to be the Chosen People. Nowhere does it say: “You lost the game, now it is our turn.” It is a recognition of the People of Israel. Pope Francis, On Heaven and Earth

The Catholic Church Teaches:

Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness…”;

Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;

2 Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away”;

Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;

Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross”;

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;

Council of Florence: [This council] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino

Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).

St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);

St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);

Justin Martyr: “Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).

John Paul II: “Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.” (Redemptoris Mater)

Taken from Robert Sungenis, The Old Covenent: Revoked or Not Revoked?

---

Pope Leo: Don’t let tension between tradition, novelty become ‘harmful polarizations’

EWTN | Victoria Cardiel | October 27, 2025

Pope Leo XIV said at a Mass on Sunday that no one in the Church “should impose his or her own ideas” and asked that tensions between tradition and novelty not become “ideological contrapositions and harmful polarizations.”

“The supreme rule in the Church is love. No one is called to dominate; all are called to serve,” Leo said in St. Peter’s Basilica on Oct. 26.

“No one should impose his or her own ideas; we must all listen to one another,” he continued. “No one is excluded; we are all called to participate. No one possesses the whole truth; we must all humbly seek it and seek it together.” [.....]

COMMENT: The problem is this: the love of novelty is an ideology, Tradition along with sacred Scripture is divine revelation. The Church always and everywhere has condemned novelty until Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Church of Novelty embraced it. The conflict between novelty and tradition is the conflict between God's revelation and demonic lies; the conflict between the Church and the World. Those who are faithful to tradition do not "impose their own ideas" but defend God's revealed truth against the novelty of the world. The Novus Ordo Novelty Church is "seeking truth"; the Church of Jesus Christ possesses it. Pope Leo like his predecessor likes to characterize tradition as rigid and dead and the novelty of modernism as mature and hopeful. This was once an intensely debated matter but, at this time, after all the wreckage of the last 50 years all tradition has to do is to point at the fruit of Vatican II novelty. Both Leo and his predecessor Francis worked in South America. The total population of South and Central America is about 600 million. Since Vatican II about 300 million have apostatized from the Catholic Church. These last two popes have personally presided over the greatest apostasy over the shortest period of time in the history of the Catholic Church. Anything Leo has to say, as long as he is not sitting in the Chair of Peter, must be examined in light of this record.

Fruit of Vatican II - Apostasy

In Honduras, the country of the once most powerful man in the Roman Curia under Francis/Bergoglio, Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga, a personally corrupt and immoral man who had been a bishop in the capital since 1978, first as auxiliary then as Archbishop for 30 years, the hierarchy led by him managed the amazing feat of transforming that country in the first Catholic-minority nation in Central America, a vertiginous fall from 94% to 46% in the same period - and the same happened in Uruguay, across the Rio de la Plata from (Bergoglio's home) Buenos Aires.

Rorate Caeli

Data Collapse of Catholic Faith in Latin America from 2014 presided over by Pope Leo/Provost and his predecessor Francis/Begoglio

The “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments”:

…..Because, as we will see, Catholics must celebrate only the “received and approved rites” of the Church as a matter of Divine Law.

God revealed this truth in Scripture through St. Paul. Before St. Paul teaches the Corinthians liturgical and theological details concerning the Holy Mass (consecration formula, Real Presence), he prefaces his teaching by affirming: “For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you…” (I Cor 11:23). St. Paul says again: “For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received” (1Cor 15:3). In these and other verses, St. Paul emphasizes that we must believe and practice only what we have “received” from Christ and the apostles which has been “delivered” unto us, and which includes the liturgical rites of the Church. This is a divinely revealed truth and a matter of Faith.

The Church has taught this divine truth throughout her history. For example, in the Papal Oath of Coronation, which originates at least as far back as Pope St. Agatho in 678 A.D. (and which was set aside by Paul VI), every Pope swore to change nothing of the “received tradition.” Pope Pius IV’s Tridentine Profession of Faith, which is binding on the souls of all Catholics, likewise expresses this principle by requiring adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.” The “received and approved rites of the Church” originate from the Spirit of Christ and the traditions of the apostles which have been handed down to us through the ages.
Because the “received and approved rites” are part of the Church’s infallible expression of the unchanging Deposit of Faith, as inspired and nurtured by the Holy Ghost, they cannot be set aside or changed into new rites. This is why the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) infallibly declared:

“If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.”

Because the Council declares anathema (that is, condemned, or severed from the Body of Christ) anyone who would set aside or change into new rites the already “received and approved rites” of the Church, proves that adherence to the “received and approved rites” is a matter of Divine Law. The absolute necessity to preserve the substance of the Church’s ancient liturgical rites is a requirement of the Faith because the rites preserve and express that Faith. To hold that the Church’s rites can change implies a belief that the Church’s doctrines can change, because the rites preserve and express the doctrines. Hence, those who do not preserve the Church’s rites (by omitting or changing them) are objectively anathema because they sin against the Faith itself.
In light of the foregoing condemnation, the Holy Council of Trent directed that the Roman Missal be restored so that the faithful would know once and for all what is the “received and approved rite” of Mass. To that end, Pope St. Pius V issued his papal bull Quo Primum Tempore to legally codify “the decrees of the Holy Council of Trent” and render a definitive application of the Divine Law dogmatized by the Council. This judgment mandated a single usage of the Roman rite for the Latin Church, with some minor exceptions for usages greater than 200 years old, “in order that what has been handed down by the most holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the rest of the churches may be accepted and observed by all everywhere.” Hence, the sainted Pope declared the oft-called “Tridentine Mass” to be the “received and approved rite” of the Church, and which precluded the creation of any “new rite” of Mass in the future. Further, because Quo Primum is an infallible application of Divine Law (that is, we must use only the “received and approved rites”), St. Pius V rightly declared the decree to be irreformable and valid forever.
This brings us to the inevitable and troubling question: Is the Novus Ordo a “new rite” of Mass that comes under the anathema of the Council of Trent, as definitively interpreted by St. Pius V in Quo Primum? The name of the rite itself (Novus Ordo which means “new order” or “new ordinary” of the Mass) certainly suggests the same. More importantly, so do the words of Pope Paul VI. In his November 19, 1969 General Audience address, Paul VI refers to the Novus Ordo as a “new rite” of Mass several times, for example: “We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass.” He also says, “In the new rite you will find the relationship between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist...”
We also consider the statements of the members of Paul VI’s liturgical commission that created the New Mass, such as the secretary and head of the commission, Fr. Annibale Bugnini, who said: “It is not simply a question of restoring a valuable masterpiece, in some cases it will be necessary to provide new structures for entire rites…it will truly be a new creation.” Bugnini’s assistant, Fr. Carlos Braga, also stated that the New Mass has “an entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology” and whose “ecumenical requirements” are “in harmony with the Church’s new positions.” Fr. Joseph Gelineau, one of the most influential members of the commission, also said: “To tell you the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists.” Therefore, both Paul VI and his appointed authors of the Novus Ordo admitted that the New Mass is not the rite “received” from tradition, but rather a rite created by innovation – an entirely unprecedented act in the history of the Church.
But we should not rely on these statements alone. While they may reveal the intent of the innovators, it is still necessary to look at the substance of the Novus Ordo rite itself. As we have seen, the Council of Trent and St. Pius V intended to preserve the substantial identity of the Roman rite forever. If the New Mass does not preserve this identity, then it cannot be considered the “received and approved rite” of the Catholic Church no matter what anyone says. Even the Second Vatican Council, which did not (and could not) mandate the creation of a new rite of Mass, recognized this truth by directing that the rites “be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition” with “due care being taken to preserve their substance.”
The Council of Trent’s condemnation of omitting or changing the “received and approved rites” into “new rites” is best understood by referring to one of the oldest maxims of the Church’s sacred theology: “legem credendi statuit lex orandi.” This is a Latin phrase which means “the rule of prayer determines the rule of faith” (often referred to as “lex orandi, lex credendi”). In other words, the way we pray determines what we believe. If a liturgical tradition which expresses a doctrine of the Faith is altered or removed altogether, the underlying doctrine will necessarily be compromised. This is why the “received and approved rites” must be faithfully preserved and never transformed into “other new ones” as declared by Trent.

…… However, the Novus Ordo Missae deviates from the Roman Missal of St. Pius V to such an extent that it no longer retains the substantial identity of the Roman rite. Even before the introduction of such abuses as audible canons, vernacular and versus populum (toward the people) celebrations, lay ministers, Communion under both species, Communion in the hand to standing communicants and the like, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci advised Paul VI that “the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” Consequently, Cardinal Ottaviani (who, as head of the Holy Office, was responsible for safeguarding the doctrine of the Faith), in his famous intervention, concluded that the Novus Ordo was indeed a different rite of Mass.
For example, Ottaviani says: “To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division – a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith – is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error.” He also says, “It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever.” Accordingly, Ottaviani appealed to Paul VI “not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the integral and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness, and so deeply venerated by the whole Catholic world.” Therefore, both the critics and the creators of the New Mass, including Paul VI himself, agree that the Novus Ordo differs in substance from the Tridentine Missal and, hence, constitutes a “new rite” of Mass.

John Salza, J.D., The Novus Ordo Mass and Divine Law, excerpt from Catholic Family News

He failed on two occasions, 1942 & 1952, to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as our Lady requested! He contributed his share in liturgical destruction by establishing the liturgical commission under Bugnini in 1948 and having Bea, his personal confessor, undertake a new Latin translation of the Psalms.

“I am concerned about the messages of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that the alteration of the Faith, in its liturgy, its theology, and its soul, would represent. I hear around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments, and make her remorseful for her historical past.”

Pope Pius XII, 1933

And now, addressing the “false prophets that exploit fear and hopelessness to sell magical formulas of hate and cruelty,” Pope Francis again insults the Catholic Faith as known and practiced by all our forefathers!

COMMENT: Pope Francis often referenced St. Vincent of Lérins as if his understanding of Tradition is in accord with that of the great Church Father. It most certainly was not which is evident to anyone familiar with his writings. This corruption can only be attributed to malice. Francis the Lutheran and St. Vincent the Catholic did not profess the same Faith and only one of them is the Faith without which it is impossible to please God. Francis characterized faithfulness to the revelation of God as “rigidity” which was itself attributed to deeper psychological and moral failings of traditional Catholics. “Love is not rigid,” claimed Francis while he counseled the overthrow of God’s commandments, but St. John the Apostle of Love and devotee of the Sacred Heart reports a very different Gospel of Jesus Christ:

· If you love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15

· If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’ s commandments, and do abide in his love. John 15:10

· He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. John 14:21

· Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. John 14:23

· In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. 1 John 5:2

· And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. 1 John 2:3

Love is never lax or slothful in its pious attention to duty. The laxism and sloth of Pope Francis was because without Faith, he had no true love of God.

Leo the Homosexual following in the way of Francis the Homosexual.

Pictured below is Leo and Francis both greeting homosexual "married" couples for public photo-ops. The other pictures are Francis and Leo both slumming around with the pervert James Martin.

The Vatican is in the hands of the Homosexual Lobby. We must pray to God to purge His Church of this gross perversion.

Preaching to the DEAF!

You gather here today, present-day apostles, as the Church and, therefore, the world stand perched on the edge of a cliff. And yet you who are entrusted with the keeping of souls choose to speak not a word of the spiritual danger which abounds. Today we stand on the cusp of all that has been prophesied about the Church and the abominations which would come forth in these times, a time when all of hell attacks the Church of Jesus Christ, and a time when the fallen angels of hell no longer seek entry into her sacred halls but instead stand inside, peeking out of her windows and unlocking doors to welcome in more diabolical destruction.

Do you not know that Our Lord will send forth His avenging angels to heap coals of fire upon the heads of those who were called to be His apostles and who have not guarded what He has given unto them?

And yet almost all of you, my brothers, stood by silently watching as the Synod on Synodality took place, an abomination constructed not to guard the Deposit of Faith, but to dismantle it, and yet few were the cries heard from you – men who should be willing to die for Christ and His Church.

The Synod’s final document has been released, yet with the sleight of hand which is so characteristic of the Francis-controlled Vatican. By drawing attention to the issues which worried many, they have slipped in what was always their real goal without anyone even noticing. What they were after in the first place was the dismantling of Christ’s Church by replacing the structure of the Church as Our Lord instituted it with a diabolically-inspired new structure of “synodality” which in actuality is a new church that is in no way Catholic.

Bishop Joseph Strickland, former bishop of Tyler, TX who was removed from his office by Pope Francis the Diabolical for preaching Catholic truth, addressing the U.S. bishops gathered at their annual meeting

Latae sententiae crimes in the external forum require a determination of guilt!

“A sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entail such a penalty.”

Pope Benedict XIV, De syndod, X, I, 5

COMMENT: Recently a group of young men and women missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) were doing their required missionary work in central city York. A friendly theological discussion took place on the steps of our Mission chapel. The friendly exchanged ended and the climate cooled when the question about the exact number of Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's wives was brought up. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ founded one Church. They believe that that Church became corrupted and God abandoned it. God then, centuries later, reconstituted His Church when the angel Moroni lead the illiterate Joseph Smith to a hidden book and provided him with mystical spectacles permitting him to read it. When you ask a Mormon how is it that Jesus Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of time and taught that marriage is between one man and one woman until death, why is it that they believe Joseph Smith or Brigham Young and not believe Jesus Christ? They answer by walking away. Jesus Christ uses the metaphor of marriage to describe His relationship with His Church and with each of the faithful individually. Every man-made heretical and schismatic sect eventually repudiates marriage because they cannot abide the metaphor. Luther permitted bigamy. The Orthodox permit divorce and remarriage three times. Joseph Smith had "up to forty wives" and Brigham Young had "fifty-six wives, twenty-one had never been married before; seventeen were widows; six were divorced; six had living husbands; and the marital status of six others is unknown. Nine of his wives had previously been plural wives of Joseph Smith, and Young was sealed to them as a proxy for Smith" (WIKI). The first clue to the Mormons that they were being lead into a spiritual desert was polygamy but some like the desert. Mormons claim that Brigham Young saw the light and abandoned the practice for the Latter Day Saints but this occurred only after the U.S. government told they to give it up or get out. Although Mormons are no longer polygamists, they permit divorce and "temple" remarriage which is just serial polygamy. These "missionaries" now know that Jesus Christ did not abandon His Church and will not do so no matter how corrupt churchmen become. The Catholic Church alone offers the possibility of salvation.

It’s Official: Mormon Founder Had Up to 40 Wives...

Mormon leaders have acknowledged for the first time that the church’s founder and prophet, Joseph Smith, portrayed in church materials as a loyal partner to his loving spouse Emma, took as many as 40 wives, some already married and one only 14 years old.... The biggest bombshell for some in the essays is that Smith married women who were already married, some to men who were Smith’s friends and followers.

Religious Liberty from Vatican II has its root in the Americanist Heresy

On every side the dread phantom of war holds sway: there is scarce room for another thought in the minds of men. The combatants are the greatest and wealthiest nations of the earth; what wonder, then, if, well provided with the most awful weapons modern military science has devised, they strive to destroy one another with refinements of horror. There is no limit to the measure of ruin and of slaughter; day by day the earth is drenched with newly-shed blood, and is covered with the bodies of the wounded and of the slain. Who would imagine as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock, all of the same nature, all members of the same human society? ....We implore those in whose hands are placed the fortunes of nations to hearken to Our voice. Surely there are other ways and means whereby violated rights can be rectified. Let them be tried honestly and with good will, and let arms meanwhile be laid aside.

Benedict XV, Ad beatissimi apostolorum, November 1, 1914

“We consider the establishment of our country’s independence, the shaping of its liberties and laws, as a work of special Providence, its framers ‘building better than they knew,’ the Almighty’s hand guiding them. We believe that our country’s heroes were the instruments of the God of nations in establishing this home of freedom; to both the Almighty and to His instruments in the work we look with grateful reverence. And to maintain the inheritance of freedom which they have left us, should it ever–which God forbid—be imperiled, our Catholic citizens will be found to stand forward as one man, ready to pledge anew ‘their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.’”

Archbishop (soon to be Cardinal) James Gibbons, addressing the American bishops at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, 1884 attended by 14 archbishops and 61 bishops.

Moved to the very depths of our hearts by the stirring appeal of the President of the United States, and by the action of our national Congress, we accept whole-heartedly and unreservedly the decree of that legislative authority proclaiming this country to be in a state of war. Inspired neither by hate nor fear, but by the holy sentiments of truest patriotic fervor and zeal, we stand ready, we and all the flock committed to our keeping, to cooperate in every way possible with our President and our national government, to the end that the great and holy cause of liberty may triumph and that our beloved country may emerge from this hour of test stronger and nobler than ever. Our people, as ever, will rise as one man to serve the nation.

Pledge of U.S. Catholic Archbishops, April 18, 1917; sent to President Woodrow Wilson by Cardinal James Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, the leading Catholic prelate in the United States.

“The primary duty of a citizen is loyalty to country. It is exhibited by an absolute and unreserved obedience to his country’s call.”

Cardinal James Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), April 1917 in support of the U.S. declaration of war against Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Balfour Declaration agreement committed the British to deliver Palestine into Jewish hands in return for the Jews bringing the United States into WWI in support of the British. Cardinal James Gibbons was the chief propagator of the heresy of Americanism which became settled Novus Ordo doctrine after Vatican II (religious liberty) primarily by the work of Fr. John Courtney Murray who greatly admired Cardinal Gibbons. Gibbons did his best to align American Catholics with Jewish interests to bring the United States into the Great War. In doing so Gibbons worked directly to undermine the peace plans of Pope Benedict XV. Pope Benedict devised a generous peace plan and contacted Cardinal Gibbons to do what he could to influence the United States government to back his offer of a negotiated peace. Gibbons did nothing of the sort. While giving lip service to the Pope's peace plan six months too late, he in fact never contacted President Wilson or any official of the government to even mention Pope Benedict's peace plan. Gibbons was too busy building the National Catholic War Council (NCWC) and supporting the call of universal military service. The purpose of the NCWC as Gibbons said in a letter to all American bishops was to form “the mental and moral preparation of our people for the war.”

To Congar's credit, he at least told the truth about what he helped destroy!

“It cannot be denied that the Declaration on Religious Liberty does say materially something else than the Syllabus of 1864; it even says just about the opposite of Propositions 15 and 77 to 79 of this document..... I collaborated on the final paragraphs which left me less satisfied. It involved demonstrating that the theme of religious liberty was already contained in Scripture. Now, it isn't there.”

Cardinal Yves Marie Joseph Congar, O.P., forbidden to teach by the Church and whose books were suppressed in the early 1950s, made a peritus at Vatican II by Novus Ordo St. John XXIII, and is considered by many to have been the most influential of all the periti. He was raised to the cardinalate by Novus Ordo St. John Paul II. He rejected the dogmatic teaching of Trent which his teacher and mentor, Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu, O.P., derisively called “Baroque theology”.

