Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

Concerning Baptism of Blood and Desire

An Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori’s Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood — translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.


Traduction réalisée par les soins de
M. John S. Daly
Le Bouchillou
24410 Servanches
Tel/Fax +33 (0)5 53 82 15 02

Baptism of Blood and of Desire

From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology, the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)

Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto),through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”

Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”


2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)

Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water,the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire,by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”


3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)

“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.

Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”



To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).

Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another… If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).


5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)

Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

  • Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
  • That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
  • A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.



“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated… and expressed his intention to be baptized… Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”


7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God

“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic… The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).



Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”


9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)

Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa”(Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).


10. Roman Martyrology

January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.

April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.


11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quadam, 1854:

174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”


12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly… For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”


13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II – 1945 (1024-1)

The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.

This is certain.

Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.

b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.


14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:

  • “Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
  • “Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
  • “Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire… both cause sanctifying grace. …Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment…”


15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:

  • “Baptism of Desire… is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition…”
  • “These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
  • “…Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith….”


16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931

II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).


17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921

Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.


18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II,1948:

The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; …but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).


19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV – 1931:

Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.


20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:

Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation…

<p>From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water… Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).

21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II), Tractatus XII, 1902

Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected…

Both are called “of desire” (in voto)…; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.


by Novus Ordo Watch

The debate continues…

Novus Ordo vs. Sedevacantist Discussion, Part 2

The Catholic vs. podcast is a Novus Ordo podcast produced and hosted by David Mary Andrew Ross. The host, who is a convert to the Vatican II Church from atheism (2009), interviews guests who have a religious position different from his own. The format is informal and conversational, and the idea is to generate light rather than heat.

On Sep. 30, 2017, in an episode entitled Catholic vs. Catholic, the host interviewed sedevacantist Stephen Heiner, an episode we featured on this blog. The audio is still available and can be listened to here.

On June 14 of this year, Ross invited Heiner to his show once more, for a follow-up to the original discussion. The audio has now been released, and you can listen to it here:

In roughly 36 minutes, Ross and Heiner challenge each other on a number of different issues, including the teachings of Vatican II, continuity vs. rupture, Francis’ claim to the Papacy, the benefit of the doubt, the nature of the Church, the question of authority, and more.

Stephen Heiner is the founder of True Restoration, a sedevacantist media apostolate. True Restoration produces and publishes radio shows, video interviews, and books relating to topics of interest for traditional Catholics, thus helping to educate people in the Catholic Faith and its unique take on every aspect of our world.

True Restoration is well known for its popular Francis Watch radio show, which Novus Ordo Watch currently sponsors so that the public can listen for free. Other True Restoration programs include This is CatholicismFrom the PulpitCatholic SpiritualityApologeticsTradition and the ChurchClerical ConversationsThe Catholic Home, and more. Although most content on True Restoration requires a paid subscription, the organization has released a large number of free episodes, which can be accessed here.

On the June 14, 2018 edition of the Catholic vs. podcast, you will find Mr. Heiner making a powerful case for Sedevacantism. We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Ross for his sincerity, courage, and good will in hosting a sedevacantist guest for his podcast now for the second time. Being a convert from atheism, Ross has already given an extraordinary response to God’s grace, and we pray and trust “that he, who hath begun a good work in [him], will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil 1:6).

For more information about Sedevacantism, objections against it, and responses to such objections, please see our Sedevacantism topical page.

The combox will not be available for this particular post.

Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.

by Bishop Sanborn

In all three countries, Ireland, Argentina, and Poland, the guilt for this defection from Catholic morals (see my previous post) must be placed upon the Novus Ordo clergy. For of all the countries of the world these three are among the most predominantly Catholic, and the Catholic clergy were in a perfect position to influence the population away from these moral atrocities.

In the 1950’s, when the United States was 25% Catholic (now only about 20%), the Catholic clergy were able to keep dirty and filthy Hollywood in relatively good order by a wonderful institution known as the Legion of Decency. Scripts would have to be altered and scenes deleted by Hollywood producers in order to obtain the approval of the Legion. In Catholic school, I remember receiving every week a mimeographed sheet indicating what films were being played at the local theaters, each film receiving a rating from the Legion. A-1 was for general patronage; A-2 was for adults and adolescents; A-3 was for adults; B was termed “morally objectionable in part for all.” C was “condemned,” something reserved for pure pornography.

