An Open Invitation to Josef Seifert and Others of Good Will to Remove Their Blinders

Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert, who was one of the authors of a 2018 “Correctio” issued against Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, has recently pleaded with the “cardinals” of what he thinks to be the Catholic Church to do something about Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s efforts to “destroy” the foundations of Catholic Faith and Morals.

Permit me, therefore, to provide you with part of the breathless Lifesite News report on the professor’s exhortation before I invite him to take off the blinders that kept me from seeing the truth of our ecclesiastical situation for over three decades:

(LifeSiteNews) — A Catholic professor blasted Pope Francis, accusing the Pontiff of “destroying the foundations of faith and morals.”

Renowned philosophy professor and intimate friend of Pope John Paul II, Josef Seifert, published an open letter addressed to the cardinals of the Catholic Church, in which he called the bishops of the Church to resist Pope Francis’ his heterodox actions, like the signing of the Abu Dhabi document.

“Let us remember the Declaration on the Fraternity of All People signed by Pope Francis together with Grand Imam Ahmad Mohammad Al-Tayyeb,” Seifert said. 

“Wouldn’t it be a heresy and a terrible confusion to claim that God – just as he willed the difference of the two sexes – i.e. with his positive will – also directly willed the difference of religions and thus all idolatry and heresies? Yes, isn’t the Abu Dhabi Declaration far worse than heresy, namely apostasy?”

“Shouldn’t all of you cardinals and bishops speak your firm ‘non possumus’ [we cannot] when Francis demands that this ‘document’ be the basis for the formation of priests in all seminaries and theological faculties?”

“True as it is in itself ‘that the pope is the pope and guarantor of the faith,’ this statement cannot be applied to a pope who signed the Abu Dhabi Declaration and spread it around the world, and who has said and done many other things contrary to the consistent teaching the Church.”  Renowned Catholic philosopher warns Pope Francis is 'destroying the foundations of faith and morals'.)

I. Abu Dhabi Resulted From Decades of “Papal” Praise of Pagan Religions

Yes, the so-called Declaration on the Fraternity of All People” is apostasy. However, a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter would never be a signatory to such a document, nor would a true pope speak to Hindus as Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II did in 1986:

1. I am pleased that my pilgrimage to India has brought me to Delhi, and once again to this Indira Gandhi Stadium. Here we are experiencing together, in a religious and cultural setting, the reality that is man in this your vast and fascinating land. You are representatives and leaders in various fields of human life and endeavour. To all of you I offer my greetings of friendship, respect and fraternal love.

I wish to thank all who have made this meeting possible, and I am especially pleased that so many young people are able to be here. I am very grateful to those of different religions who have welcomed me so cordially and have presented their deep reflections, together with their earnest hopes for India and for the world.

For all of us this experience is conducive to a deep reflection on this reality of man which we perceive and are immersed in. In India, without doubt, this reality offers us a spiritual vision of man. I believe that this spiritual vision is of supreme relevance for the people of India and for their future; it says much about their values, their hopes and aspirations and their human dignity. I believe that a spiritual vision of man is of immense importance for the whole of humanity With an emphasis on spiritual values the world is capable of formulating a new attitude towards itself – new, but based to a great extent on ethical values preserved for centuries, many of them in this ancient land. These include a spirit of fraternal charity and dedicated service, forgiveness, sacrifice and renunciation, remorse and penance for moral failings and patience and forbearance.

2. With the passing of time, it becomes evident that it is necessary to return over and again to the central issue of the world, which is man: man as a creature and child of God; man bearing within his heart and soul the image to fulfil his calling to live for ever.

The one who speaks to you today is convinced that man is the way that the Catholic Church must take in order to be faithful to herself. In my first Encyclical I stated: " Man is the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being – in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people... and in the sphere of the whole of mankind – this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission" . And with equal conviction I would state that man is the primary route that all humanity must follow – but always man in the "full truth of his existence".

3. India has so much to offer to the world in the task of understanding man and the truth of his existence. And what she offers specifically is a noble spiritual vision of man – man, a pilgrim of the Absolute, travelling towards a goal, seeking the face of God. Did not Mahatma Gandhi put it this way: "What I want to achieve – what I have been striving and pining to achieve... is self-realization – to see God face to face. I live and move and have my being in pursuit of this goal" .

On the rectitude of this spiritual vision is built the defence of man in his daily life. With this spiritual vision of man we are equipped to face the concrete problems that affect man, torment his soul and afflict his body.

From this vision comes the incentive to undertake the struggle to remedy and improve man’s condition, and to pursue relentlessly his integral human development. From it comes the strength to persevere in the cause, as well as the clarity of thought needed to find concrete solutions to man’s problems. From a spiritual vision of man is derived the inspiration to seek help and to offer collaboration in promoting the true good of humanity at every level. Yes, from this spiritual vision comes an indomitable spirit to win for man – for each man – his rightful place in this world.

Despite all the powerful forces of poverty and oppression, of evil and sin in all their forms, the power of truth, will prevail – the truth about God, the truth about man. It will prevail because it is invincible. The power of truth is invincible! "Satyam èva jayatè – Truth alone triumphs", as the motto of India proclaims.

4. The full truth about man constitutes a whole programme for world-wide commitment and collaboration. My predecessor Paul VI returned over and over again to the concept of integral human development, because it is based on the truth about man. He proposed it as the only way to bring about man’s true progress at any time, but especially at this juncture of history.

In particular Paul VI looked upon integral human development as a condition for arriving at that great and all pervasive good which is peace. Indeed, he stated that this development is " the new name for peace" .

To pursue integral human development it is necessary to take a stand on what is greatest and most noble in man: to reflect on his nature, his life and his destiny. In a word, integral human development requires a spiritual vision of man.

If we are to further the advancement of man we must identify whatever obstructs and contradicts his total well-being and affects his life; we must identify whatever wounds, weakens or destroys life, whatever attacks human dignity and hinders man from attaining the truth or from living according to the truth.

The pursuit of integral human development invites the world to reflect on culture and to view it in its relationship to the final end of man. Culture is not only an expression of man’s temporal life but an aid in reaching his eternal life.

India’s mission in all of this is crucial, because of her intuition of the spiritual nature of man. Indeed India’s greatest contribution to the world can be to offer it a spiritual vision of man. And the world does well to attend willingly to this ancient wisdom and in it to find enrichment for human laving.

5. The attainment of integral human development for mankind makes demands on each individual. It requires a radical openness to others, and people are more readily open to each other when they understand their own spiritual nature and that of their neighbour.

The Second Vatican Council perceived in our world "the birth of a new humanism in which man is defined above all by his responsibility towards his brothers and sisters and towards history" . It is indeed evident that there is no place in this world for "man’s inhumanity to man". Selfishness is a contradiction. By his nature man is called to open his heart, in love, to his neighbours, because he has been loved by God. In Christian tradition as expressed by Saint John’s Letter we read: " Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another... If we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us" .

The building of a new world requires something deeply personal from each human being. The renewal of the world in all its social relations begins in the heart of every individual. It calls for a change of heart and for repentance. It calls for a purification of heart and a real turning to God. And what is deeply personal is supremely social, because "man is defined above all in his responsibilities to his brothers and sisters...". Christians cherish the fact that, in teaching his followers how to pray, Jesus told them to approach God by calling him "Our Father ".

While speaking of my own convictions, I know that many of them are in accord with what is expressed in the ancient wisdom of this land. And in this wisdom we find today an ever old and ever new basis for fraternal solidarity in the cause of man and therefore ultimately in the service of God.

The spiritual vision of man that India shares with the world is the vision of man seeking the face of God. The very words used by Mahatma Gandhi about his own spiritual quest echo the words quoted by Saint Paul when he explained that God is not far from each of us: " In him we live and move and have our being " .

6. Religion directs our lives totally to God, and at the same time our lives must be totally permeated by our relationship to God – to the point that our religion becomes our life. Religion is concerned with humanity and everything that belongs to humanity, and at the same time it directs to God all that is human within us. I would repeat what I wrote at the beginning of my Pontificate: "Inspired by eschatological faith, the Church considers an essential, unbreakably united element of her mission this solicitude for man, for his humanity, for the future of men on earth and therefore also for the course set for the whole of development and progress" . As religion works to promote the reign of God in this world, it tries to help the whole of society to promote man’s transcendent destiny. At the same time it teaches its members a deep personal concern for neighbour and civic responsibility for the community. The Apostle John issued a challenge to the early Christian community which remains valid for all religious people everywhere: " I ask you, how can God’s love survive in a man who has enough of this world’s goods yet closes his heart to his brother when he sees him in need?" .

7. In the world today, there is a need for all religions to collaborate in the cause of humanity, and to do this from the viewpoint of the spiritual nature of man. Today, as Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsees and Christians, we gather in fraternal love to assert this by our very presence. As we proclaim the truth about man, we insist that man’s search for temporal and social well-being and full human dignity corresponds to the deep longings of his spiritual nature. To work for the attainment and preservation of all human rights, including the basic right to worship God according to the dictates of an upright conscience and to profess that faith externally, must become ever more a subject of interreligious collaboration at all levels. This interreligious collaboration must also be concerned with the struggle to eliminate hunger, poverty, ignorance, persecution, discrimination and every form of enslavement of the human spirit. Religion is the mainspring of society’s commitment to justice, and interreligious collaboration must reaffirm this in practice.

8. All efforts in the cause of man are linked to a particular vision of man, and all effective and complete efforts require a spiritual vision of man. With Paul VI I repeat the conviction that " there is no true humanism but that which is open to the Absolute and is conscious of a vocation which gives human life its true meaning... Man can only realise himself by reaching beyond himself" .

The late President of India, Dr Radhakrishnan, was right when he said: " Only a moral and spiritual revolution in the name of human dignity can place man above the idols of economic production technological organisation, racial discrimination and national egotism" . And again "The new world of peace, freedom and safety for all can be achieved only by those who are moved by great spiritual ideals" .

The wisdom of India will contribute incalculably to the world by its witness to the fact that increased possession is not the ultimate goal of life. The true liberation of man will be brought about, as also the elimination of all that militates against human dignity, only when the spiritual vision of man is held in honour and pursued. Only within this framework can the world adequately face the many problems of justice, peace and integral human development that call for urgent solutions. And within this framework of the truth of man, the holiness of God will be made manifest by the rectitude and uprightness of human relations in the social, political, cultural and economic spheres of life.

9. This is the humanism that unites us today and invites us to fraternal collaboration. This is the humanism that we offer to all the young people present here today and to all the young people of the world. This is the humanism to which India can make an imperishable contribution. What is at stake is the well-being of all human society – the building up of an earthly city that will already prefigure the eternal one and contain in initial form the elements that will for ever be part of man’s eternal destiny.

The Prophet Isaiah offers us his vision of this reality:

"I will appoint peace your governor,
and justice your ruler.
No longer shall violence be heard of in your land,
or plunder and ruin within your boundaries.
You shall call your walls ‘ Salvation’
and your gates ‘Praise’.
No longer shall the sun
be your light by day,
Nor the brightness of the moon shine upon you at night;
The Lord shall be your light forever,
your God shall be your glory" .

However we describe our spiritual vision of man, we know that man is central to God’s plan. And it is for man that we are all called to work – to labour and toil for his betterment, for his advancement, for his integral human development. A creature and child of God, man is, today and always, the path of humanity – man in the full truth of his existence! ( Meeting with the representatives of the different religious and cultural traditions in the «Indira Gandhi» Stadium (February 2, 1986)

How is this significantly different in tone from the Abu Dhabi “Declaration on the Fraternity of All People”?

It is not any different.

The goal of the true religion, Catholicism, is to sanctify and thus help to save the souls of all men, not engage in the sort of Judeo-Masonic naturalism and, despite all the protestations of the conciliar revolutionaries to the contrary, religious indifferentism that leaves adherents of false religions perfectly content in their diabolically inspired ways until the day the die.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Abu Dhabi declaration can be seen as a prescinding directly from the respect that Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI paid to false religions, each of which is a tool of the devil himself, as instruments of “peace” in the cause of Jacques Maritain’s and Germain Grisez’s “integral human development” and in the name of “human fraternity.”

Perhaps Professor Seifert should remove the blinders and consider the fact that the Sillonism of Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.

Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.

Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when will it come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And what of the lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are content to plow their furrow modestly at the level where Providence placed them? They who are diligently discharging their duties with Christian humility, obedience, and patience, are they not also worthy of being called men? Will not Our Lord take them one day out of their obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes of His people? . . .

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Moreover, it is important to note that Pope Leo XIII condemned any and all signs of universal toleration or marks of respect for false religions and to express a fraternity with 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.)

Professor Seifert, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only bringing the inherent degeneracy of the false conciliar religion to its perfection. Remove the blinders, Professor, and take an honest look at the truth of the matter.

II. Truth Matters, and Truth Has Been Under Attack From Roncalli to Bergoglio

Yes, truth exists. It is. It exists independently of human acceptance of it, and its veracity does not depend upon the character of those who profess it (not that integrity of life is unimportant, of course, but it is irrelevant to whether something is true or false).

However (yes, once again, my weary readers), the nature of dogmatic truth has been under attack by the conciliar revolutionaries for the past sixty-five years, starting with the old Sillonist named Angelo Roncalli. This embrace of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned proposition of dogmatic evolutionism has been disguised by the use of two different euphemisms (Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” and Ratzinger/Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity”) before its open, undisguised embrace by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries.