Excerpts from the Diary of Msgr. Joseph Fenton:

· “He [Cardinal Ottaviani] remarked that we were on the eve of the Council, and that no one knew who the Council’s theologians were to be.” (Sept. 28, 1962)

· “It is a crime that we did not take the Anti-Modernist Oath. Poor O[ttaviani] must have failed to have our own profession passed by the central commission. It contained his condemnation of [Fr. John Courtney] Murray [the Americanist heretic who structured the Council teaching on Religious Liberty].” (Oct. 9, 1962)

· “I had always thought that this council was dangerous. It was started for no sufficient reason. There was too much talk about what it was supposed to accomplish. Now I am afraid that real trouble is on the way.” (Oct. 13, 1962)

· “I started to read the material on the Liturgy, and I was shocked at the bad theology. They actually have been stupid enough [to say] that the Church is ‘simul humanam et divininam, visibilem et invisibilem’ [at the same time human and divine, visible and invisible]. And they speak of the Church working ‘quousque unum ovile fiat et unus pastor’ [until there be one fold and one shepherd], as if that condition were not already achieved.” (Oct. 19, 1962)

· “I do not think that any little work on our part is going to bring good to the Church. We should, I believe, face the facts. Since the death of [Pope] St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This present conciliar set-up makes this all the more apparent. [Fr.] Ed Hanahoe, the only intelligent and faithful member of [Cardinal] Bea’s secretariat has been left off the list of the periti. Such idiots as [Mgr. John S.] Quinn and the sneak [Fr. Frederick] McManus have been put on. [Fr. George] Tavard is there as an American, God help us. From surface appearance it would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church. The thoughts of many are being revealed. As one priest used to say, to excuse his own liberalism, which, in the bottom of his heart he knew was wrong, ‘for the last few decades the tendency in Rome has been to favor the liberals.’ That is the policy now. We can only do what we can to overt an ever more complete disloyalty to Christ.” (Oct. 19, 1962)

· “[Fr.] Ed Hanahoe gave me two books on Modernism. In one of them I found evidence that the teaching in the first chapter of the new schema on the Church [that became the Vatican II dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium] and the language are those of [the excommunicated Modernist Fr. George Tyrrell [who died outside the Catholic Church and was denied ecclesiastical burial]. May God preserve His Church from that chapter. If it passes, it will be a great evil. I must pray and act.” (Sept. 24, 1963)

Paul VI declared Novus Ordo Saint. So just what is a “Novus Ordo Saint”?

A Novus Ordo Saint is a man-made saint. Contrasted with Catholic saints who are God-made saints. In virtue of their union with God they are sanctified, and therefore, Catholic Saints exhibit heroic virtue in their lives. God confirms their sanctity by working miracles through their intercession and thus, a cult of veneration (dulia) develops and spreads throughout the Church. The Church recognizes God's evidence that they are saints and declares this fact to the universal Church. Contrary to this, Novus Ordo Saints are man-made saints and their elevation to the title of sainthood is for the purpose of promoting the human ideology exemplified in their lives. There is no real cult of veneration (dulia) among the faithful to Novus Ordo Saints. Since God does not work true miracles through the intercession of man-made saints, only man-made miracles are required for the beatification of man-made Novus Ordo Saints. Finally, the Novus Ordo beatification process does have a promotor fidei, the so-called “devil’s advocate,” although his role has been change as the promotor ideologiae. The greatest difference between Catholic Saints and Novus Ordo Saints is that the former are in heaven and the latter, very well may not be.

COMMENT ON THE MODERN MIND DEVOID OF GOD’S GRACE

“But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given [the common man] a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of tabloids and the profundities of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man's rubber stamp is the twin of millions of others, so that when these millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints. [...] The amazing readiness with which large masses accept this process is probably accounted for by the fact that no attempt is made to convince them that black is white. Instead, their preconceived hazy ideas that a certain gray is almost black or almost white are brought into sharper focus. Their prejudices, notions, and convictions are used as a starting point, with the result that they are drawn by a thread into passionate adherence to a given mental picture.”

Edward Bernays, from his book, The Minority Rules, 1927. Bernays was a Jewish double nephew of Sigmund Freud and a pioneer in public relations and propaganda. He was called "the father of public relations" in his obituary. Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life Magazine. He was the subject of a full-length biography called The Father of Spin (1999) and later an award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC called The Century of the Self. (Wiki)

"Pray for the conversion of Russia." Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima

Your must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the "Russian Revolution." It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators. We cannot state that all Jews are Bolsheviks. But: without Jews there would have been no Bolshevism. For a Jew nothing is more insulting than the truth. The blood maddened Jewish terrorists murdered sixty-six million in Russia from 1918 to 1957.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008), Noble Prize winning novelist, historian and victim of Jewish Bolshevism

American Catholic Apostasy: PEW POLE 2025

29% of U.S. Catholics say they attend Mass weekly.

59% of Catholics say abortion should be legal.

76% U.S. Catholics say society should be accepting of homosexuality.

61% U.S. Catholics support legal homosexual "marriage."

80% of Catholics view Pope Francis favorably.

84% of U.S. Catholics say they have a favorable view of Leo although 67% say they know little about Leo, and 25% know nothing at all.

Pope Leo XIV commemorates Nostra Aetate anniversary with interfaith celebrations

Catholic NewsAgency | Vatican City |Kridina Millare | Oct 29, 2025

Pope Leo XIV joined faith leaders on Tuesday to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the Church’s declaration on building relationships with non-Christian religions. 

Approximately 300 representatives of world religions and cultures joined the Holy Father for an evening ecumenical prayer service for peace organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio and held at the Colosseum in Rome.

“Peace is a constant journey of reconciliation,” the Holy Father said at the Oct. 28 event. 

Thanking religious leaders for coming together in Rome, he said their interfaith meeting expressed their shared “conviction that prayer is a powerful force for reconciliation.”

“This is our witness: offering the immense treasures of ancient spiritualities to contemporary humanity,” he said.

“We need a true and sound era of reconciliation that puts an end to the abuse of power, displays of force, and indifference to the rule of law,” he added. “Enough of war, with all the pain it causes through death, destruction, and exile!”  

In his remarks, the pope urged people not to be indifferent to the “cry of the poor and the cry of the earth” in their pursuits for peace in countries scarred by ongoing conflict and injustice.

“In the power of prayer, with hands raised to heaven and open to others, we must ensure that this period of history, marked by war and the arrogance of power, soon comes to an end, giving rise to a new era,” he said.

“We cannot allow this period to continue. It shapes the minds of people who grow accustomed to war as a normal part of human history,” he continued.

Pope Leo and other religious leaders lit candles to symbolize their shared prayer and renewed commitment to engage in interfaith dialogue.

Several people waved small blue banners with the word “peace” in different languages while Pope Leo and the other religious leaders lit candles to symbolize their shared prayer and renewed commitment to engage in interfaith dialogue.

After the prayer gathering at Rome’s iconic landmark, the Holy Father returned to the Vatican to join colorful celebrations jointly organized by the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue and the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity.

To mark the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, several multicultural music and dance performances were held inside the Vatican’s Paul VI Audience Hall as well as a presentation highlighting papal initiatives to promote the Church’s dialogue with other religions since the pontificate of Pope Paul VI.

Pope Leo’s appearance and special address toward the end of the two-hour gathering highlighted the Church’s reverence for all people and its desire to collaborate with others for the common good. 

“We belong to one human family, one in origin, and one also in our final goal,” he said. “Religions everywhere try to respond to the restlessness of the human heart.”

“Each in its own way offers teachings, ways of life, and sacred rites that help guide their followers to peace and meaning,” he said. 

Emphasizing the common mission shared among people of different religions to “reawaken” the sense of the sacred in the world today, the Holy Father encouraged people to “keep love alive.”

“We have come together in this place bearing the great responsibility as religious leaders to bring hope to a humanity that is often tempted by despair,” Leo said.

“Let us remember that prayer has the power to transform our hearts, our words, our actions, and our world,” he said.

COMMENT: Now for the third time in his short pontificate Leo/Provost quotes Leonard Boff's Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Boff is a former Franciscan priest who was censored by the liberal Cardinal Ratzinger when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the liberal JPII for his extreme Marxist liberation theology. Boff is famous for his development of an integrated theology of Marxism, Gaia cult earth worship and "social justice." He was admired by Francis/Bergoglio and he is admired thrice as much by Leo/Provost. The picture with its Satanic imagery was reportedly published by the Vatican. Leo/Provost, like Francis/Bergoglio, wants to restore native American culture and religious traditions. It should be remembered that Christopher Columbus encountered cannibalism on his second voyage of exploration and ritual murder was widespread not only among the Aztecs and Incas but in smaller tribes across both North and South America as reported by Jesuit missionaries. In the interfaith celebrations at the Vatican a young native American boy half dressed paraded an image of a snake into the assembly before Leo/Provost. Is this the native American tradition that the Vatican wants to recover?

---

Doctrinal Note on Marian titles: Mother of the faithful, not Co-redemptrix

The document of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Leo XIV, offers clarifications on titles applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and calls for special attention to the use of the expression, “Mediatrix of all graces.”

Vatican News

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on Tuesday, 4 November 2025, published Mater populi fidelis (“The Mother of the Faithful People”), a Doctrinal Note “On Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation.” Signed by the Prefect, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, and the Secretary for the Dicastery’s Doctrinal Section, Monsignor Armando Matteo, the Note was approved by the Pope on 7 October.

Mater populi fidelis (MPF) is the fruit of a long and complex collegial effort. It is a doctrinal document on Marian devotion, centred on the figure of Mary, who is associated with the work of Christ as Mother of believers. The Note provides a significant biblical foundation for devotion to Mary, as well as marshalling various contributions from the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, elements of Eastern tradition, and the thought of recent Popes.

In this positive framework, the doctrinal text analyses a number of Marian titles, encouraging the adoption of some of those appellations and warning against the use of others. Titles such as “Mother of Believers,” “Spiritual Mother,” “Mother of the Faithful” are noticed with approval in the Note. Conversely, the title of “Co-redemptrix” is deemed inappropriate and problematic. The title of “Mediatrix” is considered unacceptable when it takes on a meaning that excludes Jesus Christ; however, it can used appropriately so long as it expresses an inclusive and participatory mediation that glorifies the power of Christ. The titles “Mother of Grace” and “Mediatrix of All Graces” are considered acceptable when used in a very precise sense, but the document also warns of particularly broad explanations of the meaning of the terms.

Essentially, the Note reaffirms Catholic doctrine, which has always emphasised that everything in Mary is directed towards the centrality of Christ and His salvific work. For this reason, even if some Marian titles admit of an orthodox interpretation through correct exegesis, Mater populi fidelis says it is preferable to avoid them.

In his presentation of the Doctrinal Note, Cardinal Fernández expresses appreciation for popular devotion but warns against groups and publications that propose a certain dogmatic development and raise doubts among the faithful, including through social media. The main problem in interpreting these titles applied to Our Lady, he says concerns the way of understanding Mary's association with Christ's work of redemption (paragraph 3).

Co-redemptrix

Regarding the title “Co-redemptrix,” the Note recalls that “some Popes have used the title “without elaborating much on its meaning.” Generally, it continues, “they have presented the title in two specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished) or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross. The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons. Saint John Paul II referred to Mary as ‘Co-redemptrix’ on at least seven occasions, particularly relating this title to the salvific value of our sufferings when they are offered together with the sufferings of Christ, to whom Mary is united especially at the Cross” (18).

The document cites an internal discussion within the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which in February 1996 had discussed the request to proclaim a new dogma on Mary as “Co-redemptrix or Mediatrix of all graces.” Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was opposed to such a definition, arguing, “the precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. […] It is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.”

Later, in 2002, the future Benedict XVI expressed himself publicly in the same way: “The formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings… Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.”

The note clarifies that Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny the good intentions behind the proposal, nor the valuable aspects reflected in it, but nonetheless maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way” (19).

Pope Francis also expressed his clear opposition to the use of the title Co-Redemptrix on at least three occasions.

Tuesday’s Doctrinal Note concludes: “It is always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith. […] When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful” (22).

Mediatrix

The Note emphasises that “the biblical statement about Christ’s exclusive mediation is conclusive. Christ is the only Mediator” (24).

At the same time, MPF recognises “the fact that the word ‘mediation’ is commonly used in many areas of everyday life, where it is understood simply as cooperation, assistance, or intercession. As a result, it is inevitable that the term would be applied to Mary in a subordinate sense. Used in this way, it does not intend to add any efficacy or power to the unique mediation of Jesus Christ, true God and true man” (25).

Further, “it is clear that Mary has a real mediatory role in enabling the Incarnation of the Son of God in our humanity” (26).  

Mother of believers and Mediatrix of all graces

Mary’s maternal role “in no way obscures or diminishes” the unique mediation of Christ, “but rather shows its power […] Understood in this way, Mary’s motherhood does not seek to weaken the unique adoration due to Christ alone but, rather, seeks to enkindle it.”

Therefore, the Note states, “one must avoid titles and expressions that present Mary as a kind of ‘lightning rod’ before the Lord’s justice, as if she were a necessary alternative before the insufficiency of God’s mercy” (37b).

Thus, the title “Mother of Believers” “enables us to speak of Mary’s role in our relation to our life of grace”. However, MPF goes on to urge caution concerning the use of expressions that may convey “less acceptable notions” (45).

“Cardinal Ratzinger already affirmed” for example, “that the title ‘Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces’ was not clearly grounded in Revelation.” So, the Note continues, “in line with this conviction, we can recognize the difficulties this title poses, both in terms of theological reflection and spirituality” (45). In fact, “no human person — not even the Apostles or the Blessed Virgin — can act as a universal dispenser of grace. Only God can bestow grace, and he does so through the humanity of Christ” (53).

“Some titles, such as ‘Mediatrix of All Graces,’ have limits that do not favour a correct understanding of Mary’s unique place,” MPF explains, adding, “In fact, she, the first redeemed, could not have been the mediatrix of the grace that she herself received” (67).

Nonetheless, the Doctrinal Note acknowledges that “the term ‘graces,’ when seen in reference to Mary’s maternal help at various moments in our lives, can have an acceptable meaning. The plural form expresses all the aids — even material — that the Lord may grant us when He heeds His Mother’s intercession” (68).

COMMENT: Amazing to hear these apostates chirping about the lack of "precise meaning" of theological terms while obscurity in definition is, and has been since Vatican II, the calling card of the Novus Ordo theologian and prelates. They like to muddle what is clear. Let's start with the title, "Mother of Believers" and "Mother of the Faithful." These are, in fact, worthy titles of the Mother of God and frequently occur in St. Mary of Agreda's City of God, yet the Novus Ordo clerics would never be found offering a precise definition and meaning for the term "faithful" and then identify exactly who the "faithful" are.

The term "faithful" has a precise Catholic definition. It refers to those who have been baptized into the Catholic Church and profess the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith. By virtue of this incorporation by baptism they have become "children of God." They faithfully believe all the truths that God has revealed on the authority of God the Revealer. Only those who have become thus members of the Mystical Body of Christ share by participation in His divine nature and become brothers and sister of Jesus Christ and therefore, sons of His Mother. This definition excludes all heretics, schismatics, Jews, pagans, and any other form of idolaters. Novus Ordo clerics heretically teach that everyone is a child of God by virtue of the Incarnation. Everyone by nature is a creature of God created in His image and likeness with the spiritual soul with the powers of reason and free will, but every creature is born in original sin and cut off from the friendship of God. He is only a "child of God" in potentia. Without the sacrament of Baptism and the Catholic faith they can never become "children of God." This obscurity of definition as to who is a child of God and thus a child of the Blessed Virgin Mary ultimately obscures what is necessary as a necessity of means to obtain salvation.

The title Mediatrix of all grace is long established and of sound and precise theological understanding. Those that pretend otherwise are ignorant, proud, and deceitful. They have no excuse. 'The law of prayer determines the law of belief' is, as affirmed by St. Pius X in Pascendi, a canon of faith from the time of Celestine I, that is, a dogma of the Catholic Church. The immemorial Roman rite has a Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all grace celebrated on May 31 established by Pope Benedict XV. Regarding this feast, Dom Gaspar Lefebvre, O.S.B. of the Abby of St. Andrew teaches:

"The will of God is that we should have everything through Mary," says St. Bernard. The Father has sent us His Son, but His will was to make His coming depend upon the Fiat of the Virgin, which He commanded to the angel Gabriel to solicit on the day of the Annunciation.

The Father and the Son send us the Holy Ghost, but it is through Mary that He comes down to men. On the day of Pentecost, according to an ancient Tradition, the heavenly fire which descended on the Cenacle first rested on Mary, and then on the apostles. This is a figure of what happens every day in the Church where the Holy Ghost is sent invisibly into our souls. "All the gifts of the Holy Ghost are distributed by Mary to those whom she chooses, whenever she wishes and as much as she wishes," says St. Bernardine of Siena.

The graces which the Holy Ghost pours down on us are due to the merits of Christ on Calvary; but in order that God may bestow them on the world, it is necessary that Mary should intervene. Having cooperated by her divine maternity and by her sufferings at the foot of the Cross in the Incarnation and Redemption, she has deserved to co-operate when they are continually applied to creatures by the most High. "By the communion of sorrows and of will between Christ and Mary," says St. Pius X, "she has deserved to become the dispenser of all the blessings which Jesus acquired for us by His blood" (Encyclical 2-2-1904). Such is His will, but it is essential that she should constantly intercede for each one of us. This she does, relying on the blood of Christ by whom she was herself saved, and who alone saves us. This actual intervention of Mary plays a preponderating part in the salvation of the world. It is important that we should realize this, and it is the object of the feast of Mary Mediatrix of all Graces. A clear idea of the fact may be obtained by simple reading the texts of the Mass and Vespers.

"Through the Virgin," says St. Bernardine of Siena, "life-giving graces flow from Christ, who is the head, into His mystical body." "Through her," adds St. Antoninus, "come from heaven all the graces granted to the world." "What all the saints united to thee may obtain for us by their intercession," writes St. Anselm, "thy pleading alone may obtain without the help of their prayers." The maternal solicitude of Mary for the whole human race is therefore continual, and it is because of this that unceasingly, through the Mass, the sacraments, the hierarchy and other channels of grace, the merits of Calvary are applied to our souls. "We may affirm," declared Pope Leo XIII, "that by the will of God, nothing is given to us without Mary's mediation, in such a way that just as no one can approach the almighty Father but through His Son, so no one, so to speak, can approach Christ but through His Mother" (Encyclical, 9-22-1891).

Let us therefore not consider as of small importance the efforts made to establish this point of doctrine of Mary's mediation, since this doctrine enables us to understand the divine plan, and clearly manifests the mediation of the Son of God of which it is a corollary.

St. Mary of Agreda at the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, writes that Jesus Christ addressed the entire heavenly assembly of angels and saints saying:

"My Father and eternal God, this is the Woman, that gave Me my human form in her virginal womb, that nourished Me at her breast and sustained labors for Me, that shared in my hardships and co-operated with Me in the works of Redemption. This is She, who was always most faithful and fulfilled our will according to our entire pleasure; She, pure and immaculate as my Mother, through her own works, has reached the summit of sanctity according to the measure of the gifts We have communicated to Her; and when She had merited her reward and could have enjoyed it forever, She deprived Herself of it for Our glory and returned to attend to the establishment, the government, and instruction of the Church militant; and We, in order that She might live in it for the succor of the faithful, deferred her eternal rest, which She has merited over and over again. In the highest bounty and equity of our Providence it is just, that my Mother should be remunerated for her works of love beyond all other creatures; and toward Her the common law of the other mortals should not apply. If I have merited for all infinite merits and boundless graces, it is proper that my Mother should partake of them above all the others who are so inferior; for She in her conduct corresponds to our liberality and puts no hindrance or obstacle to our infinite power of communicating our treasures and participating them as the Queen and Mistress of all that is created."