We were told that it was a mortal sin to see a B picture — and that included adults. Every year on December 8th, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, the whole parish would stand up at Mass, at the moment of the announcements, and recite the pledge of the Legion of Decency, whereby we promised not to see the dirty films. In my house, the sheet which we received from school was posted in the kitchen. Any permission to go see a movie was subjected immediately to the rating given to it by the Legion of Decency.

I bring this up in order to show the tremendous power of the Catholic Church in a Protestant country, the United States, to influence public morality.

The decay of morality among Catholics must be placed at the feet of the Novus Ordo clergy. While it is true that a number of them have striven against public immorality either in their sermons or through the media, they are pitifully few, and in most cases do not enjoy the support of the Novus Ordo hierarchy.

If the bishops of Ireland, Argentina, and Poland had made a concerted effort against the legalization of these wicked sins, there is no way in which these offenses against God’s law would have passed.

Vatican II is the cause of the moral decay, since its very soul is relativism in regard to truth. As much as objectivity of truth characterized pre-Vatican II Catholicism, both in dogma and in morals, this new relativism is what pervades all of the post-Vatican II era. The eldest child of this relativism is ecumenism, which holds that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. Implicit in this statement is that God does not care what religion you belong to, or what dogmas you adhere to, as long as you have an interior personal relationship with Him. In this system, all religions are true, and all are means of salvation. Ecumenism’s ugly little sister is religious liberty, whereby conscience is extolled above the Church’s magisterium, generating a supposed God-given right to practice whatever religion you believe.

This relativism in regard to truth is what has destroyed Catholicism in all of the institutions which were once Catholic. It has also destroyed the clergy’s ability to insist upon Catholic morality in the public sphere. It has destroyed unity of faith among Catholics, the label “Catholic” now referring only to adherence to an institution, but not to a set of dogmatic or moral tenets. Add to this the other Novus Ordo ideas which have been popularly spread by this new religion, such as “everyone is going to heaven” and “there is no hell,” and “we all worship the same God.” The result is a feckless and useless clergy incapable of transmitting the Catholic Faith.

Their sermons are boring and trite, not concerned about objective Catholic dogma and morality, but about purely naturalistic ideas of being good to your neighbor, being concerned about the environment, and being generally “nice.” Funeral sermons are not about purgatory and judgement, but about the fact that the deceased is in heaven, usually playing golf with God, or mowing God’s lawn, making spaghetti (if she’s Italian) or some other vapid or inane activity which characterized the deceased in this life.

We must further add the effect of the new catechisms, which came into being in the 1960’s, and which, through a failure to present the Catholic Faith in an objective question- and-answer method, ruined the virtue of faith in Catholics who were subjected to them. They presented the typically Modernist doctrine that God is discovered through a personal religious experience, and not through a knowledge of dogmas which are adhered to by the virtue of faith. Modernism is the most lethal enemy of the virtue of faith, and we have seen the result of this poisoning of souls in the public immorality and worse, in the legalization of immorality, indeed in the murder of babies and unnatural vice, both abominations in God’s eyes in countries which were once staunchly Catholic.

The Novus Ordo clergy, as a whole, and with only a few exceptions, are guilty of this moral apostasy and have on their hands the blood of the innocent babies who will be aborted in these once Catholic countries.

Did Bergoglio say anything to the Catholic voters in Ireland before the referendum? Not a single word. Did he intervene at all in his own native land to prevent the legalization of abortion in Argentina? Not at all.

In regard to unnatural vice, he recently told a “gay” man that God made him that way. He addressed these words to a certain Juan Carlos who is one of the victims of sex abuse in Chile on the part of the Novus Ordo clergy: “Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter. God made you like that and he loves you like that and I do not care. The Pope loves you as you are, you have to be happy with who you are.”

The implications of this statement are both blasphemous and morally disastrous regarding Juan Carlos. It is blasphemous, inasmuch as it makes God the cause of what is clearly a disorder. It would be like saying to someone born with muscular dystrophy (a very debilitating genetic disease) that “God made you that way,” and that “you have to be happy with who you are.” Or it would be the same as telling an electrician who is so insane that he thinks that male couplings should be attached to other male couplings, and female to female, that “God made you that way and he loves you like that.” The comment, furthermore, encourages Juan Carlos to act in accordance with his disordered appetite. The advice from a truly Catholic priest would be that the person afflicted with this disorder must do all in his power to resist the inclinations of this faulty desire.