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, however, was bold enough in his own career-long warfare on the nature of dogmatic pronouncements as to claim that Holy Mother Church had to “learn” that the “particulars” of dogmatic pronouncements can become obsolete over time, meaning that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, not only “hid” this from the Church for over nineteen centuries but permitted the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and Popes Saint Pius X and Pius XII to err when they taught the following:

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

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

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1870.)

Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, 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.

Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart.

Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Domici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

After mature examination and the most diligent deliberations the Pontifical Biblical Commission has happily given certain decisions of a very useful kind for the proper promotion and direction on safe lines of Biblical studies. But we observe that some persons, unduly prone to opinions and methods tainted by pernicious novelties and excessively devoted to the principle of false liberty, which is really immoderate license and in sacred studies proves itself to be a most insidious and a fruitful source of the worst evils against the purity of the faith, have not received and do not receive these decisions with the proper obedience.

Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.

Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree "Lamentabili sane exitu" (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters "Pascendi dominici gregis" given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter "Docentes" of the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis," which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.

Wherefore we again and most earnestly exhort the ordinaries of the dioceses and the heads of religious congregations to use the utmost vigilance over teachers, and first of all in the seminaries; and should they find any of them imbued with the errors of the modernists and eager for what is new and noxious, or lacking in docility to the prescriptions of the Apostolic See, in whatsoever way published, let them absolutely forbid the teaching office to such; so, too, let them exclude from sacred orders those young men who give the very faintest reason for doubt that they favor condemned doctrines and pernicious novelties. We exhort them also to take diligent care to put an end to those books and other writings, now growing exceedingly numerous, which contain opinions or tendencies of the kind condemned in the encyclical letters and decree above mentioned; let them see to it that these publications are removed from Catholic publishing houses, and especially from the hands of students and the clergy. By doing this they will at the same time be promoting real and solid education, which should always be a subject of the greatest solicitude for those who exercise sacred authority.

All these things we will and order to be sanctioned and established by our apostolic authority, aught to the contrary notwithstanding. (Pope Saint Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907.)

I hold with certainty and I sincerely confess that faith is not a blind inclination of religion welling up from the depth of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the inclination of a morally conditioned will, but is the genuine assent of the intellect to a truth that is received from outside by hearing. In this assent, given on the authority of the all-truthful God, we hold to be true what has been said, attested to, and revealed, by the personal God, our creator and Lord.” (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

“Some hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. […] It is evident from what We have already said, that such efforts not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Joseph Alois Ratzinger was completely consistent in his warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth as Father Ratzinger in 1971, “Cardinal” Ratzinger in 1990, and “Pope Benedict XVI” in 2005:

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute. 

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itselfIt was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.  

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom,has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all(Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI never believed that doctrine has been revealed by God, preferring to contend that doctrine “develops from faith,” a bold contention that is of the essence of Modernism and condemned forcefully by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, as quoted above.

For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.

Ratzinger/Benedict did not have a zeal to convert souls to the true Faith, but he did possess a burning zeal to convince others of the mutability of Catholic doctrine, which is why one of the first things he did as “Pope Benedict” was to appoint William Levada to succeed himself as the prefect of the conciliar church’s so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Levada was unapologetic in his support of dogmatic evolutionism.

The late William "Cardinal" Levada made it clear in an interview he gave to the Whispers in the Loggia website nearly thirteen years ago now that he believed in the exact same Modernist conception of dogmatic truth:

The role of the Church in that dialogue between an individual and his or her God, says the Cardinal, is not to be the first interlocutor, but the role is indispensable. "We believe that the apostles and their successors received the mission to interpret revelation in new circumstances and in the light of new challenges. That creates a living tradition that is much larger than the simple and strict passing of existing answers, insights and convictions from one generation to another.

But at the end of the day there has to be an instance that can decide whether a specific lifestyle is coherent with the principles and values of our faith, that can judge whether our actions are in accordance with the commandment to love your neighbor. The mission of the Church is not to prohibit people from thinking, investigate different hypotheses, or collect knowledge. Its mission is to give those processes orientation". . . . (Levada Gives Rare Interview.)

The mission of the Catholic Church is to sanctify and to save souls.

As Pope Gregory XVI noted in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834, Mother Church brings forth Our Lord’s teaching without so much as a slight taint or varnish of error:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.) 

Pope Saint Gregory XVI was condemning an approach to doctrinal truth that was propagated by the late Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict, a progenitor of novelty and innovation in his own Modernist right, and that he taught to his own students, including William Levada, thus making short work of the Act of Faith:

O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art One God in Three Divine Persons. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, died for our sins, and will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which Thy Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. (Act of Faith.)

The Catholic Faith is certain.

The conciliar faith is filled with uncertainties, complexities, and contradictions that leave much to the “individual” to “decide” even though there is nothing in the objective order of things to decide except to obedient to Holy Mother Church.

Professor Josef Seifert is a philosopher, and thus it would be hoped that if might be able to see that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only continuing the work of his predecessors, albeit with differences of substance here and there and certainly in the most vile, vulgar, and crude manner imaginable.

III. A Refusal to Seek the Conversion of Non-Catholics to the True Faith

Thus, Seifert’s rhetorical question about what to tell a “dear and deeply believing Lutheran friend” about whether the Catholic Church has left the “soil of Christianity” is misplaced as the counterfeit of conciliarism has not ever been, is not now, nor can ever be the spotless, mystical bride of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that is Holy Mother Church.

Here is Professor Seifert’s text on the matter:

How should I answer a dear and deeply believing Lutheran friend, for whose conversion I have been praying for years, when he writes to me that with this Abu Dhabi Declaration the Catholic Church has left the soil of Christianity?” he asked. (Renowned Catholic philosopher warns Pope Francis is 'destroying the foundations of faith and morals'.)

It is, of course, very commendable that Professor Josef Seifert is praying for the conversion of his Lutheran friend. Even in this, though, he must come to realize that seeking the “ecumenism of the return” was rejected by his friend, the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in no uncertain terms:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); 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!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English

Here is what our true popes have written on the matter of the "ecumenism of the return:"

"It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesusand we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd." (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for 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, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Who is Catholic here? "Pope" Benedict XVI or Popes Pius IX and Pius XI?

This is even worse than Professor Seifert permits himself to understand as, quite unlike himself, the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, discouraged a Protestant woman, Sigrid Spath, from pursuing her efforts to convert to what she thought was the Catholic Church before she died. Please see Sigrid Spath – Novus Ordo Watch for the confirmed details. Joseph Alois Ratzinger could say "I love you, Lord" a thousand times before he died, and Our Lord would say "Nescio vos" a thousand times to a man who discouraged a Lutheran woman from converting to Catholicism. This man had no concept of how to love Our Lord as to love Him one must be faithful to all that He has revealed, including, wherever and whenever possible, to seek the conversion of non-Catholics to the true Faith. One cannot be intellectually honest and ignore Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict’s lack of true charity for the soul of Ingrid Spath (and for the souls of those Protestants, Jews, Mohammedans, Hindi, Buddhists, and other assorted “believers”) while excoriating Jorge Mario Bergoglio for his own infidelity, including the Abu Dhabi “Declaration on Human Fraternity.”

IV. The Conciliar “Cardinals” No Sooner Possess the Catholic Faith Than Bergoglio

Professor Seifert also asked another rhetorical question concerning whether “all the cardinals” have and obligation to write the “pope” “as one man” to demand that he withdraw the Abu Dhabi document:

“Wouldn’t all the cardinals have to write to the Pope as one man and ask him to withdraw this apostatic declaration?” (Renowned Catholic philosopher warns Pope Francis is 'destroying the foundations of faith and morals'.)

This presupposes, Professor Seifert, that “all the cardinals” possess the Catholic Faith, which they do not as each of them subscribes to one conciliar error after another, including the contention to which Seifert himself subscribes, namely, that the unitive end of marriage takes precedence over the procreation and education of children:

856. The primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (This can be found on page 205 of the following link, which is the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English:  1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055.1.)

The entire fabric of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is built on the fabric of the inversion of the ends of marriage that was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on March 29, 1944, a condemnation that he cited and reiterated in the strongest terms possible in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951:

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)

The ends proper to the married state are immutable, making Professor Seifert’s continued insistence on the “orthodoxy” of Montini/Paul VI’s Humane Vitae, July 25, 1968, without any foundation as it stands truth on its in head, an immutable truth that Pope Pius XI noted as follows in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:[9] "These," says St. Augustine, "are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament."[10] And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: "By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained."[11]

11. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth."[12] As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy[13] when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says, 'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?,' he immediately adds: 'To bear children, to be mothers of families'."[14]

12. How great a boon of God this is, and how great a blessing of matrimony is clear from a consideration of man's dignity and of his sublime end. For man surpasses all other visible creatures by the superiority of his rational nature alone. Besides, God wishes men to be born not only that they should live and fill the earth, but much more that they may be worshippers of God, that they may know Him and love Him and finally enjoy Him for ever in heaven; and this end, since man is raised by God in a marvelous way to the supernatural order, surpasses all that eye hath seen, and ear heard, and all that hath entered into the heart of man.[15] From which it is easily seen how great a gift of divine goodness and how remarkable a fruit of marriage are children born by the omnipotent power of God through the cooperation of those bound in wedlock.

13. But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's household,[16] that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase.

14. For although Christian spouses even if sanctified themselves cannot transmit sanctification to their progeny, nay, although the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity, nevertheless, they share to some extent in the blessings of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is theirs to offer their offspring to the Church in order that by this most fruitful Mother of the children of God they may be regenerated through the laver of Baptism unto supernatural justice and finally be made living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and heirs of that eternal glory to which we all aspire from our inmost heart.

15. If a true Christian mother weigh well these things, she will indeed understand with a sense of deep consolation that of her the words of Our Savior were spoken: "A woman . . . when she hath brought forth the child remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world";[17] and proving herself superior to all the pains and cares and solicitudes of her maternal office with a more just and holy joy than that of the Roman matron, the mother of the Gracchi, she will rejoice in the Lord crowned as it were with the glory of her offspring. Both husband and wife, however, receiving these children with joy and gratitude from the hand of God, will regard them as a talent committed to their charge by God, not only to be employed for their own advantage or for that of an earthly commonwealth, but to be restored to God with interest on the day of reckoning. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

There is a straight path from inverting the ends proper to Holy Matrimony to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s promotion of “civil unions” for “married” sodomites, which Professor Seifert rightly criticized, and for “rites of blessings” to be administered by various conciliar “bishops” upon those “wedded” in a very united march to eternal perdition as to defect in one thing of the Holy Faith leads to a welter of unforeseen errors, the magnitude of which keeps growing over time. Conciliarism is not Catholicism. (Please see  for a discussion about that "encyclical's revolutionary nature. The analysis is also the first entry in Life, Death, and Truth: Under Attack by Medicine and Law.)

V. Each Conciliar “Pope” Has Been A Destroyer of the Catholic Faith

Professor Josef Seifert’s understanding of the papacy is very defective as he proclaimed correctly that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not “the guarantor of the faith” but a destroyer of the “foundations of faith and morals. Professor Seifert does not understand that a true pope is indeed a guarantor of the Holy Faith and, as Bergoglio is not such a guarantor it is impossible for him to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

As Pope Saint Pius X noted in a 1912 allocution to Italian priests, “"Whoever is Holy Does Not Dissent from the Pope,” meaning one of two things in this instance: either Josef Seifert is not holy or, of course, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the pope.

Moreover, Professor Seifert’s description of Bergoglio’s being a destroyer of the Faith applies equally to Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

“Pope Francis – I say this with a bleeding heart – is not the ‘guarantor of the faith’, but is constantly increasingly destroying the foundations of faith and morals with this and many other statements and pronouncements,” Seifert wrote.

I am sorry, Professor Seifert, but anyone who can attack the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than an attack on the immutability of God Himself, is a manifest heretic and a destroyer of the Faith, and such a destroyer was none other the professor’s beloved Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who praised his Hegelian mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, follows for desiring to raze the bastions of the Catholic Faith:

Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391)

Pope Pius VIII wrote the following about the razing of those bastions in his one and only encyclical letter, Traditii Humiliate Nostrae, May 24, 1829:

We open Our heart with joy to you, venerable brothers, whom God has given to Us as helpers in the conduct of so great an administration. We are pleased to let you know the intimate sentiments of Our will. We also think it helpful to communicate those things from which the Christian cause may benefit. For the duty of Our office is not only to feed, rule, and direct the lambs, namely the Christian people, but also the sheep, that is the clergy.

2. We rejoice and praise Christ, who raised up shepherds for the safekeeping of His flock. These shepherds vigilantly lead their flocks so as not to lose even one of those they have received from the Father. For We know well, venerable brothers, your unshakeable faith, your zeal for religion, your sanctity of life, and your singular prudence. Co-workers such as you make Us happy and confident. This pleasant situation encourages Us when We fear because of the great responsibility of Our office, and it refreshes and strengthens Us when We feel overwhelmed by so many serious concerns. We shall not detain you with a long sermon to remind you what things are required to perform sacred duties well, what the canons prescribe lest anyone depart from vigilance over his flock, and what attention ought to be given in preparing and accepting ministers. Rather We call upon God the Savior that He may protect you with His omnipresent divinity and bless your activities and endeavors with happy success.

3. Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner.[1] All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel.[2] With tears We say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations."[3]

4. Among these heresies belongs that foul contrivance of the sophists of this age who do not admit any difference among the different professions of faith and who think that the portal of eternal salvation opens for all from any religion. They, therefore, label with the stigma of levity and stupidity those who, having abandoned the religion which they learned, embrace another of any kind, even Catholicism. This is certainly a monstrous impiety which assigns the same praise and the mark of the just and upright man to truth and to error, to virtue and to vice, to goodness and to turpitude. Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.[4] Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.[5] Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved.[6] He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.[7]

5. We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church's laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.

6. When this corruption has been abolished, then eradicate those secret societies of factious men who, completely opposed to God and to princes, are wholly dedicated to bringing about the fall of the Church, the destruction of kingdoms, and disorder in the whole world. Having cast off the restraints of true religion, they prepare the way for shameful crimes. Indeed, because they concealed their societies, they aroused suspicion of their evil intent. Afterwards this evil intention broke forth, about to assail the sacred and the civil orders. Hence the supreme pontiffs, Our predecessors, Clement XII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Leo XII,[11] repeatedly condemned with anathema that kind of secret society. Our predecessors condemned them in apostolic letters; We confirm those commands and order that they be observed exactly. In this matter We shall be diligent lest the Church and the state suffer harm from the machinations of such sects. With your help We strenuously take up the mission of destroying the strongholds which the putrid impiety of evil men sets up.

7. We want you to know of another secret society organized not so long ago for the corruption of young people who are taught in the gymnasia and the lycea. Its cunning purpose is to engage evil teachers to lead the students along the paths of Baal by teaching them un-Christian doctrines. The perpetrators know well that the students' minds and morals are molded by the precepts of the teachers. Its influence is already so persuasive that all fear of religion has been lost, all discipline of morals has been abandoned, the sanctity of pure doctrine has been contested, and the rights of the sacred and of the civil powers have been trampled upon. Nor are they ashamed of any disgraceful crime OT error. We can truly say with Leo the Great that for them "Law is prevarication; religion, the devil; sacrifice, disgrace.'[12] Drive these evils from your dioceses. Strive to assign not only learned, but also good men to train our youth. (Pope Pius VIII, Traditii Humiliatae Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)

This was a prophetic description of conciliarism and a condemnation of the “theologies” of both Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

VI. Each Conciliar “Pope” Has Praised the Protestant Revolution

Such very well-meaning Catholics such as Professor Josef Seifert have been deceived by the adversary to narrow their focus on Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s outrageous defections from the Holy Faith to such an extent that they seem to be incapable of taking a step back from the revolutionary caricature current presiding as the universal public face of apostasy to consider, if even for a moment, that the whole conciliar enterprise has been and continues to be a revolutionary attack upon everything to do with Catholic Faith, Morals, and Worship.

Thus, Professor Seifert can write the following about Bergoglio’s behavior without realizing that the same criticism applies to Montini/Paul VI, Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Ratzinger/Benedict:

How can you cardinals… remain silent on this and many other ‘desolations of the sanctuary’ instead of doing much more than the critical laity and theologians to do everything possible to proclaim those many truths of the faith that the Pope openly or tacitly contradicts by words and also deeds (such as the celebration of the Reformation, the erection of the statue of Luther in the Vatican, the stamp celebrating the Reformation, the Pacha Mama cult in the Vatican Gardens and St. Peter’s Basilica, etc).” (Renowned Catholic philosopher warns Pope Francis is 'destroying the foundations of faith and morals'.)

Professor Seifert, you have got to be kidding.

You cannot seriously contend that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did not praise Protestantism when each either addressed personally and/or sent correspondence to at the Rockefeller Foundation created and funded anti-life World Council of Churches?

To the Reverend Doctor Philip Potter
General Secretary, World Council of Churches

The World Council of Churches celebrates, during the present session of the Central Committee, the twenty-fifth anniversary of its foundation. It gives us a welcome occasion to offer our congratulations and the assurance of our prayer.

These years have been rich in activities and events, and the present celebration is surely more than a commemoration of past history. The World Council of Churches has been created in order, by the grace of God, to serve the Churches and Ecclesial Communities in their endeavours to restore and to manifest to all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to his Church. We earnestly pray that the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of wisdom, may enlighten and strengthen you and that in the obedience of faith you may make progress towards achieving the one hope which belongs to our call (Cfr. Eph. 4, 4).

On the occasion of our visit to the World Council of Churches in Geneva in 1969, we expressed our deep appreciation for the development of the relations between the World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church, two bodies indeed very different in nature, but whose collaboration has proved fruitful (Cfr. AAS 61, 1969, 504). It is our sincere desire that this collaboration may be pursued and intensified, according to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

We wish to say a special word of congratulation and encouragement to you, Mr General Secretary, to the members of the Central Committee and to the devoted staff of the World Council of Churches, gathered at this time in Geneva. We would like you to know that we keep you in our prayers and that we follow your work with keen interest and unfailing goodwill.  (Letter to Dr. Philip Potter, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, August 6, 1973, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.)

Remember, this was before the days of the internet and instant news. Newscasters in the United States of America were busy covering the events of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activity, known colloquially as “The Watergate Committee” in the summer of 1973. Most Catholics did not know of Montini’s letter to Philip Potter on the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord that year, not that a lot of them would have objected to its text.

However, some of us might, if we had been aware of it, have come to a realization of the enormity of the apostasy that was before us represented by the following words contained in the letter cited just above:

The World Council of Churches has been created in order, by the grace of God, to serve the Churches and Ecclesial Communities in their endeavours to restore and to manifest to all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to his Church. Letter to Dr. Philip Potter, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, August 6, 1973, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.)


How can anyone think that this soon-to-"canonized," wretched, theologically, liturgically and morally corrupt little Marxist-sympathizer could have been a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter? 

The World Council of Churches has been given the mission by God to “restore and to manifest all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to his Church”?

Well, this may not have been Bergoglio's "new ecumenical spring of four days ago, but it is rather closely related.

In other words, the World Council of Churches was the center of “Christian unity” as what Montini believed was the Catholic Church watched as an interesting observer to see how this diabolical organization would fulfill its “mission.”

It was to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of Montini/Paul VI’s address to the World Council of Churches in 1969 that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II went to the headquarters of the World Council of Churches in John Calvin’s former home base of Geneva, Switzerland, to give an address to a group of “ecumenical leaders” on June 12, 1984. Although there is no English language translation of the future “Saint John Paul the Great’s” address, a contemporary report in The New York Times provided its general theme:

GENEVA, June 12— Pope John Paul II began a six-day tour of Switzerland today and renewed a pledge to strive for unity among all Christian churches.

The Pope made the pledge in a speech at the headquarters of the World Council of Churches here hours after his arrival, saying, “The simple fact of my presence here among you, as Bishop of Rome paying a fraternal visit to the World Council of Churches, is a sign of this will for unity.

He spoke at a worship service in the chapel of the Protestant council’s Ecumenical Center.

”From the beginning of my ministry as Bishop of Rome,” he said, ”I have insisted that the engagement of the Catholic Church in the ecumenical movement is irreversible and that the search for unity was one of its pastoral priorities.”

Pope’s 22d Foreign Journey

The Pope ‘s visit to Switzerland, his 22d foreign journey since becoming the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, was to have taken place three years ago but was put off by the assassination attempt in which he was wounded in St. Peter’s Square.

”God ordained that this visit could not take place already in the spring of 1981 but only today,” the Pope said in greeting President Leon Schlumpf after he had kissed the ground at Zurich Airport.

The Pope then went to Geneva, where he addressed the World Council of Churches and also visited the European center of the Orthodox Church. There, he assured Metropolitan Damaskinos, the Exarch of Europe, of the Roman Catholic will to remove obstacles to healing the age-old split between the Western and Eastern churches.

Saluting the work of the center in fostering ”better reciprocal knowledge of East and West,” the Pope said, ”This reciprocal knowledge has still to be deepened and purified of all prejudices or mistaken judgments, so that the truth may make us free.” He emphasized the Vatican’s ”expectancy of full communion between our churches.”

Before reaching Geneva, the city of Calvin, the reformer, John Paul celebrated mass in a stadium in Lugano, the principal center of Italian-Swiss Roman Catholicism. Christian Unity Stressed.

He spent the night in Fribourg, the seat of Switzerland’s main Roman Catholic university. But the emphasis of the papal visit to this nation of 6.3 million inhabitants, of whom 47.6 percent are Catholic and 44.3 Protestant, was on Christian unity.

The Pope made this explicit in his first statement on Swiss soil, in greeting President Schlumpf. He said, ”The challenge that modern times represent for humanity and Christianity makes us Christians feel the more painfully the unhappy splits and polarizations that, as in the past, divide us even today.”

John Paul added that all Christians were increasingly demanding ”witness for Christ” in an increasingly secularized world. This obliges Christian leaders to make ”even greater efforts to overcome all outward and inward divisive obstacles, gradually, in the full truth and love of Christ,” the Pope said.

In his greeting to the Pope, Dr. Philip Potter, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, listed the common endeavors by Protestants and Catholics to achieve friendly relations. But he said that in applying the Gospel to problems such as violation of human rights, race, class and sex oppression, the struggles for justice and peace – issues in which he said the World Council ‘‘had demonstrated concrete solidarity with the poor and the oppressed” – no unity had been achieved. ‘

”It has been precisely at this point that we have encountered the tragedy of our divisions between the churches and within them,” the Protestant leader said.

”And it is also at this time that we are facing the breakdown of any viable world economic and political order, and the universalizing of a ruthless military culture which threatens humanity and God’s will for the preservation of his creation.”

The Pope did not address some of these themes in the same spirit. The World Council is considered a leading spokesman for the grievances of developing countries against the West. But John Paul repeated his church’s ”defense of human beings and their dignity, their liberty, their rights.” He also restated his often expressed fears for the future of humanity ”in a world tempted by suicide.” (Future Faux Conciliar Saint in Switzerland, Stresses Delusional Unity.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II included representatives from the anti-family, anti-life, statist, feminist, New Age World Council of Churches when he presided over an “ecumenical day” at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome, Italy, on January 18, 2000, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter and the beginning of the Chair of Unity Octave in the Catholic Church that has been transformed into the “Week of Christian Unity” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

I would like once again to thank the Lord who has enabled us to spend this important ecumenical day together. After meeting this morning to pray in St Paul’s Basilica, we are gathered round this festive table for a pleasant, fraternal agape. I express my deepest gratitude to each of you, venerable and dear Brothers.

I specifically thank: 

– the Delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, representing His Holiness Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch;

– the Delegation from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, representing His Beatitude Petros VII, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa;

– the Delegation from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, representing His Beatitude Ignace IV Hazim, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East;

– the Delegation from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, representing His Beatitude Diodoros, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem;

– the Delegation from the Patriarchate of Moscow, representing His Holiness Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and All the Russias;

– the Delegation from the Patriarchate of Serbia, representing His Beatitude Pavle, Serbian Patriarch;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania, representing His Beatitude Teoctist, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Greece, representing His Beatitude Christódoulos, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Poland, representing His Beatitude Sawa, Orthodox Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Albania, representing His Beatitude Anastas, Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Finland, in the person of the Archbishop of Karelia and All Finland;

– the Delegation from the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, representing His Holiness Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St Mark;

– the Delegation from the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, representing His Beatitude Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East;

– the Delegation from the Armenian Apostolic Church, representing His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos and Supreme Patriarch of All Armenians; I also remember his predecessor, Karekin I;

– the Delegation from the Catholicosate of Cilicia for Armenians (Atelias, Lebanon), representing His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia;

– the Delegation from the Assyrian Church of the East, representing His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos and Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East;

– the Delegation from the Anglican Communion, in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury;

And lastly, the Delegations from:

– the Old Catholic Church  Union of Utrecht;

– the Lutheran World Federation;

– the World Methodist Council;

– the Disciples of Christ;

– the Pentecostal Church;

 the World Council of Churches.

Lastly, I thank the Abbot General, the Abbot and the monastic community of St Paul, who have generously offered us hospitality, arranging everything with the utmost care for the success of our meeting today. I invoke God’s protection and blessing upon each and every one, as I recall that it was in St Paul’s Basilica that John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council. (To Ecumenical Delegations for the opening of the Holy Door in Saint Paul outside the Wall.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II addressed the same delegations at Saint Paul Outside the Walls on January 25, 2001, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle.

Not to be outdone, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, just two months into his false pontificate in 2005, addressed Dr. Samuel Kobia, the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, in the Vatican as he, “Pope Benedict XVI,” praised “spiritual ecumenism,” an apostasy that was the brainchild of Abbe Paul Couturier, who was a direct disciple of the theological and biological evolutionist named Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.:

“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:2). With these words of Saint Paul, I gladly welcome you and the members of the delegation from the World Council of Churches. After your installation as General Secretary you had planned to visit my beloved predecessor Pope John Paul II. Though this hope was never realized, I thank you for representing the World Council of Churches at his funeral, and I express my gratitude for the message which you sent to me on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of my own ministry as Bishop of Rome.