Sanctifying grace is the created participation in the divine nature. The Blessed Virgin is the "Queen and Mistress of all that is created." In this Mass the Church prays:

" O Lord Jesus Christ, our Mediator with the Father, who hast appointed the most blessed Virgin, Thy mother, to be our mother also and our mediatrix before Thee: Grant that whosoever draweth nigh to Thee to beseech any benefit, may receive all things through her and rejoice.

Rev. Gregory Alastruey's theological work titled, The Blessed Virgin Mary, says that, "There are five principle titles and offices due Mary, the Mother of God, by reason of her cooperation in redemption: Mediatrix, Co-redemptrix, Mother of Christians, Patroness or Advocate, and Queen and Mistress of the universe. I would recommend those who deny this proper honor to the Mother of God obtain a copy of the book and have their stupidity erased. I do not say, ignorance erased because willful ignorance is stupidity. Fr. Alastruey affirms that "Mary is truly mediatrix of the human race and this doctrine pertains to the deposit of faith." He then draws from Scripture, the Fathers, and theologians in support of this truth. He proves from the Church Fathers that the word "mediatrix" was explicitly used by St. Ephrem, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil of Seleucia, St. Andrew of Crete, St Germanus of Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St Theodore, St. Antoninus and Denis the Carthusian. He draws richly from the divine liturgy from both Eastern and Roman traditions. The errors of the Protestant heretics are addressed and exposed which are curiously the same as expressed by the Novus Ordo popes.

Lastly, it is worth asking Why do the Novus Ordo popes hate these proper titles of the Mother of God? The answer is simple. The Blessed Virgin asked the three children at Fatima on June 13, 1917, "Are you willing to offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and of supplication for the conversion of sinners?" To which question all answered, "Yes, we are willing." The Mother of God said on July 13 after the children had seen a vision of Hell, "Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially whenever you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary." On August 19 (the apparition did not occur on the August 13 because the children were in prison) the Mother of God continued saying, "Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and to pray for them." The Blessed Virgin is asking the children to be co-redemptors and co-mediators of grace with her in union with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for the conversion and salvation of sinners. If the title of Co-Redemtrix and Mediatrix of all Grace can be taken away from the Mother of God then no one is responsible to do penance for their own sins or the sins of others. This falls back to the Protestant heresy on the dogma of justification and the very nature of our incorporation into the divine nature in the Mystical Body of Christ. Leo/Provost, like his predecessor Francis/Bergoglio, believes that proselytism is "solemn nonsense." They attack the titles to excuse their own faithless sloth. They are working to obscure the very means of salvation. As Jesus Christ said: "But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter" (Matt 23:13).

Pope Leo is just another heretic who denies the Blessed Virgin Mary her just titles of Mediatrix of all Grace and Co-Redemtrix. Only a few days ago, he celebrated with heretics, schismatics, Jews, Moslems, and a variety of idolaters a shared communion praying to their common god a united petition for peace in the world. He continues to ignore the peace plan offered by the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all Grace, at Fatima. Pope Leo will soon learn that those who insult the Mother have made an enemy of the Son.

This demonstrats the fruit of the “New Evangelization” - which is shameless apostasy!

Brazil: Catholic Church on the decline

Catholic Church loses followers to Evangelicals

Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Brazilians describing themselves as Catholics has dropped by 12.2%. This record fall brings the proportion of Catholics down to 65% – the lowest share since religious affiliations was first surveyed in 1872. In 2000, 74% of the population had classified themselves as Catholics.

Brazilian census: Catholic population falls to 57%

Catholic News Agency | Nathália Queiroz | Sao Paulo, Brazil, Jun 9, 2025

The percentage of Brazilians who identify as Catholic fell to 56.75% in 2022, a reduction of 8.4% compared with 2010, according to data from the 2022 demographic census released by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. [....]

“The Rosary is the most powerful weapon for defending ourselves on the field of battle.”

… The decadence which exists in the world is without any doubt the consequence of the lack of the spirit of prayer. Foreseeing this disorientation, the Blessed Virgin recommended recitation of the Rosary with such insistence. And since the Rosary is, after the holy Eucharistic liturgy, the prayer most apt for preserving faith in souls, the devil has unchained his struggles against it. Unfortunately, we see the disasters he has caused.

… We must defend souls against the errors which can make them stray from the good road. … We cannot and we must not stop ourselves, nor allow, as Our Lord says, the children of Darkness to be wiser than the children of Light … The Rosary is the most powerful weapon for defending ourselves on the field of battle.

Sr. Lucy of Fatima, Letter to Dom Umberto Pasquale

“Necessity Knows No Law”

In 1976, the head of the UGCC, Cardinal Josef Slipyj, living in exile in Rome after 18 years in the Soviet gulag, feared for the future of the UGCC. Would it have bishops to lead it, given that Slipyj himself was now over 80? So he ordained three bishops clandestinely, without the permission of the Holy Father, Blessed (sic) Paul VI. At the time, the Holy See followed a policy of non-assertiveness regarding the communist bloc; Paul VI would not give permission for the new bishops for fear of upsetting the Soviets. The consecration of bishops without a papal mandate is a very grave canonical crime, for which the penalty is excommunication. Blessed (sic) Paul VI—who likely knew, unofficially, what Slipyj had done—did not administer any penalties.

Fr. Raymond J. DeSouza

John Henry Newman: A Novus Ordo Saint and, fittingly, a Doctor of the Novus Ordo Church

"I see much danger of an English Catholicism of which Newman (Cardinal John Henry Newman) is the highest type. It is the old Anglican, patristic, literary, Oxford tone transplanted into the Church. It takes the line of deprecating exaggerations, foreign devotions, Ultramontanism, anti-national sympathies. In one word, it is worldly Catholicism."

Cardinal Manning, Primate of England, Letter to Monsignor Talbot, written in 1866, the second year of his reign as archbishop

Salvation by “Implicit” Faith?

But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him. Heb. 1, 6

Of course charity itself is impossible without faith and hope. Could anyone love a man if he did not believe it was possible to be or become his friend? Or if he despaired of ever gaining his friendship? So it is with man in relation to God as He is in Himself. Man must believe it is possible to attain a perfect friendship with God in Heaven and he must hope to attain this friendship through God’s power before he can love God as his supernatural destiny.

Fr. Walter Farrell, O. P. and Fr. Marin Healy, My Way of Life – The Summa Simplified for Everyone

Looming ahead is the Great Apostasy predicted by St. Paul to the Thessalonians when the Antichrist, “the man of sin” (2 Thess. 2: 3), will engage mankind in wholesale flight from God and reality. From him can be expected perfect acquiescence to the three temptations by which the devil failed to seduce Christ in the desert. Turning stones into bread by substituting false teaching for true doctrine, he will confirm the satanic religion by false miracles, (that is “lying wonders”), as it were casting himself down from the pinnacle of the temple to be borne up by spiritual hands. Given “all the kingdoms of the world and all their glory” (Matt. 4: 8-9) in return for falling down and adoring Satan, Antichrist the King will establish a universal empire in the fallen angel’s name. Aping as closely as possible Christ’s consummation of the law and the prophets, he will capitulate in his person the whole of the world’s apostatic tradition.

Solange Strong Hertz, Apostasy in America

The Reason the Message of LaSalette is Rejected or Unknown? They Are NOT 'Her People'!

It was 1846 and France was suffering social and political upheaval. Catholic churches had been abandoned and the Sacraments neglected… On the eve of the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, eleven-year-old Maxim Giraud and fourteen-year-old Melanie Mathieu beheld a luminous sphere, radiating like the sun, curiously unfolding before their eyes. Gradually they made out a woman seated with her face in her hands, weeping. She slowly arose and crossed her arms on her breast, her head some what inclined.

The children were drawn immediately to the lady's tears that adorned her face like perfectly cut diamonds glimmering the in the sun's rays. Her dynamic features were framed delicately in a white-satin headdress, on which rested a crown of roses, a bouquet in all shades of reds and pinks. A crucifix with pincers on one end and a hammer on the opposite end hung over her satin shawl, which was lined with more roses. The Madonna wore a long ivory dress embroidered in precious pearls and a yellow apron tied neatly to her waist. Wearing pearl slippers that peeked out from underneath her satin robe, she sheltered herself atop a bouquet of roses.

"Come to me, my children," she tenderly addressed the two who stood afar, motionless. "Be not afraid. I am here to tell you something of the greatest importance."

As soon as they were in touching distance of her, she began to speak with the urgency of an ending world:

"If my people will not obey, I shall be compelled to loose my Son's arm. It is so heavy, so pressing that I can no longer restrain it."

She told the children that her Son was especially concerned that people were not keeping holy Sunday, and that religion had lost its place in their country…. "You will make this known to all my people; you will make this known to all my people," she repeated to them. Solange Hertz, Our Lady of LaSalette

"It is a sin to believe there is salvation outside the Catholic Church!"

Blessed Pope Pius IX

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic, and Roman : unique, the Chair founded on Peter. Outside her fold is to be found nether the true faith nor eternal salvation, for it is impossible to have God for a Father if one does not have the Church for a Mother.

Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem

The Great Error of Vatican II –

The “pastoral” blunder that there exists a disjunction between Divine Revelation and Dogma

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously….. the authentic doctrine… should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character. Pope John XXIII, Opening Speech for Vatican II

Peace Plan of Our Lady of Fatima

1. WHAT DOES THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA REQUEST?

At Fatima Our Lady said that God wished to establish in the world devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Our Lady said that many souls would be saved from Hell and the annihilation of nations averted if, in time, devotion to Her Immaculate Heart were established principally by these two means:

A. the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope together with the world's bishops in a solemn public ceremony, and

B. the practice or receiving Holy Communion (and other specific devotions of about 1/2 hour in duration) in reparation for the sins committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary, on the first Saturdays of five consecutive months--a practice known to Catholics as "the First Saturday" devotion.

2. HAVE THESE REQUESTS OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA BEEN HONORED?

No, not entirely. A number of the Faithful practice the "First Saturday" devotion, but Russia has yet to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in a solemn public ceremony conducted by the Pope together with the world's Catholic bishops.

In 1982 the last Fatima seer, Lucia, when a cloistered nun living in Coimbra, Portugal, was asked if an attempted consecration by Pope John Paul II had sufficed. She replied that it did not suffice, because Russia was not mentioned and the world's bishops had not participated. Another attempted consecration in 1984 likewise did not mention Russia or involve the participation of many of the world's bishops, and Sister Lucia stated immediately afterwards that this consecration, too, had failed to meet Our Lady's requirements.

3. WHAT DOES THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA WARN?

It warns that if the requests of Our Lady of Fatima for the Consecration of Russia and the First Saturday devotion are not honored, the Church will be persecuted, there will be other major wars, the Holy Father will have much to suffer and various nations will be annihilated. Many nations will be enslaved by Russian militant atheists. Most important, many souls will be lost.

4. WHAT DOES THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA PROMISE?

The Message of Fatima promises that if the requests of Our Lady of Fatima are carried out "My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will Consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to mankind."

The United States is, as much as Israel, guilty for the Genocide of the Palestinian People.

“I love Israel. I’m with you all the way...... Thanks to the bravery and incredible skill of the Israeli Defense Forces and Operation Rising Lion, the forces of chaos, terror, and ruin now stand weakened, isolated, and totally defeated.”

“The story of fierce Israeli resolve and triumph since October 7 should be proof to the entire world that those who seek to destroy this nation are doomed to bitter failure.”

President Donald Trump, addressing the Israeli Knesset with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

“Donald Trump is the greatest friend that the State of Israel has ever had in the White House. No American president has ever done more for Israel, and, as I said in Washington, it ain’t even close. It’s really not a match.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing Israeli Knesset with President Trump

"It is sentiments like these (from President Trump) – backed by a long list of pro-Israel actions over two terms, including moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, recognizing Jewish claims in Judea and Samaria for a 'Greater Israel', brokering the Abraham Accords, striking Iran alongside Israel, decapitation strikes against Iranian and Hamas peace negotiators, and directly supporting the Israeli genocide of Gaza with over $30 billion direct aid, billions more in indirect air with military, intelligence, logistical and political support both in the United States and at the United Nations including censorship in mainstream media and suppression of free speech at college campuses."

Catholic political commentary

“For the Jews, ‘Anti-Semitism’ is anything that is in opposition to the naturalistic Messianic domination of their nation over all the others.”

Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., B.A., D.Ph., D.D.

On the Charge of Anti-Semitism in Our Time

“…Two reasons can be assigned to the fact that Our Lord’s faithful members will often be betrayed by those who should be on the side of Christ the King. Firstly, many Catholic writers speak of Papal condemnations of Anti-Semitism without explaining the meaning of the term, and never even allude to the documents which insist on the Rights of Our Divine Lord, Head of the Mystical Body, Priest and King. Thus, very many are completely ignorant of the duty incumbent on all Catholics of standing positively for Our Lord’s Reign in society in opposition to Jewish Naturalism. The result is that numbers of Catholics are so ignorant of Catholic doctrine that they hurl the accusation of Anti-Semitism against those who are battling for the Rights of Christ the King, thus effectively aiding the enemies of Our Divine Lord. Secondly, many Catholic writers copy unquestioningly what they read in the naturalistic or anti-Supernatural Press and do not distinguish between Anti-Semitism in the correct Catholic sense, as explained above, and ‘Anti-Semitism’ as the Jews understand it. …”

Fr. Fahey’s Preface in Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked: As the Secret Power Behind Communism by Monsignor George F. Dillon, D.D.

Jews have hated & persecuted the Catholic Church from the time of Jesus Christ to this very day!

[The Jews are] a people who, having imbrued their hands in a most heinous outrage [Jesus’ crucifixion], have thus polluted their souls and are deservedly blind. . . . Therefore we have nothing in common with that most hostile of people the Jews. We have received from the Savior another way . . . our holy religion. . . . On what subject will that detestable association be competent to from a correct judgment, who after that murder of their Lord . . . are led… by. . . their innate fury?

Council of Nicaea, 325 AD

Jewish Power is inversely proportional to the spiritual health of the Catholic Church

“Jews should not be placed in public offices, since it is most absurd that a blasphemer of Christ should exercise power over Christians.”

Fourth Lateran Council

Good Night, Sweet Princeton! By Fr. Leonard Feeney, 1952

Maritainism is a system of thought which allows Catholics to be both Catholic and acceptable in the drawing rooms of Protestant and Jewish philosophers. Maritainism is not a seeking and a finding of the Word made flesh. It is a perpetual seeking for un-fleshed truth in an abstract scheme called Christianity. Maritainism is the scrapping of the Incarnation in favor of a God Whose overtures to us never get more personal or loving than the five rational proofs for His existence. This plot to encourage only pre-Bethlehem interest in God takes its name from its perpetrator, that highly respected religious opportunist, Jacques Maritain.

The slightest acquaintance with Maritain’s history is sufficient to indicate how awry he must be in his Catholicism. He is a former Huguenot who married a Jewish girl named Raïssa. During their student days in Paris, both Jacques and Raïssa felt a double pull in the general direction of belief. Intellectually they were attracted to the religious self-sufficiency of a Jewish intuitionist named Henri Bergson. Sociologically they were attracted to the spurious Catholicism of Leon Bloy, a French exhibitionist who made a liturgy of his own crudeness and uncleaness and tried to attach it to the liturgy of the Church. At some point in their association with an unbaptized Bergson and an unwashed Bloy, the Maritains figured out that there was a promising future ahead of them in Catholicism.

Jacques Maritain is noted for his solemn-high, holier-than-thou appearance. For this reason, more than one priest reports that by the time a Maritain lecture is over, any priest who is present has been made to feel that the Roman collar is around the wrong neck and that perhaps he, the priest, ought to put on a necktie and kneel for Maritain’s blessing.

One explanation of Maritain’s distant expression is that he fancies himself to be the Drew Pearson of the Christian social order. Judging by Maritain’s passion for the abstract, the fulfillment of all his prophecies will come in an era when mothers can sing such songs as “Rock-a-bye Baby, on the Dendrological Zenith,” and children recite such bedtime prayers as “The Hail Mariology.”

Jacques Maritain prefers Thomism to Saint Thomas Aquinas and, similarly, he much prefers the notion of the papacy to the person of the Pope. He could not, however, turn down the prestige of an appointment as French ambassador to the Vatican. Maritain went to Rome, but he protected himself against over exposure to Italian faith by visits to Dr. George Santayana. In Maritain, Santayana recognized a brother, the kind of European intellectual cast-off that is annually being grabbed-up by American Universities.

That Jacques Maritain should now be found preaching at Princeton University is not so strange. It did not require too much insight on Princeton’s part to see that a Catholic who hates Franco, speaks at Jewish seminaries, and favors “theocentricity” in place of Jesus, would be a bizarre, but harmless, addition to anybody’s faculty club.

Perhaps Princeton realized also that a Catholic’s admirers are a good measure of his militancy. Among Maritain’s more prominent sympathizers are John Wild, Charles Malik and Mortimer Adler (N.B. Adler was converted and received into the Catholic Church in 1999 only 18 months before he died at 98 years of age), who are, respectively, an Anglican, a Greek schismatic, and a Jew. Naturally Maritain could not insult intellectuals like these by telling them that although they are outside the Church they can get into Heaven because of their “invincible ignorance.” It was necessary that Maritain concoct a new way of getting around the dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.”

After a lot of abstract deliberation, Maritain decided that a man could be “invisibly, and by a motion of his heart, a member of the Church, and partake of her life, which is eternal life.” According to Maritain’s new covenant, the important salvation-actions in our world are no longer a head bowed to the waters of Baptism, a hand raised in Absolution, a tongue outstretched to receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. “A motion of his heart,” says Maritain, is all that is required before a man may partake of eternal life.

The Sacred Heart might have saved Himself a lot of inconvenience had He only known this, one Friday afternoon on Calvary.

COMMENT: Jacques Maritain was Paul VI’s favorite philosopher. Maritain's reputation as a great philosopher is based on his supposed integration of the Scholastic principles of St. Thomas with the modern world. He had a world-wide reputation and following that extending beyond his native France to hold visiting professorships at Princeton and the University of Chicago, as well as a visiting lecturer at Notre Dame, Yale, Harvard, and the University of Toronto. Pope Paul VI publicly confessed his profound respect and influence by Maritain’s thought on his Credo of the People of God (1968). At the close of the Second Vatican Council on December 8, 1965, the pope’s “Address to Men of Thought and Science” was dedicated to his “dear friend and mentor, Jacques Maritain.” Pope Paul offered Maritain a cardinal’s hat, but the philosopher declined it. Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom—Dignitatis Humanae—which teaches that the dignity of man is so exalted that he possesses the inalienable right to neither conform his mind to God’s revealed truth nor obey God’s commandments, drew as its inspiration Maritain’s book Man and the State (1951) which is an articulation of the language of “rights” that Dignitatis Humanae employs.

“By their fruit you shall know them!”; & by their fruit you had better well know them!

For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his (Satan's) ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works.

II Corinthians 11:13-15

The order of divine justice exacts that whosoever consents to another's evil suggestion, shall be subjected to him in his punishment; according to II Peter 2:19: "By whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave."

St. Thomas Aquinas

The proper literal understanding of this dogma from the Council of Trent:

Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

The Dogma defines two revealed doctrinal truths:

1. If anyone says: that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says: that without the sacraments or (if anyone says) without the desire of the sacraments men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, let him be anathema.

Both the Sacrament of Baptism and the will to receive the Sacrament are necessary for salvation!

“But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.” St. Fulgentius

“If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no avail: Baptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed.” St. Fulgentius

Notice, both the CONFESSION AND THE BAPTISM are necessary for salvation, harkening back to Trent’s teaching that both the laver AND the “votum” are required for justification, and harkening back to Our Lord’s teaching that we must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit.

