"Most of the Major Heresies in the First Three Centuries Arose in the East"

Before briefly dissecting two paragraphs of the address that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV delivered in Ephesus, Turkey, yesterday, Friday, November 28, 2025, I think that it I important to provide readers with the very first paragraph from Pope Leo XIII’s Divinum Illud Munus, May 9, 1897, to emphasize the point made in Prevost/Leo XIV Reduces the Doctrines Filioque and Papal Primacy to "Theological Controversies" in In Unitate Fidei that the Filioque is a settled matter of Catholic doctrine, not an implied “theological controversy”:

That divine office which Jesus Christ received from His Father for the welfare of mankind, and most perfectly fulfilled, had for its final object to put men in possession of the eternal life of glory, and proximately during the course of ages to secure to them the life of divine grace, which is destined eventually to blossom into the life of heaven. Wherefore, our Saviour never ceases to invite, with infinite affection, all men, of every race and tongue, into the bosom of His Church: “Come ye all to Me,” “I am the Life,” “I am the Good Shepherd.” Nevertheless, according to His inscrutable counsels, He did not will to entirely complete and finish this office Himself on earth, but as He had received it from the Father, so He transmitted it for its completion to the Holy Ghost. It is consoling to recall those assurances which Christ gave to the body of His disciples a little before He left the earth: “It is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send Him to you” (1 John xvi., 7). In these words He gave as the chief reason of His departure and His return to the Father, the advantage which would most certainly accrue to His followers from the coming of the Holy Ghost, and, at the same time, He made it clear that the Holy Ghost is equally sent by-and therefore proceeds from – Himself and the Father; that He would complete, in His office of Intercessor, Consoler, and Teacher, the work which Christ Himself had begun in His mortal life. For, in the redemption of the world, the completion of the work was by Divine Providence reserved to the manifold power of that Spirit, who, in the creation, “adorned the heavens” (Job xxvi., 13), and “filled the whole world” (Wisdom i., 7). (Pope Leo XIII, Divinum Illud Munus, May 9, 1897.)

As Pope Leo XIII noted in the passage quoted just above, Our Blessed Our and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself made it clear that the “Holy Ghost is equally sent by—and therefore—proceeds from—Himself and the Father.” Catholics in the whole world universally agreed and accepted this doctrine, which is simply a truth of the Catholic Faith. It was a point of theological controversy then, and it is not now in the minds of Catholics who do not accept those who reduce to “theological controversies” established doctrines of the Catholic Church that are only “controversial” in the minds of manifest heretics and schismatics now and was the case at the time of the Council of Ephesus.

As a very good article, written in 1997, on the Catholic Answers website notes, “All the significant heresies of the early centuries of the Church arose and flourished in the East,” and to this I would something that would be considered heretical and schismatic by most sedeplenist Catholics today, that the false ecumenical outreach of the conciliar “popes” to Orthodox and other Eastern schismatics and heretics has been and continues to be an attempt to be reconciled with the very heresies that arose in the East in the First Millennium, much of which served as the foundation of at least some aspects of Protestantism:

Conciliarism is the hallmark of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. Eastern apologists hold that God intended the Church to be governed by councils of bishops. A gathering of bishops in an ecumenical council constitutes, for most Easterners, the supreme doctrinal and canonical authority. Other Eastern apologists declare that ultimate authority in all matters resides in the faithful as a whole: Ecumenical councils become authoritative only when they are accepted by all the people. Eastern theologians do recognize that there is no way to determine precisely when this necessary “reception” has occurred.

Eastern conciliarism is based neither in Scripture nor in Tradition. For scriptural precedent Easterners cite the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). That council gave rise, says Peter Gillquist, to “the idea of discerning God’s will in consensus,” which is Gillquist’s epitome of conciliarism.

The Council of Jerusalem simply gave its approval to a decision already made by Peter—or, rather, to a decision made by God and communicated to the Church through Peter (Acts 10 and 11). This is the pattern followed by all the early ecumenical councils. Each concurred in doctrinal decisions already made by a bishop or bishops of Rome—something I will show in this and subsequent articles.

or can the Eastern theory of conciliarism appeal to the councils themselves for its basis. No ecumenical council has taught that it, itself, is the supreme authority of the Church. No ecumenical council has taught that its decrees become authoritative only if and when accepted by all the faithful.