Relations between the Catholic Church and the World Council developed during the Second Vatican Council, where two observers from Geneva were present at all four sessions. This led in 1965 to the establishment of the Joint Working Group as an instrument of ongoing contact and cooperation, which would keep in mind the common task of unity in answer to the Lord’s own prayer, “that they may all be one” (Jn. 17:21). Next November an important consultation on the future of the Joint Working Group will be held to mark the fortieth anniversary of its founding. My hope and prayer is that its purpose and working methodology will be further clarified for the sake of ever more effective ecumenical understanding, cooperation and progress.

In the very first days of my Pontificate I stated that my “primary task is the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers.” This requires, in addition to good intentions, “concrete gestures which enter hearts and stir consciences… inspiring in everyone that inner conversion that is the prerequisite for all ecumenical progress” (Missa pro ecclesia, 5).

Pope John Paul II often recalled that the heart of the search for Christian unity is “spiritual ecumenism”. He saw its core in terms of being in Christ: “To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father’s plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ’s prayer: “Ut unum sint” (Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, 9).

It is my hope that your visit to the Holy See has been fruitful, strengthening the bonds of understanding and friendship between us. The commitment of the Catholic Church to the search for Christian unity is irreversible. I therefore wish to assure you that she is eager to continue cooperation with the World Council of Churches. Again, I offer a special word of encouragement to you, Mr General Secretary, to the members of the Central Committee and to the entire staff, as you work to lead and renew this important ecumenical body. Please know that you are in my prayers and that you have my unfailing goodwill. “May grace and peace be yours in abundance” (2 Pt 1:2). (To the General Secretary and the members of the World Council of Churches, June 16, 2005.)

Following the example of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II before passing the torch of apostasy to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was completely unfazed by the pro-Communist, pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-perversity, pro-feminism, pro-paganism World Council of Churches support for one unbridled evil after another. They were fit “partners” in the “search for unity,” something that the now Antipope Emeritus made clear on January 25, 2008, at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls as he address Samuel Kobia and the delegation from the World Council of Churches that he headed:

I am pleased to greet all of you who are gathered for the Ninth General Assembly of the World Council of Churches being held in Porto Alegre to reflect on the theme: God in your grace, transform the world. In a special way I greet the General Secretary, Dr Samuel Kobia, Archbishop Dadeus Grings, the Bishops of the Catholic Church in Brazil and all those who have worked for the realization of this important event. To all of you I express my heartfelt good wishes in the words of Saint Paul to the Romans: “Grace toyou and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”(Rom 1:7).

Mindful of our shared baptismal faith in the Triune God, the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches seek ways to cooperate ever more effectively in the task of witnessing to God’s divine love. After forty years of fruitful collaboration, we look forward to continuing this journey of hope and promise, as we intensify our endeavours towards reaching that day when Christians are united in proclaiming the Gospel message of salvation to all. As we together make this journey, we must be open to the signs of divine Providence and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for we know that “the holy objective of reconciling all Christians in the unity of the one and the only Church of Christ transcends human powers and gifts” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 24). Our trust therefore is solely in the prayer of Christ himself: “Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one” (Jn 17: 11).

During this General Assembly thousands of Christians join in this same prayer for unity. As we ask God in his grace to transform the world, we pray that he will bless our ecumenical dialogue with the progress we so ardently desire.

Assuring you of my spiritual closeness and reaffirming the Catholic Church’s intention to continue a solid partnership with the World Council of Churches in its important contribution to the ecumenical movement, I invoke God’s abundant blessings of peace and joy upon all of you. (Benedict XVI’s greetings to Dr. Samuel Kobia .)

“Shared baptismal faith in the Triune God”?

How can Catholics share a “faith” with those who support abortion, divorce, contraception and perversity under cover of the civil law? How can Catholics share a “faith” with those who reject Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, Sacred Tradition, and the indissolubility of Sacred Scripture? How?

“Solid partnership with the World Council of Churches in its important contribution to the ecumenical movement”?

Come on, wake up.

How can the Catholic Church enter into any kind of “partnership” with those who promote sin, the very thing that caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused His Most Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be pierced through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow, under cover of the civil law?

“Papal” appointees such as the infamous Walter “Cardinal” Kasper, who has been retired for thirteen years now but still helps to serve as an apologist for Bergoglio's completion of the process of conciliar degeneracy, and his successor as the president of “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Kurt “Cardinal” Koch, have only been doing what their “popes” (Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, Bergoglio/Francis) have wanted done in the field of false ecumenism.

Indeed, it was during the reign of the supposed “pope of Tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in 2010 that Walter Kasper praised the World Council of Churches during an address in England:

So we should ask the same question the crowd asked Peter on the first Pentecost in Jerusalem: What can we do and what should we do?

Before answering this question let me say this: Much has been done in the last hundred years. We can be grateful to the Spirit who guided us, who inspired and who impelled us. We can be grateful for the work of the World Council of Churches, we can be grateful for the Second Vatican Council and all the work which has been done since. With the help of God’s Spirit, we have been able to achieve much more in the last one hundred years than in many hundred years before. There is no reason for disappointment. Today Christians are closer together than ever before. The Spirit helped us to rediscover each other not as enemies, not as strangers or competitors but as Christians, as brothers and sisters in Christ. Today we pray together, we work together, we share daily life and we share it often in mixed confessional families, in our workplaces, in leisure time events and in many other circumstances.

Today at Pentecost we give thanks that the one Spirit was bestowed upon us, on Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants, and that we are all baptised in the one Spirit, but it should be also today a Spirit of tongues of fire, a Spirit which gives us burning hearts for unity. (Kasper’s Remarks.)

Yet it is, of course, that this is not only what Walter “Cardinal” Kasper or his successor, Kurt “Cardinal” Koch, believe. It is what “Saint John Paul the Great” believed. It is what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believed. It is what Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes.

What did Saint Paul have to say about “praying” with those outside of the Catholic Faith. Oh, I am so glad that you bothered to ask. Consider these words of the late Bishop George Hay (1729-1811) of over two hundred years ago now:

St. Paul also exhorts us to “give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son.” (Col. 1:12) Where it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom — that is, in His Church — where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity. And indeed what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and “departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils”. (1 Tim. 4:1) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they “have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts”. (Eph. 4:18)

On this account the same holy apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God; and, to prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error. “Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light,

. . . and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness“. (Eph. 5:6)

Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness — that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments — but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience.

 (3) St. Paul, full of zeal for the good of souls, and solicitous to preserve us from all danger of losing our holy Faith, the groundwork of our salvation, renews the same command in his Epistle to the Romans, by way of entreaty, beseeching us to avoid all such communication with those of a false religion. He also shows us by what sign we should discover them, and points out the source of our danger from them: “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for they that are such serve not Our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent”. (Rom. 16:17)

See here whom we are to avoid — “those that cause dissensions contrary to the ancient doctrine“; all those who, hating, left the true Faith and doctrine which they had learned, and which has been handed down to us from the beginning by the Church of Christ, follow strange doctrines, and make divisions and dissensions in the Christian world. And why are we to avoid them? Because they are not servants of Christ, but slaves to their own belly, whose hearts are placed upon the enjoyments of this world, and who, by “pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent” — that is, do not bring good reasons or solid arguments to seduce people to their evil ways, so as to convince the understanding, for that is impossible; but practice upon their hearts and passions, relaxing the laws of the gospel, granting liberties to the inclinations of flesh and blood, laying aside the sacred rules of mortification of the passions and of self-denial, promising worldly wealth, and ease, and honors, and, by pleasing speeches of this kind, seducing the heart, and engaging people to their ways.

 (4) The same argument and command the apostle repeats in his epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive, “having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof;” then he immediately gives this command: “Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires”; and adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His holy Church — the only sure rule for knowing the truth — they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, “ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth“; because, as he adds, “they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith”. (2 Tim. 3:5)

 Here it is to be observed that, though the apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the epistle is directed particularly to him, and to him he says, as well as to all others, “Now these avoid”, though he was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the apostle himself in all the truths of religion; because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others. (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

Who appointed Walter Kasper?

"Pope Saint John Paul the Great.”

Who retained Kasper and appointed Koch?

The “pope of Tradition,” the late Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Who has retained Koch for the past ten years?

The Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The “spirit” has led these apostates to “new” and “more profound” understandings of what they think is Divine Revelation.

Well, you betcha that the “spirit” has led them in such a manner. Unfortunately for them–and for those who follow them–the “spirit” who leads them is none other than the fallen angel whose bidding they do almost all of the time, which is why they can ignore Pope Pius XI’s reiteration of the ban on the mania of “inter-religious prayer” services as stated in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, for which they have have such a total contempt:

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for 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, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.” For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

“During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated.” In other words, it is impossible for one to represent the Catholic Church, whether in an official or unofficial capacity, and knowingly contradict her teaching and continue to remain a member in her. Just as pro-aborts such as the late Edward Moore Kennedy expelled themselves from Holy Mother Church by their support of surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law as a “woman’s right to choose” without any formal declaration of excommunication, so is it the case that those who defect from the Faith on one point by means of what they believe–not by what they attempt to “declare” as binding of the Catholic faithful–from the Faith by virtue of having violated the Divine Positive Law. It is that simple. There is no “reconciliation” between Catholicism and conciliarism.

Do not be deceived by those claiming that the “urbane” heretic from Bavaria was a defender of the Catholic Faith and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is its destroyer. Each man devoted his life to the work of doing from within what they thought was the Catholic Church that the likes of Martin and Luther and John Calvin, et al., had begun in the Sixteenth Century.

As to Professor Seifert’s criticism of Jorge Mario Bergoglio for having praised Martin Luther, it is my duty to point out the obvious: that his beloved Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who maintained his protégé, Christoph Schonborn, as the conciliar archbishop of Vienna despite the multiple times Schonborn permitted sodomite friendly events to take place in Saint Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, praised the hideous enemy of Christ the King and His true Church who divided Christendom and set it on a course of auto-demolition with which the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" have aided and abetted:

As I begin to speak, I would like first of all to say how deeply grateful I am that we are able to come together.  I am particularly grateful to you, my dear brother, Pastor Schneider, for receiving me and for the words with which you have welcomed me here among you.  You have opened your heart and openly expressed a truly shared faith, a longing for unity.  And we are also glad, for I believe that this session, our meetings here, are also being celebrated as the feast of our shared faith.   Moreover, I would like to express my thanks to all of you for your gift in making it possible for us to speak with one another as Christians here, in this historic place.

As the Bishop of Rome, it is deeply moving for me to be meeting you here in the ancient Augustinian convent in Erfurt.  As we have just heard, this is where Luther studied theology.  This is where he was ordained a priest.  Against his father’s wishes, he did not continue the study of Law, but instead he studied theology and set off on the path towards priesthood in the Order of Saint Augustine.  And on this path, he was not simply concerned with this or that.  What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey.  “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle.  For Luther theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God.

“How do I receive the grace of God?”  The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make a deep impression on me.  For who is actually concerned about this today – even among Christians?  What does the question of God mean in our lives?  In our preaching?  Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues.  He knows that we are all mere flesh.  And insofar as people believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings.  The question no longer troubles us.  But are they really so small, our failings?  Is not the world laid waste through the corruption of the great, but also of the small, who think only of their own advantage?  Is it not laid waste through the power of drugs, which thrives on the one hand on greed and avarice, and on the other hand on the craving for pleasure of those who become addicted?  Is the world not threatened by the growing readiness to use violence, frequently masking itself with claims to religious motivation?  Could hunger and poverty so devastate parts of the world if love for God and godly love of neighbour – of his creatures, of men and women – were more alive in us?  I could go on.  No, evil is no small matter.  Were we truly to place God at the centre of our lives, it could not be so powerful.  The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too, not an academic question, but a real one.  In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther.

Another important point: God, the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is no mere philosophical hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe.  This God has a face, and he has spoken to us.  He became one of us in the man Jesus Christ – who is both true God and true man.  Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture.  This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life. (Meeting with representatives of the German Evangelical Church Council in the Chapter Hall of the Augustinian Convent Erfurt, Germany, September 23, 2011.)

Why should we have to encounter Martin Luther with anything other than total rejection?

The cause of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is to be found only in the Catholic Church, nowhere else as Our Lord and His true Church are indivisible. True or false, Professor Seifert? How can you ignore Ratzinger/Benedict’s words while criticizing those of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

To paraphrase from Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, what is this strange respect for false religions and errors of all kinds?

Ratzinger/Benedict also addressed a whole assortment of non-Catholic Christians on the same day during an "ecumenical celebration:"

Our fundamental unity comes from the fact that we believe in God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth.  And that we confess that he is the triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  The highest unity is not the solitude of a monad, but rather a unity born of love.  We believe in God – the real God.  We believe that God spoke to us and became one of us.  To bear witness to this living God is our common task at the present time. (Ecumenical Celebration in the church of the Augustinian Convent, Erfurt, Germany, September 23, 2011; see also Modernist At Work, part two.)

How is this consonant with the following words of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943?

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Moreover, Montini/Paul VI, Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Ratzinger/Benedict each gave “joint blessings” with the faux “archbishops” of Canterbury, thereby signifying the legitimacy and validity of Anglican orders in a de facto manner even if was not their intention. Words matter. Actions matter.