In fact, you see the language of St. Fulgentius reflected in the Council of Trent.  Trent describes the votum (so-called “desire”) as the PATH TO SALVATION, the disposition to Baptism, and then says that “JUSTIFICATION ITSELF” (St. Fulgentius says “SALVATION ITSELF”) follows the dispositions in the Sacrament of Baptism.

Yet another solid argument for why Trent is teaching that BOTH the votum AND the Sacrament are required for justification.

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the Devil and his angels.” St. Fulgentius

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.’” Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino

Ladislaus, CathInfo

We will see the same from Pope Leo!

The end of dialogue is to produce opinion. The purpose of logical argument is to appeal to the intellect to arrive at truth. Rhetoric appeals to the will and poetry to the imagination. The emphasis of the Novus Ordo Church since Vatican II on dialogue is therefore a repudiation of any claim to truth offering in its place only the opinions of churchmen. It is the debasement of Jesus Christ’s gospel from Truth to just another opinion, from historical fact to mythology. It is only incidental that Novus Ordo Church, having turned its back against the truth, has also turned away from rhetoric and poetry which explains why it is both effeminate and ugly.

“The Church will have to opt for dialogue as her style and method, fostering an awareness of the existence of bonds and connections in a complex reality. . . . No vocation, especially within the Church, can be placed outside this outgoing dynamism of dialogue . . . . [emphasis added].”

Pope Francis’ Instrumentum Laboris, XV ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF SYNOD OF BISHOPS: YOUNG PEOPLE, THE FAITH AND VOCATIONAL DISCERNMENT

And thus, the 'spirit of Vatican II' - dialogue so that everyone can reach an accomodation of error and the repudiation of logical argument appealing to truth!

“Don’t proselytize; respect others’ beliefs. We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: ‘I am talking with you in order to persuade you,’ No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing.”

Pope Francis 

Explicit Supernatural Faith in God’s Revealed Truth is Necessary as a Necessity of Means for Salvation.

If you do not believe this, you do not possess Supernatural Faith!

Responses of the Holy Office under Pope Clement XI, 1703:
Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.
Resp. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Q.  Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this passage of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder' [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, according to the capacity of the one to be baptized.”

COMMENT: The infamous 1949 Holy Office Letter, sent privately to Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston for the purpose of censoring Fr. Lenard Feeney for his belief in the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, affirmed the novel doctrine of 'salvation by implicit desire'. The "implicit desire" was to be a "member of the Church" and the evidence of this "implicit desire" was an explicit belief in a 'god who rewards and punishes'. The Letter teaches that the only requirement for salvation is found in St. Paul's Letter to the Hebrews 11:13. No longer were the belief in any revealed truth, the reception of any sacrament, or being a subject of the Roman Pontiff necessary as necessities of means for salvation. This Letter teaches that any "good-willed" Jew as a Jew, Hindu as a Hindu, Mohammedan as a Mohammedan, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., etc. can be members of the Church and can obtain salvation because they believe in a 'god who rewards and punishes'. The Holy Office response of 1703 makes it clear that the belief in a God who rewards and punishes is only the natural philosophical prerequisite for receiving the gospel good-news of salvation and of itself is insufficient grounds for receiving the sacrament of Baptism.

After 40 Years of Dialogue, Rabbi identifies papal “conundrum.”

The real conundrum that faces Benedict XVI on his visit to Israel… is should he be loyal to the Gospels which claim that only acceptance of Christ can bring the messianic age, or should he endorse Vatican II which acknowledges that Jews… can find the kingdom of God via a different route? Should he look inwards, backwards or forwards?

Rabbi Jonathan Romain, The Pope’s Jewish Dilemma, The Guardian

There is yet a time of stillness and indifference. Liberalism is a twilight state in which all errors are softened, in which no persecution for religion will be countenanced. It is the stillness before the storm. There is a time coming when nothing will be persecuted but truth, and if you possess the truth, you will share the trial.

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Archbishop of Westminster

---

Pope Leo calls for unity in climate action on 10-year anniversary of Laudato si’

Pope Leo XIV appealed to all of humanity to unite, overcome differences, and work together to respond to climate change and ecological destruction

The Tablet | Aili Winstanley Channer | 02 October 2025

He was speaking to climate activists and religious leaders commemorating the ten-year anniversary of the encyclical Laudato si’ at Castel Gandolfo yesterday.

It was the opening of the three-day “Raising Hope for Climate Justice” conference organised by the Laudato si’ Movement in collaboration with ecclesial and institutional partners. Pope Leo reiterated Pope Francis’ concern about “those who deride climate change” in the 2023 Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum, and asserted, “there is no room for indifference”.

He asked, “What must be done now to ensure that caring for our common home and listening to the cry of the earth and the poor do not appear as mere passing trends or, worse still, that they be seen and felt as divisive issues?”

Attendees at the conference include Christine Allen of Cafod. Bishop John Arnold, the lead bishop for the environment for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said, “Pope Leo reminded us that Pope Francis had emphasised that ‘the most effective solutions will not come from individual efforts alone, but above all from major political decisions on the national and international levels’. More than ever, we need to work together, to think of future generations, and take urgent action if we are to truly respond to the scale of this climate crisis: a crisis which affects those who are poorest and most vulnerable and have done least to cause it.”

This view reflects Pope Leo’s call for ecological conversion at all levels of society, including by strengthening democracy: “Citizens need to take an active role in political decision-making at national, regional and local levels. Only then will it be possible to mitigate the damage done to the environment.”

Pope Leo was joined by Marina Silva, Brazil’s minister of the environment and climate change and the head of the United Nations Global Ethical Stocktake, an initiative to foster societal reflection on ethical responsibility for climate change ahead of the 2025 UN Conference of Parties (COP30), which will be held in Belem, Brazil, in November. Pope Leo expressed his hope that COP30 and other upcoming international summits “will listen to the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor, families, indigenous peoples, involuntary migrants and believers throughout the world”.

But Pope Leo also emphasised that although these challenges are “of a social and political nature”, they are “first and foremost of a spiritual nature: they call for conversion”. He reaffirmed the spiritual importance of caring for the Earth as God’s creation and its inseparability from our responsibility towards the poor and vulnerable: “We cannot love God, whom we cannot see, while despising his creatures. Nor can we call ourselves disciples of Jesus Christ without participating in his outlook on creation and his care for all that is fragile and wounded.”

The film star Arnold Schwarzenegger, known for his roles in high-profile action films as well as his climate activism as Governor of California and head of the Schwarzenegger Climate Initiative, spoke alongside Pope Leo and called him an “action hero” for his message on the environment. Pope Leo smiled as he began his address. He affirmed the crucial and diverse contributions made to mitigating the crisis by every individual at the conference: “There is indeed an action hero with us this afternoon: it is all of you, who are working together to make a difference.”

As he closed, he said: “God will ask us if we have cultivated and cared for the world that he created, for the benefit of all and for future generations, and if we have taken care of our brothers and sisters. What will be our answer?”

---

Pope Leo XIV Blesses Huge 20,000-Year-Old Chunk Of Greenland Ice

Forbes | Leslie Katz | Oct 06, 2025

Pope Leo XIV stood on stage at a climate conference in Rome last week and laid his right hand on a massive chunk of ice, blessing it.

This wasn’t just any ice. It had broken off the vast Greenland Ice Sheet, a key regulator of global climate that’s shrinking quickly as it melts due to climate change. The resulting rise in global sea levels could flood many tens of millions of homes, scientists warn.

Danish-Icelandic artist Olafur Eliasson transported the ice to the Raising Hope Conference with the help of Danish geologist Minik Rosing to serve as a stark symbol of how quickly the world’s glaciers are disappearing.

“Lord of life, bless this water,” the pope said after touching the dripping ice. “May it awaken our hearts, cleanse our indifference, soothe our grief and renew our hope through Christ our lord.”

Eliasson is known for his installation art using light, water, and air. Eliasson called it “striking” to witness the pope bless the 20,000-year-old piece of Greenlandic glacial ice. “We felt the presence of the fragile ice underscored the importance of recognizing that nature is not separate from humanity,” the artist wrote on Instagram.

COMMENT: Pope Leo, celebrating the 10th anniversary of Laudato si', the earth worshiping encyclical of Pope Francis, blessed a block of Ice to counteract the diabolical forces of global warming striking a grave and focused posture that was in marked contrast to the stupidity of the gesture. The act says a lot more about Leo than it does about climatology. Leo, like Francis, is believer in the pagan Gaia cult of Mother Earth worship. Leo refers twice in his sermon to the "Cry of the Earth, the Cry of the Poor." Leo took this phrase from Francis' Laudato si' and Francis took the quote without attribution from Leonard Boff's Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Boff is a former Franciscan priest who was censored by the liberal Cardinal Ratzinger when he headed the CDF under the liberal JPII for his extreem Marxist liberation theology. Boff is famous for his development of an integrated theology of Marxism, Gaia cult earth worship and "social justice." He was admired by Francis and he is admired twice as much by Leo.

If the ice block is 20,000 years old then the Genesis creation account and the global flood of Noe is reduced to mythology and not divine revelation. The fact is, ancient mythology ended with the Christian revelation of Jesus Christ but the modern scientific world is doing its best to resurrect the cult of mythology. The world likes to talk about the scientific fables of Big Bang, primordial soups with lightening bubbling forth proteins that congeal into cellular life with the teleological purpose of producing the DNA of Darwinian man. These fables are believed and shamelessly pandered by our neo-modernists popes. The absurdity is that the neo-modernists popes have embraced the myths of scientology when science itself has discredited their claims. Scientists have been predicting global flooding of coastal areas for the last fifty years with no evidence of rising sea levels. Global warming is not science. It is liberal ideology applied to climatology that always calls for a one-world governance to enforce its dictatorial and anti-Catholic mandates. The alleged global warming is always without exception a man made assault on Mother Earth that requires the ritual murder of 6.5 billion people for a world "sustainable" population of 500 million for expiation. Never is it considered in their calculus that the increase of global temperature would make available millions of more acres of arable land and lengthen the growing season in millions of additional acres creating a massive increase in the food supply and areas of habitable land. Scientists have no idea whatsoever if global warming, if it is in fact happening at all, would have overall beneficial or harmful effects. While Pope Leo is a resident in Rome he might ask what became of Rome's ancient Port City of Ostia which was at the time of Jesus Christ located directly on the sea at the mouth of the Tiber River. It is today three kilometers from the coast. Citizens of Ostia may have lost their beach front property but they are not under water.

Exsurge Domine - USA; Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

The Association Exsurge Domine is committed to provide assistance, support and material aid for clerics, religious and consecrated persons who are victims of the Bergoglian Regime. It is of highest importance to act, to defend the immutable Tradition of the Catholic Faith, to preserve and promote the Apostolic Mass, and to save Christendom. In this decisive moment, we must choose to counter evil, or be swallowed up by its most pestilent breath. Only those who fight as the Maccabee’s did shall merit victory.

DEFENDE ECCLESIAM TUAM

In many nations that are no longer Catholic-such as England, Germany or the Netherlands, for example-you can still see small chapels carved out of attics and cellars, or home altars hidden in invisible closets or niches: they were used for the clandestine celebration of Mass in times of persecution, when it was a crime to be faithful to the Church of Rome and priests had to hide to avoid imprisonment or the death sentence. Without going back to Diocletian, even in the 16th and 17th centuries “papists” were considered a threat, and were barely tolerated as long as they had no churches, convents, seminaries, or schools.

These persecutions are recurring today, in perhaps a less bloody form, and the perpetrators are not Lutherans or the thugs of Olivier Cromwell, but Cardinals, Bishops and Prelates of the Conciliar sect, infiltrated into the Vatican and well determined to wipe out all traces of the “old religion” and the “old Mass” that they have replaced with the religion of ecology, of welcome, of inclusiveness, of the New World Order.

The apostasy we are experiencing is not very different from that of the bishops who swore allegiance to Henry VIII in order not to lose rents and benefits: the difference is that today the act of obedience is required toward Bergoglio, the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo, the “synodal church,” Pachamama.

Those who do not yield, those who remain faithful to the Priesthood or Religious Vows are ostracized, mocked, vilified, persecuted and above all deprived of ministry, a dwelling place and means of livelihood. Without mercy, without charity, without humanity.

Exsurge Domine is the response of those who do not surrender to this betrayal of the modernist Hierarchy: it joins us to our brothers of past ages, to the faithful who gave hospitality to the monk wanted by the soldiers of Elizabeth I, a hot meal to the nun with no convent left in revolutionary France, a hiding place to the Mexican priest pursued by the soldiers of the Masonic government. We can help those persecuted priests, religious men and women who in anonymity, silence, and humble acceptance of trials show us the suffering face of Christ ascending Golgotha.

Let us therefore prove that we know how to accompany the Faith we profess with good works, with prayer, with charity and almsgiving. For these priests, these friars, these nuns can stop the arm of divine Justice and give hope for the future in our children.

“Exsurge Domine – USA”

Address: PO Box 121, Rice Lake, WI 54868

Email: info@exsurgedomineusa.org

501(c)3 approved Tax Code: 93-3884604

---

EXCERPT: The Vatican has been covering-up the crimes of homosexual pederasts since 1922 but the practice became actively enforced policy since 1962!!!

The total payouts by the Catholic Church for sex abuse claims in the United States have exceeded $5 billion over the past two decades with almost all of this for homosexual crimes.

FROM FORGIVENESS, TO SILENCE... TO BETRAYAL, By Michael Kenny

THE FEAR OF SCANDAL: A DEEPENING MOTIF

As the Church gained public visibility and institutional structure, the fear of scandal – that is, anything that could bring shame or doubt upon the Church – grew proportionally. This concern is not without biblical foundation. Apparently Christ Himself warned that:

“Scandals must come, but woe to the one through whom they come.”

In a world where the Church was often maligned, the temptation to protect its reputation – even at the cost of truth – grew strong.

This approach reached its most formal expression in the 20th century.

CRIMEN SOLICITATIONIS: CODIFYING SECRECY

In 1962, the Vatican issued a secret instruction titled CRIMEN SOLICITATIONIS. Which laid out procedures for dealing with priests accused of using the confessional to solicit sexual acts (an update of canon 904 in 1741). While its original focus was on confessional abuse – a particularly grievous offense – it extended its protocols to cover ALL sexual misconduct by clergy, including child abuse.

This document mandated strict secrecy:

“Cases of this nature are subject to the strictest pontifical secret – under pain of excommunication.”

This meant the victims, witnesses, and Church authorities were all bound by silence, ostensibly to protect the sacrament and the dignity of the Church. But in practice, this secrecy protected the perpetrators and silenced the victims.

The same theological instinct that once prompted Origen to counsel forgiveness now found its legal expression in institutional concealment.

The Church fathers were not wrong to value forgiveness. But forgiveness without justice is not sanctity – it is surrender. And the Church must never surrender the innocent to the sins of the powerful.

THE COST OF MISAPPLIED MERCY

What unites the early Christian response to personal violation with the institutional culture of silence centuries later is a tragic misapplication mercy – a prioritizing of the Church's image, or of the offender's soul, over the immediate demands of justice and the protection of the innocent.

In the name of forgiveness, the Church failed to act.

In the name of avoiding scandal, it created a greater one.

In the name of unity, it tolerates wolves among the sheep.

The very teachings of Christ – meant to uphold truth, protect the weak, and heal the broken – were twisted into realizations for secrecy and inaction.

TOWARD A NEW ETHOS OF ACCOUNTABILITY

The path forward must involve more than policy reform. It requires a re-examination of the Church's spiritual instincts – a return to the full Gospel, where mercy and justice walk hand in hand.

Forgiveness does not mean the abandonment of truth.

Compassion does not mean the protection of the predator.

The Church must rediscover the moral courage to expose evil, even when it dwells in its own house.

EPILOGUE: A WAR ON INNOCENCE

There is a deeper layer to this crisis. Darker than secrecy. Worse than betrayal. It is diabolical.

Satan hates God. This hatred is total, consuming and unrelenting. But Satan can't hurt God directly – God is beyond his reach. So he strikes where it hurts most: at what God loves – CHILDREN.

Jesus told us to let the children come to Him. Jesus warned about the millstone. So, what then is a perfect way for Satan's followers to do his bidding and please him, and hate God at the same time... 

VIOLATE A CHILD, and do it wearing the robes of Christ

In this perverse inversion of the priesthood, the altar becomes a hunting ground, and the confessional, a trap. [....]

COMMENT: The problem was magnified in the 1983 Code of Canon Law protecting homosexual predators. Their hypocrisy is evident when compared to the treatment given to Fr. Samuel Waters. Homosexual predators are given the full canonical rights of due process while Fr. Waters was denied canonical due process for the "crime" of offering the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass.

COMMENT: From the 1917 Code of Canon Law, clerical homosexual predators and other sex offenders who were found guilty were laicized and turned over to the state for suffer criminal penalties. Such a response was necessary to restore justice, protect the faithful, and begin the hard work of rebuilding. Everything changed in 1922 with a new canon law which required all bishops of the world to violate mandatory reporting laws of the state by concealing child abuse and homosexuality by clerics from criminal state law enforcement. This document, Crimens Sollicitationis, was included in the 1983 Code of Canon Law and remained in force until 2001.

Abp. Vigano the former apostolic nuncio to the United States was required first by Crimens Sollicitationis and then by Sacramentum Sanctitatis Tutela of 2001 and then by Graviora Delicta of 2010 to conceal any knowledge of sexual crimes by clergy from public disclosure. The “Spotlight” investigation of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in 2002 revealed that many clerics found guilty of child sexual abuse were repeatedly returned to Catholic ministry where they repeated their crimes on new children. Following this investigation, the United States was the only country that received an exemption from the Vatican policy to conceal sexual abuse from state criminal law enforcement.

Canon 1341 of the current 1983 Code of Canon Law, requires bishops whenever possible to ask priests to stop committing crimes, instead of punishing them for their actions. What is perhaps worse, Canon 1324 in the 1983 Code is used to decrease punishment for pedophiles on the grounds that pedophiles have less freedom than non-pedophiles to control their perverse passions. Thus, a diagnosis of pedophilia lessens culpability and imputability of the crime of pedophilia. As a result, bishops have concluded pedophiles should receive a lesser punishment for pedophilia than other sex offenders.

The SSPX follows the 1983 Code and has used it cover up sexual offenders within the SSPX. This includes the former district superios in the United States for the SSPX, Fr. Arnaud Rostand who was sentenced to a French prison after conviction of homosexual pederasty in France, Spain and Switzerland against seven boys on scouting trips between 2002 and 2018. The purpose of this is not detraction of the SSPX but to point out an ugly fact that every faithful Catholic should be aware of when receiving their sacraments, attending their schools or participating in their supervised camps and other summer activities. They as an organization follow the Vatican policy to cover up any crimes of sexual abuse of children.

"Only the Prudent man can be brave."

Josef Pieper

Pro-abortion Sen. Durbin says he’s ‘overwhelmed’ by Pope Leo’s apparent defense of his award

‘It is amazing to me. It’s quite a moment,’ Durbin said about Pope Leo appearing to support the pro-abortion and pro-LGBT senator’s ‘lifetime achievement award’ from Cdl. Blase Cupich.

LifeSiteNews | Emily Mangiaracina | Oct 2, 2025 — Pro-abortion Senator Dick Durbin said he is “overwhelmed” by Pope Leo XIV’s apparent support for his “lifetime achievement award” from Cardinal Blase Cupich.

