Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

Women in Men’s Clothing, A Catholic Cardinal Speaks

Originally Posted on Novus Ordo Watch

The following is a pastoral letter of His Eminence, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, Italy. It explains in depth why it is dangerous and inappropriate for women to wear pants rather than dresses or skirts. It is not onlya question of modesty, it is mainly, as His Eminence explains, a question of feminine psychology, of feminine dignity, and even of vitiating relationships between male and female. If you think this is ridiculous or unacceptable, we only ask that you give the Cardinal a fair hearing. Written almost 56 years ago, we have sadly seen His Eminence’s predictions come true and thus his warnings vindicated. Cardinal Siri is said to have been Pope Pius XII’s desired successor, and, according to rumors and even some circumstantial evidence, he actually was elected Pope in the 1958 conclave, two days before Angelo Roncalli presented himself to the world as “Pope John XXIII” and kicked off the Modernist Revolution.

Genoa, June 12, 1960

To the Reverend Clergy,
To all Teaching sisters,
To the beloved sons of Catholic Action,
To Educators intending truly to follow Christian Doctrine

cardinal-giuseppe-siri.jpgThe first signs of our late arriving spring indicate that there is this year a certain increase in the use of men’s dress by girls and women, even family mothers. Up until 1959, in Genoa, such dress usually meant the person was a tourist, but now it seems to be a significant number of girls and women from Genoa itself who are choosing at least on pleasure trips to wear men’s dress (men’s trousers).

The extension of this behavior obliges us to take serious thought, and we ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly lend to the problem all the attention it deserves from anyone aware of being in any way responsible before God.

We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment upon the wearing of men’s dress by women. In fact Our thoughts can only bear upon the moral question.

Firstly, when it comes to covering of the female body, the wearing of men’s trousers by women cannot be said to constitute as such a grave offense against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of woman’s body than do modern women’s skirts.

Secondly, however, clothes to be modest need not only to cover the body but also not to cling too closely to the body. Now it is true that much feminine clothing today clings closer than do some trousers, but trousers can be made to cling closer, in fact generally they do, so the tight fit of such clothing gives us not less grounds for concern than does exposure of the body. So the immodesty of men’s trousers on women is an aspect of the problem which is not to be left out of an over-all judgment upon them, even if it is not to be artificially exaggerated either.

However, it is a different aspect of women’s wearing of men’s trousers which seems to us the gravest.

The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes. Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:

A.  MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMAN

In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men’s dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being “like a man.” Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that person’s gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.

Then let us add that woman wearing man’s dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority when in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen.

These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by the wearing of men’s dress.

B.  MALE DRESS TENDS TO VITIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN

In truth when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant. The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another. If then this “diversity” becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.

The problem goes further still. Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and in order of time, by that sense of shame which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts. To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature’s limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.

It is at least to hinder that sense. And when the sense of shame is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between man and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.

Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminised, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.

C. MALE DRESS HARMS THE DIGNITY OF THE MOTHER IN HER CHILDREN’S EYES

All children have an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of their mother. Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they awaken to life around them even before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of their mother counts. Children are as sensitive as can be on this point. Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it. But we would do well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their mother’s misbehavior. Many lines of later life are here traced out — and not for good — in these early inner dramas of infancy and childhood.

The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.

Let us think seriously on the import of everything said so far, even if woman’s appearing in man’s dress does not immediately give rise to all the upset caused by grave immodesty.

The changing of feminine psychology does fundamental and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society. True, the effects of wearing unsuitable dress are not all to be seen within a short time. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously worn down, torn apart, perverted.

Is any satisfying reciprocity between husband and wife imaginable, if feminine psychology be changed? Or is any true education of children imaginable, which is so delicate in its procedure, so woven of imponderable factors in which the mother’s intuition and instinct play the decisive part in those tender years? What will these women be able to give their children when they will so long have worn trousers that their self-esteem goes more by their competing with the men than by their functioning as women?

Why, we ask, ever since men have been men, or rather since they became civilized — why have men in all times and places been irresistibly borne to make a differentiated division between the functions of the two sexes? Do we not have here strict testimony to the recognition by all mankind of a truth and a law above man?

To sum up, wherever women wear men’s dress, it is to be considered a factor in the long run tearing apart human order.

The logical consequence of everything presented so far is that anyone in a position of responsibility should be possessed by a SENSE of ALARM in the true and proper meaning of the word, a severe and decisive ALARM.

We address a grave warning to parish priests, to all priests in general and to confessors in particular, to members of every kind of association, to all religious, to all nuns, especially to teaching Sisters.

We invite them to become clearly conscious of the problem so that action will follow. This consciousness is what matters. It will suggest the appropriate action in due time. But let it not counsel us to give way in the face of inevitable change, as though we are confronted by a natural evolution of mankind, and so on!