Implicit in this statement of Bergoglio’s, which is totally in accordance with many other statements and actions of his, is that the appetite justifies the object of the appetite. In other words, “if I am inclined to this, it must be all right, since I find this urge within myself.” This attitude, which is prevalent in all modern society, is typical of the modern intellectual disease of relativism, namely that there are no objective norms, but that it is the subject (the person) who determines the object. In other words, “something is right because I want it,” and not the other way around, that is, “I want something because it is right.” The same is true about religion: “Something is true because I believe it,” and not “I believe something because it is true.”

If we apply this principle of appetite justifying the object of appetite, the effects are horrifying. What about people who have as a lust object the murdering and dismembering of other people? This is a true appetite in some people.

It is of no wonder that nearly all of the cases of child abuse in the Catholic clergy came after Vatican II. For the subjectivism and relativism unleashed by the council caused the breakdown of all of the constraints of holy purity, so intrinsic to Catholic spirituality, and especially the purity of the priests. There was a spirit of “all hell breaking loose” after the council, a spirit of revolution against the traditional constraints of morality demanded of priests. This was because the council caused, particularly in the clergy, who understood the principles of the council and were most affected by them, a weakening or a downright abandonment of the faith, especially in the sacredness of their own priesthood. The New Mass did much to promote this decomposition of the virtue of faith, as it reduced the priest to a mere president presiding over a protestantized and man-centered liturgy, dictated by what Fr. Cekada calls the Ladies’ Soviet, that is, the parish liturgical committee whose members consisted mostly of opinionated and domineering battle-axes. Given this reduction of the priest, and given the general principle that appetite justifies the object of your appetite, and given the abandonment of the traditional spirituality of mortifying one’s evil inclinations, the effect was almost inevitable: anyone inclined to child molestation would use the vantage point of his priesthood to lure unsuspecting and trusting young persons into very serious sins of impurity.

Another very grave element contributing to the immorality of clergy after Vatican II is the abandonment of clerical attire. The traditional Canon Law requires priests to wear clerical attire at all times in public unless there is a serious reason why they cannot or should not. (Hence it was not required, obviously, that a priest wear his collar when he is swimming or camping out). Most Novus Ordo priests today are unrecognizable as priests in their dress, which has the effect of making them relax too much in public, becoming “one of the guys,” and of permitting them to do immoral things without being noticed as clergy. Traditional Canon Law states that a priest would commit mortal sin of the went for more than three days without clerical attire, unless he had a sufficient reason.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

by Bishop Sanborn

Shame on Ireland. While strolling through Rome last month, Bishop Selway and I met an Irish lady who asked us to pray for Ireland, because in a few days (May 25th) there would be a referendum concerning abortion.

Ironically the woman was a Protestant, although she was from Galway, which is in the Republic of Ireland, nearly entirely Catholic.

A staggering 66.4% of the Irish, nearly all Catholics, voted in favor of legalizing the murder of innocent babies. The voting followed lines of age: those against were mostly from the older generation; those in favor mostly from the younger generation. My Irish grandfather must be turning in his grave to think that his race would have voted for the legalization of such a heinous crime. If he were alive I could just imagine what he would say, perhaps not entirely repeatable.

Shame on Argentina. The Congress of Argentina, another nearly entirely Catholic country, recently voted to permit abortions to take place up to fourteen weeks of pregnancy.

Shame on Poland. Yet another nearly completely Catholic country, Poland, with deep roots of Catholicism and many well-known saints to its name, recently permitted a “gay pride” parade in Warsaw.

This parade, entirely legal, came only a few months after Poland’s government declared that Christ was the King of Poland.

King of Poland? To proclaim Christ as King of your country, and at the same time to permit sodomites to parade in your capital to show off their pride in their sexual perversions is an act of the grossest hypocrisy. It is pure pharisaism, that is, to pretend piety and devotion on the outside, but to be corrupt interiorly.

It is the same thing as to hang a picture of Christ the King in your home, and then to spit upon it.

