Everyone is familiar with Luther’s heretical teaching known as salvation through faith alone. This means that the single act which is necessary for salvation is faith, which for him, and for protestants in general, means trust in God. For Catholics faith means the assent of the intellect, by means of a supernatural virtue infused by God, to the truths revealed by God and proposed as such by the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore for Luther, and for those who follow him, sins do not count against you in the order of salvation. There is no need to mortify yourself. No need to do penance. Luther said: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly…No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day” Continue reading
In an interview with various Jesuit magazines, Bergoglio said that the current problem in the Church is “precisely the non-acceptance of the [Second Vatican] Council.” He singled out the United States as the hotbed of “restorationism,” as he called it. He even said that some of the restorationists actually consider the Council of Trent more important than the Second Vatican Council. (Imagine!)
This reminds me of the Emperor Nero who himself set fire to Rome, in the opinion of many historians, in order to build his Golden House, next to the Coliseum.
As the story goes, he fiddled while Rome burned. Then fearful that he would be accused of having set the fire, he decided to blame the setting of the fire on the Christians, then a tiny group in Rome, and put many of them to death, including St. Peter and St. Paul.
By analogy, Rome is burning, that is, the entire Church is collapsing from the point of view of the Catholic faith of the clergy and the people. It is in shambles. Yet the problem is not Vatican II. No. The problem is the restorationists! 
Who set the fire? The Modernists. The Church was doing fine under Pius XII. Since Vatican II, it has been reduced to rubble in every aspect of its existence, and shows itself to be a dying organization. Is Vatican II the cause? Of course not. For Bergoglio, what we need is more Vatican II, and that will solve the problem.
 They comprise perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the entire population which calls itself Catholic.
Bergoglio gives a reflection on the communion of saints, which is, of course a dogma of the Catholic Faith. So we are definitely in the area of heresy here. He says that the communion of saints is the Church, but gives it an unheard of meaning: “The Church is the community of saved sinners. It’s beautiful, this definition. No one can exclude themselves [sic] from the Church, we are all saved sinners.”Continue reading
The Vacancy of the Apostolic See, the non-papacy of Francis, and for that matter of Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, and even of John XXIII, is an issue which has divided traditionalists perhaps more than any other over the past forty years.
Of those who have taken the path of resistance to the reforms of Vatican II, the majority profess to be sedeplenists, that is, they hold that Francis is a true Roman Pontiff. They do so usually under the direction of the Society of Saint Pius X. Others, a minority but not an insignificant one, are sedevacantists, that is, they say that Francis is not a true Roman Pontiff, nor are his Vatican II predecessors.Continue reading
Here and here, I spoke about the statements of Novus Ordo Archbishop Viganò. These were cerebral and succinct condemnations of the Second Vatican Council and of the effluent from that dreadful meeting.
In a recent statement to the Remnant, however, which is a recognize-and resist publication, the Archbishop took the position of what I would call recognize and ignore. He says, essentially, that Vatican II can just be ignored. Its false teachings do not matter since there were no definitions of dogma, and therefore are fallible statements.Continue reading
In a second letter dated June 14, 2020, that is, merely five days after his “bombshell” letter about Vatican II and its reforms, the Novus Ordo Archbishop made a startling statement regarding the Council. As he put it, “it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten.” He also pointed out that Vatican II is to be blamed as an event that caused enormous problems in the Church. This is one of the reasons why he thinks it should be “forgotten.”
He quotes favorably a Professor Pasqualucci who considers Vatican II to be a conciliabulum, the classic term for a fake council: “If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.”
The Archbishop also says: “There is an urgent need to restore the Bride of Christ to her two-thousand-year Tradition and to recover the treasures that have been plundered and scattered, thus permitting the disoriented flock to be fully nourished by them.”
While the idea of annulling Vatican II is, of course, a wonderful idea, I am surprised that Abp. Viganò does not see the obvious problem: Unlike the other fake councils in the Church’s history, this one was promulgated in full by the “authority” of Paul VI. In short, you cannot annul Vatican II without also annulling the authority of him who promulgated it. Otherwise you end up with a Church which is capable of leading souls to hell. Indeed, has that not been the effect of this Council, if we contemplate the devastating loss of faith on the part of billions of souls? Is it not right and true to say: “An enemy hath done this?”
Archbishop Viganò’s recent comments are, of course, encouraging, but nothing will come of his intervention unless the problem of Paul VI and the Vatican II “popes” is addressed. Indeed, we must also include John XXIII in this group, since Vatican II represented not only a council which pronounced heresies, but, what is worse, created a mentality of revolution in the Church that has brought it to its ruin. It unleashed a spirit of heresy, a lust for rupture with the past, a maniacal detestation of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. The Antifa hordes in our streets are to our country what John XXIII and Paul VI sparked in the Church. Since John XXIII was the originator of this revolution, he too, as I see it, must be included in the enemy which has done this.