Leo on Tuesday appeared to imply that he was not opposed to Cupich’s decision to give the award to the radically pro-abortion and pro-LGBT Durbin, when asked about the matter by a journalist.

“I think that it is very important to look at the overall work that a senator has done during … 40 years of service in the United States Senate,” he stated. “I understand the difficulty and the tensions but I think, as I myself have spoken to in the past, it is important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the Church.”

“Someone who says I’m against abortion but says I’m in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life. Someone who says I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro-life,” Leo then said. He went on to conclude, “So, they are very complex issues, I don’t know if anyone has all the truth on them.”

On the same day Leo appeared to defend Sen. Durbin receiving the lifetime award from Cupich, the pro-abortion politician announced that he will decline the award from the Archdiocese of Chicago after facing a strong backlash, including criticism from several U.S. bishops.

Durbin told NBC News he was surprised by “the level of controversy” over the award, and that he declined it “because the reaction has been so controversial against the cardinal who proposed it, and I see no point in going forward with that.”

Commenting on the pope’s defense of his award, Durbin said, “It is amazing to me. It’s quite a moment. I didn’t expect it. I didn’t know it was gonna happen.”

As the Lepanto Institute has pointed out on X, Durbin’s award violates the very laws of Cupich’s archdiocese. Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield has affirmed, “The U.S. bishops have clearly taught that support for abortion disqualifies individuals from receiving honors from Catholic institutions.”

Durbin’s award, and Leo’s failure to denounce his award, is even more shocking considering that since his election to the U.S. Senate in 1997, Durbin has supported every possible brutal method of abortion, as well as even post-abortion infanticide: He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

He also supported legislation aimed at codifying and expanding Roe v. Wade – the “Women’s Health Protection Act” – despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that it was unconstitutional.

COMMENT: Pope Leo is defending the pro-abortion Sen. Durbin while at the same time slandering faithful Catholics. His appeal to the 'seamless garment,' subsequently called the "consistent ethic of life," is grounded on the Vatican II novelty that the dignity of the human person is so great that he is not obligated to believe the truths that God has revealed or obey the commandments God. The novelty was developed by his Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago in 1984 who was a notorious and clever homosexual who did as much damage to the Church as the notorious Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. To say as Leo has that Catholics who oppose abortion are not really pro-life if they do not oppose the death penalty for convicted murderers is to claim that a murderer has a greater right to life than his victim. As for opposing unjust wars the homosexual crowd and their liberal Catholic supporters have done precious little over the last 35 years.

Vatican Council I listing the beneficial Fruits of the Council of Trent which are in every detail exactly the opposite which we have seen from Vatican Council II

Now this redemptive providence appears very clearly in unnumbered benefits, but most especially is it manifested in the advantages which have been secured for the Christian world by ecumenical councils, among which the council of Trent requires special mention, celebrated though it was in evil days.

Thence came:

1. a closer definition and more fruitful exposition of the holy dogmas of religion and

2. the condemnation and repression of errors; thence too,

3. the restoration and vigorous strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline,

4. the advancement of the clergy in zeal for

· learning and

· piety,

5. the founding of colleges for the training of the young for the service of religion; and finally

6. the renewal of the moral life of the Christian people by

· a more accurate instruction of the faithful, and

· a more frequent reception of the sacraments. What is more, thence also came

7. a closer union of the members with the visible head, and an increased vigour in the whole Mystical Body of Christ.

Thence came:

1. the multiplication of religious orders and other organisations of Christian piety; thence too

2. that determined and constant ardour for the spreading of Christ’s kingdom abroad in the world, even at the cost of shedding one’s blood.

While we recall with grateful hearts, as is only fitting, these and other outstanding gains, which the divine mercy has bestowed on the church especially by means of the last ecumenical synod, we cannot subdue the bitter grief that we feel at most serious evils, which have largely arisen either because

o the authority of the sacred synod was held in contempt by all too many, or because

o its wise decrees were neglected.

First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith, listing some of the manifold beneficial fruits from the Council of Trent!

Regarding the Sin of Schism and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

There are no manifest acts of schism with one and only one important exception which will be identified below. This means there are no acts that are necessarily always and everywhere evidence of a schismatic motive in the internal forum excepting one. Contrasted, for example, with abortion and blasphemy which are acts that are manifest sins because they can never be done with a morally right intention; the act itself reveals the intent of the internal forum as being vicious. These are always and everywhere necessarily mortal sins. As St. Paul says, "Some men's sins are manifest, going before to judgment: and some men they follow after" (1Tim 5:24). St. Paul gives specific examples of "manifest sins": "Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind (sodomites), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:10). What exactly is the schismatic motive that a contentious canonical process must discover for conviction and attribution of imputability of the crime?

The canonical definition for both heresy and schism are taken directly almost verbatim from St. Thomas Aquinas: "Schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy." Schism is the repudiation of the universal jurisdiction of Sovereign Pontiff and communion with those who accept it. It is the burden of the canonical trial to prove the schismatic intention for all schismatics are disobedient to the Sovereign Pontiff but not all who are disobedient to the Sovereign Pontiff are schismatics. St. Thomas' in his examination identifies schism as a specific species of sin. St. Thomas says, "Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit." The genus to which schism belongs is acts opposed to peace which is the fruit of "that unity which is the effect of charity." Regarding peace, St. Thomas continues: "Peace implies a twofold union... The first is the result of one's own appetites being directed to one object; while the other results from one's own appetite being united with the appetite of another: and each of these unions is effected by charity." All acts that disturb the fruit of peace are directed against the cause of peace which is charity."

Acts of disobedience against properly constituted authority are only acts of schism when the intention is to overturn the peace of unity caused by charity. This intention constitutes the species difference of schism from other acts opposed to peace, as St. Thomas says, the schismatic "intends to separate himself from the unity that charity makes" (Q.39, a.1.) among the faithful. St. Thomas is offering an essential definition of schism which is the best of all definitions because it is the most intelligible because it identifies the essence. Schism, just as other acts opposed to peace enumerated by St. Thomas, which include discord, contention, war, strife and sedition, requires contextualization. Specifically for the case of Archbishop Viganò, St. Thomas says that morality of contention, which is the opposition to another in speech, is determined by the intention: "As to the intention, we must consider whether he contends against the truth, and then he is to be blamed, or against falsehood, and then he should be praised." Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's "contention" against Pope Francis is the contention of truth against falsehood and is therefore praiseworthy and not schismatic. This is why a canonical trial is called "contentious" for it is intended to reveal who is contending for truth.

The poles of contention are truth-falsehood which is the same for dogmas of faith. As St. Jude admonishes: "I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). Schism is the rejection of the divinely revealed truth of papal universal jurisdiction, a dogma of faith since Vatican I. Schism is manifested by disobedience but all disobedience is not schism. Obedience to God is unqualified. All other acts of obedience are morally good only to the degree that they are properly regulated by the virtue of Religion which is the primary subsidiary virtue under Justice. Any act of obedience that violates the virtue of Religion is a sin. The virtue of Religion above all requires that we "give unto God the things that are God's." This first and necessary act of obedience is to believe all that God has revealed and to keep his commandments. Without this first necessary condition, it is impossible to keep the greatest commandment to love God above all things and it is impossible to have "the unity that charity makes."

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was administratively "excommunicated" for "schism" because the administrative process avoided the canonical requirement to prove that his intent was to "separate himself from the unity that charity makes" among the faithful. They denied the right of Archbishop Viganò to defend himself in a contentions forum against the charge which would obviously have included discussing the heretical acts of Pope Francis which are manifest. The ultimate purpose of the canonical process is to determine truth and bring those who have deviated from truth back from error. But for many the contention itself irrespective of truth or falsehood is the manifest evidence of schism. The reason for this will become clearer after discussing the relationship in the context of faith and charity, and heresy and schism.

Schismatics "refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff" because they deny that the pope possesses universal jurisdiction conferred by God for the legitimate exercise of the papal office which produces unity and peace. Universal jurisdiction of the pope is a divinely revealed truth that was dogmatized at Vatican I Council. St. Thomas says:

"Heresy and schism are distinguished in respect of those things to which each is opposed essentially and directly. For heresy is essentially opposed to faith, while schism is essentially opposed to the unity of ecclesiastical charity. Wherefore just as faith and charity are different virtues, although whoever lacks faith lacks charity, so too schism and heresy are different vices, although whoever is a heretic is also a schismatic, but not conversely."

Since the universal jurisdiction of the pope has become a dogma at Vatican Council I, a schismatic is now also conversely always a heretic. Importantly, faith precedes charity. "Without faith, it is impossible to please God" (Heb 11-6) because "whoever lacks faith lacks charity." The keys of universal jurisdiction were promised to St. Peter after his profession of faith which is its proximate material cause. Many Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, describe an analogical identity of the rock (petra) with divine faith, with St. Peter, with Jesus Christ the "cornerstone," and the Church itself. The faith proceeds and is the proximate cause of the universal jurisdiction conferred by Jesus Christ because faith is indispensible to the bond of unity which is charity. Cardinal Henry Edward Manning wrote:

“The interpretation by the Fathers of the words ‘On this rock; etc. is fourfold, but all four interpretations are not more than four aspects of one and the same truth, and all are necessary to complete its full meaning. They all implicitly or explicitly contain the perpetual stability of Peter’s faith...:’

“In these two promises [i.e. Lk 22:32, Mt 16:18] a divine assistance is pledged to Peter and to his successors, and that divine assistance is promised to secure the stability and indefectibiity of the Faith in the supreme Doctor and Head of the Church, for the general good of the Church itself.”

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, “The Vatican Council and Its Definitions: A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy”, p. 83-84, 1870

All this is nicely summed up by St. Paul who admonishes "that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called; With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:1-5). The primary and essential cause and sign of the unity in the Church is the faith. The pope is only secondarily and accidentally the sign and cause of unity in the Church. If the pope falls from the faith he is to be confronted as St. Paul did to St. Peter when he "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel" and accommodated the Judaizers leading others into "dissimulation" (Gal. 2:11). If the pope is a heretic he "lacks faith (and) lacks charity". Without charity he breaks the bond of unity in the Church and necessarily becomes schismatic. Manifest Heresy is the one and only sin that identifies a schismatic because it manifests a schismatic intent.

Tikkun olam (Hebrew תיקון עולם, literally, 'repair of the world') is a concept in Judaism, often interpreted as aspiration to behave and act constructively and beneficially. Documented use of the term dates back to the Mishnaic period (ca. 10-220 AD), (that is, the time when the oral traditions of the Jews were committed to the written form in the Mishna, also called the Oral Torah). Since medieval times, kabbalistic literature has broadened use of the term. In the modern era, among the post-Haskalah (Jewish enlightenment, 1770-1880) movements, tikkun olam is the idea that Jews bear responsibility not only for their own moral, spiritual, and material welfare, but also for the welfare of society at large. For many contemporary pluralistic rabbis, the term refers to "Jewish social justice" or "the establishment of Godly qualities throughout the world". Wikipedia

COMMENT: Jews repeatedly since the time of Jesus Christ are the passionate creators and principle instigators of ideological movements conceived as necessary for the moral and material improvement of political and social order. When one after the other proves to be a political and social failure, it is simply dropped and they move on to another. They recognize a ‘fall from grace’ because they recognize the ‘world needs to be repaired.’ Since they have rejected Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos, the eternal Wisdom of the Father, they have rejected His divine plan for the ‘repair of the world’ and in its place offer what Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. described as “Organized Naturalism” in opposition to the Supernatural Order of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that whoever is not working for God is working for the Devil. There is no middle ground. As Jesus said, “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth” (Matthew 12:30).

Where Tikkun Olam can lead

OPINION: Stalin’s Jews

We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish

Israel News | ynetnews | Sever Plocker

Here's a particularly forlorn historical date: More than 100 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka. 

Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB. 

We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags. 

Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.

In his new, highly praised book "The War of the World," Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University's Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally. 

Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined "terror officials," cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate. 

All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union's archives have not yet been fully opened to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD's and KGB's service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of "How could it have happened to us?" As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.

And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf."

Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book "Stalin: Court of the Red Star", Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.

Stalin's close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao's terror in China, did not move Kaganovich. 

Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist. 

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history. 

The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and "Soviet people." Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and "play dumb": What do we have to do with them? But let's not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things. 

Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of "our hangmen," who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.

“Don’t Jews still believe in a Messias to come?” asks the credulous Christian. “And don’t they believe in the same Biblical Heaven and Hell that we do?”

The answer to both these questions is — no. And it is an emphatic “No!” as the subsequent Jewish testimony will verify.

Concerning the Messias: The Jews of today reject the notion of a personal redeemer who will be born of them and lead them to the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. The Jews believe that the whole Jewish race is to be elevated to a position of prosperity and overlordship and that, when this happy day arrives (the Messianic Age), they will have achieved all that is coming to them by way of savior and salvation. In his recent book, The Messianic Idea in Israel, Jewish theologian Dr. Joseph Klausner explains: “Thus the whole people Israel in the form of the elect of the nations gradually became the Messiah of the world, the redeemer of mankind.”

Concerning Heaven and Hell: A succinct summary of Jewish teaching on “life after death” was given in the May, 1958 issue of B’nai B’rith’s National Jewish Monthly. Under the caption, “What Can A Modern Jew Believe?” there appeared: “Judaism insists that ‘heaven’ must be established on this earth. The reward of the pious is life and happiness in this world, while the punishment of the wicked is misery on earth and premature death … By hitching its star to the Messianic future on this earth, Israel became the eternal people.” The article goes on: “The best Jewish minds have always held that a physical hereafter is a detraction from mature belief.” And the conclusion: “There is neither hell nor paradise, God merely sends out the sun in its full strength; the wicked are consumed by its heat, while the pious find delight and healing in its rays.”

Fr. Leonard Feeney, MICM, The Point, October 1958

Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò: Replies to the claim that obedience is unqualified even when the faith itself is in question!!
NON SEQUITUR
Further Clarifications in Response to the Reply of Prof. Daniele Trabucco
I can only agree with almost everything that Professor Trabucco has stated in response to my comment [1]. As he writes at the Duc in Altum blog [2]:

A saint who obeys a disciplinary measure that is unjust but not contrary to faith (as in the case of Padre Pio) performs an act of heroic self-denial, because he recognizes that even in harshness and iniquity, a command does not break the bond with the revealed deposit of faith. The situation, however, is different when an ecclesiastical authority commands something that contradicts faith: in that case, the order is no longer authentically disciplinary but is transformed into a deviation that strikes at the very rationale of the authority. Here, refusal is not rebellion, but fidelity.

Given that this principle is valid – and which I agree with sine glossa – I find it difficult to accept as valid the exception that Trabucco adds immediately afterwards:

However […] such refusal can never translate into schismatic acts, nor into attitudes that cause public scandal. For if it is true that discipline and faith complement each other, it is equally true that discipline, as a visible order, also serves to preserve the unity of the Church. And unity is part of the supernatural common good of the Mystical Body. Therefore, the truth of faith cannot be defended at the cost of tearing apart ecclesial communion.

It is true that “discipline, as a visible order, also serves to safeguard the unity of the Church. And unity is part of the supernatural common good of the Mystical Body.” But the unity achieved through obedience is the effect, not the cause, of the profession of the same Faith: the faithful are united in the Church under the authority of the Roman Pontiff because they believe the same doctrine, not the other way around. And this is the error that undermines Professor Trabucco’s argument on obedience. The refusal to obey an ecclesiastical authority, when that authority commands something that contradicts the Faith, cannot constitute an attack on unity, because it is the illegitimate order of the Superior that is schismatic and scandalous in nature, not the disobedience of the subject who remains faithful to God.
If the refusal to obey an illegitimate authority or order “is not rebellion, but fidelity”; if the Regula Fidei is the supreme principle that finds its rationale in the Truth coessential and consubstantial with God [3]; if obedience itself, as a moral virtue, is ordered toward the good and therefore toward the Truth – because Faith and discipline, as Professor Trabucco states, “though different in object, are united in purpose: the glory of God and the salvation of souls” – how can the Professor affirm: “Therefore, one cannot defend the truth of faith at the cost of tearing apart ecclesial communion”? Given an absolute principle, how is it possible to derogate from it with an exception that makes unity in obedience absolute while the Truth becomes relative and secondary to obedience?
In fact, just the opposite is true: ecclesial communion cannot be defended at the cost of tearing apart the Truth of the Faith, because it is obedience that is ordered to the Faith, and not vice versa [4].
I would add that anyone who contradicts, adulterates, or silences the Faith is the first to cause scandal, especially if he finds himself in the position of exercising coercive force as an ecclesiastical Superior over a priest or religious. It is the duty of every baptized person to defend and proclaim sound doctrine and to denounce anyone in authority who abuses it, causing grave scandal to the common people. They are rightly accustomed to obeying—instinctively, I would almost say—the authority of the Hierarchy and consider its deviation unthinkable under normal circuмstances. This is especially true for the priest subject to the jurisdiction of his Superiors and the sanctions they can impose: dutiful disobedience to an abusive and illicit order entails canonical sanctions for anyone who dutifully resists, as Trabucco hopes. This punishment of the disobedient is the scandal – not the act of denouncing the corruption of ecclesiastical authority. Just as it is a scandal that heretics, schismatics, corrupt individuals, and notorious fornicators are not prosecuted but rather encouraged, while anyone who denounces the crisis, identifies its causes, and identifies those responsible, who have fraudulently held power for sixty years and can abuse it at will, is declared schismatic and excommunicated.
The Communion of Saints—which is the archetype and model of ecclesial communion—is founded in God, who is Truth, not obedience. God is not obedient, because that would presuppose an authority superior to Him. The obedience of the Son—factus obœdiens usque ad mortem (Phil 2:8)—is a unity of will (idem velle) between the Three Divine Persons, without an internal hierarchical relationship between Them [5]. At the same time, God is the primary recipient of all obedience, because by obeying the Superiors to whom He has granted authority, we also obey God. But obedience cannot exist if the Superior who asks to be obeyed does not in turn recognize God’s authority over himself. Such obedience would accept the premise, even if only theoretical, of being able to disobey God in order to obey men, contravening the precept of Saint Peter (Acts 5:29) and making earthly authority self-referential and therefore potentially tyrannical. In this, the concept of synodality is shown to be absolutely subversive of the order willed by God, in that it tampers with the monarchical structure of the Church—on the model of Christ the King and Pontiff who is her Head—by placing sovereignty in the hands of “the people” (even if in reality, power, as in civil republics, is in the hands of an elite) and by affirming “that Christ wanted His Church to be governed in the manner of a republic.” [6]
Only universal submission to a true and good God makes obedience a sure means of sanctity for those who obey their Superiors. And this is why we have both reason and the Sensus Fidei: to discern when obedience is a virtuous act and when instead “it transforms into a deviation that strikes at the very rationale of authority.”
If Professor Trabucco recognizes the possibility that ecclesiastical superiors may issue orders contrary to Faith or Morals (a possibility confirmed by daily abuses of authority against traditional Catholics and the equally daily tolerance of unprecedented scandals), he must also acknowledge the possibility that subordinates may reject the illegitimate orders of their superiors. The Church’s hierarchical ladder allows for appeal to a higher authority when one finds oneself in conflict with another authority subordinate to it. But if the highest echelons of the hierarchical ladder—in this case, the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Dicasteries—are themselves implicated in a general subversion of the Faith (beginning with Leo’s recent declaration that “we must change attitudes” before we can change doctrine [7]), it is clear that hierarchical recourse is impracticable and that no earthly authority can remedy the disobedience of those who are Superiors.
In a nutshell: amidst the obvious general disobedience of Church Authority to God’s law at all levels, how can a priest or a simple believer subjected to this Authority remain obedient to it, if one is still bound to continue to obey God rather than men?
The true h0Ɩ0cαųst of the will that the mystics speak of is this: knowing how to be obedient unto death, even death on a cross, in obedience to God. But never, under any circuмstances, can one even imagine sycophantically obeying heretical and schismatic Superiors, for fear of shattering “with acts of a schismatic nature” the apparent unity of their church. Because the unity they claim is a simulacrum, a fiction, a grotesque imposture hiding the indifferentism of the synodal pantheon, which includes both the conservatives of Summorum Pontificuм as well as the LGBTQ+ progressives of James Martin, both Our Lady of Fatima as well as the Pachamama, the Mass of the ages along with the Novus Ordo. The only inalienable dogma is that everyone must recognize the Second Vatican Council: its ecclesiology, its morality, its liturgy, its saints and martyrs, and above all its excommunicated people and its heretics—that is, the “radical traditionalists” who refuse to be tamed by the new synodal demands. As for the rest of what we believe, Leo has explicitly said that one can safely gloss over it in the name of ecuмenical and synodal unity, including the Filioque of the Creed. But not Vatican II: it is the founding act of a church born in 1962 which claims the authority of the True Church, from whose Magisterium, however, it distances itself and opposes it.
We therefore find ourselves before an Authority—the supreme authority—that is clearly disobedient to Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body, but which, usurping Christ’s authority, claims to decide in what respects those subject to it must obey it, disobeying God’s commands.
Can we even imagine recognizing this authority as legitimate and owing it obedience, lest we tear apart the “unity” that the Hierarchy has already shattered with its own disobedience to God? How could we possibly ratify its abuses, making ourselves accomplices of those who are betraying the Truth?
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop, 23 September 2025