How many thousands of English and Irish Martyrs died, Professor Seifert, to avoid giving even the appearance of validating the Anglican sect?

By what stretch of logic does the passage of time confer validity on that which is false?

False ecumenism is evil, and those who have engaged in it have done the devil’s work, not Our Lord’s.

VII. “Inculturation of the Gospel” Led to the Pachamama Scandal

As to the Pachamama idol, is it possible, Professor Seifert, for you to correctly criticize Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his follow Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries while ignoring the many times that Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict either participated in pagan rituals or esteemed the symbols of false idols with their own hands?

As egregious as Bergoglio’s serial acts of pantheistic idolatry are as direct violations of the First Commandment, they are have become very standard fare in the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s Pantheon of Apostasy and are evocative of the time that Raymond Arroyo of the Eternally Wishful Television Network tried to spin “Pope” John Paul II’s participation in an Aztec ceremony that resulted in the dumping of an urn of ashes upon his head in Mexico City, Mexico, on August 1, 2002, as follows: “You may think that you just witnessed a pagan ceremony, but what you just saw was a rich example of the inculturation of the Gospel.” Wishful thinking could not wipe away a blatant act of apostasy twenty-one years ago, and anyone who can come to the defense of Wojtyla or Benedict’s participation in pagan ceremonies does not understand the binding precepts of the First Commandment as countless millions of Catholics have preferred to be tortured to death rather than even give the appearance of lending credibility to the acts that took place in front of a putative Successor of Saint Peter. (Rather than take up space in the main body of this commentary, I will reprise photographic evidence of like acts of apostasy committed by the conciliar “popes” in the past decades.)

For the moment, however, suffice it to say that the Holy Machabees, who are commemorated on August 1 (the Feast of Saint Peter’s Chains), each year, would do nothing to defile the true religion of their time, Judaism, even when tempted to do so as they knew that they had a solemn obligation to worship the true God, Who never countenances any rivals. Dom Prosper Gueranger commented on the heroic sacrifice of the seven holy brothers while noting also that August contains more feasts than any other month in Holy Mother Church’s liturgical calendar:

The August heavens glitter with the brightest constellations of the sacred cycle. Even in the sixth century, the Council of Tours remarked that this month was filled with filled with the feasts of the saints. My delights are to b with the children of men, says Wisdom: and in the month which echoes with her teachings she seems to have made it her glory to be surrounded with blessed ones, who, walking with her in the midst of the paths of judgment, have in finding her found life and salvation from the Lord. This noble court is presided over by the Queen of all grace, whose triumph consecrates this month and makes it the delight of that Wisdom of the Father, who, once enthroned in Mary, never quitted her. What a wealth of divine favours do the coming days promise to our souls! Never were our Father’s barns so well filled as at this season, when the earthly as well as the heavenly harvests are ripe.

While the Church on earth inaugurates these days by adorning herself with Peter’s chains as with a precious jewel, a constellation of seven stars appears for the third time in the heavens. The seven brothers Machabees preceded the sons of Symphorosa and Felicitas in the bloodstained arena; they followed divine Wisdom even before she had manifested her beauty in the flesh. The sacred cause of which they were the champions, their strength of soul under the tortures, their sublime answers to the executioners were so evidently the type reproduced by the latter martyrs, that the Fathers of the first centuries with one accord claimed for the Christian Church these heroes of the synagogue, who could have gained such courage from no other source than their faith in the Christ to come. For this reason they stand alone of all holy persons of the ancient covenant have found a place on the Christian cycle; all martyrologies and calendars of the East and West attest the universality of their cultus, while its antiquity is such as to rival that of St. Peter’s chains in that same basilica of Eudoxia where their precious relics lie.

At the time when in the hope of a better resurrection they refused under cruel torments to redeem their lives, other heroes of the same blood, inspired by the same faith, flew to arms and delivered their country from a terrible crisis. Several children of Israel, forgetting the traditions of their nation, had wished it to follow the customs of strange peoples; and the Lord, in punishment, had allowed Judea to feel the whole weight of a profane rule to which it had guiltily submitted. But when King Antiochus, taking advantage of the treason of a few and the carelessness of the majority, endeavoured  by his ordinances to blot out the divine law which alone gives power to power over man, Israel, suddenly awakened, met the tyrant with the double opposition of revolt and martyrdom. Judas Macabeus in immortal battles reclaimed for God the land of his inheritance, while by the virtue of their generous confession, the seven brothers also, his rivals in glory, recovered, as the Scripture says, the law out of his hands of the nations, and out of the hands of the king. Soon afterwards, craving mercy under the hand of God, Antiochus died, devoured by worms., just as later on were to die the first and last persecutors of the Christians, Herod Agrippa and Galerius Maximian.

The Holy Ghost, who would Himself had down to posterity the acts of the protomartyr of the New Law, did the same with regard to the passion of Stephen’s glorious predecessors in the ages of expectation. Indeed, it was he who then, as under the law of love, inspired with both words and courage these valiant brothers, and their still more admirable mother, who, seeing her seven sons one after the other suffering the most horrible tortures, utter nothing but burning exhortations to die. Surrounded by their mutilated bodies, she mocked the tyrant who, in false pity, wished her to persuade at least the  youngest to save his life; she bent over the last child of her tender love and said to him: My son, have pity upon me, that bore thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up to this age. I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing and mankind also: so thou shalt not fear this tormentor, but being made a worthy partner with thy brethren, receive death, that in thy mercy I may receive thee again with thy brethren. And the intrepid youth ran in his innocence to the tortures; and the incomparable mother followed her sons. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Time After Pentecost Book IV—Volume 13, pp. 234-236.)

Consider how the Holy Machabees refused to violate the tenets of Judaism, which was the true religion at the time they lived. They were willing to make any and all sacrifices, including their own lives, and to endure all torments rather than even give the appearance of simulating anything approaching respect to a false religion. The Holy Machabees knew that false religions are hideous in the sight of the true God.

Time after time, though, we have been eyewitnesses to an endless parade of men who have claimed to be Successors of Saint Peter or of the Apostles engage in acts of the sort that the Holy Machabees refused to do upon the penalty of torments and death, including Bergoglio’s acts of apostasy in Canada. The apostates of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have not only not dared to esteem false idols, to engage in false worship and to give credence to every false religion on the face of the earth and to rank unbelief but to claim that their doing such unspeakable acts of sacrilege and apostasy in the service of what they claim is the Gospel’s call to “dialogue,” a “call” that is nonexistent.

VIII. Speaking As One Who Kept His Blinders In Place for Decades

As I explained a few days ago, many “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics who are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the tragic belief that those structures are the Catholic Church and not its counterfeit ape have been making myths about the two supposedly “conservative” “popes,” Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, since the Polish Phenomenologist stepped out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Monday, October 16, 1978. I know about this as I was one of Wojtyla/John Paul II’s mythmakers between that time until he gave permission for girl altar boys in 1994, which started a twelve-year process of having my eyes opened, if ever so slowly, to the truth that we have had no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9. 1958.

To serve as a fervent apologist for Wojtyla/John Paul II required one to project one’s own Catholic beliefs into the mind of what I came to understand was a “moderate” (Girondist/Menshevik) revolutionary by taking whatever scraps that I could find to convince myself that all evidence of the man’s Modernist bent meant nothing other than “confusion,” not apostasy.

To wit, all of my own former efforts to project Catholicity into the mind and the heart of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II were founded in looking at bits and pieces of the puzzle, refusing to admit that the false "pontiff" expressed most publicly a belief in various condemned propositions (including false ecumenism, the new ecclesiology, inter-religious dialogue, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, praising false religions for the "good+" that they do and how they can contribute to "world peace," etc.). Undeterred by these inconvenient little facts, I sang "the old songs" to defend Wojtyla/John Paul II for far too long. This is how the "old songs" went:

1. It was within a week of his election on October 16, 1978, that John Paul II said that he wanted to see priests back in their clerical garb and women religious back in their habits. He's traditionally-minded, I told people repeatedly.

2. He tried to put catechesis back on the "right track" with the issuance of the post-synodal exhortation Sapientia Christianae

3. He told off the Communists in Poland in June of 1979, saying in a "homily" at an outdoor "Mass" in Victory Square in Warsaw that no one could ever remove Christ as the center of history. See, he's not an appeaser like Paul VI, I said triumphantly.

4. John Paul II whacked the American bishops over the head but good during his first pilgrimage to the United States of America in October of 1979, using some of their own pastoral letters against them, knowing full well that they were not enforcing their own documents. He told Catholic educators assembled at The Catholic University of America on October 7, 1979, and I was one of those educators in attendance that day, that the Church needed her theologians to be "faithful to the magisterium." I gloated as John Paul II said this, staring in the direction of the notorious dissenter named Father Charles Curran, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, who was sitting two rows in back of me, dressed in a jacket and tie. It was later that same day that the "pope" denounced abortion as the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America sat in the very front row of chairs on the Capitol Mall during an outdoor "Mass," saying in a most stirring manner, "And when God gives life, it is forever!"

5. Two months thereafter, in December of 1979, Father Hans Kung was declared by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to be ineligible to hold a chair in theology at Tubingen University in Germany (all right, all right, "other arrangements" were made to permit Kung to stay). "Let the heads roll," I told my classes at Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales that day. "Let the heads of the dissenters roll."

6. John Paul II wanted to correct abuses in the Novus Ordo liturgial abomination, using his Holy Thursday letter, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, going so far as to state:

As I bring these considerations to an end, I woul like to ask forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people. 

See, I said proudly, to one and all. He's going to "fix" things, isn't he? The issuance of Inaestimabile Donum two months later, which I would wave in the faces of "disobedient" conciliar priests/presbyters for about a decade before it began to dawn on me that there was going to be no enforcement of "rules" in an ever-changing and ever-changeable liturgical abomination, was "proof," I said at the time, of how the "pope" is "turning things around in right direction. I wasn't the only one. The Angelus, a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, commented favorably on some of these things itself in 1980.

7. "Pope" John Paul II personally opened a Perpetual Adoration Chapel in the Piazza Venezia in Rome at the behest of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, also mandating daily periods of Solemn Eucharistic Adoration in each of the four major basilicas in Rome. He used his pilgrimage to South Korea in 1984 to state that he wanted to see Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration established in all of the parishes of the world.

8. Father Charles Curran was finally denied in 1986 the right to teach as a theologian in Catholic institutions and Father Matthew Fox, O.P., was forbidden to teach in Catholic institutions by John Paul II's "defender of the faith," Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, and dismissed from the Order of Preachers in 1992 for his New Age "creation spirituality" beliefs.

9. John Paul II would take various American "bishops" to task during the quinquennial (or ad limina apostolorum) visits, pointedly asking the late "Bishop" John Raymond McGann of the Diocese of Rockville Center in 1983 why sixteen of his diocese's parishes did not have regularly scheduled confessions during the recently concluded Easter Triduum. Being dissatisfied with McGann's answer ("Our priests are very busy, Your Holiness"), John Paul said, "Excellency, I was not too buy to hear Confessions in Saint Peter's on Good Friday." McGann got into further trouble later that day in April of 1983 when he was talking at lunch with John Paul and the other New York Province "bishops" about how most young people today do not know their faith and are thus in theological states of error, inculpable for their ignorance. John Paul II put down his soup spoon and said, "I agree with you. You are correct. However, the bishops and priests who are responsible for these young people being in states of error go directly to Hell when they die." McGann turned ashen, reportedly having difficulty eating for three days. "Ah, what a pope we have," I said when learning of this from Roman contacts.

10. Silvio Cardinal Oddi, then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, told me personally in his office on the Via della Concilazione on October 10, 1984, the very day that the first "indult" for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was issued, "I want the Mass of Saint Pius V back! The Pope wants the Mass of Saint Pius V back! We will get the Mass of Saint Pius V back!" Cardinal Oddi explained that there was much opposition to what the "pope" wanted to, that he had to move cautiously and with conditions. He made it clear, however, that it was the mind of the "pope" for the "old Mass" to return. 

Such a litany could go on and on and on. Oh, did I mention that I did indeed "sing the old songs" quite literally? Yes, indeed, my friends, I stood with several thousand people outside and across the street from what was then called the Apostolic Delegation (now called the Papal Nunciature) on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., on the evening of Saturday, October 6, 1979, serenading "Pope" John Paul II with endless renditions of "Stolat, stolat, may you live a hundred years!" Get the idea?

Sure, sure, sure I was always "uncomfortable" with ecumenism in particular and the whole ethos of Vatican II in general. John Paul II was going to "fix" things, I convinced myself. No more "Hamlet on the Tiber" as had been experienced under Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI. I simply ignored those things that contradicted my delusional concept of who Karol Wojtyla was and what he believed; that he had been a leading revolutionary at the "Second" Vatican Council and was a thorough-going Modernist in both theological and philosophical terms.

Now, having listed the scraps that I thought, delusionally, meant that a “restoration” was near, intellectual honesty compels me to explain what I had to overlook about Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Modernism, especially as regards false ecumenism and his abject refusal to seek the conversion of anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no truly just social order, noting that everything about the false conciliar religion has been premised upon false ecumenism, which has spawned a cottage industry of "inter-religious" "prayer" services, workshops, conferences, “dialogue” sessions, and heretical “joint agreements.”