Our Lord had very hard words for the Pharisees. The holy Gospel is filled with these hard words, showing a particular disgust that Our Lord had for those who would give God fine words on the outside, but love sin on the inside. In Saint Matthew Our Lord addresses these hypocrites in this way: “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.” (Matthew XXIII: 27)

Poland has placed a crown of thorns upon the head of their King.

Bergoglio at the World Council of Churches: Analysis and Commentary

from Novus Ordo Watch

Francis at the World Council of Churches:
Analysis & Commentary

Photo: Magnus Aronson/WCC

One really has to hand it to them. Although they always say essentially the same things, somehow the Modernists always manage to come up with some new buzzwords for the headlines.

Such was the case again today, June 21, when Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) traveled to Geneva, Switzerland, to participate in the 70th anniversary celebrations for the ecumenical World Council of Churches (WCC). If Francis had one catchphrase today, it was “new ecumenical spring.” More about that further on.

The three main events of Francis’ trip consisted of an ecumenical prayer service, an ecumenical meeting, and the Novus Ordo worship service (“Holy Mass”) at the end of the day. The full program released by the Vatican can be accessed here:

Numerous photos of the different activities were released by the Vatican and by the World Council of Churches:

Perhaps the most telling photograph of the whole event is the one displayed below, which shows Francis admiring a most hideous and blasphemous “crucifix” that had been gifted to him (click photos to enlarge):

Photos: WCC

Francis can add this abominable piece of junk to his ever-growing collection of blasphemous and twisted “art”, which already includes a Communist hammer-and-sickle crucifix, an occultist crucifix, a monster-ance, and many other ugly things.

Some people think that a disgusting crucifix is not objectionable because the Crucifixion of Our Lord was ugly in reality. However, the Church does not admit this line of reasoning: “On September 11, 1670, a decree of the Holy Office forbade the making of crucifixes ‘in a form so coarse and artless, in an attitude so indecent, with features so distorted by grief that they provoke disgust rather than pious attention’” (source). People need to understand that the reason why we have crucifixes today is not in order to portray the actual Crucifixion precisely as it looked when it took place, but in order to recall to mind the love of God for sinners as He gave Himself up in propitiation for our sins, so as to elicit acts of Faith, hope, and charity from souls.

Before we take a look at the endless wisdom with which Francis graced his listeners today, let’s first review a few other things that might otherwise get drowned out.

The first papal claimant to visit the World Council of Churches’ headquarters in Geneva was Antipope Paul VI, on June 10, 1969. The traditional Catholic position with regard to the WCC and ecumenism/religious unity in general can be found here:

It turns out that Francis’ visit to Geneva is so expensive that the local diocese, which the Vatican has asked to carry the costs, may have to file bankruptcy as a result. The total cost of the trip is estimated at $2,200,000, and even after promised donations the diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg will lose approximately $1,000,000, according to a report by Swiss Info. Francis is on record saying he wants a “poor church for the poor”. This is surely one way to do it — although it is not clear what benefits the poor would derive from a church that is equally poor.

The first speech Francis gave at the WCC today was an address at the interreligious prayer session:

So many words, so little meaning — that’s a good way to summarize the content. Taking his cue from the motto for the WCC event (“Walking, Praying, and Working Together”), Francis drew up his own talking points and then tried to read them back into a Scripture passage that had been recited earlier. He spoke first about “walking” and later about “in the Spirit.” His reflections contained such completely unfounded assertions as, “only in company do we make good progress” (how so? says who?) and the usual mantra about “constant conversion” and “renewal of our way of thinking”, whatever that means (ask ten ecumenists and you’ll get eleven different answers).

Francis’ endless blather about “following the lead of the Spirit” is so much hot air, since these people cannot even agree on who the Holy Spirit is (for example, the Eastern Orthodox claim the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only but not from the Son, which is a heresy). But then, what else is Bergoglio going to say? The whole ecumenical program is a lot of words and a lot of activities that have no clear goal. Yes, they all want “unity” somehow, but none of them — least of all Club Francis in the Vatican — desires anyone’s conversion to Catholicism, which is the only religious unity that is in agreement with the will of Jesus Christ (see Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos).