Men may come and men may go, because God has left plenty of room for the to and fro of their free-will; but the substantial lines of nature and the not less substantial lines of Eternal Law have never changed, are not changing and never will change. There are bounds beyond which one may stray as far as one sees fit, but to do so ends in death; there are limits which empty philosophical fantasizing may have one mock or not take seriously, but they put together an alliance of hard facts and nature to chastise anybody who steps over them. And history has sufficiently taught, with frightening proof from the life and death of nations, that the reply to all violators of the outline of “humanity” is always, sooner or later, catastrophe.

From the dialectic of Hegel onwards, we have had dinned in our ears what are nothing but fables, and by dint of hearing them so often, many people end up by getting used to them, if only passively. But the truth of the matter is that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up in both, go their imperturbable way, and they cut to pieces the simpletons who upon no grounds whatsoever believe in radical and far-reaching changes in the very structure of man.

The consequences of such violations are not a new outline of man, but disorders, hurtful instability of all kinds, the frightening dryness of human souls, the shattering increase in the number of human castaways, driven long since out of people’s sight and mind to live out their decline in boredom, sadness and rejection. Aligned on the wrecking of the eternal norms are to be found the broken families, lives cut short before their time, hearths and homes gone cold, old people cast to one side, youngsters willfully degenerate and — at the end of the line — souls in despair and taking their own lives. All of which human wreckage gives witness to the fact that the “line of God” does not give way, nor does it admit of any adaption to the delirious dreams of the so-called philosophers!

We have said that those to whom the present Notification is addressed are invited to take serious alarm at the problem in hand. Accordingly they know what they have to say, starting with little girls on their mother’s knee.

They know that without exaggerating or turning into fanatics, they will need to strictly limit how far they tolerate women dressing like men, as a general rule.

They know they must never be so weak as to let anyone believe that they turn a blind eye to a custom which is slipping downhill and undermining the moral standing of all institutions.

They, the priests, know that the line they have to take in the confessional, while not holding women dressing like men to be automatically a grave fault, must be sharp and decisive.

Everybody will kindly give thought to the need for a united line of action, reinforced on every side by the cooperation of all men of good will and all enlightened minds, so as to create a true dam to hold back the flood.

Those of you responsible for souls in whatever capacity understand how useful it is to have for allies in this defensive campaign men of the arts, the media and the crafts. The position taken by fashion design houses, their brilliant designers and the clothing industry, is of crucial importance in this whole question. Artistic sense, refinement and good taste meeting together can find suitable but dignified solutions as to the dress for women to wear when they must use a motorcycle or engage in this or that exercise or work. What matters is to preserve modesty together with the eternal sense of femininity, that femininity which more than anything else all children will continue to associate with the face of their mother.

We do not deny that modern life sets problems and makes requirements unknown to our grandparents. But we state that there are values more needing to be protected than fleeting experiences, and that for anybody of intelligence there are always good sense and good taste enough to find acceptable and dignified solutions to problems as they come up.

Out of charity we are fighting against the flattening out of mankind, against the attack upon those differences on which rests the complementarity of man and woman.

When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good. Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities.

This letter of Ours is not addressed to the public, but to those responsible for souls, for education, for Catholic associations. Let them do their duty, and let them not be sentries caught asleep at their post while evil crept in.

Giuseppe Cardinal Siri
Archbishop of Genoa

(Source: http://olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml; edited)

Doctrine Is Not Important, To a False Pope

False pope Francis continues the anti-Catholic rhetoric of the Novus Ordo religion, by diminishing the importance of ‘adhering to a certain doctrine.’

On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that indifferentism is a sin. Pope Gregory XVI even wrote the encyclical Mirari Vos on Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism. It very much makes a difference to the doctrine in which one adheres.

The Catholic Church can not substantially change. So one must either accept Pope Gregory XVI and the 1950 years of Church teaching, OR one must accept False pope Francis and the 50+ years of the modernist theology of the Novus Ordo religion. You can not choose both.

Further, to choose the latter is to say that the Church CAN substantially change, which is against Church teaching.

False pope Francis says:

   “being Christians does not primarily mean pertaining to a certain culture or adhering to a certain doctrine, but rather, joining one’s very life, in every aspect, to the person of Jesus, and, through Him, to the Father.”

(source)

How can one join one’s life to Christ, if they reject the very doctrine of the Church Christ founded?

May this be just one more illustration of the promulgation of errors of the Novus Ordo/Vatican II sect.

All Are Welcome!

Original Post from Novus Ordo Watch

One of the most politically-correct and foolish mantras being mindlessly thrown around these days is the effeminate “All are Welcome” slogan. The most famous proponent of this idiocy is the Jesuit apostate Jorge Bergoglio, better known by his stage name “Pope Francis”. For example, in May of this year, he gave a homily at the Vatican in which he claimed that a Christian always includes and never excludes — without reference to any object or person; no, he was speaking quite generally: inclusion good, exclusion bad!