One of the first things I chose to ignore in the heady rush of what appeared to be a “firm” Catholic “pope” was Karol Josef Wotyla/Saint John Paul II’s commitment to the false ecumenism that had been initiated by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Blessed Paul VI a central feature of his 9,666 day tenure as the universal public face of apostasy, starting with the address that he gave to the "cardinals" on Tuesday, October 17, 1978:

First of all, we wish to point out the unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into effect. Indeed, is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world.

However, as the Council is not limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely, it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are "implicit" may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground (cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is characteristic of movement and life. (First Urbi et Orbi Radio message, October 17, 1978.)

Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II sure found "those things which lie hidden in" the "Second" Vatican Council" as he made manifestly explicit what he believed was "implicit" in his vaunted "Second" Vatican Council, fooling the sappy likes of me by throwing some conciliar fairy dust in our eyes as he talked about getting priests back in their clerical garb and consecrated religious sisters back into their habits and demanding doctrinal orthodoxy from theologians even though he was not doctrinally orthodox and let most of the ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries remain in perfectly good standing as sons and daughters of what he claimed was the Catholic Church.

What those of us who were fighting what we thought was the “good fight” of the Catholic Faith at this time did not realize—and what so many within the structures of the false conciliar sect have yet to recognize—is that is as impossible for conciliarism to protect the Sacred Deposit of Faith as it is based upon false principles of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. It cannot do anything but spread error and harm souls.  We are merely witnessing the manifestation of the inherent degeneracy of conciliarism's false premises. 

One need not document all the ways that Wojtyla/John Paul II promoted false ecumenism as it has been done so on this site many times and in countless other places. The man of the Assisi "World Day of Peace" travesties who praised every false religion under the sun, thereby violating the First and Second Commandments repeatedly, institutionalized religious indifferentism to such an extent that even many Catholics within the conciliar structures who run "pro-life" websites and blogs wax glowingly about "other Christians" as though there is any other religion than the true one, the Catholic Faith.


IX. On The Feast of Saint Robert Bellarmine

As one who had blinders on for far too long, we must pray for men such as Professor Josef Seifert to take seriously the words of the saint and doctor whose feast we celebrate today, Saturday, May 13, 2023:

There are some person, dear listeners, who hold almost everything with a firm faith that Catholics hold: but there is one thing or another, which they have not yet been able to accept completely, such as that purgatory exists, that sacred images are to be venerated, that the sovereign Pontiff is the vicar of Christ and the head of the whole Church. And since there are many things that they believe, and only one or two things that they do not believe and consider it is not important if taken together with the other articles, they think they are situated very well on the foundation of Christ. What is the difference, they say, even if I err in that one thing, which I still cannot believe, and at the judgment will the Lord be concerned about that? And will he not be mindful of the many difficult things I believe? Indeed, this is the way in which they flatter themselves; I serious rebuke them and say that they have fallen from grace and have laid their foundation on sand, and will have no part with Christ. Either the faith is had completely, or it is not had at all. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. I ask you (to clarify the matter with a crass example), when you order a pair of shoes from a shoemaker, if when they are finally made you find they are an inch shorter than your feet, do you not put them on and wear them? Your will say “I cannot wear them” But they are only an inch too short, so why can't you wear them, since they are just a little bit short of the right measurement? As, therefore, your shoes are either the right size for your feet or they have no value at all, so also the faith is either integral, or it is not the faith. Therefore no one should deceive himself. If we want to build a house which cannot be moved by wind or rain, we must lay the foundation of both rocks, that is, on Christ and Peter. (Sermons of St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., Part II: Sermons 30-55, Including the Four Last Things and the Annunciation, translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published in 2017 by Keep the Faith, Inc., Ramsey, New Jersey, pp. 152-154.)  

As God knows all things, of course, He knew that it would be thirteen years after His Most Blessed Mother’s first apparition that Pope Pius XI would assign the date May 13 as the feast day of Saint Robert Bellarmine, S.J., whose De Controversiis (DisputationsOn Controversies) was a stunning rebuke to Protestantism, which, of course, would be held in such high esteem by the “popes” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Saint Robert Bellarmine hated heresy. He did not seek to find any “good” in heresy, and he certainly never desired to make accommodations with it as he knew that God had revealed each of the doctrines of the Catholic Church and that to defect from one of them expelled one from the bosom of Holy Mother Church.

The Divine Office speaks of Saint Robert Bellarmine’s virtues and gifts, which Holy Mother Church treasured long before his canonization in 1930:

Robert, a native of Montepulciano and of the noble family of Bellarmine, had for his mother the most pious Cynthia Cervini, sister of Pope Marcellus II. From the first he was conspicuous for exemplary piety and most chaste manners, earnestly desiring this one thing, to please God alone and to win souls to Christ. He attended the college of the Society of Jesus in his native town where he was highly commended for his intelligence and modesty. At the age of eighteen he entered the same Society at Rome, and was a model of all religious virtues. Having passed through the course of philosophy at the Roman College, he was sent first to Florence, then to Monreale, later to Padua to teach sacred theology, and afterwards to Louvain where, not yet a priest, he ably discharged the office of preacher. After ordination at Louvain, he taught theology with such success that he brought back many heretics to the unity of the Church, and was regarded throughout Europe as a most brilliant theologian ; and St. Charles, Bishop of Milan, and others keenly sought after him.

Recalled to Rome at the wish of Pope Gregory XIII, he taught the science of controversial theology at the Roman College, and there, as spiritual director he guided the angelic youth Aloysius in the paths of holiness. He governed the Roman College and then the Neapolitan province of the Society of Jesus in accordance with the spirit of St. Ignatius. Again summoned to Rome, he was employed by Clement VIII in the most important affairs of the Church, with the greatest advantage to the Christian state; then against his will and in spite of opposition, he was admitted among the number of the cardinals, because, as the Pontiff publicly declared, he did not have his equal among theologians in the Church of God at the time. He was consecrated bishop by the same Pope, and administered the archdiocese of Capua in a most saintly manner for three years: having resigned this office, he lived in Rome until his death, as a most impartial and trusty counsellor to the Supreme Pontiff. He wrote much, and in an admirable manner. His principal merit lieth in his complete victory in the struggle against the new errors, during which he distinguished himself as a strenuous and outstanding vindicator of Catholic tradition and the rights of the Roman See. He gained this victory by following St. Thomas as his guide and teacher, by a prudent consideration of the needs of his times, by his irrefragable teaching, and by a most abundant wealth of testimony well-chosen from the sacred writings and from the very rich fountain of the Fathers of the Church. He is eminently noted for very numerous short works for fostering piety, and especially for that golden Catechism, which he never failed to explain to the young and ignorant both at Capua and at Rome, although preoccupied with other very important affairs. A contemporary cardinal declared that Robert was sent by God the instruction of Catholics, for the guidance of the good, and for the confusion of heretics ; St. Francis de Sales regarded him as a fountain of learning; the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV called him the hammer of heretics; and Benedict XV proclaimed him the model of promoters and defenders of the Catholic religion.

He was most zealous in the religious life and he maintained that manner of life after having been chosen as one of the empurpled cardinals. He did not want to any wealth beyond what was necessary; he was satisfied with a moderate household, and scanty fare and clothing. He did not strive to enrich his relatives, and he could scarcely be induced to relieve their poverty even occasionally. He had the lowest opinion of himself, and was of wonderful simplicity of soul. He had an extraordinary love for the Mother of God ; he spent many hours daily in prayer. He ate very sparingly, and fasted three times a week. Uniformly austere with himself, he burned with charity towards his neighbour, and was often called the father of the poor. He earnestly strove that he might not stain his baptismal innocence to even the slightest fault. Almost eighty years old, he fell into his last illness at St. Andrew's on the Quirinal hill, and in it he shewed his usual radiant virtue. Pope Gregory XV and many cardinals visited him on his deathbed, lamenting the loss of such a great pillar of the Church. He fell asleep in the Lord in the year 1621, on the day of the sacred Stigmata of St. Francis, the memory of which he had been instrumental in having celebrated everywhere. The whole city mourned his death, unanimously proclaiming him a Saint. The Supreme Pontiff Pius XI inscribed his name, first, in the number of the Blessed, and then in that of the Saints, and shortly afterwards, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, he declared him a Doctor of the universal Church. His body is honoured with pious veneration at Rome in the church of St. Ignatius, near the tomb of St. Aloysius, as he himself had desired. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Robert Bellarmine, May 13.)

The connection between Saint Robert Bellarmine and Saint Aloysius is very important to consider in connection with Our Lady’s Fatima apparitions as the former defended the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the latter had such a burning fervor for Our Lord in His Real Presence that it is said he had to cool off his burning ardor after Mass. Each had a special devotion to the Mother of God, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary.

What is generally not known, at least not in “resist while recognize” circles, is that Saint Robert Bellarmine wrote a stirring defense of popes said to have erred in faith). In other words, Saint Robert Bellarmine knew and taught that there have never been any heretical popes and that a heretic could never be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

This is precisely what so many Catholics, especially a number of younger Catholics who are trying to find some way to avoid being "stigmatized" as one of those "fringe" Catholics called who believe that the whole conciliar enterprise is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church and that the men who have claimed to be Successors of Saint Peter have been imposters and charlatans. Some of these younger Catholics are trotting out examples that have nothing to do with the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, which does not extend to the appointment of bishops or other administrative decisions, or have been citing French theologians of a century ago who sought to minimize the reverence and obedience that Catholics are to render to Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth. These understandably confused Catholics (I was an adherent of the false "resist while recognize" belief system from December of 2002 until the end of April 2006) have chosen to cling to the "bad popes" mythology that flies on the face of the refutation by, among others, Saint Robert Bellarmine (see Saint Robert Bellarmine's Defense of Popes Said to Have Erred in Faith), Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council of all claims that there have been "heretical" popes. Such is an ontological impossibility.

Additionally, a lot of Catholics, including a growing number of "bishops" within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, keep pulling out the old "resist while recognize" chestnut that mispresents Saint Robert Bellarmine's teaching concerning whether it is possible for a council to remove a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. No one of whom I am aware in the "resist while recognize" movement have ever acknowledged that they have omitted, whether intentionally or inadvertently, the totality of Saint Robert Bellarmine's teaching about a pope who should fall into heresy by ignoring his fifth consideration on the matter:

“For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.” 

“The fourth opinion is of Cajetan [322]. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed,is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined? 

“Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book [324], and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach [325]. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” 

“Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto. Cyprian says: “We say that all heretics and schismatics have not power and right” [327]. He also teaches that heretics returning to the Church must be received as laymen; even if beforehand they were priests or bishops in the Church [328]. Optatus teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor loose or bind [329]. Ambrose and Augustine teach the same, as does St. Jerome who says: “Bishops who were heretics cannot continue to be so; rather let them be constituted such who were received that were not heretics” [330].” 

“Next, even St. Thomas teaches that schismatics immediately loose all jurisdiction; and if they try to do something from jurisdiction, it is useless [331]. Nor does the response which some make avail, that these Fathers speak according to ancient laws, but now since the decree of the Council of Constance they do not lose jurisdiction, unless excommunicated by name, or if they strike clerics. I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy. Moreover, the Council of Constance does not speak except on the excommunicates, that is, on these who lose jurisdiction through a judgment of the Church. Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.” 

Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a “Pope” in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.” 

I have no explanation as to why Saint Robert Bellarmine's referring to the fifth opinion as true continues to be ignored, especially since truth alone must guide us, and the truth about that  See of Peter is vacant in the case of heresy was stated clearly eighteen years ago by Mario Francesco "Cardinal" Pompedda:

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.) 

"Cardinal" Pompedda was the conciliar prefect of the Apostolic Signatura from November 15, 1999, to May 27, 2004. However, his knowledge about Catholic teaching concerning a papal vacancy continues to be ignored by those who want to ignore anything and everything that can make a papal vacancy caused by heresy a possibility rooted in Catholic teaching and canon law. 

Indeed, the point that most in the resist while recognize camp fail to grasp, whether willfully or not, is that none of the conciliar “popes” (Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, Archbishop Giovanni Battista, Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, Bishop Karol Josef Wojtyla, Archbishop Albino Luciani, Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, and layman Jorge Mario Bergoglio) were ever elected to the papacy in the first place as none possessed held to the Catholic Faith in its entirety. It seems as though those Catholics who are quite content to live with their blinders firmly in place do not want to remove those blinders for even a nanosecond to discover that the whole conciliar enterprise, replete with its Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship, has been a diabolical enterprise from the very beginning.

As noted in Another Ratzinger Myth is Born: Ratzinger the Catholic Mariologist three days ago, we know, of course, the current line of antipopes” have also made war on Our Lady’s Fatima Message as they know it is a rebuke to their own revolution against the Catholic Faith that Saint Robert Bellarmine defended so ably, and it is no accident at all that the Feast of Saint Robert Bellarmine would become forever linked to Our Lady’s first Fatima apparition as it might just be the case that Our Lady, who hates heresies, desired to be linked to a saint of the Catholic counter-reformation who had defended popes said to have defected from the Holy Faith.