In January of 2017, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, “Cardinal” Kurt Koch, publicly admitted that the different parties involved in ecumenical dialogue cannot even agree on so much as the point of it all:

These people “are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit” (Mt 15:14). They have brought so much ruin to souls, it really cries to heaven for vengeance.

Then Francis said something he knew was going to generate headlines:

It might be objected that to walk in this way is to operate at a loss, since it does not adequately protect the interests of individual communities, often closely linked to ethnic identity or split along party lines, whether “conservative” or “progressive”. To choose to belong to Jesus before belonging to Apollos or Cephas (cf. 1 Cor 1:12); to belong to Christ before being “Jew or Greek” (cf. Gal 3:28); to belong to the Lord before identifying with right or left; to choose, in the name of the Gospel, our brother or our sister over ourselves… In the eyes of the world, this often means operating at a loss. Let us not be afraid to operate at a loss! Ecumenism is “a great enterprise operating at a loss”. But the loss is evangelical, reflecting the words of Jesus: “Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it” (Lk 9:24).

(Antipope Francis, Address at Ecumenical Prayer of World Council of, June 21, 2018)

This may sound good on the surface but it obviously promotes the heresy of Indifferentism and implies that the Protestant sects are part of the Body of Christ, that the differences between Catholics and baptized non-Catholics are essentially not matters of heresy vs. revealed truth and schism vs. unity but simply political and selfish squabbles. The references to St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and the Galatians are misleading, since in both cases the Apostle was addressing Catholics. Francis is comparing disputes among Catholics with disputes between Catholics and heretics, thereby showing that he does not believe in the Catholic religion at all. Not that we didn’t know that already.

For those who may be unaware of what the true Catholic Church teaches on the matter, have a look at these beautiful and exceptionally clear words of a real Pope from 150 years ago:

Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity. For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever. No one, moreover, can be ignorant that from these discordant doctrines and opinions social schisms have arisen, and that these again have given birth to sects and communions without number, which spread themselves continually, to the increasing injury of Christian and civil society.

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes; underlining added.)

Ecumenism is indeed operating at a loss but it is not an evangelical loss, as Francis so blasphemously claims, it is a loss of Faith and therefore a loss of souls.

After blowing more hot air, Francis proceeded to declare that heretics ought to evangelize together with Catholics: “Even now we can walk in the Spirit: we can pray, evangelize and serve together. This is possible and it is pleasing to God!” We know that “evangelization” means the proclamation of the Good News, the Gospel. But precisely what gospel does Francis think heretics and Catholics should proclaim together? The true gospel of Catholicism? The heretics won’t do that. Or the false gospels of Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Charismaticism, Jansenism, etc.? Catholics cannot do that. So then what does “evangelizing together” mean?

More empty phrases followed: “Walking, praying and working together: this is the great path that we are called to follow today.” Oh, that’s interesting. If that’s the call for “today”, precisely what have they been doing the last 70 years? And precisely what should be so pleasing to God about walking, praying, or working with that lesbian pro-abortion bishopess that’s sitting next to me?

It is true, as Francis says next, that the division among those who profess to be followers of Christ is contrary to His Will. That is certain. However, it is likewise contrary to His Will to seek for some kind of unity other than that which He has established for His Church. As Pope Pius XI’s Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus states: “Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.”

In other words, there is but one true flock and one true Shepherd, and those who are deceived by heresy and/or schism are not a part of it (they are therefore part of some other, false flock and follow some other, false shepherd); and the way to remedy this situation is for them to return to the “harbor of truth and unity of faith”. This is the true Catholic teaching, and it goes to show how fake and deceptive it is for Francis to promote the Sacred Heart, when he constantly teaches doctrines contrary to that Sacred Heart.

The video of the activities including Francis’ first speech is embedded here:

The next big speech Francis gave was his address at the ecumenical meeting, and it was a doozy. Again we will have a critical look at a few excerpts.

The Jesuit antipope said:

If we are here today, it is also thanks to all those who went before us, choosing the path of forgiveness and sparing no effort to respond to the Lord’s will “that all may be one” (cf. Jn 17:21)…. The World Council of Churches was born in service to the ecumenical movement, which itself originated in a powerful summons to mission: for how can Christians proclaim the Gospel if they are divided among themselves? This pressing concern still guides our journey and is grounded in the Lord’s prayer that all may be one, “so that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21).