The truth is, of course, that neither inclusion nor exclusion have any moral significance per se — it entirely depends on what or who is to be included or excluded, in or from what, in what way, in what sense, and in what context. But this makes little difference to the all-are-welcome cheerleaders because their intent is to be deliberately vague about it in order to smooth over what their maxim is really meant to signify: “All Public Perverts are Welcome” and “All Immoral Ideas are Welcome”! That’s what this is about.

So then, let us pose the question: Are all welcome in the Catholic Church? The answer depends on how the question is meant: Yes, all are welcome to join her and be Catholics, absolutely. In fact, that is not merely an invitation but God’s very command! But if what is meant is that all be welcome to remain as they are and be accepted in the Catholic Church regardless of what they believe or how they live, the answer is a clear NO, absolutely not!

Of course, it is exclusively — no pun intended — the latter understanding of “All are Welcome” that is in everyone’s mind whenever this slogan is used in connection with the question of whether “all are welcome” in the Church. We need but look at the news story of the “Catholic” parish in San Jose, California, that promoted an inclusive “All Are Welcome” message, which in reality was just an abridged way of saying, “All Unrepentant Public Perverts Are Welcome”. But if you put it that way, it’s just not that attractive.

Yet, the fact that not all are welcome in the Catholic Church should not be particularly puzzling, for it is quite natural for any institution to have conditions for membership, participation, or any other sort of attachment. If you want to play tennis in a club, you are welcome only insofar as you are actually willing to play the game of tennis. If you show up with a baseball bat and try to introduce that into the game of tennis in order to be “inclusive”, you will find out very quickly how un-welcome you are. Likewise, you are welcome to be a teacher in the American public school system only if you adhere to their standards, guidelines, and curriculum, and should you refuse to do abide by their terms, you will find out in a jiffy that the door also swings the other way. And why should this be surprising? Even the diabolical Freemasons only allow people to become members who profess some sort of creed in line with their Naturalist and anti-Catholic ideals.

Or try to join and remain in a country club without paying the membership dues. Will you be “included”? Not so much. Even the European Union has rules that determine whether a country can be included in it or must be excluded from it, and probably countries from America, Oceania, Africa, and Asia aren’t going to find themselves in the former category any time soon. People who are looking to join the Zoroastrian religion will presumably be confronted with a few rules before they are accepted as converts, and last time we checked, present-day Jews, too, aren’t exactly the “inclusive” kind.

So, just as there are certain conditions that have to be met to be included in various institutions, organizations, and communities, and just as we find codes of belief and behavior also in other religions, so there are non-negotiable standards and conditions in the true religion, the Catholic religion. Does this mean we “exclude”? You bet it does! And if you don’t like it, you know where the door is.

Lest we be accused of not being in line with the Gospel of our Merciful Savior or the Bible in general, let’s have a look at a few rather narrow-minded, negative, and “exlusive” passages in Holy Scripture. All of the following pericopes in some way speak about or imply people being excluded, and/or allude to conditions for inclusion (all underlining added):

  • And he destroyed all the substance that was upon the earth, from man even to beast, and the creeping things and fowls of the air: and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noe only remained, and they that were with him in the ark. (Genesis 7:23)
  • And when your children shall say to you: What is the meaning of this service? You shall say to them: It is the victim of the passage of the Lord, when he passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, striking the Egyptians, and saving our houses. And the people bowing themselves, adored. (Exodus 12:26-27)
  • Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7:13-15)
  • If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matthew 16:24)
  • And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:11-14)
  • Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride. And five of them were foolish, and five wise. But the five foolish, having taken their lamps, did not take oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with the lamps. And the bridegroom tarrying, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye forth to meet him. Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. Now whilst they went to buy, the bridegroom came: and they that were ready, went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut. But at last come also the other virgins, saying: Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answering said: Amen I say to you, I know you not. Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day nor the hour. (Matthew 25:1-13)
  • He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
  • But this know ye, that if the householder did know at what hour the thief would come, he would surely watch, and would not suffer his house to be broken open. (Luke 12:39)
  • And a certain man said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But he said to them: Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. But when the master of the house shall be gone in, and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without, and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering, shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are. Then you shall begin to say: We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. And he shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are: depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. (Luke 13:23-28)
  • If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple…. So likewise every one of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth, cannot be my disciple. Salt is good. But if the salt shall lose its savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? It is neither profitable for the land nor for the dunghill, but shall be cast out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Luke 14:26-27,33-35)
  • See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. (Romans 11:22)
  • But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
  • Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
  • If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. (2 John 1:10)
  • And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire. (Apocalypse 20:15)

Ouch, it’s just not looking too good for our lemmings of perpetual inclusion, is it?