X. On the One Hundred Sixth Anniversary of Our Lady’s First Apparition in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal

Everything about Our Lady’s Fatima apparitions were planned within the infinite perfection of God, including the specific dates on which Our Lady would appear in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal. Perhaps even most significantly of all, God, showing forth His ineffable mercy to us erring sinners, had the Queen of Heaven and earth, the Blessed Virgin Mary appear in the year 1917 as the “Great War” (World War I) was raging across the territory of formerly Catholic lands (and would end the Hapsburg Empire of Austro-Hungary, the last outpost of the Social Reign of Christ the King in Europe) and the mighty Russian Empire, which had long been the seat of ecclesiastical schism and doctrinal heresy, would be scourged by the Talmudically-financed triumph of Marxism-Leninism.

Our First Cause, Almighty God, puts first things first, and He first prepared the way for His Most Blessed Mother’s Fatima apparitions in the souls of the seers themselves. Consider William Thomas Walsh’s descriptions of the purity and simplicity of the soulof Lucia does Santos:

It was customary for children at that time to prepare to receive their first Holy Communion at the age of about nine or ten. It was in 1910, when Lucia was three years old, that Pope Pius X reminded the world of Christ's command, “Suffer the little ones to come to me, and forbid them not.” Possibly Maria Rosa had heard of this decree. It seems clear that she resolved, when her youngest daughter was only six, that the time had come for her to receive the hidden Jesus of the Blessed Sacrament; and aided by Caroline, who was then eleven and had received, she driller her in the questions and answers of the penny catechism. When at last she felt that her pupil was ready for an examination she took her to the church.

The Prior received them with kindness, and then, sitting in a chair on a platform in the sacristy, began to ask the child questions. “Who made the world?” “How many gods are there?” “What must we do to be saved?” And so on through the list that all Catholic children study.

It seemed to Lucia and her mother that she had not done badly. Yet after a little reflection the good priest decided that she was too young, and had better wait for another year.

It was the very day before the First Communion. They had never expected such a crushing blow. Almost stunned by disappointment, they went from the sacristy to one of the benches in the church, and sat with heads bowed, thinking. Lucia began to sob.

It happened that a Jesuit missionary from Lisboa, Father Cruz, had been preaching a triduum at Saint Anthony's to prepare for this First Communion, and was helping Father Pena to hear the many confessions. As he passed through the church, he saw the little girl in distress and stopped to ask what was the trouble. On hearing the story he tested her with questions from the catechism, and then took her back to the Prior in the sacristy.

“This child knows her doctrine better than many of the others who are going to receive,” he said.

“But she is only six years old!” objected Father Pena.

The Jesuits persisted. He was a gentle and humble man, but determined; and to the intense joy of Lucia, the Prior finally yielded. Now she must go to the sacrament of penance, so that she could offer a spotless heart and conscience to the divine Guest who was coming the next day.

It was at the movable confessional, which had been placed near the sacristy door, that Father Cruz heard her first confession. What a blessing! The famous Jesuit preacher was believed by many in Portugal to be a saint; and he could hardly have talked even with a small child without communicating some of his fervent love of God. He was a tall man of fifty, bent from study and austerities. When Lucia had finished teller her peccadilloes, she heard him say in a low voice:

“My daughter, our soul is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Keep it always pure, so that He can carry on His divine action in it.”

She promised, and said her act of contrition. She asked Our Lady to help her receive the Body and Blood of her Son worthily on the next day. Then she arose, and returned to her mother.

Maria Rosa looked embarrassed and out of sorts, and the women about her, for some reason or other, were laughing and whispering. But Lucia paid little attention to this; she was thinking only of what the priest had said. She knelt at the rail before the statue of our Lady of the Rosary, looked up at the sad face with the searching eyes, and said to her:

“Please keep my poor heart for God.”

And “it seemed to me,” she wrote years later, “that she smiled with a kindly look and gesture told me she would,”

Maria Rosa was waiting for her. “Don't you know,” she demanded as they started down the road to Aljustrel, “that your confession is a secret, and must be made in a low voice?”

Lucia hung her head.

“Everybody heard you.”


“They heard everything except the last thing you said to the priest.”

Lucia scuffed resolutely along.

“What was the last thing you said to him?” asked her mother.

No reply! Maria Rosa persisted all the way home, but she never learned the secret. Lucia was always a reticent child. As soon as she saw that anyone was trying to make her talk, she would take refuge in a sullen silence that could be very exasperating.

That night her sister worked late to get her ready for the great event of her life. There was a new white dress to be fitted, a garland of flowers to be woven to crown her dark hair. And when at last they let her go to bed, she was unable to sleep, thinking of all that was going to happen. What if nobody woke her for Mass next morning? Every hour she got up to see what time it was. It seemed as if the dawn would never come.

At last it did, however, and Maria came to call her. No doubt she gave the usual caution not to take a drink, or eat anything, for one must fast before Holy Communion. She made the final adjustments of the white dress and the garland. Then she presented Lucia to her parents, feeling her that she must beg their pardon for her sins, kiss their hands and ask their blessing. The little girl obeyed, and they blessed her.

“And mind you don't forget to ask Our Lady to made you a saint!” added Maria Rosa.

The family set out for the church. When Lucia could not keep up with the others her mother scooped her up in her strong arms, for it was late, and carried her the rest of the way.

There was no need of such haste. Some of the visiting priests from distant places had not yet arrived, and the Missa Cantata did not start for quite a while. This gave Lucia an opportunity to kneel once more before the statue of Our Lady of the Rosary and carry out her mother's instructions.

“Make me a saint!” she whispered. “Please ask Our Lord to make me a saint!”

Again she thought she saw the sad face relax into a smile of encouragement. She was not the first to report such an experience before a statue or a picture; there was little Saint Therese of Lisieux, for example, among others. Nor does Lucia attach too much significance to what theologians consider the least reliable sort of locution. “I don't know whether the facts I have written about my First Communion were a reality, or a little girl's illusion,” she wrote modestly when her bishop commanded her to commit all her spiritual adventures to paper. “All I know is that they had a great influence in uniting me to God all my life.” She remained so long gazing at the smiling Madonna that her sisters had to come and take her away. The procession was already forming.

Lucia was the youngest and smallest oi the four long files of children, two of girls and two of boys; and she was the first to receive. When the priest placed the white Host on her tongue, she felt, in her own words, “an unalterable serenity and peace." During all the remainder of the Mass she kept saying in her heart, over and over, “Lord, make me a saint! Keep my heart always pure, for You alone!” And she distinctly heard Him say within her, “The grace that I grant thee today will remain living in thy soul, producing fruits of eternal life.” 

It was afternoon when the Missa Cantata ended, for the sermon was long, and it took some time for the children to renew their baptismal vows. When they were finally released, they trooped out of the church and separated into little groups, shouting, talking, running, some munching on pieces of bread their mothers had brought.

Lucia remained kneeling in the blue and rosy light that carne through the stained-glass windows. Her mother was alarmed, thinking she must be weak from hunger, and dragged her away. But when they got home the child could hardly eat. She was surfeited with the Bread of Angels, and she felt as if no other food would ever attract or satisfy her. For a long time after that people noticed that she seemed absorbed, abstracted, almost dazed. (William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, published originally by the Macmillan Company, New York, New York, 1947, and republished in  1990 by An Image Book, Doubleday, A Division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, pp. 6-10.)

Lucia dos Santos was given special lights as she had been chosen by Our Blessed and Saviour Jesus Christ to be a messenger of His Blessed Mother’s Fatima Message, especially by exhorting all people to pray the Holy Rosary and to be devoted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary 

The following description of Saint Michael the Archangel’s two different apparitions to Lucia dos Santos and her cousins, Jacinta and Francisco Marto, though, lengthy, is important to consider in order to explain that the care that God took to prepare these three chosen souls for the apparitions of His own Most Blessed Mother:

In the spring of 1916, three young Portuguese shepherds, Lucy dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto, led their sheep to graze on a hill called the Cabeço. Rain began to fall, so the children found a place on the hillside to serve as a shelter. Even after the rain had passed and the sun had returned, the little shepherds spent the day at this spot, eating lunch, saying the Rosary and playing games. Lucy was then only nine years old, Francisco was eight, and Jacinta was six.

As they were playing, a strong wind suddenly blew, shaking the trees, and the children saw a figure approaching above the olive trees. Lucy described the figure as having "the appearance of a young man of fourteen or fifteen, whiter than snow, which the sun rendered transparent as if it were of crystal, and of great beauty. We were surprised and half absorbed. We did not say a word.

"While coming closer to us, the Angel said: ‘Do not fear! I am the Angel of Peace. Pray with me.’ And kneeling on the earth, he bent his forehead to the ground. Prompted by a supernatural movement, we imitated him and repeated the words which we heard him pronounce: ‘My God, I believe in Thee, I adore Thee, I hope in Thee and I love Thee. I ask pardon for all those who do not believe in Thee, do not adore Thee, do not hope in Thee and do not love Thee.’

"Having repeated that prayer three times, he got up again and said to us: ‘Pray in this way. The Hearts of Jesus and Mary are attentive to the voice of your supplications.’ And he disappeared."

Lucy recalled, "The supernatural atmosphere which enveloped us was so intense that, during a long moment, we barely realized the fact of our own existence. We remained in the position in which the Angel had left us, always repeating the same prayer. The presence of God made itself felt in such an intense and intimate manner, that we did not dare even to speak any longer among ourselves. The next day, we still felt our spirit enveloped in this atmosphere which only disappeared very slowly."

The Angel of Peace had come to speak to the children, to infuse them with this extraordinary grace through which they were penetrated with the Divine Presence, and to demonstrate to them the attitude, posture and fervor with which to pray to God. Interestingly, during the apparition Francisco could not hear the words of the Angel, and had to be told what was said afterward; this would be the case for all of the other apparitions as well. After some time the three little shepherds recovered their physical strength and playfulness.

The second apparition of the Angel took place during the summer of 1916. While the children were playing around their favorite well, the Angel suddenly appeared. "What are you doing?" he asked. "Pray, pray a great deal! The Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary have designs of mercy on you. Offer unceasingly prayers and sacrifice yourselves to the Most High."

Lucy asked the Angel how they were to make sacrifices.

The Angel replied, "Make of everything you can a sacrifice and offer it to God as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and in supplication for the conversion of sinners. In this way, you will draw peace upon your country. I am its Guardian Angel, the Angel of Portugal. Above all, accept and bear with submission the sufferings which the Lord will send you."

Lucy comments, "Those words of the Angel engraved themselves in our spirit, as a light which made us understand Who God is, how much He loves us and wants to be loved by us, the value of sacrifice and how pleasing it is to Him, and that out of respect for it, God converts sinners." The dominant theme in this second apparition of the Angel was the importance of making offerings to God through every possible action and sacrifice, even the smallest, and of making the offerings with special intentions, especially for the conversion of sinners.

In the autumn of the same year, the children took their sheep to the same place where the first apparition took place. There in the blessed place of the Cabeço, they were reciting the prayer the Angel had taught them when above them an unknown light appeared. Lucy relates, "We got up again to see what was happening, and we saw the Angel again, who had in his left hand a Chalice over which was suspended a Host, from which some drops of Blood fell into the Chalice."

Leaving the Chalice and the Host suspended in the air, he prostrated himself down to the earth near the children and repeated three times this prayer:

Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I adore You profoundly, and I offer You the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He, Himself is offended. And I draw upon the infinite merits of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that You might convert poor sinners.

Then, getting up, the Angel took the Chalice and Host. He gave Lucy the Sacred Host on the tongue. Then while giving the Precious Blood from the Chalice to Francisco and Jacinta, he said:

"Eat and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God." Then, prostrating himself on the ground he repeated with the children three times the same prayer: Most Holy Trinity, etc., and disappeared.

This final apparition of the Angel was clearly the summit of the three, as the children were graced to see the Precious Blood of Our Lord fall from the Sacred Host into the Chalice, and then receive Holy Communion from the hands of the Angel.

Again, the need for converting poor sinners was a theme in this final apparition of the Angel. The prayer repeated by the Angel demonstrates that through our prayers, united with the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, sinners can be converted. Our prayers and sacrifices alone amount to very little; but when they are united to the merits of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, they become infinitely valuable. Also emphasized was the need for reparation for the sins committed against God, by which He is constantly hurt and seeking consolation. In addition, the way the children received Holy Communion is particularly instructive for our time: they received Communion in the kneeling position, and the Sacred Host was given on the tongue.

The appearance of the Angel of Peace to three little Portuguese shepherds was a preparation for the signal grace that was about to be bestowed upon them: the appearance of the Queen of Heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The apparitions of the Angel prepared them for seeing the Mother of God, through the transforming Divine graces the Angel showered on them, and his instructions about prayer, sacrifice and offerings. Through his apparitions to Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta, the Angel of Peace came to ready them for the decisive roles they were each to play in the most important event of the Twentieth Century, the appearance of Our Lady at Fatima.

Yet the Angel of Peace’s instructions were not meant for the children alone. They apply to each of us, and just as they prepared the children for the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin, they can also serve as a preparation for our reception of Our Lady’s Fatima Message. (The Angel of Portugal.) This is not an endorsement of the Fatima Center and its “resist while recognize” position.)

There is much food for Catholic reflection doctrine contained in the facts as described above.

First, we must adore the one and only true God, the Most Blessed Trinity.

Jews do not adore the true God.