In recent weeks we have seen, day by day, a panic develop among the general population over the coronavirus. What first started out as a moderate response to this new virus has now become a frenzied mania. Below are my reflections on this whole debacle.Continue reading
Whereas during the “reigns” of John Paul II and Benedict XVI there was a certain hesitation about going too far in their heretical pronouncements and practices — although there were some blatant cases of heterodoxy and heteropraxis (actions which bespeak heresy) — we have seen in the “reign” of Francis a new boldness. Francis, for example, has recently denied the divinity of Christ and Transubstantiation (He said: “Christ becomes the bread”). Earlier he has denied the existence of hell, saying that bad souls are merely annihilated at death, has denied the unity of God (calling the single divine essence merely “God Spray”), has called the Church’s mission to preach the gospel “solemn nonsense,” has stated that atheists can go to heaven, said that sometimes God wants you to commit adultery “in order to keep the family together,” and has taught that those who live in adultery can approach Holy Communion. These are merely some of his outrageous statements. Add to this the introduction of the Pachamama idolatry into the Vatican.
Recently, in the context of the idolatrous worship, the Vatican website produced an article which explicitly teaches the heresy of evolution of dogma, condemned by Saint Pius X. Read this from the Vatican News website:
It is necessary to understand when a development of doctrine is faithful to tradition. The history of the Church teaches us that it is necessary to follow the Spirit, rather than the strict letter. In fact, if one is looking for non-contradiction between texts and documents, they’re likely to hit a roadblock. The point of reference is not a written text, but the people who walk together. [emphasis added]
So the Vatican is now saying through this article on its website that there will be contradictions found between texts, i.e., between what was taught before, and what is taught now. The author cites the ludicrous example of the Council of Jerusalem, in which it was decided that the ritualistic rules of the Old Law would not apply any more. He gives a better example, however: that of the contradiction concerning the teaching about the salvation of unbaptized babies. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, upheld by the Catechism of Saint Pius X, excludes the possibility of the beatific vision for unbaptized babies. The Catechism of the Koran-kissing “Saint” John-Paul II, however, gives a nebulous and typically Modernist gobbledygook answer that would lead you to believe that they do achieve the beatific vision.
So the Vatican, albeit informally, now admits that there is contradiction in dogma. This is a historic admission, for it is precisely what the sedevacantists have been saying all along. We have been criticized mercilessly by Novus Ordo conservatives as being “off the wall” and “too far.” But now they must face the facts as they are uttered by Vatican Modernists.
It all goes back to Vatican II. In response to the Pachamama scandal, a spokesman for the SSPX made the comment saying essentially that there is nothing new here. This is just more of the same.
I completely agree with him. Pachamama has permission to be in the Vatican Basilica from Vatican II, which says that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. Remember that there was the worship of fire permitted at Assisi in 1986, as well as the worship of the Great Thumb by the American Indians. There is nothing new. That is absolutely correct. It means that SSPX ought to condemn Vatican II instead of trying to make peace with it.
For this reason, Fr. Cekada recently said it perfectly in his recent blog: Instead of throwing the Pachamama idol in the Tiber, they should have thrown the documents of Vatican II in the Tiber. And this time put weights on it.
There are many who are asking me if there is anything to hope for in Novus Ordo Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider. For those who do not know them, these are two vocal critics of Bergoglio among the Novus Ordo hierarchy.Continue reading
In the most recent number of Sodalitium, the publication of the Institute of Our Mother of Good Counsel, located in Verrua Savoia, Italy, there is an editorial which I found very interesting, and have translated it for you. The piece bears no authorship, but it has Father Ricossa’s fingerprints all over it. It concerns a recently published comment of Ratzinger to an Italian Senator about a book he [Ratzinger] had written a few years ago. This comment is very revealing, as it is a clear admission from Ratzinger that there is a hiatus, that is, gap or separation, between the pre-Vatican II magisterium and that of the Council.
Ratzinger thinks nothing of this separation — the real word is contradiction— between the two teachings. For Ratzinger believes in historicism, which holds that truths are true for their time, but expire and evolve into other “truths” in different historical environments, so that the new truths may contradict the previous ones. It was in this way that the Modernists, in one blow, dispensed with the massive amount of magisterium in the Church’s past which condemns everything they think, do, and say.
Ratzinger is the High Priest of the Nothing-Has-Changed- Religion of the Novus Ordo conservatives, which holds as its unique dogma that there is doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary continuity between Vatican II and pre-Vatican II. They see him as the “missing link” between these two systems. Ratzinger’s single poignant comment, however, quoted in the editorial below, explodes their whole theory, and vindicates the sedevacantists.Continue reading