So, next time some “All are Welcome” cheerleader challenges you, “Where in the Bible is anyone ever excluded?!!”… LET HIM KNOW!

Eternal Punishment

The topic of Hell is very uncomfortable for many people. But it is of the utmost importance that we grasp the possible reality which awaits the reprobate for all eternity. You can read a previous post about The Torments of Hellwhich is a transcript of a sermon by Father Desposito. And here is a little more on the subject of Eternal Punishment originally posted on Novus Ordo Watch…

Yes, God is merciful, but He is merciful only to those who take Him up on His offer of mercy, which requires a bit more than merely expressing the desire to be forgiven. (We touched upon the topic of true and supernatural contrition and its necessity in installment 12 of our series.) So, for the sake of converting a world that only ever hears about mercy and never about damnation, below are some sobering truths about the reality of eternal punishment in hell for those who die in the state of mortal sin.

Select Scripture Verses on the Reality of Everlasting Damnation in Hell:

And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always. (Dan 12:2)

The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mt 13:41-42)

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels…. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting. (Mt 25:41,46)

Amen I say to you, that all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and the blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin. (Mk 3:28-29)

And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. (Mk 9:42-43)

And to you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angels of his power: In a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. (2 Thess 1:7-9)

And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty…. Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. (Jude 6-8,13)

And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast, and his image, and whoever receiveth the character of his name. (Apoc 14:11)

And there came down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them; and the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast and the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever…. And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire. (Apoc 20:9-10,14-15)

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Apoc 21:8)

 

A brief salutary Meditation on Hell by St. Alphonsus Liguori, Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor:

The Eternity of the Pains of Hell

I.
Consider that the torments of hell will never terminate. The damned suffer in every way, and they suffer eternally. A hundred years of suffering will pass away, a thousand will pass away, and hell will still be only at its beginning. A hundred thousand and a thousand million of years will pass, and hell will still begin anew. Were an angel to be sent to one of the damned, informing him that, after as many million of ages have expired as there are drops of water in the sea, leaves upon the trees, and grains of sand on the seashore or upon the earth, he should be delivered from hell, this news would fill him with inconceivable joy. For although he would be compelled to suffer for an innumerable multitude of ages, still he would be able to say: The time will come when my sufferings will end. But alas! As many ages will really expire, and hell will be only at its beginning. Nay, this number of ages maybe multiplied as many times as there are grains of sand on the earth, drops of water in the ocean, and leaves on the trees, and, at the close of this immense period, hell will begin again. There is not a wretch in that abode of torments, that would not willingly make this proposition to the Almighty. “Increase, O Lord, as much as Thou pleasest, my torments, prolong the duration of them to any extent Thou pleasest, provided they may terminate.” But no: this termination will never be granted. It would be an alleviation, if the unfortunate sufferer could flatter himself with the hope that perhaps the Lord would one day have compassion on him and deliver him from hell. But alas! He will always keep the sentence of his eternal reprobation before his eyes, and will see that all these pains, this fire, this despair, these lamentations, will never cease, will never end. O hell! O eternity! How can men believe in you and yet continue in sin?

II.
Christian soul! pay attention to these truths: remember that hell is for you, if you live in sin. This horrible furnace is already kindled under your feet, and numbers throughout the world are falling into it, whilst you are reading this. Reflect, that if the same misfortune ever befalls you, it will be irreparable; if ever, then, you did deserve hell, thank God with all your heart for his mercy in having spared you. Weep over your sins; employ every possible means of securing your salvation; frequently approach the sacraments; read daily some pious book, entertain a sincere devotion to the Blessed Virgin, recite every day the Rosary, and fast every Saturday in her honor; be firm and resolute in resisting the beginning of temptation, invoking frequently the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary; flee from all occasions of sin; in short, use your utmost endeavors to avoid eternal misery, remembering that there cannot be too great security where eternity is at stake.

Consider what numbers of men have hidden themselves in deserts, and shut themselves up in caverns, in order the more effectually to secure their eternal welfare. And what are you doing? Oh! give yourself sincerely to God, and say to him from your heart: Lord, behold I am now Thy servant:ready and willing to do whatever Thou commandest me. Mary, assist me.

(source)

These truths you will never hear from the “Pope” of the Vatican II Church, except perhaps on very rare occasion and the only fleetingly and offset by a million statements to the contrary.

But the true Catholic Church will never cease to preach the truth about hell, from which Jesus Christ delivered us by His Redemption so that we may be able to escape it. But alas, “How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” (Mt 7:14).

Make an act of contrition now, an act of faithof hope, and of charity, and find out how to be a realCatholic today.