This line of reasoning is verbatim what was condemned by Pope Pius XI in 1928:

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one” [Jn 17:21]. And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another” [Jn 13:35]? All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 4)

Pius XI then proceeds to explain how this ecumenical thinking contradicts the very foundations of Catholicism, and readers who have not done so before are urged to read the Pope’s encyclical in its entirety. Unlike the Modernist twaddle from the Vatican II antipopes, real papal encyclicals are a joy to read and very educational and edifying.

Of course, Francis also obsessive-compulsively regurgitated the Novus Ordo mantra of ecumenism being “irrecovable”: “Thanks to the Holy Spirit, who inspires and guides the journey of ecumenism, the direction has changed and a path both old and new has been irrevocably paved….” Precisely why the commitment to ecumenism should be irrevocable when they just overturned 1,900 years of anti-ecumenist doctrine and practice, is never explained. As is typical for the ecumenical program, things like this are simply asserted, they are never proved or explained.

Next, Francis clearly implies once more that the motley crew of heretics gathered before and around him is part of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, an abominable absurdity: “In the face of the recurring temptation to tailor it to worldly ways of thinking, we must constantly remind ourselves that Christ’s Church grows by attraction.” This he says in the context of calling the non-Catholics he addressed to a common missionary effort — as though heretical sects had a mission from God.

Then, finally, came the quote with the ecumenical springtime: “I am convinced that an increased missionary impulse will lead us to greater unity. Just as in the early days, preaching marked the springtime of the Church, so evangelization will mark the flowering of a new ecumenical spring.”

Again we have to ask what gospel Francis thinks Catholics can preach in unison with heretics and schismatics of every stripe. Whatever it might be, it definitely cannot be the true Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, for “[w]hosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 Jn 9); and, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8-9).

Whether Francis came up with the term “new ecumenical spring” himself is doubtful. A few weeks ago, the pastor of some Protestant sect in Germany had already used almost the exact same phrase in an interview with “Fr.” Antonio Spadaro: “To me it looks as if we have reached a new spring with Pope Francis and his initiatives” (“Pope Francis at the World Council of Churches: An interview with Pastor Martin Robra”La Civiltà Cattolica, May 31, 2018). By the way, the last “new springtime” that proceeded from the Vatican didn’t work out too well — just saying.

In any case, Francis then proceeded to speak about the event’s motto again: walking, praying, and working together. As for the walking, he suggested “a two-fold movement: in and out.” He elaborated: “In, so as to move constantly to the centre, to acknowledge that we are branches grafted onto the one vine who is Jesus (cf. Jn 15:1-8)” — as though Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Evangelicals, etc. were grafted onto Jesus Christ. He continued: “Out, towards the many existential peripheries of today’s world, in order to join in bringing the healing grace of the Gospel to our suffering brothers and sisters.” There simply is no “healing grace of the Gospel” apart from the true Gospel of the Catholic Church, and therefore no common ecumenical witness to it is possible. Minor detail.

Then Francis upped the ante on the use of metaphors with some real zingers sure to generate headlines: “Prayer is the oxygen of ecumenism. Without prayer, communion becomes stifling and makes no progress, because we prevent the wind of the Spirit from driving us forward.” No doubt there is a lot of wind in Francis’ words, and they surely proceed from some kind of spirit.

Lastly, it was a given that before long his favorite heresy would make an appearance again, his legendary “ecumenism of blood”:” May we never forget that our ecumenical journey is preceded and accompanied by an ecumenism already realized, the ecumenism of blood, which urges us to go forward.” There is no need to repeat all the arguments against this heresy here. Interested readers can consult our substantial post on the issue from years ago:

The video of the activities including Francis’ second speech is embedded here:

Thus far Francis’ two main speeches. The third one was a homily given at the “Mass”, and it was incredibly dull. It was focused on three buzzwords Francis picked from the Gospel of the day: “Father, bread, forgiveness.” You can read it here, but there will be no commentary. The video is here:

All in all, the day’s events were predictable: A lot of words were spoken, but very little was said; at least very little that had clear and concrete meaning, and even less that had Catholic meaning. Instead, heresy, error, and blasphemy abounded. And that’s what cost the diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg a whopping $2.2 million.


Image sources: / screenshots from livestream at
License: Used with permission / fair use