NOTE
1 – Cfr. https://exsurgedomine.it/250917-trabucco-ita/
2 – Cfr. https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2025/09/21/a-proposito-di-obbedienza-note-sulle-osservazioni-di-monsignor-vigano/
3 – Saint Augustine, De Trinitate, VIII, 2: God is truth itself – ipsa veritas –, and everything that is true comes from Him, because He is the origin of all truth.
4 – The decree of the Holy Office of 20 December 1949 condemning the ecuмenical movement also recalls this: This unity cannot be achieved except in the recognition of Catholic truth.
5 – Saint Augustine, In Joannis Evangelium tractatus, 51, 8: Christ’s obedience is not a diminution of His divinity, but an expression of His perfect union with the Father, for the will of the Son is one with that of the Father.
6 – Pius VI, Brief Super Soliditate of 28 November 1786 condemning Febronianism. This doctrine fits into the context of the Enlightenment and the tensions between the temporal power of states and the authority of the Catholic Church, promoting a vision that limited the primacy of the Pope and strengthened the autonomy of national Churches and local bishops. Febronius (the pseudonym of Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, Bishop of Trier) argued that the authority of the Pope was not absolute, but derived from the universal Church, understood as the community of the faithful and bishops. Febronianism also influenced the Council of Pistoia (1786), in which there appeared heretical demands that are substantially identical to those that would re-appear in Vatican II.
7 – Cfr. https://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2025/09/papa-leone-parla-con-elise-ann-allen-di.html
8 – Cfr. https://youtube.com/watch?v=IkPJn2L9BBs&si=oGcPhGwR5nxQ6jva

TO KNOW THE FAITH, YOU MUST KNOW THE RULE

The Rule of Faith was given to the Church in the very act of Revelation and its promulgation by the Apostles. But for this Rule to have an actual and permanently efficient character, it must be continually promulgated and enforced by the living Apostolate, which must exact from all members of the Church a docile Faith in the truths of Revelation authoritatively proposed, and thus unite the whole body of the Church, teachers and taught, in perfect unity of Faith. Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body, (i.e.: DOGMA) is the proximate Rule.

Rev. Scheeben’s Manual of Catholic Theology

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” St. Paul, letter to his disciple, Bishop St. Timothy (1 Timothy 6:20-21)

... We wish to make our own the important words employed by the Council; those words which define its spirit, and, in a dynamical synthesis, form the spirit of all those who refer to it, be they within or without the Church. The word “NOVELTY”, simple, very dear to today’s men, is much utilized; it is theirs... That word... it was given to us as an order, as a program... It comes to us directly from the pages of the Holy Scripture: “For, behold (says the Lord), I create new heavens and a new earth”. St. Paul echoes these words of the prophet Isaiah (II Corinthians 5, 17); then, the Apocalypse: “I am making everything new” (II Corinthians 21, 5). And Jesus, our Master, was not He, himself, an innovator? “You have heard that people were told in the past ... but now I tell you...” (Matthew 5) – Repeated in the “Sermon on the Mount”.

It is precisely thus that the Council has come to us. Two terms characterize it: “RENOVATION” and “REVISION”. We are particularly keen that this “spirit of renovation” – according to the expression of the Council – be understood and experienced by everyone. It responds to the characteristic of our time, wholly engaged in an enormous and rapid transformation, and generating novelties in every sector of modern life. In fact, one cannot shy away from this spontaneous reflection: if the whole world is changing, will not religion change as well? Between the reality of life and Christianity, Catholicism especially, is not there reciprocal disagreement, indifference, misunderstanding, and hostility? The former is leaping forward; the latter would not move. How could they go along? How could Christianity claim to have, today, any influence upon life?

And it is for this reason that the Church has undertaken some reforms, especially after the Council. The Episcopate is about to promote the “renovation” that corresponds to our present needs; Religious Orders are reforming their Statutes; Catholic laity is qualified and found its role within the life of the Church; Liturgy is proceeding with a reform in which anyone knows the extension and importance; Christian education reviews the methods of its pedagogy; all the canonical legislations are about to be revised. And how many other consoling and promising novelties we shall see appearing in the Church! They attest to Her new vitality, which shows that the Holy Spirit animates Her continually, even in these years so crucial to religion. The development of ecumenism, guided by Faith and Charity, itself says what progress, almost unforeseeable, has been achieved during the course and life of the Church. The Church looks at the future with Her heart brimming with hope, brimming with fresh expectation in love... We can say... of the Council: It marks the onset of a new era, of which no one can deny the new aspects that We have indicated to you.

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of July 2, 1969

And Then, Only Three Years Later:

Through some cracks the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: there is doubt, uncertainty, problematic, anxiety, confrontation. One does not trust the Church anymore; one trusts the first prophet that comes to talk to us from some newspapers or some social movement, and then rush after him and ask him if he held the formula of real life. And we fail to perceive, instead, that we are the masters of life already. Doubt has entered our conscience, and it has entered through windows that were supposed to be opened to the light instead....

Even in the Church this state of uncertainty rules. One thought that after the Council there would come a shiny day for the history of the Church. A cloudy day came instead, a day of tempest, gloom, quest, and uncertainty. We preach ecumenism and drift farther and farther from the others. We attempt to dig abysses instead of filling them.

How has all this come about? We confide to you our thought: there has been the intervention of a hostile power. His name is the Devil; this mysterious being who is alluded to even in the letter of St. Peter. So many times, on the other hand, in the Gospel, on the very lips of Christ, there recurs the mention of this enemy of man. We believe in something supernatural (post-correction: “preternatural”!), coming into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate anything of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent that the Church would explode into the hymn of joy for having regained full consciousness of Herself (!!).

Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972

Pope Leo on LGBTQ: ‘We have to change attitudes before we ever change doctrine’

In this first extended interview he’s just done with Crux Now, Leo XIV has basically said that the Church’s teaching on sexual morality could change.

LifeSiteNews | Sep 18, 2025

Friends, you are not going to believe this.

In this first extended interview he’s just done with Crux Now, Leo XIV has basically said that the Church’s teaching on sexual morality could change. He actually even went there and implied that he could – in his words – “change the Church’s teaching” on women’s ordination.

Take a listen to what he said first on sexual morality. This is what he says after having been talking about LGBT issues for a while:

People want the Church doctrine to change, want attitudes to change. I think we have to change attitudes before we ever change doctrine.

That’s right, he’s strongly implying – well, he’s saying – that Church teaching could shift, if attitudes change first.

Might that be why we’ve had so much LGBT stuff in Rome lately, from Fr. James Martin to the LGBT pilgrimage? Are they trying to get our “attitudes to change”?

And what do you think the so-called “LGBT Catholics” are hearing when they hear Leo saying such a thing? It’s a very clear invitation and instruction: work to change attitudes, then we can change the teaching. Wow.

And rather than stating such changes were impossible, Leo said he thought it was unlikely that it would happen soon:

I find it highly unlikely, certainly in the immediate future, that the Church’s doctrine in terms of what the Church teaches about sexuality, what the Church teaches about marriage [will change].

Later, instead of stating that the Church’s teaching could not change, he merely said that he thought that it would remain the same:

I think that the Church’s teaching will continue as it is, and that’s what I have to say about that for right now.

You think it’s going to continue as it is? Aren’t you supposed to be the Pope – the one responsible for making sure that it continues as it is?

Look friends, this is just stunning. Catholic teaching on sexual morality – including the sinfulness of homosexual acts, as well as fornication, adultery and others – aren’t matters of probabilities or personal conjecture, or contingent and waiting to be changed.

They’re definitive, grounded in both the natural law and divine revelation – and so they’re incapable of being changed.

Reason alone tells us that sexual activity outside marriage – and thus, obviously, all sexual activity between two same sex couples – is contrary to the natural law.

This is also and separately a dogma – divinely revealed in Scripture and proposed by the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church.

Vatican I taught that such truths which are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

Female ordination

Leo also talked about the possibility of the ordination of women to the diaconate in similar terms:

What the synod had spoken about specifically was the ordination, perhaps, of women deacons, which has been a question that’s been studied for many years now. There’ve been different commissions appointed by different popes to say, what can we do about this? I think that will continue to be an issue.

Ok, so in the early Church, there was indeed an office of “deaconess” – but everyone knows that these women were not ordained to any sacramental holy order of the diaconate.

But Leo calls even this into question by equating the female diaconate with that of the permanent diaconate established after the Second Vatican Council. He gives a long anecdote about meeting deacons and their wives in Rome before concluding:

[T]here are parts of the world that never really promoted the permanent deaconate, and that itself became a question: Why would we talk about ordaining women to the diaconate if the diaconate itself is not yet properly understood and properly developed and promoted within the church?

He also expressed his willingness for study and debate on the matter to continue, saying he was “certainly willing to continue to listen to people,” and pointing to the study groups in Rome on the subject. “We’ll walk with that and see what comes,” he said.

But do you know what’s even more shocking? Leo said this:

I at the moment don’t have an intention of changing the teaching of the Church on the topic.

Friends, if you say a thing like that, it’s clear what you think. You’re saying you do have the power to “change the teaching of the Church.”

The immutability of dogma

But the teaching of the Church says that this isn’t possible. Can that be changed too?

Vatican I denied that the Pope could change the Church’s teaching or introduce new dogmas. It taught:

For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine.

It goes on to say that the purpose of the papacy is to safeguard and preserve the deposit of faith. Not to consider whether the time is right to change it.

Oh, some will say, we’re not talking about changes. This is just a development of dogma.

Come on. That’s what they always say to justify this stuff. And anyway, Leo was pretty clear: he’s the one who was talking about changing Church teaching.

And anyway, that defense is excluded too. There’s a legitimate sense of the development of doctrine, but changing the meanings of dogmas to something totally different isn’t it.

Such an idea has been condemned time and again by the Church.

Pope Pius IX condemned, in the Syllabus of Errors, the idea that divine revelation is “subject to a continual and indefinite progress.”

Vatican I declared that the “meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained” and that “there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.”

That same Council anathematized anyone who says dogma can be assigned “a sense different from that which the Church has understood and understands.”

Pope St Pius X cited all these teachings in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis against Modernism.

In his Oath Against Modernism, he also required clergy to profess that dogma is handed down “in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport.”

This oath also states that the idea “that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously” is a – get this – “heretical misrepresentation.”

Grave implications

“Heretical” is a big word. But the truth is clear: homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, marriage is between one man and one woman, and these teachings cannot change.

As I said above, both the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, and the immutability of dogma are the sorts of truths we have to believe with divine and Catholic faith.

The censure attached to the obstinate denial or doubt of such truths is indeed heresy. (Can. 751 of 1983 CIC, Can. 1325 of 1917 CIC)

So, where does that leave us?

The hugely problematic situation of Leo XIV raising hopes for an impossible change in the future.

And claiming the power to change Church teaching, which he certainly does not have.

And… publicly doubting (or even denying) these two sets of truths in a video interview – which, as I said, is heresy.

You know what St. Paul said about those who try to introduce new dogmas, doctrines or Gospels:

If I, or an angel from heaven, preach to you a Gospel different to that which we have preached to you, which you have received: let him be anathema.

COMMENT: The very essence of the Modernist heresy is the denial of immutability of dogma because they deny that dogma is divine revelation of an immutabile truth from an immutable God. The Modernist believe that dogma is not a truth revealed by God but rather a human expression of the subjective religious sentiment and therefore dogma must change over time as the human sentiment changes. Leo the Heretic professes that the "attitudes" of Catholics will change only gradually. therefore, when there is a sufficient number expressing the new attitude then the dogmas will change to express the new religious attitude. It is absolutely impossible to hold this belief and be a faithful Catholic at the same time. Leo is just another Bergoglian who will bring ruin to himself and others.

---

Pope Leo is now the CEO of the same HomoLobby his predecessor chaired! It is impossible to be a defender of homosexuality and a Catholic at the same time.

Bishop Schneider: Vatican ‘LGBTQ pilgrimage’ an ‘abomination,’ Pope Leo must make ‘public reparation’

Pope Leo must ‘urgently’ make reparation after the Vatican endorsed an LGBT Jubilee ‘pilgrimage’ and allowed unrepentant homosexuals to pass the Holy Doors at St. Peter’s, Bishop Schneider said.

LifeSiteNews | Sept 10, 2025— Bishop Athanasius Schneider expressed “horror” at the Vatican’s endorsement of the “LGBTQ Jubilee pilgrimage,” rebuking priests who support homosexuality as “spiritual criminals” and “murderers of souls.”

“My reaction was a silent cry of horror, indignation, and sorrow,” the auxiliary of Astana, Kazakhstan, said regarding the Vatican’s approval of an LGBT-themed “pilgrimage” on its Jubilee website, in an interview with Diane Montagna, a journalist in Rome.

Montagna had highlighted the fact that photos captured an array of rainbow paraphernalia in St. Peter’s Basilica, as well homosexual male couple “brazenly holding hands there, one with a backpack saying F*** the Rules,” at the conclusion of their “pilgrimage.”

What took place there could be described as an “abomination of desolation standing in the holy place,” in the words of Christ (cf. Mt. 24:15), said Bishop Schneider.

He pointed out that the embrace of homosexuality by these “pilgrims” contradicted one of the very key meanings of the Jubilee Year and the Holy Door: “Leading man to conversion and penance,” as Pope John Paul II explained in the Bull of Indiction of the Holy Year 2000. 

“There were no signs of repentance and renunciation of objectively grave homosexual sins … on the part of the organizers and participants in this pilgrimage,” noted Schneider. “To pass through the Holy Door and participate in the Jubilee without repentance, while promoting an ideology that openly rejects God’s Sixth Commandment, constitutes a kind of desecration of the Holy Door and a mockery of God and the gift of an indulgence.”

The bishop had strong words for the Vatican authorities who “collaborated de facto” in this open rejection of God’s commandment, expressed aptly in the “f*** the rules” message. 

“They stood by and allowed God to be mocked and His commandments to be scornfully cast aside,” said Schneider.

When asked to compare it to the Pachamama scandal, he noted that while direct transgression of the First Commandment is even more grave, the endorsement of sodomy – a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance – “amounts to a form of indirect idolatry.”

“Both events must be publicly repaired by the Pope himself. This is urgently needed, before it is too late, for God will not be mocked,” said the bishop.

Bishop Francesco Savino, vice president of the Italian Bishops Conference, welcomed “everyone” to receive Holy Communion at a Mass for the “pilgrims,” Montagna then pointed out. Schneider affirmed that assent to “all of the Church’s teaching” is a precondition for receiving Christ in the Eucharist, as was expressed by St. Paul: “Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor. 11:29). 

He added that this has been clearly stated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive Communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance” (n.1415).

Furthermore, it notes, “Sacred Scripture ‘presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, [and] tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.… Under no circumstances can they be approved’ (n. 2357).”

Thus, by granting these LGBT groups passage through the Holy Door and approving their “pilgrimage,” Vatican authorities in effect rejected “the very doctrine they are bound to uphold.”

Schneider said his message for participants in the LGBT “pilgrimage” is one of compassion, and he called for all Christians to show compassion towards not just those living homosexual lifestyles, but those who support its legitimization and “persist in it unrepentant and even proudly.”

“For when a person consciously rejects God’s explicit commandment prohibiting any sexual activity outside a valid marriage, he places himself in the gravest danger – that of losing eternal life and being eternally condemned to Hell,” said the prelate.

“True love for such persons consists in calling them, gently yet persistently, to genuine conversion to God’s revealed will,” he continued, adding that such people are “ultimately unhappy” even when they have suppressed their conscience.

“We must be filled with great zeal to save these souls, to free them from poisonous deceits. Those priests who confirm them in their homosexual activity or in a homosexual lifestyle are spiritual criminals, murderers of souls, and God will demand a strict account from them,” Schneider declared.

To those who defend Pope Leo XIV amid the Vatican’s approval of the LGBT scandalous “pilgrimage” because he did not receive a delegation from them or send them a message, Schneider said that “one cannot reasonably presume naivety on his part,” because it was “entirely foreseeable” that an LGBT activist group would take advantage of the Holy Door to promote their sinful lifestyle.

Furthermore, by meeting with Father James Martin, S.J., a heretical pro-LGBT priest, as well as pro-homosexual “marriage” Sister Lucia Caram, Pope Leo XIV has expressed that he is not opposed to their “heterodox and scandalous teaching and behavior – particularly since the Holy See offered no clarification afterward and did not correct Fr. James Martin’s triumphant messages circulated on social media,” noted Schneider.

He pointed out that in doing so, Pope Leo XIV broke with the precedent of all popes before Francis, who “neither received officially nor posed for photographs with those who, by word or deed, openly rejected the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Church.”

“There is a common saying that goes: ‘Qui tacet consentire videtur’ – ’He who is silent is taken to agree,’” Schneider added.

The prelate called upon all Catholics to “make a collective act of reparation for the outrage committed against the sanctity of God’s house and the holiness of His commandments,” and implored Pope Leo XIV to follow in the footsteps of Pope John Paul II, who Montagna noted had denounced the first “World Pride” event in Rome during the Great Jubilee of 2000.

“Should Pope Leo XIV make public acts of regret and even reparation, he will lose nothing; should he fail to do so, he will forfeit something before the eyes of God – and God alone matters,” said Schneider. 