 

The Meeting Point: Vatican’s Evil Sex Education

Rarely do I post about something that I am not familiar, but this post will be an exemption. I really don’t want to scandalize myself in investigating it.

It seems the Vatican II sect has found it necessary to make a sex education program called The Meeting Point. I’m not sure that it was even implemented into schools, etc, but the fact it was even created is an example of the evil that comes out of the Novus Ordo religion.

Catholic teaching already offers up plenty of education about the proper use of sexual relations between a married man and woman. There is simply no need to bring about more on the subject, as it is already quite clear, and anything further (sexual relations outside of a valid marriage between a man and a woman) would be a grave sin anyway.

But when the Novus Ordo has a goal in mind to actually contradict the true Catholic Church, then we get to see it’s bad fruit.

It’s not just ‘rigid’ traditionalists who have a problem with this though, even some Novus Ordo ‘catholics’ themselves are offended by evils coming out of the Vatican. Here are a few excerpts of commentary on The Meeting Point from LifeSiteNews

The immediate response to The Meeting Point was strong and highly critical. Three international life-and-family leaders who have defended Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life for decades have reviewed and described it as “thoroughly immoral,” “entirely inappropriate,” and “quite tragic.”9

….

Subsequently, a petition has developed requesting that Pope Francis and the new director of the Pontifical Council of the Family, Bishop Kevin Farrell, withdraw as soon as possible this ‘nightmare’ Vatican ‘sex ed’ program.10

In a culture in which youth are bombarded by pornography, I was particularly shocked by the images contained in this new sex education program, some of which are clearly pornographic. My immediate professional reaction was that this obscene or pornographic approach abuses youth psychologically and spiritually.

Youth are also harmed by the failure to warn them of the long-term dangers of promiscuous behaviors and contraceptive use.11 As a professional who has treated both priest perpetrators and the victims of the abuse crisis in the Church, what I found particularly troubling was that the pornographic images in this program are similar to those used by adult sexual predators of adolescents.

The person primarily responsible for the development and release of this harmful program, Archbishop Paglia, the former leader of the Pontifical Council of the Family, should be required in justice to go through an evaluation by a review board as described in the Dallas Charter norms for placing youth at risk. Such a review is particularly important as he is now been put in charge of further teaching regarding sexuality and marriage at the John Paul II Institute for Family Studies.

The Meeting Point program constitutes sexual abuse of Catholic adolescents worldwide and reveals an ignorance of the enormous sexual pressure upon youth today and will result in their subsequent confusion in accepting the Church’s teaching. It represents a grave future crisis in the Church and particularly for Catholic youth and families in far greater proportions than the scandalous sexual abuse crisis of youth recently so widely reported in the press.

The real Catholic Church could never produce what was described in this commentary.

Anti-Catholic False Pope Says Proselythism is a Sin

The Catholic Church teaches that Ecumenism is a sin…but False pope Francis embraces anti-Catholicism and says that proselytism is the sin! Here is more detail on the matter from Novus Ordo Watch

bergoglio-upset

Francis denounces Converting the Orthodox as “Great Sin Against Ecumenism”

As you may have heard, Antipope Francis is currently doing mischief in Georgia — no, not the U.S. state of Georgia but the country of Georgia in Eastern Europe, which has a Novus Ordo population of approximately 2%. He traveled there on Friday and will stay until Sunday morning, when he flies to neighboring Azerbaijan before returning to Rome on Sunday night.

This being his 16th (!) “Apostolic Journey” in 3.5 years, the otherwise carbon-emission-conscious pretend-pope has been burning a lot of jet fuel for… well, for what exactly? For giving speeches, shaking hands, and kissing people. Basically, it’s all just stuff that makes for great photo ops and big headlines. It isn’t any different this time around in Georgia, which also means that everyone is waiting — some with anxious trepidation, others with blistering excitement — for the obligatory in-flight entertainment he is sure to deliver, that is, the off-the-cuff interview he will give on his flight back to Rome. But until then, we still have a few hours.

Today, October 1, Francis ran into a little ecumenical conundrum: Although the Vatican had announced that representatives of the heretico-schismatic Georgian Orthodox Church were going to attend the “papal Mass”, they didn’t show up, on account of “existing dogmatic differences”, according to a report by the grossly-misnamed National Catholic Reporter. But the best part came afterwards:

Later in a visit with Georgian Catholics at a Tbilisi parish on Saturday afternoon, Francis told them they must not seek to convert members of the Georgian Orthodox community.

“There is a big sin against ecumenism: proselytism,” said the pontiff. “You must never proselytize the Orthodox. They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.”

“Walk together, pray for each other, and do works of charity together when you can,” the pope encouraged. “This is ecumenism. Do not condemn a brother or sister.”