Mohammedans do not adore the true God.

Buddhists and Hindus and other pagans do not adore the true God.

Ah, but this means also that the conciliar revolutionaries do not adore the true God as they claim constantly that Jews, Mohammedans, Buddhists, Hindus, Yazidis, animists and other non-Catholics adore the true God of Divine Revelation and are thus “believers.”

Second, Saint Michael the Archangel taught the children the correct posture and attitude to have in prayer. We are knee erect and to be attentive to our prayers as we are addressing them to God directly or speaking to the Blessed Mother, Saint Joseph, our Guardian Angel, our patron saint and other saints to intercede for us with Him. This contrasts sharply with the Protestantization of posture while at prayer that has occurred within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism as a result of the entire ethos of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo service stand to receive what they think is Holy Communion, which treats the reception of Our Lord as matter of egalitarianism, not the honor and respect due to the King of Kings through Whom all things were made and Who redeemed us on the wood of the Holy Cross. The thought of kneeling is foreign to most Catholics today. Indeed, most Catholics in the conciliar structures believe that it would be “beneath” their dignity to kneel, which is confined in the Novus Ordo to the “Eucharistic Prayer,” although there are places in the United States and elsewhere in the world where people stand, and after the Agnus Dei until they go up to stick out their paws to receive what purports to be Holy Communion, after which they may sit or kneel as they choose until the closing prayer.

The Angel of Portugal, Saint Michael the Archangel, gave Holy Communion to Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia as they were kneeling, and it was by a special privilege granted to Jacinta and Francisco that they, who were to die within several years after being visited by the Mother of God, that Saint Michael permitted them to drink the Precious Blood from the Chalice, which is given out freely in the Novus Ordo service to those who desire to consume what they think is the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord.

Third, the Angel of Portugal taught the children to sacrifice and pray for the conversion of sinners. Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that unrepentant sinners are to be “accompanied” in their “journey,” not exhorted to quit their sins.

Fourth, the Angel of Portugal taught the shepherd children that Our Lord, Whom they were about to receive in Holy Communion, “was horribly outraged by ungrateful men” and exhorted them to make “reparation for their crimes and console your God.” Reparation is part of the Catholic Faith, but it is not part of the conciliar revolution no matter the few times that the conciliar authorities might make gratuitous references to the term in reference to the “crimes” against the “climate” and “economic justice.”

William Thomas Walsh described the aftermath of the Angel of Portugal’s apparitions to Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia prior to Our Lady's first apparition to the seers on Sunday, May 13, 1917, the Fifth Sunday after Easter. Yes, Our Lady's first apparition in the Cova da Iria took place on a Sunday during Paschaltide:

“Ai tra-lari, lai-lai

Trai-lari lai lai

Lai lai lai!”

But something had gone out of the joy of such singing. In the words of the old spring song, the ah la la was all over. How could anyone see what they had seen, and be the same?

There was something different in the air that spring. It was like the odor of death hovering upon the fragrance of the new flowers. Nearly everybody was depressed. Maria Rosa was desolate when Manuel went away. One of Jacinta's brothers also had gone to war, and was said to have been killed. Fortunately the rumor proved to be false; but Ti Marto and his family had many days of torment and suspense. One day, when Jacinta and Francisco were weeping at the thought of their brother's death, Lucia proposed a dance to divert their minds; and the little ones began to dance, still wiping the tears from their faces. Yet they were often silent, all three, as they roamed over the scattered stones at Valinhos or gazed across the valley from the cave at Cabeco. They had become aware at last of a world of anguish, a humanity shackled for some obscure reason to the mystery of suffering.

Even May, the month of Mary, the month of new life and joy, weight heavily on the world that year. On May 5, as if to voice the universal sadness and to point out the only source of hope, Pope Benedict XV lamented in a memorable letter, “the cruel war, the suicide of Europe.” After begging God to turn the hearts of rulers towards peace, and urging all to purge themselves of sin and pray for peace, and especially asked that since all graces were dispensed “by the hands of the most holy Virgin, We wish the petitions of her most afflicted children to be directed with lively confidence, more than ever in this awful hour, to the great Mother of God.” He directed that the invocation “Queen of peace, pray for us,” be added to the Litany of Loreto, and continued:

“To Mary, then, who is the Mother of Mercy and omnipotent grace, let loving and devout appeal go up from chapels, from royal palaces and mansions of the rich as from the poorest hut- from every place wherein a faithful soul finds shelter-- from blood drenched plains and seas. Let it bear to her the anguished cry of mothers and wives, the wailing on innocent little ones, the sighs of every generous heart: that her most tender and benign solicitude may be moved and the peace we ask for be obtained for our agitated world.”

It is quite improbable that Lucia and her cousins had even heard of the Pope's letter (for it was still unpublished) when they went out to the Serra five days later, the thirteenth of May, 1917. (William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, published originally by the Macmillan Company, New York, New York, 1947, and republished in 1990 by An Image Book, Doubleday, A Division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, pp. 48-49.)

Even Pope Benedict XV’s insertion of the invocation of Our Lady of Peace into the Litany of Loreto on the Feast of Pope Saint Pius V served Heaven’s plan for the Queen of Peace herself to make her first apparition in the Cova da Iria eight days later.

There is a simple remedy for the problems of this wicked word. It is so simple that even many believing Catholics, all too many of whom are engrossed in the various farcical events in our world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism that are as much a distraction to the interior life of the soul as they are a chastisement for our sins, want something more “complex” than the remedy that Our Lady herself provided mankind at the behest of her Divine Son: namely, the collegial consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by a true pope with all of the world’s bishops

Sister Lucia, however, explained to William Thomas Walsh on September 15, 1946, the Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that Pope Pius XII's 1944 consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary did not fulfill Our Lady’s request:

Finally we came to the important subject of the second July secret, of which so many different and conflicting versions have been published. Lucia made it plain that Our Lady did not ask for the consecration of the world to her Immaculate Heart. What she demanded specifically was the consecration of Russia. She did not comment, of course, on the fact that Pope Pius XII had consecrated the world, not Russia, to the Immaculate Heart in 1942. But she said more than once, and with deliberate emphasis:

“What Our Lady wants is that the Pope and all the bishops in the world shall consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart on one special day. If this is done, she will convert Russia and there will be peace. If it is not done, the errors of Russia will spread through every country in the world.”

“Does this mean, in your opinion, that every country, without exception, will be overcome by Communism?”


It was plain that she felt that Our Lady’s wishes had not yet been carried out. People must say the Rosary, perform sacrifices, make the five first Saturday Communions, pray for the Holy Father. 

“Did Our Lady ever say anything to you about the United States of America?”

She gave me a rather studied glance, and then smiled in faint amusement, as if to suggest that perhaps the United States was not so important in the general scheme of things as I imagined.  (William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, published by Doubleday, New York, New York, 1954, pp. 228-229.)

No, the United States of America is not as important as most Americans, including most American Catholics, have imagined, but it has been, of course, overcome by Communism, albeit of a “soft” nature that envelops both the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and “right.” There goes the Judeo-Masonic myth of "American exceptionalism" down the sink hole. 

Sister Lucia wrote to Pope Pius XII in 1940 to make a request of him directly, specifying once again the necessity of a collegial consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart:

Most Holy Father,

Humbly prostrated at your feet, I come as the last sheep of the fold entrusted to you to open my heart, by order of my spiritual director.

I am the only survivor of the children to whom our Lady appeared in Fátima (Portugal) from the 13th of May to the 13th of October 1917. The Blessed Virgin has granted me many graces, the greatest of all being my admission to the Institute of Saint Dorothy. (To here this is copy of the sketch the Bishop sent me.)

I come, Most Holy Father, to renew a request that has already been brought to you several times. The request, Most Holy Father, is from our Lord and our good Mother in Heaven.

In 1917, in the portion of the apparitions that we have designated "the secret," the Blessed Virgin revealed the end of the war that was then afflicting Europe, and predicted another forthcoming, saying that to prevent it She would come and ask the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart as well as the Communion of reparation on the first Saturday. She promised peace and the conversion of that nation if Her request was attended to. She announced that otherwise this nation would spread her errors throughout the world, and there would be wars, persecutions of the Holy Church, martyrdom of many Christians, several persecutions and sufferings reserved for Your Holiness, and the annihilation of several nations.

Most Holy Father, this remained a secret until 1926 according to the express will of our Lady. Then, in a revelation She asked that the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays of five consecutive months be propagated throughout the world, with its conditions of doing the following with the same purpose; going to confession, meditating for a quarter of an hour on the mysteries of the Rosary and saying the Rosary with the aim of making reparation for the insults, sacrileges and indifferences committed against Her Immaculate Heart. Our good Heavenly Mother promises to assist the persons who practise this devotion, in the hour of their death, with all the necessary graces for their salvation. I exposed the request of our Lady to my confessor, who tried to have it fulfilled, but only on the 13th of September 1939 did His Excellency the Bishop of Leiria make public in Fatima this request of our Lady.

I take this opportunity, Most Holy Father, to ask you to bless and extend this devotion to the whole world. In 1929, through another apparition, our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, promising its conversion through this means and the hindering of the propagation of its errors.

Sometime afterwards I told my confessor of the request of our Lady. He tried to fulfill it by making it known to Pius XI.

In several intimate communications our Lord has not stopped insisting on this request, promising lately, to shorten the days of tribulation which He has determined to punish the nations for their crimes, through war, famine and several persecutions of the Holy Church and Your Holiness, if you will consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention for Russia, and order that all the Bishops of the world do the same in union with Your Holiness. I truly feel your sufferings, Most Holy Father! And, at much as I can through my humble prayers and sacrifices, I try to lessen them, close to our Lord and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Most Holy Father, if in the union of my soul with God I have not been deceived, our Lord promises a special protection to our country in this war, due to the consecration of the nation by the Portuguese Prelates, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; as proof of the graces that would have been granted to other nations, had they also consecrated themselves to Her.

Now, Most Holy Father, allow me to make one more request, which is but an ardent wish of my humble heart; that the feast in honour of the Immaculate Heart of Mary be extended throughout the whole world as one of the main feasts of the Holy Church.

With the deepest respect and reverence I ask for the Apostolic Blessing. May God protect Your Holiness.

Tuy, Spain, 2nd of December of 1940.
Maria Lucia de Jesus

From Novos Documentos de Fátima, Fr. Anthony Mario Martins, SJ (Oporto: 1984). English edition: Documents on Fatima & Memoirs of Sr. Lucia. (Alexandria, SD: Fatima Family Apostolate, 1992).  (Fatima Consecration Timeline. This timeline includes the false consecrtions of the world to Our Lady of Fatima and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that were performed by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II. However, the documentation of Sister Lucia dos Santos's letter to Pope Pius XII is to be found here. )

Describing Our Lady’s Fatima Message as “Fatima is the summation of my thinking. The time for doubting Fatima is passed. It is now time for action,” Pope Pius XII consecrated the world, but not Russia specifically, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1942, and then instituted the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary two years later, that is, in 1944, and inserted it in the calendar to be celebrated on August 22, the Octave Day of Our Lady’s Assumption, which he would define dogmatically in 1950. 

Sister Lucia had thus written to Pope Pius XII six years before her interview with William Thomas Walsh. She remained adamant in her conviction that His Holiness had not followed Our Lady's request. 

Remember, it had been on June 13, 1929, that Sister Lucia saw the now famous image of the Most Holy Trinity during a Holy Hour. Our Lady spoke to her the following words: 

The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops in the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray.

Our Lord Himself amplified the words of His Most Holy Mother, speaking the following to Sister Lucia in 1931:

They did not wish to heed My request. Like the king of France, they will repent and do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church; the Holy Father will have much to suffer

What should matter to us is that we plant seeds for the restoration that Pope Saint Pius X himself told us was to come, a restoration some of us believe will take place after a true pope is restored miraculously to the Throne of Saint Peter after a time of worldwide chastisement of epic proportions and then fulfills Our Lady’s Fatima Message. Yes, that would be late in the course of time, but, as noted just above, Our Lord Himself told Sister Lucia dos Santos that it would be done.

What is our excuse for failing to take heed of Our Lady’s Fatima Message as we beg Our Lady for the graces to do so, especially by praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits.

“It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.”

I am not going to argue with that.

Are you?

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our deaths.

All to thee, Blessed Mother. All to thy Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, we love you. Save souls!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Robert Bellarmine, pray for us.


A Very Few Random Photographic Proofs of Antipapal Apostasy

John Paul II being blessed by a Hindu woman
JP II being 'blessed' by a Hindu woman in New Delhi

Upon his arrival to celebrate a Mass at a stadium in New Delhi, India,
a smilling John Paul II receives a "blessing" from a Hindu religious woman.

This is an act to ask protection of the Hindu deities.

(As found at: John Paul II 'blessed' by a Hindu religious woman in New Delhi.)



October 27, 1986

October 27, 1986



October 27, 2011, above.

B014_PrayingAtMosque.jpg - 56425 Bytes

Ratzinger at the Blue Mosque, November 30, 2006

258_KoranRatz.jpg - 77616 Bytes

April 18, 2008, John Paul II Cultural Center, Washington, District of Columbia

Jorge Mario Bergoglio at Hindu temple, January 14, 2016