“May Our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV take to heart the following words of Our Lord which He once spoke through St. Bridget of Sweden to one of his predecessors (Pope Gregory XI)”: 

Uproot, pluck out and destroy all the vices of your court! Separate yourself from the counsel of carnal-minded and worldly friends and follow humbly the spiritual counsel of My friends. Get up like a man and clothe yourself confidently in strength! Start to reform the Church that I purchased with My Own Blood in order that it may be reformed and led back spiritually to its pristine state of holiness, for nowadays more veneration is shown to a brothel than to My Holy Church. My son, heed My counsel. If you obey Me in what I told you, I will welcome you mercifully like a loving father. Bravely approach the way of justice and you shall prosper. Do not despise the One Who loves you. If you obey, I will show you mercy and bless and dress you and adorn you with the precious pontifical regalia of a holy pope. I shall clothe you with Myself in such a way that you will be in Me and I in you, and you shall be glorified in eternity (The Book of Revelations, Book IV, chap. 149).

---

Argumentum ex concessis

Notes in the Margin of an Article by Abbé Claude Barthe

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die;
but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live.

Rom 8: 13

The essay by Abbé Claude Barthe’s, recently published in an Italian translation at Aldo Maria Valli’s blog Duc in altum [1], deserves some attention. What is most interesting in it is not so much his assessment of the newly elected Leo XIV, nor the pragmatic realism with which he recognizes Prevost’s continuity with his predecessor or calls for a loosening of restrictions on the traditional liturgy.

Abbé Barthe writes:

There is a paradox, even a risk, for those who invoke freedom for the traditional liturgy and catechism: that of being granted a sort of “authorization” for liturgical and doctrinal Catholicism. We have already cited as an example the paradoxical situation that arose in the 19th-century French political system, when the most staunch supporters of the monarchical Restoration, enemies in principle of the modern freedoms introduced by the Revolution, continually fought to be granted a space for life and expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of teaching. All things being equal, in the ecclesiastical system of the 21st century, at least in the immediate future, a relaxation of the ideological despotism of the Reformation could be beneficial. But while it may be advantageous in the short and medium term, it could ultimately prove radically unsatisfactory.

What I believe should be highlighted is the not-so-veiled warning that Abbé Barthe addresses to those who resort to the adversary’s arguments to gain legitimacy in the ecclesial world, applying the argumentum ex concessis [2]. In this case, “those who invoke freedom for the traditional liturgy and catechism” – and who condemn Bergoglian synodality – appeal to that same synodality so that the “Summorum Pontificum communities” may be recognized as one among the many expressions of the composite ecclesial polyhedron.

Abbé Barthe’s denunciation reveals not a paradox, but the paradox, the contradiction that fundamentally undermines any claim to orthodoxy on the part of self-styled conservatives: the acceptance of the revolutionary principles of the so-called “synodal church” as the (incomplete, moreover) counterpart to being tolerated by it. In reality, this exchange is far from equal. The “synodal church” merely applies to conservatives the same legitimacy of existence it grants to any other “movement” or “charisma” present in the multifaceted ecclesial fabric, but it carefully avoids acknowledging that their demands might go beyond a mere aesthetic and ceremonial concession. The unwritten contract between conservatives and the post-Bergoglian Hierarchy stipulates that the “liturgical preferences” of a group of clerics and faithful can be tolerated if and only if they refrain from highlighting the heterogeneity, incompatibility, and alienation between the ecclesiology and the entire doctrinal framework underlying the Vetus Ordo and those expressed in the reformed Montinian rite.

Abbé Barthe does not ignore the critical issues: referring to Leo XIV’s Electors, he calls them “all of the conciliar menagerie,” demonstrating a certain courage, especially considering his public role and his dependence on those Prelates. Nor does he ignore the deception embraced by those who exploit religious liberty to invoke for themselves a tolerance that is not denied even to the worshippers of Amazonian idols.

The deception is twofold: not only because of the paradox that Abbé Barthe has rightly highlighted; but also and above all because of a much worse trap, consisting of accepting at least implicitly the forced, unnatural, and impossible separation between the ceremonial form of the rite and its doctrinal substance.

This is an operation of de-signification of the Liturgy, which consists in being recognized with the right to celebrate in the Tridentine Rite on the condition that the celebrant does not also accept the doctrinal and moral implications of that rite. But if that “Summorum priest” accepts this principle, he must also accept its inverse application. Indeed, the moment one admits that the Liturgy can be celebrated without regard for the traditional doctrine it expresses – a doctrine the “synodal church” does not recognize and considers to be other than itself – one ends up accepting that even the reformed liturgy can ignore the errors and heresies it insinuates, errors which no Catholic worthy of the name can absolutely ratify. In doing so, however, one plays into the hands of the adversary, under the illusion of being more cunning than the devil. It all comes down to a question of dress and choreography, of aesthetics and sentiment that satisfies or does not satisfy personal taste, as Cardinal Burke’s recent words confirmed: “You don’t take something so rich in beauty and begin to strip away the beautiful elements without having a negative effect.” [3] Nothing could be more alien to the mindset of the Roman Liturgy, according to which the beauty of ceremonies is such because it is a necessary expression of the Truth it teaches and the Good it practices.

The “synodal church” includes conservatives in its coveted pantheon not only because it gives them what they want – solemn pontifical liturgies celebrated by influential prelates, without doctrinal implications – but also because none of the Holy See’s interlocutors has the slightest intention of demanding more; and even if someone were to dare ask for more, the gatekeeper on duty – literally, the ostiarius –would promptly intervene, calling for “prudence” and “moderation,” more concerned with preserving his own prestige than with the fate of the Catholic resistance. This is accompanied by the “Zip it” [4] policy advocated by Trad Inc. [5], according to which the possible concessions the moderates hope to obtain from Leo suggest they should not criticize him openly so as not to alienate him.

The path of being persecuted, ostracized, and excommunicated do not seem to be among the options for my brothers: it seems they are already resigned to a fate of tolerance, in which they can neither be truly Catholic nor fully synodal; neither friends of those who fight the enemy infiltrated into the Church, nor of those who seek to replace her with a human surrogate of Masonic inspiration. The Lord will hold these lukewarm priests accountable with greater severity than He will many poor parish priests who have other, more pressing pastoral priorities. Let us hope that Abbé Barthe’s warning does not fall on deaf ears, for the hour of battle approaches, and to be found defenseless and unprepared, in these circumstances, would be irresponsible.

And it is precisely in times of persecution that we must rediscover the relevance and validity of the words of Saint Vincent of Lérins:

In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum. [6]

If anything does not meet these three criteria – semper, ubique, et ab omnibus – it must be rejected as heretical. This norm protects us from the errors spread by false pastors, in the serene certainty of acting in accordance with Tradition and thus being able to compensate, due to the present state of emergency, for the absence of ecclesiastical authority.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

3 September MMXXV

S.cti Pii X Papæ, Conf.

FOOTNOTES

1 – Abbé Claude Barthe, Leone, il pompiere nella Chiesa divorata dal fuoco della divisione. Ma quale unità ricerca?, published at Duc in Altum on August 9, 2025 – https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2025/08/09/analisi-leone-il-pompiere-nella-chiesa-divorata-dal-fuoco-della-divisione-ma-quale-unita-ricerca/ – English translation: https://www.resnovae.fr/the-pontificate-of-leo-xiv-a-transitional-stage/

2 – Argumentum ex concessis is a rhetorical and logical technique in which an interlocutor uses the premises, arguments, or claims accepted by an opponent to construct their own argument, often to refute them or demonstrate the inconsistency of their position. This strategy is based on the idea of temporarily accepting the opponent’s claims (the “concessions”) and using them to draw conclusions that either challenge them or support their own thesis.

3 – Cfr. https://x.com/mljhaynes/status/1954919906492747838

4 – Cfr. https://www.radiospada.org/2025/09/leone-xiv-lipotesi-zip-e-la-contropartita-per-i-conservatori-una-strategia-gia-tentata-e-che-lascia-perplessi-in-7-punti/

5 – “Trad Inc.” is the American expression which refers to conservative believers and blogs organized like companies, which operate according to market logic and are dependent on their shareholders.

6 – Commonitorium, 2. “In this same Catholic Church, we must take the greatest care to maintain what has always been believed, everywhere and by all; this is in fact truly and properly Catholic.”

COMMENT: It is encouraging for us who have refused the compromises of faith that conservative Catholics have made in return for their privileged Indult to have a man of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's stature agree and defend what we have been doing at Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission for the last 25 years. We hope and pray that he may have a greater influence on other resistance bishops and priests.

---

The proper understanding of this dogma from the Council of Trent:

Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

The Dogma defines two revealed doctrinal truths:

3. If anyone says: that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says: that without the sacraments or (if anyone says) without the desire of the sacraments men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, let him be anathema.

Both the Sacrament of Baptism and the will to receive the Sacrament are necessary for salvation!

“But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.” St. Fulgentius

“If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no avail: Baptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed.” St. Fulgentius

Notice, both the CONFESSION AND THE BAPTISM are necessary for salvation, harkening back to Trent's teaching that both the laver AND the “votum” are required for justification, and harkening back to Our Lord's teaching that we must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit.

In fact, you see the language of St. Fulgentius reflected in the Council of Trent.  Trent describes the votum (so-called “desire”) as the PATH TO SALVATION, the disposition to Baptism, and then says that “JUSTIFICATION ITSELF” (St. Fulgentius says “SALVATION ITSELF”) follows the dispositions in the Sacrament of Baptism.

Yet another solid argument for why Trent is teaching that BOTH the votum AND the Sacrament are required for justification.

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the Devil and his angels.” St. Fulgentius

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.’” St. Eugene IV, Cantate Domino

Ladislaus, CathInfo

John Cardinal Newman, another Novus Ordo "saint" soon to be declared a "Doctor" of the Novus Ordo Church, comments following the dogmatic declaration of papal infallibility.

“But we must hope, for one is obliged to hope it, that the Pope (Pius IX) will be driven from Rome, and will not continue the Council (Vatican I), or that there will be another Pope. It is sad he should force us to such wishes.”

John H. Newman, Letter to his companion, Fr. Ambrose St. John, 22 August, 1870

“We have come to a climax of tyranny. It is not good for a Pope to live 20 years. It is anomaly and bears no good fruit; he becomes a god, has no one to contradict him, does not know facts, and does cruel things without meaning it.”

John H. Newman, The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, v. XXVI by Charles Stephen Dessain

"This (Divine) law, as apprehended in the minds of individual men, is called "conscience;" and though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not therefore so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has, as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience."

John Henry Cardinal Newman

"It seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with the word of a Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word."

John Henry Cardinal Newman

COMMENT: Pope Gregory XVI said, "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone." Conscience is not the Divine Law. St. Thomas says that, "Conscience is nothing else than the application of knowledge to some action." He is referring to the knowledge of the Law of God. The Law of God, whether the eternal law or the positive revealed law of God, is the objective criteria by which the conscience is obligated to use as the standard by which any judgment regarding the moral goodness or evil of any particular act is made. All men are obligated to obey their conscience because they are obligated to apprehend the objective Divine Law as the proper criteria. They are not free to invent their personal subjective criteria in determining what is the right or the wrong thing to do. Liberalism claims the exact opposite. It is a fundamental axiom of liberalism that the conscience is free to establish its own moral criteria. This has been condemned by popes Gregory XVI, PiusIX and Pius X. John Henry Cardinal Newman can be identified as the "Spirit of Vatican II."

Hermeneutics of Continuity/Discontinuity

The woman saith to him: Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers adored on this mountain, and you say, that at Jerusalem is the place where men must adore. Jesus saith to her: Woman, believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father. You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know; for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:19-24

Novus Ordo Doctrine: Moslems and Novus Ordo Catholics Worship the same God!

CCC 841, quoting the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 16, from Vatican II, declared:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

CCC 841 also references Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, 3, that makes the teaching of the Council perhaps even clearer:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."

Catholic Church Doctrine: Catholics and Moslems DO NOT worship the same God.

“Now the Samaritans had a false idea of God in two ways. First of all, because they thought He was corporeal, so that they believed that He should be adored in only one definite corporeal place. Further, because they did not believe that He transcended all things, but was equal to certain creatures, they adored along with Him certain idols, as if they were equal to Him. Consequently, they did not know Him, because they did not attain to a true knowledge of Him. So the Lord says, you adore that which you do not know [John 4:22], that is, you do not adore God because you do not know Him, but rather your imagination, by which you apprehend something as God, just as the Gentiles also walk in the foolishness of their mind (Eph 4:17).” St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary On John 4:22

“How then did the Samaritans know not what they worshipped? Because they thought that God was local and partial; so at least they served Him, and so they sent to the Persians, and reported that the God of this place is angry with us [2 Kings 26], in this respect forming no higher opinion of Him than of their idols. Wherefore they continued to serve both Him and devils, joining things which ought not to be joined.” St. John Chrysostom, Homily 33 On The Gospel of John

COMMENT: When Jesus said to the Samaritan Woman, "You adore that which you know not," He is not saying that they adore the One True God that they are ignorant of. He is saying, that in their ignorance they do not know who they are adoring meaning that they are adoring in ignorance a devil, for "all the gods of the gentiles are devils" (Psalm 95:5). Jesus then says, that "true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth..... they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth." To adore in "spirit" means that to adore God you must be baptized and made sons of God for as Jesus said: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit" (John 3:5-7). And to adore in "truth" means who must believe what has been revealed by God. Without the true faith it is "impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). As such, right knowledge of God is essential to true worship. This is the great sin of Modernism and Neo-modernism: They make a right knowledge of God impossible!

Hermeneutics of Continuity/Discontinuity

Catholic Faith:

Physical substances come into being through the union of substantial form and primary matter. The Soul is the Substantial Form of the Human Body; it is immortal and will be judged after the death of the person and directed to Heaven or Hell for all eternity awaiting to be joined again to its Body at the Resurrection of the Dead for the Last Judgment.

“In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.”

Council of Vienne

Neo-Modernists Ideology: [Ratzinger quotes provided by James Larson, War Against Being]

“The medieval concept of substance has long since become inaccessible to us.”

Rev. Joseph Ratzinger, Faith and the Future

“The proper Christian thing, therefore, is to speak, not of the soul’s immortality, but of the resurrection of the complete human being [at the Final Judgment] and of that alone… The idea that to speak of the soul is unbiblical was accepted to such an extent that even the new Roman Missal (i.e.: the Novus Ordo) suppressed the term anima in its liturgy for the dead. It also disappeared from the ritual for burial.”

Rev. Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life

“‘The soul’ is our term for that in us which offers a foothold for this relation [with the eternal]. Soul is nothing other than man’s capacity for relatedness with truth, with love eternal.”

Rev. Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life

“The challenge to traditional theology today lies in the negation of an autonomous, ‘substantial’ soul with a built-in immortality in favor of that positive view which regards God’s decision and activity as the real foundation of a continuing human existence.”

Rev. Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life

And those who have denied the reality of substantial being are those who are responsible for the “dictatorship of relativism.”

“Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labelled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching,’ looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognise anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Homily of the Dean of the College of Cardinals, 2005

Sacrament of Baptism: Significance of the Baptismal Character and why it is absolutely necessary for salvation. Explains why St. Ambrose said regarding catechumens who die before receiving the sacrament of Baptism, they are “forgiven but not crowned”.

To be baptized is to become one with the Church, and one with Christ. Thus the ritual can say: “enter into the temple of God, that you may have part with Christ, unto life everlasting.” The two ideas are correlative: to be baptized into the Church and to be baptized into Christ; they are the visible and invisible aspects of the same real effect. [….]

The effecting this incorporation into Christ, Baptism marks the soul as permanently His; it stamps upon the soul a spiritual “character”, or, as antiquity more commonly called it, a “seal”. For this reason, and putting the cause for the effect, the rite of Baptism was itself called “the seal”, or “the seal of faith”, or “the seal of water”, or “the seal of the Trinity” (which last appellation endures still in the liturgical prayers for the dying, wherein God is asked to remember His promises to the soul that in its lifetime was “stamped with the seal of the Most Holy Trinity”).

The word “seal” derives from a group of texts in St. Paul, which suggest this stamping of the soul at Baptism: “And in Him (Christ), you too, when you had heard the word of truth, the good news of your salvation, and believed in it, were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise” (Eph. 1:13); “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in Whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30). However, nowadays we are accustomed to speak rather of the baptismal “character”, a term that suggests the text wherein Christ is called “the brightness of His (the Father’s) glory and the image (in Greek, character) of His substance” (Hebr. 1:3).

Basically, two words give the same meaning: a seal imprints an image, and a “character”, in the original sense of the word, means image. Baptism, therefore, stamps the soul with the image of Christ, Who is Himself the image of the Father. And in the Scripture, this stamping is attributed to the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit of Christ. The fact that we are stamped with such a character is clearly defined by the Council of Trent:

“If anyone says that by the three Sacraments, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation and Orders, there is not imprinted in the soul a Character, that is a certain spiritual and indelible sign on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathem.” (Denz. 852).

The Council of Trent teaches that this seal, once stamped on the soul, is indelible. Just as Baptism irrevocable makes one a member of the Church, so also it irrevocably makes one a member of Christ. Not the gravest sin, nor even final impenitence and self-condemnation to eternal separation from Christ in Hell, can avail to erase this baptismal seal. And the indelibility of the seal is the immediate reason why Baptism can never be repeated, once it has been validly received. [….]

The sense in which Baptism stamps us with the image of Christ is suggested in the rite itself, by the anointing which follows the ablution. It is done with Sacred Chrism, a mixed unguent of oil and balm, specially consecrated by the bishop on Holy Thursday. Kings and priests in antiquity (and even today) were anointed with chrism in token of their royal and priestly dignity. And the baptism anointing signifies, therefore, that the new Christian has entered into the “royal priesthood” of the Christian people, and shares in the royal Priesthood of Christ Himself. He bears the image of Christ, inasmuch as Christ was the Priest of all humanity, Who offered Himself in sacrifice on the Cross.

The baptismal seal or character, therefore, endows the Christian with a priestly function, and a priestly power. It is not that special power and function given by the Sacrament of Holy Orders to certain selected members of the Church, who are made her official ministers, and authorized to offer her sacrifice and dispense her Sacraments. But it is the priestly function and power which is common to all the members of the Body of Christ. As He was born as Priest, His whole life orientated toward the Passion and Death which was His priestly Sacrifice, so too, they are priests from their birth into the Christian life at Baptism; and their lives are essentially orientated toward sacrifice, in a double sense.

First of all, they receive a function and a power with respect to the ritual Sacrifice of the Church, which is the Mass. [….] They are empowered to assist actively in the offering of the Mass, as members of the Church, in whose name her specially qualified members, priests and bishops, offer the Mass, which is the sacrifice of the whole Church through her official ministers. In union with the Priest, the Christian offers up Christ as a Victim Who belongs to him and to Whom he belongs. An unbaptized person cannot do this….

Secondly, the baptismal character consecrates the Christian to sacrifice in a wider sense: it gives him the function, the duty, the power to lead a life of sacrifice, since He is in the image of Christ whose life was one long sacrifice – a life of complete obedience to the will of His Father: “I seek not My own will, but the will of Him Who sent Me” (Jn. 3:50).The will of the Father is the supreme law of the Christian’s life; it is all embracing and all pervasive; and constant and total obedience to it necessarily gives a sacrificial quality to the whole of life, since it demands the renunciation of many ideas, and a steady refusal to be led by one’s own emotions or to seek one’s own pleasure and profit – in a word, it demands the sacrifice of selfishness in all its forms. St. Peter, therefore, was thinking of Baptism when he wrote:

“Lay aside therefore all malice and all deceit, and pretense, and envy, and all slander…. Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon (i.e., on Christ) into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:1,5).

Rev. John J. Fernan, S.J., Theology, Christ Our High Priest, Baptismal Seal

Pius XII - the man responsible for planting the seed of liturgical destruction!