(Joshua J. McElwee, “Francis tells Georgia’s Catholic minority of ‘wonders’ God works in smallness”National Catholic Reporter, Oct. 1, 2016)

If you have been following our blog for a while, this should not come as a surprise to you, because Francis has expressed this indifferentism many times before (see here and see here, for example).

Likewise, we should all be used by now to Francis making up all sorts of silly and outrageous things, whether it be recycling as a work of mercyfornication as holy matrimonymortal sin as imperfect virtue, or any other buffoonery he dreams up under the guidance of his “god of surprises”. Moreover, sins against God have long been replaced by sins against man only, and recently even by sins against the earth.

But now there’s a new one: sins against ecumenism! Gone are the days when ecumenism was the sin! More on that in a minute, but first let’s have a look at some alternate reports lest anyone accuse us of using only one source that is perhaps distorting the meaning of Francis’ words. Here is an account from Vatican Radio:

The question of ecumenism and the problems it can pose, was another issue discussed by the Pope that had been mentioned earlier by one of the speakers. Pope Francis told his listeners never to argue with their Orthodox friends or neighbours and especially warned Catholics never to try “to convert them.” He described proselytism as “a big sin against ecumenism” and encouraged his audience to be on friendly terms with Orthodox believers, to perform works of charity together and never to condemn them or refuse to greet them on account of who they are.

(“Pope: there’s a global war against marriage nowadays”Vatican Radio, Oct. 1, 2016; underlining added.)

Finally, let’s also have a look at what Crux reports on this:

A seminarian had asked Francis about ecumenism, meaning inter-Christian dialogue. The pope answered saying that the abstract study of ecumenism should be left to theologians, while Catholics should instead focus on being friends with their Orthodox neighbors.

“Be open, be a friend. ‘But I must do everything to convert them!’ There’s a great sin against ecumenism: proselytism,” he said, adding that they’re “our brothers and sisters.”

Ecumenism, he said, is being friends, walking together, doing charitable work together and praying for each other.

(Ines San Martin, “Pope calls gender theory a ‘global war’ against the family”Crux, Oct. 1, 2016; underlining added.)

Clearly, there has been no misunderstanding.

No, what Francis said here dovetails perfectly with everything else he’s been saying and doing from the beginning. We’ve chronicled Jorge Bergoglio’s heresies, howlers, scandals, and outrages on our Francis page, which you’re welcome to check out, but be warned: You’ll be drinking from a firehose of information.

At this point, the professional Novus Ordo apologist will jump in and smugly declare that Francis didn’t denounce converting people but merely condemned “proselytism”, which in Novus Ordo ecumenical theology — but virtually nowhere else — has a very specialized meaning, namely, that of using undue pressure or deceptive means to entice another to convert. This is the brilliant copout, the veritable “joker” to excuse the Modernist Sect’s assault on evangelization that Novus Ordos will try to pull at this point. It is definitely popular at Catholic Answers.

But it won’t fly, for several reasons: First, because Francis himself was clearly speaking in the context of converting others per se — not converting them through trickery or force, but simply converting them. After all, he didn’t say, “Convert them only with sound means” — he basically said not to do it at all and instead to go hold hands and help out at the soup kitchen together. Secondly, because this overly technical meaning of “proselytism” is not how people understand the term — everyone understands “proselytism” to mean converting people by means of simply convincing them using sound arguments, and Francis and his gang know that. Thirdly, because the Novus Ordo “popes”, who denounce proselytism at every turn, never speak out in favor of using sound and non-deceptive methods of converting people, either — nor do they ever even attempt to convert anyone. Lastly, and most importantly, because no one is actually engaging in insincere or deceptive methods of converting people to begin with. The constant condemnation of proselytism would be justified only if we had hordes of Novus Ordos everywhere trying to browbeat people into converting. But who is actually doing that in the Novus Ordo? No one!

Some time ago we directly responded to Jimmy Akin’s attempt to use the bogus “proselytism-doesn’t-mean-converting-people” argument. We encourage you to review it:

When you put all the indicators together, a very clear picture emerges: The denunciation of proselytismreally is, and is meant to be, a denunciation of apologetics, mission, and evangelization. It is a blasphemous exhortation to contradict and reject the Divine Commission to go and make disciples of all nations (see Mt 28:19-20) and to be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you” (1 Pet 3:15). The reason they typically use the term “proselytism” rather than “converting people” is simply to have this deceptive copout to fall back on. And look at how well it has worked for them in the past! For decades their words and actions have taught people to reject seeking non-Catholics’ conversions under the cloak of plausible deniability! This is nothing short of diabolical. People’s conversion to Catholicism is necessary for their salvation — to repudiate it or reduce it to being optional is the greatest damage one can do to another’s soul.