If what Easterners claim as the supreme authority has never declared itself to be the supreme authority, who has so designated it? The fact is, Eastern conciliarism is a substitute for universal papal jurisdiction. The theory was developed as a result of the Eastern churches’ growing estrangement and eventual separation from the see of Rome.

Drawing on the axiom of conciliarism, Meyendorff declares that in early centuries the pope had no “juridical power over the other bishops.” The facts prove quite the opposite. In the first century, Pope Clement put an end to schism in the Church at Corinth. He exacted obedience under penalty of serious sin, claiming to speak with the authority of Jesus Christ. In the second century, when Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East, many protested the threat but none questioned the Pope’s authority, and all finally yielded to it.

The reason the pope had no juridical power, says Meyendorff, was that “nothing of this nature had been granted to him by a council.” Whence comes the notion that a council could grant to, or withhold from, the successors of Peter any juridical power? No recognized council has taught anything remotely resembling what Meyendorff assumes.

Meyendorff expresses the axiom of conciliarism another way. Unless a council granted it to him, the bishop of Rome had no juridical right by virtue of his office. Why not? Because, says Meyendorff, quoting an unnamed source, “‘no province is deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit’; the latter is more likely to be working through the intermediary of ‘innumerable bishops’ than through one only.” Obviously, the grace of the Holy Spirit has not been withheld from any province. Just as obviously, this fact is irrelevant to the issue of papal jurisdiction. Is there a likelihood that the Holy Spirit would work through many bishops rather than through one? It might seem so to one with conciliarist presuppositions. But what if the Holy Spirit had previously chosen to work uniquely through one particular bishop?

The New Testament tells us that choice had been made, and it fell on Peter. Anti-Catholic apologists dispute, downplay, in some instances ignore the scriptural evidence for that choice. Eastern and Anglican apologists claim that the Catholic interpretation cannot be correct because the bishop of Rome did not exercise universal jurisdiction in the early centuries. Only through fortuitous circumstances many centuries later did the popes begin claiming and trying to exercise universal jurisdiction.

But turn the Eastern argument around. Suppose the Eastern reading of early Church history is mistaken. Suppose the bishop of Rome did exercise universal jurisdiction from the first century onward (as I have shown and will continue to show). Does not this validate the Catholic interpretation of the biblical revelation about the role of Peter in the Church? And does it not undercut the Eastern axiom of conciliarism?

The conciliarist approach is fundamentally ambiguous. “For Orthodoxy the sole criterion of the truth is the Holy Spirit himself, who will most assuredly guide the Church into all truth.” But how do we know when the Spirit has spoken? Through whom does he speak? How can we be sure what he is saying? What is the criterion of truth in the conciliarist scheme? In the ancient Church, “the criterion [of truth] was always truth itself, and not a visible organ of infallibility.” But the truth has to be articulated by someone. It does not suddenly appear out of the blue, perfectly apparent and clear to everyone.

Who is the guardian of truth in the Church? “[T]he sole guardian of truth is the Spirit of Truth which is loyal to the Church.” Again, the unanswered question is, through whom does the Spirit articulate and guard the faith? The Spirit is indeed loyal to the Church. But what happens when parts of the Church are disloyal to the Spirit? And how do we know they are in fact disloyal? The answer? “No institutional criterion, except the Spirit itself, can define the apostolic tradition.” Once more, how? Through whom? From conciliarism, still no answers.

Turn now to the role of the papacy in the proceedings of the first ecumenical council (Nicaea, 325). For background, we should glance briefly at two events in the third century involving Alexandria and Antioch, then the second and third most important sees of the Catholic Church. Alexandria was regarded as a Petrine see because it was founded by Peter’s protégé, Mark, and Peter himself had been the first bishop of Antioch, before moving to Rome.

According to the fourth-century historian Eusebius, Patriarch Dionysius of Antioch (died ca. 264) wrote to Pope Xystus II asking about rebaptism. He asked for advice from the Pope, he said, “for fear I am acting mistakenly.” Later the Patriarch wrote to Xystus’s successor, Pope Dionysius, informing him that the Sabellian heresy had appeared in his patriarchate. (This trinitarian heresy so emphasized the unity of the Godhead as to deny a distinction of divine Persons.) The Pope also wrote to two of his Egyptian bishops, emphasizing our Lord’s humanity. Certain persons in the see of Alexandria (perhaps those two bishops) reported to the Pope that Patriarch Dionysius was tending toward heretical views.