Fr. Annibale Bugnini had been making clandestine visits to the Centre de Pastorale Liturgique (CPL), a progressivist conference centre for liturgical reform which organized national weeks for priests.
Inaugurated in Paris in 1943 on the private initiative of two Dominican priests under the presidency of Fr. Lambert Beauduin, it was a magnet for all who considered themselves in the vanguard of the Liturgical Movement. It would play host to some of the most famous names who influenced the direction of Vatican II: Frs. Beauduin, Guardini, Congar, Chenu, Daniélou, Gy, von Balthasar, de Lubac, Boyer, Gelineau etc.

It could, therefore, be considered as the confluence of all the forces of Progressivism, which saved and re-established Modernism condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi.
According to its co-founder and director, Fr. Pie Duployé, OP, Bugnini had requested a “discreet” invitation to attend a CPL study week held near Chartres in September 1946.

Much more was involved here than the issue of secrecy. The person whose heart beat as one with the interests of the reformers would return to Rome to be placed by an unsuspecting (?) Pope (Pius XII) in charge of his Commission for the General Reform of the Liturgy.
But someone in the Roman Curia did know about the CPL – Msgr. Giovanni Battista Montini, the acting Secretary of State and future Paul VI – who sent a telegram to the CPL dated January 3, 1947. It purported to come from the Pope with an apostolic blessing. If, in Bugnini’s estimation, the Roman authorities were to be kept in the dark about the CPL so as not to compromise its activities, a mystery remains. Was the telegram issued under false pretences, or did Pius XII really know and approve of the CPL? [.....]

This agenda (for liturgical reform) was set out as early as 1949 in the Ephemerides Liturgicae, a leading Roman review on liturgical studies of which Fr. Annabale Bugnini was Editor from 1944 to 1965.
First, Bugnini denigrated the traditional liturgy as a dilapidated building (“un vecchio edificio”), which should be condemned because it was in danger of falling to pieces (“sgretolarsi”) and, therefore, beyond repair. Then, he criticized it for its alleged “deficiencies, incongruities and difficulties,” which rendered it spiritually “sterile” and would prevent it appealing to modern sensibilities.
It is difficult to understand how, in the same year that he published this anti-Catholic diatribe, he was made a Professor of Liturgy in Rome’s Propaganda Fide (Propagation of the Faith) University. His solution was to return to the simplicity of early Christian liturgies and jettison all subsequent developments, especially traditional devotions.
These ideas expressed in 1949 would form the foundational principles of Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium. For all practical purposes, the Roman Rite was dead in the water many years before it was officially buried by Paul VI.

Dr. Carol Byrne, How Bugnini Grew Up under Pius XII

Wisdom is only possible for those who hold DOGMA as the Rule of Faith!

Besides, every dogma of faith is to the Catholic cultivated mind not only a new increase of knowledge, but also an incontrovertible principle from which it is able to draw conclusions and derive other truths. They present an endless field for investigation so that the beloved Apostle St. John could write at the end of his Gospel, without fear of exaggeration: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did: which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

The Catholic Church, by enforcing firm belief in her dogmas—which are not her inventions, but were given by Jesus Christ—places them as a bar before the human mind to prevent it from going astray and to attach it to the truth; but it does not prevent the mind from exercising its functions when it has secured the treasure of divine truth, and a “scribe thus instructed in the kingdom of heaven is truly like a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.” He may bring forth new illustrations, new arguments and proofs; he may show now applications of the same truths, according to times and circumstances; he may show new links which connect the mysteries of religion with each other or with the natural sciences as there can be no discord between the true faith and true science; God, being the author of both, cannot contradict Himself and teach something by revelation as true which He teaches by the true light of reason as false. In all these cases the householder “brings forth from his treasure new things and old.” They are new inasmuch as they are the result of new investigations; and old because they are contained in the old articles of faith and doctrine as legitimate deductions from their old principles.

Fr. Joseph Prachensky, S.J., The Church of Parables and True Spouse of the Suffering Saviour, on the Parable of the Scribe

Baptism imprints in your soul a spiritual character, which no sin can efface. This character is a proof that from this time you do not belong to yourself, but that you are the property of Jesus Christ, who has purchased you by the infinite price of his blood and of his death. You are not of yourself, but you are of Christ; wherefore, St. Paul concludes, “that the Christian should no longer live for himself, but for Him who died and rose again for him;” that is to say, that the Christian should live a life of grace, and that he should consecrate to his Redeemer his spirit, his heart, and all his actions. […..]

First, is true penance; for, as the holy Council of Trent teaches, penance is no less necessary for those who have sinned after Baptism, than Baptism is necessary for those who have not received it. The Holy Scripture informs us, that there are two gates by which we are to enter into heaven—baptismal innocence, and penance. When a Christian has shut against himself the gate of innocence, in violating the holy promises of Baptism, it is necessary that he should strive to enter by that of penance; otherwise there is no salvation for him. On this account, Jesus Christ, speaking of persons who have lost innocence, says to them: “Unless you do penance, you shall all perish.”

But in order that penance may prevent us from perishing—it must be true Penance. Confessors may be deceived by the false appearance of conversion, and it is too often the case; but God is never deceived. If, therefore, those who receive absolution are not truly penitent and worthy of pardon, their sins are not forgiven before God. In order to do true penance, it is not sufficient to confess all our sins and to fulfill what is enjoined on us by the priest. There are two other things which are necessary: First; to renounce sin with all your heart, and for all your life… and second; to fly the occasions of sin, and to use the means to avoid it.

St. John Eudes, Man’s Contract with God in Baptism

Again, in the Office for the feasts of our Lady, the Church applies the words of Sirach to the Blessed Virgin and thus gives us to understand that in her we find all hope: In me is all hope of life and of virtue. In Mary is every grace: In me is all grace of the way and of the truth. In Mary we shall find life and eternal salvation: Those who serve me shall never fail. Those who explain me shall have life everlasting (Sir. 24:25, 30, 31--- Vulgate). And in the Book of Proverbs: Those who find me find life and win favor from the Lord (8:35). Surely such expressions are enough to prove that we require the intercession of Mary.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary

THE NOVUS ORDO CHURCH OF SLOTH AND ENVY

The first effect of charity is joy in the goodness of God. But this joy can only live through the union of man’s will with God in charity. And charity demands that man keep all the commandments. Charity demands a fellowship in good between God and man. When the effort to live in this fellowship in good begins to appear too difficult to man he begins to be sorrowful about the infinite goodness of God. This sorrow weighs down the spirit of man and leads him to neglect good. This sorrow is the sin of sloth, sorrow about the goodness of God. Sloth is a capital sin. It leads men into other sins. To avoid the sorrow or weariness of spirit which is sloth men will turn from God to the sinful pleasures of the world.

When a man falls victim to sloth and is sorrowful because of the goodness of God it is only natural that he will begin to be grieved also at the manifestation of the goodness of God in other men. He will resent good men simply because they are good. This resentment is envy, hatred of someone else’s good. Since the love of our neighbor flows from our love of God, it is natural that when we cease to love God’s goodness, we will also begin to hate the goodness of men. Envy, like sloth, is a capital sin. It will lead men to commit other sins to destroy the goodness of their neighbors.

When a man’s heart is filled with sloth and envy the interior peace of his soul which was the effect of charity is destroyed. The loss of the interior peace leads to the destruction of the peace of society. When a man’s heart is no longer centered in God, then his life loses all proper direction. When the love of God is gone he has nothing left but the love of himself. When a man loves himself without loving God then he can brook no opposition to his own judgment or arbitrary will. He can tolerate goodness in no one else. He will even, by the sin of scandal, by his own words and example, lead other men into sin. He must disagree with all men. He must dispute with them, separate himself from them, quarrel with them, go to war with them, set the whole of the community at war with itself.

Wherever the goodness of God is most manifest, there will the heart of the man who no longer loves God be most energetic in sowing the seeds of discord, contentiousness, strife and war. That is why religion and the true Church of God are so viciously attacked in the world today. Those who do not love God are driven by sloth and envy to attack God’s tabernacle on earth.

Fr. Walter Farrell and Fr. Martin Healy, My Way of Life, Pocket Edition of St. Thomas

---

Amoris Laetitia was published in 2016. No answer or corrective action to this "appeal" was ever made. That is because no clarification was ever needed. Why? That is because the "numerous propositions in Amoris Laetitia (that) can be construed as heretical upon the natural reading of the text" is exactly what the author intended! So in 2016 these "academics and pastors" did "not accusing the pope of heresy", but what about now?

“Amoris Laetitia.... scandalous, erroneous in faith, and ambiguous...”

Catholic academics and pastors appeal to the College of Cardinals over Amoris Laetitia

A group of Catholic academics and pastors has submitted an appeal to Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals in Rome, requesting that the Cardinals and Eastern Catholic Patriarchs petition His Holiness, Pope Francis, to repudiate a list of erroneous propositions that can be drawn from a natural reading of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia. During the coming weeks this submission will be sent in various languages to every one of the Cardinals and Patriarchs, of whom there are 218 living at present.
Describing the exhortation as containing “a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals,” the signatories submitted, along with their appeal, a documented list of applicable theological censures specifying “the nature and degree of the errors that could be attributed to Amoris laetitia.”

Among the 45 signatories are Catholic prelates, scholars, professors, authors, and clergy from various pontifical universities, seminaries, colleges, theological institutes, religious orders, and dioceses around the world. They have asked the College of Cardinals, in their capacity as the Pope’s official advisers, to approach the Holy Father with a request that he repudiate “the errors listed in the document in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.”

“We are not accusing the pope of heresy,” said a spokesman for the authors, “but we consider that numerous propositions in Amoris laetitia can be construed as heretical upon a natural reading of the text. Additional statements would fall under other established theological censures, such as scandalous, erroneous in faith, and ambiguous, among others.” [......]

---

Atheists are really anti-theists. They oppose the God who is God with an idol of their own making.

No atheist chooses merely to deny God. For the atheist’s spiritual posture against God is at the same time his posture in preference for some other Being above God. As he dismisses the true God he is welcoming his New God. Why must this be so? Because every personal commitment of man presupposes, deep in the metaphysical core of his being, a hunger for being as truth and goodness. Man is intrinsically burdened with an incurable hunger for transcendence. If being abhors a vacuum, the vacuum it most violently shrinks from is the total absence of Infinite Being. And history demonstrates that man is inconsolable without the True God.

Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., The Gods of Atheism

‘When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they believe in anything.’

There are men who will ruin themselves and ruin their civilization if they may ruin also this old fantastic tale (of the Catholic faith). This is the last and most astounding fact about this faith; that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the sword that cuts their own fingers, and the firebrands that burn their own homes. … (The atheist fanatic) sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who (he affirms) never lived at all.

G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

“Cultivate a great desire to be firmly rooted in the sublime virtue of confidence. Do not fear, but be courageous in serving and loving our Most Adorable and Amiable Jesus, with great perfection and holiness. Undertake courageously great tasks for His glory, in proportion to the power and grace He will give you for this end. Even though you can do nothing of yourself, you can do all things in Him and His help will never fail you, if you have confidence in His goodness. Place your entire physical and spiritual welfare in His hands. Abandon to the paternal solicitude of His Divine Providence every care for your health, reputation, property and business, for those near to you, for your past sins, for your soul’s progress in virtue and love of Him, for your life, death, and especially for your salvation and eternity, in a word, all your cares. Rest in the assurance that, in His pure goodness, He will watch with particular tenderness over all your responsibilities and cares and dispose all things for the greatest good.”

St. John Eudes, The Life and Kingdom of Jesus in Christian Souls

Cardinal Burke offers the correction for two mistranslations in the English publication of the Motu proprio of Pope Francis, “TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”

Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI (sic) and Saint John Paul II (sic), in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should must submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.

---

"Not a stone upon a stone" - 9th Sunday after Pentecost

The 'Western Wall' (Wailing Wall) in Jerusalem is held by Jews as a remnant of Herod's Temple destroyed by the Romans in 72 A.D. Yet, Jesus prophesized not only that the Temple would be destroyed but also that there would not remain a "stone upon a stone." So how is it that there remains a large wall on the western side at the south end of the 'Temple Mount'? Some Catholics claim the prophecy of Jesus was referring only to the edifice itself and not the entire foundation for the Temple. Jesus words must be taken in literally unless there it is clearly manifest that the metaphorical sense is intended exclusively. Therefore, the 'Wailing Wall' where the Jews worship is not a remnant of the ancient Temple, and the 'Temple Mount', on which is currently situated the Al-Aqsa mosque and the "Dome of the Rock", is not the location of the Temple destroyed in 72 A.D. The 36 acre 'Temple Mount' is actually the location of the Roman fortress Antonia built by Herod.

What is the evidence for this? The current popular claim is the fortress Antonia was located on a five-acre section on the north-west side of the 'Temple Mount' while the Temple occupied the remaining 30 acres. Five acres is far too small to accommodate a Roman legion (6,000 soldiers plus auxiliary staff) which we know from the writings of Flavius Josephus that the fortress Antonia did in fact hold. Many Roman fortresses have been examined by archeologists and they typically are between 45 and 55 acres but some are as small as 36 acres. As far as the area needed for the Temple of Herod itself, consider this, the ancient pagan temple complex at Baalek in Lebanon built by the Romans is less than six acres in total area and encloses the largest temple to Jupiter in the Roman Empire as well as a smaller temple dedicated to Bacchus and another to Venus. The Temple built by Herod was a single temple and much smaller in overall dimensions.

Furthermore, when Solomon was designated by King David to succeed him (3 Kings 1), King David directed the prophet Nathan and the high priest Sadoc to take Solomon on the king's mule to be anointed king at the "Gihon spring" with oil taken from the tabernacle. The Gihon spring is located in the City of David directly south and adjacent to the present-day 'Temple Mount'. There Solomon was anointed with oil taken from the Tabernacle, proclaimed king and celebrated by the populace with great jubilation and the sounding of trumpets that could be heard outside the city. The Temple built by Solomon was in the same location as the Tabernacle established by King David on the threshing floor of the land he purchased Areuna the Jebusite as God had commanded by the mouth of Gad (2 Kings 24 and 2 Paralipomenon 3:1).

The water from the Gihon spring was essential for the sacrificial offerings of the Temple. There is no living water source on the 'Temple Mount' which was required in the washing of the priests and the sacrifices offered. The water source for the Antonia fortress was provided by large cisterns located just north of the Antonia fortress and under the 'Temple Mount' that are still present today.

There is a Catholic tradition the there was a church called the Church of the Judgment that was built over and enclosed the Rock that is now enclosed under the Dome of the Rock built by the Moslems in 692 A.D. The Dome of the Rock is located directly north of the Al-Aqsa mosque on the 'Temple Mount'. The Church of the Judgment was destroyed either by the Persians who conquered Jerusalem in 614 A.D. with the help of 26,000 Jewish allies during the Byzantine-Sasanian War 602-628 A.D. (during which many churches were destroyed including the Church of the Ascension on Mount Olivet), or the church was destroyed by the Moslems who conquered Jerusalem in 637 A.D. No living Jew at the time would have knowledge of the exact location of Herod's Temple because the Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem by the Romans since the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 A.D. on the pain of death. Two hundred years later, the Catholic emperor Constantine permitted the Jews to enter Jerusalem once a year on the feast of Tisha B'Av (the ninth of Av) which is regarded as the saddest day in the Jewish calendar because it is the anniversary of the destruction of both the Temple of Solomon and the Temple of Herod! Be that as it may, many of the pillars used in the construction of the interior of the Dome of the Rock have Christian markings indicating that they were salvaged from a destroyed Catholic church.

The Rock itself is regarded (WIKI) as The Foundation Stone (Hebrew אֶבֶן הַשְּׁתִיָּה, romanized: ʾEḇen haŠeṯīyyā,  lit. 'Foundation Stone'), or the Noble Rock (Arabic:الصخرة المشرفة, romanized: al-Saḵrah al-Mušarrafah, lit.  'The Noble Stone') is the rock enclosed by the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. It is also known as the Pierced Stone, because it has a small hole on the southeastern corner that enters a cavern beneath the rock, known as the Well of Souls. Traditional Jewish sources mention the stone as the place from which the creation of the world began. Jewish sources also identify its location with that of the Holy of Holies. Yet, it is not possible for a threshing floor to be around a large rock or stone.

Before the Muslim conquest, the Rock was enclosed in the Catholic church known as the Church of the Judgment (destroyed by the Persians) because it is believed to have been the place where the condemned stood to hear the judgment against them by the Roman authorities. The Rock is held to be where Jesus stood when His official condemnation was decreed by Pontius Pilate and thus, if it is the stone where the "creation of the world began," it is the stone from which the creation of the world began anew. John 19:13 says: "Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha." Lithostrotos in Greek refers to a stone and Gabbatha in Hebrew an elevated place. According to St. Mary Agreda after Jesus was condemned by Pilate the decree of condemnation, which she quotes in its entirety, was then formally read to the Jewish mob assembled outside the north entrance to Fortress Antonia where Jesus was taken to bear His cross.

Of the Temple of Herod destroyed in 72 A.D. there does not remain a "stone upon a stone".

---

Leo XIV Reinstates Convicted Child-Porn Priest who was protected by Francis

Carlo Alberto Capella was Vatican diplomat who was convicted by a Vatican tribunal of possessing and sharing child pornography. Capella admitted guilt to the charges. He is the only one who has served a prison sentence in the Vatican jail for this crime or for any sexually related crime against minors.

Monsignor Capella was ordained a priest in 1993 for the Archdiocese of Milan. After studies of canon law he entered the Vatican diplomatic corps. He was assigned to the papal nunciature in India in 2003 and to the nunciature in Hong Kong in 2007. In 2008 he was created Chaplain of His Holiness, which entitled him to the title of Monsignor.  In 2011 he was transferred to the Vatican to serve in the Secretariat of State. In 2016 he was assigned to the papal nunciature to the United States.

In 2017, Capella was recalled to the Vatican by Pope Francis after United States officials informed the Vatican that he was under investigation for possession and sharing of child pornography. The government of Canada has issued a warrant for his arrest, alleging that during his time in Canada in December, 2016 he had possessed and shared child pornography. He was returned to the Vatican which claimed diplomatic immunity for Capella protecting him from prosecution in the United State or Canada.

In 2018, he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, which he served in the Vatican jail. As of 2021, he was allowed out during the day to work in an office that sells papal blessings. In 2023, following the end of his prison sentence, Capella was permitted to return to work in the Vatican Secretariat of State. Now Pope Leo XIV has reinstated Msgr. Capella to a senior diplomatic position in the Vatican Secretariat of State.

COMMENT: Pope Leo is protégé of Francis to whom he owns his promotions to bishop and cardinal. It was Francis who protected this pervert from criminal charges in the United States and in Canada and now it is Francis' protégé who has restored him the a high level position in the Vatican. This does not portend well for any serious reform of the Novus Ordo Church which has become a sinecure for homosexuals and others perverts.

From Tradition In Action:

You don't have to be a liturgical EXPERT to see that there is no essential difference in the act!

The question is: Is there any essential difference in the actors?

Top: St. Patrick Catholic Church, Chatham, New Jersey, August 22, 2021

Bottom: First Lutheran Church, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 6, 2025

BELOW –

PREVIOUS BULLETIN POSTS THAT ARE NOT OUTDATED

HOME | About Us | Open Letters | Make a Contribution | Directions | Contact Us |

Pearl of York | Mass Schedule | List of Closed Parishes in the Diocese of Harrisburg |

| Announcements |

Why Move to Central Pennsylvania? | Canned Answers to Stale Objections