So here we have Francis confirming once more that the conversion of the non-Catholic is not the goal of ecumenism; it is its very antithesis, a “sin” against it. This vindicates what we’ve been saying from the beginning and shuts up all those Novus Ordo big shots — like Peter Kreeft, Karl Keating, and Jimmy Akin, for example — that have been telling us for decades that the goal of ecumenism is ultimately conversion. It is not.

On October 1, Francis also visited the cathedral church of the heterodox and schismatic patriarch Ilia II of the autocephalous Georgian Orthodox Church. This cathedral is alleged to be the burial site of the seamless garment worn by Our Lord Jesus Christ on Good Friday (cf. Jn 19:24). Crux provides a summary of what Francis said on the occasion (full text here):

“The holy tunic, a mystery of unity, exhort us to feel deep pain over the historical divisions which have arisen among Christians: these are the true and real lacerations that wound the Lord’s flesh,” Francis said.

Yet the “unity that comes from above” the pontiff continued, urges Christians not to give up but to offer themselves as he did, with sincere charity and mutual understanding, in a spirit of “pure Christian fraternity.”

The pontiff, leader of 1.3 billion Catholics representing more than half of the world’s Christian community, acknowledged that this fraternity requires patience and humility, rooted in the certainty “which Christian hope allows us to enjoy.”

The beauty of Christian life, according to Francis, comes from guarding faithfulness to its own roots without giving into “closed ways of thinking which darken life.” Christian identity, in other words, is open and ready, “never rigid or closed.”

(Ines San Martin, “Pope says Christian divisions ‘wound’ the Body of Christ”Crux, Oct. 1, 2016)

It is a dogma that the Catholic Church alone constitutes the Body of Christ, which is one by divine constitution and per se incapable of being split into parts. Heretics and schismatics do not destroy the unity of the Church — they merely withdraw from it, leaving its integrity untouched. “The Catholic Church is one, she is neither torn nor divided”, said Pope Leo XII (Apostolic Exhortation Pastoris Aeterni). Interestingly enough, the Italian (original?) version of this exhortation found on the Vatican web site has Pope Leo XII using the word lacerata — “lacerated”, “torn” — with regard to what the Catholic Church’s unity is not. This is precisely the same word Francis used, though he used it to affirmof ecclesiastical unity what Pope Leo denied: The divisions are “lacerations” that tear the Body of Christ, Francis claimed.

Since the Body of Christ is one and not divided, then, it becomes all the more important to understand where that Mystical Body is to be found in this world. The Catholic Church has always taught that she alone is the Mystical Body of Christ, and all other churches, sects, or communities, are thus cut offfrom the Body of Christ:

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.

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

 

Furthermore, the Son of God decreed that the Church should be His mystical body, with which He should be united as the Head, after the manner of the human body which He assumed, to which the natural head is physiologically united. As He took to Himself a mortal body, which He gave to suffering and death in order to pay the price of man’s redemption, so also He has one mystical body in which and through which He renders men partakers of holiness and of eternal salvation. God “hath made Him (Christ) head over all the Church, which is His body” (Eph. i., 22-23). Scattered and separated members cannot possibly cohere with the head so as to make one body. But St. Paul says: “All members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ” (I Cor. xii., 12). Wherefore this mystical body, he declares, is “compacted and fitly jointed together. The head, Christ: from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly jointed together, by what every joint supplieth according to the operation in the measure of every part” (Eph. iv., 15-16). And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. “There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 23). And to set forth more clearly the unity of the Church, he makes use of the illustration of a living body, the members of which cannot possibly live unless united to the head and drawing from it their vital force. Separated from the head they must of necessity die. “The Church,” he says, “cannot be divided into parts by the separation and cutting asunder of its members. What is cut away from the mother cannot live or breathe apart” (Ibid.). What similarity is there between a dead and a living body? “For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church: because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones” (Eph. v., 29-30).

Another head like to Christ must be invented – that is, another Christ if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. “See what you must beware of – see what you must avoid – see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member” (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).

The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord – leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ….He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 5; underlining added.)

That’s how true Popes speak — but a lot of water has run down the Tiber since we’ve had a true Pope in Rome (1958).

We must not fail to notice that in his speech today Antipope Francis quoted from the very same document of St. Cyprian quoted by Pope Leo XIII above, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate. But whereas Pope Leo correctly interpreted its passages on unity as referring to the Catholic Church alone, Francis distorted the meaning and claimed it referred to some sort of “unity” allegedly possessed by all the baptized, regardless of whether they adhere to the true doctrine and are united to the Roman Pontiff or not:

Saint Cyprian stated also that Christ’s tunic – “one, undivided, all in one piece, indicates the inseparable concord of our people, of us who have been clothed in Christ” (De Cath., 195). Those baptized in Christ, as Saint Paul teaches, have been clothed in Christ (cf. Gal 3:27).  Thus, notwithstanding our limitations and quite apart from all successive cultural and historical distinctions, we are called to be “one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28) and to avoid putting first disharmony and divisions between the baptized, because what unites us is much more than what divides us.