The Pope wrote the Egyptian bishops a letter detailing the errors of Sabellianism and what was later called Arianism and condemning them. He designated the term homoousios (“of the same substance”) as an appropriate safeguard of orthodox Christology. Note that sixty and more years before the Council of Nicaea, Pope Dionysius anticipated the Council’s work in condemning Arianism and in selecting the appropriate theological concept for the Church’s Christology.

The Pope wrote to Patriarch Dionysius, told him of the allegations against his orthodoxy, and asked for an explanation. Eastern Orthodox apologists tell us the Pope had no jurisdiction over other bishops. Here the Pope is calling on the second most important bishop of the Christian world to defend his orthodoxy. Did Patriarch Dionysius deny the Pope’s authority to bring him on the carpet, so to speak? Not at all. He welcomed the Pope’s inquiry and quickly wrote an explanation which the Pope accepted as satisfactory.

In the third century Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, denied the personhood of the Logos, saying that only the divine Wisdom had become incarnate. In 264 the bishops of Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor convened in synod and condemned Paul’s heresy. Because he persisted in his errors, a second and then a third synod met, and finally he was deposed and excommunicated. Domnus was named as replacement, but Paul refused to vacate the episcopal residence. The bishops appealed to Emperor Aurelian, who was in Antioch at that time. It would have been simple for the Emperor to settle the matter then and there and order Domnus installed as patriarch of Antioch. Instead, he asked Rome to decide who should be patriarch. Rome chose Domnus, and he was installed.

Note that this was a controversy among Eastern bishops, and it involved the rightful occupant of the third most important see in the Church, an Eastern see. Why did Aurelian turn to Rome for a decision? Why would he have the controversy settled in a way that would be a staggering affront to the Eastern bishops and to their authority . . . unless they recognized the pope’s universal jurisdiction. That they did. None objected. The matter was settled. ” Roma locuta est” (Rome has spoken).

An examination of the Council of Nicaea starts with the fact that the Arian question which provoked the council had been resolved by the popes a century and more earlier. In the second century Pope Victor excommunicated Theodotus, an early exponent of the heresy later called “Arianism.” As noted above, Pope Dionysius condemned the heresy later associated with Arius’s name and settled on the key theological term later adopted by the Council of Nicaea. Early in the fourth century the heresy condemned by Victor and Dionysius burst forth again in the teaching of Lucian of Antioch. Under the impetus of his pupil Arius, a priest of Alexandria, the heresy spread throughout the East like wildfire.

A reminder. All the significant heresies of the early centuries of the Church arose and flourished in the East. Often these heresies were espoused by the emperor of the East. At one time or another, and in some instances frequently, the Eastern patriarchal sees were occupied by heretics. Easterners were adept at creating heresies, but lacked the dominical authority to resolve them. In every single instance, it was the papacy that had to come to the rescue.

What should a pope have done in response to this fresh outbreak of heresy in the early fourth century? Another papal pronouncement would not resolve the issue. The popes had already condemned this heresy. The Arians, backed by the Emperor and influential Eastern bishops, were intransigent. No pope could separate them from their error.

Nor was it feasible for the papacy simply to issue a statement excommunicating all bishops who taught contrary to the doctrine enunciated by Rome. For one thing, a pope would need to know who were the unfaithful bishops. For another, the papal commission from Christ is first of all to “strengthen the brethren” if possible, not cast them out.

Papal infallibility involves divine assistance that preserves a pope from error when he does speak authoritatively in matters of faith and morals. That divine assistance does not dispense him from the necessity of using human means to determine how a particular doctrinal problem is to be solved. Those human means include study, reflection, widespread consultation with the bishops, and sometimes a council of bishops.

The Arian heresy originated in the East. It was therefore appropriate to summon the bishops of the East to express their judgment on the matter. A pope had already spoken. If the bishops spoke after him, it would not be the act of superiors, but of subordinates. The effect of their pronouncement would be to accept the pope’s decision as the norm.