(Antipope Francis, Address at Svietyskhoveli Patriarchal Cathedral in MtskhetaVatican Radio, Oct. 1, 2016)

So here we have a diabolical manipulation of the words of St. Cyprian. They have been hijacked to promote the cause of ecumenism rather than of conversion to the Catholic Church.

In the Modernist Church, baptism alone suffices to be a member of the “Body of Christ” and put one into at least some “imperfect communion” with it (see Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 15; Decree Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 3). In the Catholic Church, however, this is not so, as explained by Fr. Sylvester Berry:

The spiritual character imprinted upon the soul in Baptism [alone] does not make one a member of the Church; it is rather a sign or badge showing that he has received the rites of initiation, but it does not prove that he retains membership. This may be illustrated by the case of a person receiving a tattoo mark as a sign of initiation into a society that uses such marking. If the person afterward leave the society, he would cease to be a member, though he still bore the indelible sign of his initiation.

(Fr. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ [Baltimore, MD: Mount St. Mary’s Seminary, 1955], p. 129)

Thus, merely possessing the baptismal character does not make one a member of the Body of Christ. Profession of the true Faith and unity with the Holy See are also requirements for membership.

“But”, you may object, “Francis agrees that true unity must still be attained. He wants unity!” To which we respond: “What kind of unity does he seek, then, since he repudiates the unity that requires the Orthodox to convert to Catholicism, which is the only unity in accordance with Catholic dogma?” Any other kind of unity is a counterfeit unity. In fact, the very idea that unity does not currently exist in the Body of Christ and is merely a goal for which we must strive, was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius XI:

And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one…. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd” [Jn 17:21; Jn 10:16], with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said…

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 7)

So, the Catholic Church alone possesses unity, and this unity can never be found outside her. Hence, to restore unity among all those who profess to be Christians, it is necessary that all join or re-join the Catholic Church.

This is true for all non-Catholics, whether pagans, atheists, Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants — or Eastern Orthodox. Hence Pope St. Pius X wrote:

…We have no more ardent desire than that all men of good-will may unweariedly exert all their strength that the unity longed for may be more speedily obtained, so that those sheep whom division holds apart may be united in one profession of Catholic faith under one supreme pastor….

Let, then, all those who strive to defend the cause of unity go forth; let them go forth wearing the helmet of faith, holding to the anchor of hope, and inflamed with the fire of charity, to work unceasingly in this most heavenly enterprise; and God, the author and lover of peace, in whose power are the times and the moments [Acts 1:7], will hasten the day when the nations of the East shall return rejoicing to Catholic unity, and united to the Apostolic See, after casting away their errors, shall enter the port of everlasting salvation.

(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Ex Quo Nono; underlining added.)

In other words, Pope Pius X taught the exact opposite of what Francis says.

The true Catholic teaching is really not complicated — it’s just not politically correct.

The fact that the Catholic Church alone is the one and only true Church which all must enter if they wish to attain eternal salvation, doesn’t mean, of course, that Catholics should be nasty to non-Catholics or look upon them with disdain. This has never been the position of the Church. Rather, as Pope Pius IX exhorted us:

But God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church ever in any way be hostile to those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and “being fruitful in every good work” [Colossians 1:10], they may attain eternal salvation.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 9)

The fact is, we must simply endeavor to do both: assist non-Catholics in their temporal needs and seek their conversion to Catholicism — not rudely or haughtily, but charitably. The one simply does not exclude the other.

Pope Pius XII carefully emphasized that in the important work of evangelization, we must never compromise on Catholic dogma for any reason:

Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, “although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ.” Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ’s faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae, n. 16)

After Francis spoke at the Georgian Orthodox cathedral, Patriarch Ilia himself gave a speech as well. According to the same Crux report cited earlier, the heretical bishop addressed Francis and declared: “Our unity is in the true faith, and only the true faith is useful to humanity”. Needless to say, Francis did not contradict him, which means he apparently agrees that a rejection of the Roman primacy, of the Immaculate Conception, of purgatory, of the Filioque clause in the Creed, and of Christ’s teaching on adultery all constitute part of the “true faith.” But then again, to Francis, the very phrase “true faith” is unintelligible. For him, it is but silly gibberish of a bygone age and has as much validity today as talk of a “true flower pot” or a “true cheeseburger”.

Ladies and gentlemen, Francis is shifting the Great Apostasy into ever higher gear. No silly petitionsdeclarations, or books of accusation by “resisting” traditionalists trapped in his sect will change this. It is necessary to denounce him in public for what he is: a false pope and an anti-Catholic, leading a false and heretical pseudo-Catholic sect!