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is an example of concordant judgment. At that council James echoed the policy established through Peter by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10), explained by Peter to the leaders in Jerusalem (Acts11), and enunciated by Peter at the council (Acts 15).

Assisted by two papal priest-legates, Vito and Vincentius, Hosius of Cordova presided at the Council of Nicaea. It is reasonably certain that Pope Sylvester had designated Hosius, as well as the two legates, to represent him.

Hosius and the legates were the first to sign the decrees of the Council. In fact, says historian Luke Rivington, the Graeco-Russian liturgy, in the office for Pope Sylvester, speaks of him as actual head of the Council of Nicaea: “Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council, O Initiator into the sacred mysteries, and hast illustrated the Throne of the Supreme One of the Disciples.”

The Council of Nicaea condemned the teachings of Arius as b.asphemy and accepted the word homoousios (“of one substance”) as the appropriate term for the relation of God the Father and God the Son. The result of the council, according to Gillquist, was that “the Orthodoxy of Athanasius had prevailed at the Council.” The orthodoxy of whom? Where did Athanasius get his “Orthodoxy”? From Pope Victor, who a century and a half earlier had condemned the teaching of Theodotus, a doctrinal ancestor of Arius, and from Pope Dionysius, who sixty years earlier had condemned what was called later the Arian heresy and who fixed the term homoousios as a key to authentic Christology.

Meyendorff ignores the repeated, clearly attested exercise of papal universal jurisdiction which we have seen in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. He declares that, except for the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the papacy “had no decisive influence upon the trinitarian and christological debates raging in the East” in the early centuries. Instead, the ultimate ecclesial authority was “the conciliar agreement of the episcopate.” The facts are otherwise. Only the successor of Peter could and did “strengthen the brethren” and bring about the triumph of orthodox christology. (Papal Primacy and the Council of Nicea | Catholic Answers Magazine.)

Yet it is that the conciliar “popes,” starting with Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and the Metz Accord (see  The Council of Metz) and continuing to the present time with Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV have treated at Orthodox Christology and Ecclesiology as the basis for endless “joint agreements” and “mutual understandings” that have been designed to make opaque what is perfectly clearly and clearly immutable.

To wit, get a gander at these two paragraphs that Prevost Leo, who is every bit an Anti-Leo as a figure of Antichrist, uttered yesterday in Nicaea, Turkey (interjections as per usual):

Today, the whole of humanity afflicted by violence and conflict is crying out for reconciliation. The desire for full communion among all believers in Jesus Christ is always accompanied by the search for fraternity among all human beings. In the Nicene Creed, we profess our faith “in one God, the Father.” Yet, it would not be possible to invoke God as Father if we refused to recognize as brothers and sisters all other men and women, who are created in the image of God (cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Nostra Aetate, 5). There is a universal fraternity of men and women regardless of ethnicity, nationality, religion or personal perspectives. Religions, by their very nature, are repositories of this truth and should encourage individuals, groups and peoples to recognize this and put it into practice (cf. Leo XIV, Address at the conclusion of the Meeting for Prayer for Peace, 28 October 2025). (Ecumenical Prayer service near the archaeological excavations of the ancient Basilica of Saint Neophytos in İznik, 28 November 2025.)

Interjection Number One:

First, the Catholic Faith alone is the basis for true fraternity among all men.

Second, the Nicene Creed as taught and professed by the Catholic Church must be accepted without qualification or reservation by all men upon the peril of eternal damnation.

Third, to attempt to turn the Nicene Creed into an effort to promote a Judeo-Masonic/Sillonist view of “human fraternity” is blasphemous and has been condemned as follows (drum roll, please) by our true popes:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”

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

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

This is all contrary to the false conciliar religion, which, among other things, is an expression of Sillonism’s reconciliation with the principles of the French Revolution and Judeo-Masonry, and for all of Prevost’s concern about “loving others” as Our Lord loves us, he ignores the fact that Our Lord’s love for us is an act of His Holy Will, the ultimate expression of which is the sanctification and salvation of the immortal souls as members of His Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can never be a truly just social order within nations nor a stable, enduring peace among them.

As Pope Pius XI noted in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, Catholicism and Catholicism alone is the path to true peace, which begins in the hearts and souls of men who are peace with the Most Blessed Trinity:

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.

43. Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)

44. Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Fourth, it is false and heretical to claim that all religions are repositories of truth. There is only one repository of Divine Revelation: the Catholic Church as Pope Pius XI noted:

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

False religions come from and serve the interests of the devil himself. For anyone, including Prevost/Leo, to assert otherwise, shows that such a person is himself in league with the adversary, if only unwittingly.

Fifth, I will note the Prevost/Leo has become very adept at quoting himself, thus continuing the conciliar “tradition” begun in earnest by Karol Jozef Wojtyla/John Paul II of endless self-references that was carried on with gusto by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio before him.

Now, there are two other passages that I want to explore before completing this commentary.

The first rejects efforts made to defend Catholic lands at Battle of Tours, October 10, 732, the efforts of Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, better known as El Cid, and Ferdinand III to oppose the Mohammedans on the Iberian Peninsula, the Crusades, the Battle of Lepanto and the Battle at the Gates of Vienna as having arisen from of fundamentalism” or “fanaticism”:

Furthermore, we must strongly reject the use of religion for justifying war, violence, or any form of fundamentalism or fanaticism. Instead, the paths to follow are those of fraternal encounter, dialogue and cooperation. (Ecumenical Prayer service near the archaeological excavations of the ancient Basilica of Saint Neophytos in İznik, 28 November 2025.)

While I am tempted just to dump a whole passel full of reprised material here, suffice it to say that God Himself called for wars to be waged in His Holy Name as recorded in the pages of the Old Testament. As the Argentine Apostate had done before him, Prevost/Leo thus rhetorically brushes aside, if not directly condemns, the Catholic heroism of the Battle of Tours’s Charles Martel, the aforementioned El Cid and Ferdinand III, Blessed Pope Urban II (and all Crusaders, including Saint Louis IX, King of France), Philip II (the only monarch in Western Europe to respond to Pope Saint Pius V’s call for troops to defeat the Turks in the Bay of Lepanto), Don Juan, Andrea Doria, Saint Pius V himself and John Sobieski, the Cristeros of both Mexico, although “dialogue” would not have worked the Mohammedans in Europe or the anti-clerical Masonic-Communists of Mexico or Spain any better then that it has since that madness began sixty years ago at the “Second” Vatican Council.

Now, to the coup de grace, here is the final passage that I bring to your attention before I try to get a few hours of sleep:

I am deeply grateful to His All Holiness Bartholomew, for it was with great wisdom and foresight that he decided to commemorate together the 1700^th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea in the very place where it was held. I likewise warmly thank the Heads of Churches and Representatives of Christian World Communions who have accepted the invitation to participate in this event. May God the Father, almighty and merciful, hear the fervent prayers we offer him today, and grant that this important anniversary may bear the abundant fruits of reconciliation, unity and peace.

God does and, indeed, He cannot “bless” efforts of “reconciliation, unity, and peace” that are based in various heresies, errors, and other falsehoods as each is authored by the devil himself to make it appear as though there is something other than Catholicism.

Among the many antidotes to this idiocy, which has produced nothing but failures after six decades of repetitive platitudinous encomiums of slobbery self-congratulations repleted hugs, handshakes, and kisses of “peace,” is the following passage from Pope Leo XIII’s Review of His Pontificate:

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely wise, good, and just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men.  It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the states and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption.  It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, it makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which It has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel It does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty.  Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

With that on the Vigil of Saint Andrew the Apostle and the Commemoration of Saint Saturninus, I must close as I remind readers to continue using Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary as their weapon and her Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel as their shield against the forces of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as we lift high the Holy Cross of her Divine Son in all the circumstances of our lives with joy, love, and gratitude. We must do this in a humble recognition of the fact that we are sinners who must be aware of not only how we wounded Our Lord on the Holy Cross and Our Lady once in time but whose sins have worsened the state of the world-at-large and the state of the Church Militant on earth as well as dulling, if not entirely sullying, the luster of our Baptismal garments and made the Gift of Fortitude we received in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance melt away into a puddle of gelatin.

Advent is neigh!

Prepare, good Catholic soldiers, to welcome the Baby Jesus anew in twenty-six days!

Fly to Our Lady and Saint Joseph.

Beg for the intercession of Saint Andrew and Saint Saturninus, and never remember to cease praying for the day when all hearts, consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, will exclaim:

Viva Cristo Rey!