- SSPX & Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Exposed (Society of St. Pius X)
- Communicatio In Sacris Facts, Definition, Divine Law, Catholic vs Vatican II teaching
- Ngo Dinh Thuc: Archbishop Thuc Bishops and Consecrations
- Maria Valtorta and The Poem of The Man God Exposed
- Cathinfo Exposed (cathinfo.com) & Moderator Matthew Exposed
- Sexual Pleasure and the Various Sexual Acts in Marriage
- Most Holy Family Monastery Heresies, Contradictions and Lies Exposed!
- Antipope Francis approves of Atheism, False religions, and Homosexuality, teaching that they all saves a person!
- The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II
- Natural Family Planning, the Marital Sexual Act, and Procreation
- Sinful sexual pleasure and lust within marriage exposed
- Foreplay is intrinsically evil and a mortal sin against the natural law
- Masturbation is intrinsically evil and a mortal sin against the natural law
- About sinful sexual thoughts and fantasies inside and outside of the marital act
- Kisses and touches performed for sensual motives are condemned as mortal sins by the Catholic Church
- About Receiving the Sacraments From Heretics and Prayer in Communion with Heretics
- SSPX and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Exposed!
- SSPV, Bishop Clarence Kelly and The Daughters of Mary Exposed
- The amazing lies, heresies and contradictions of Peter and Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery caught on tape and writing exposed
- Chastity and Virginity increases one’s chance of reaching Heaven according to the Holy Bible
SSPX & Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Exposed (Society of St. Pius X)
The Society of St. Pius X (commonly known as the SSPX) is a self-professed so-called traditional Catholic priestly society, founded in 1970 by “Archbishop” Marcel Lefebvre from France. The purpose of the society is to provide priests who, according to them, uphold traditional and “orthodox” Catholicism, free from any association with heretical, neo-modernist doctrines which, through external influences, came to prominence following the Second Vatican Council.
Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre, or simply Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, (29 November 1905 – 25 March 1991) was a French Roman “Catholic” archbishop. Following a career as an Apostolic Delegate for West Africa and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, he took the lead in opposing the changes within the Church associated with the Second Vatican Council. In 1970, Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). In 1988, against the express prohibition of Antipope John Paul II, he consecrated four bishops to continue his work with the SSPX. The Vatican II sect then declared that he and the other bishops who had participated in the ceremony had incurred “automatic excommunication” under canon law.
Many sedevacantists view the SSPX as in schism from the Vatican II sect they recognizes as a valid Catholic hierarchy. The SSPX also consider the Vatican II antipopes as “true” popes in its public declarations, though it considers that many of the Vatican II’s leaders are, as individuals, erroneous. So the SSPX obstinately operates outside of communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, even though it recognizes it as a true and Catholic hierarchy. This is actually schismatic.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Declaration of August, 1976: “All those enter into schism who cooperate in this realization of this upheaval and adhere to this new Conciliar Church, as His excellency Bishop Benelli designated it in the letter he addressed to me in the Holy Father’s name last June 25th.” (Quoted in Sacerdotium)
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, former Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X: “We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and identifies itself with the Novus Ordo Missae… The faithful indeed have a strict right to know that priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church.” (Quoted in Sacerdotium)
The Angelus, Official publication of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), May, 2000: “This current of renewal has given birth to a new church within the bosom of the Catholic Church, to that which Msgr. Benelli himself called ‘the conciliar church,’ whose limits and paths are very difficult to define... It is against this conciliar church that our resistance stands. We do not refuse our adherence to the Pope as such, but to this conciliar church, for its ideas are foreign to those of the Catholic Church.” (The Angelus, Angelus Press, May 2000, p. 21.)
After Marcel Lefebvre’s controversial consecration of four bishops in 1988, the Vatican II’s Congregation for so-called Bishops declared him “automatically excommunicated”, a declaration confirmed by John Paul II, who had tried in vain to achieve a reconciliation with then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s help.
In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Meyer consecrated four Bishops at Écône, Switzerland, in 1988 (Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta) in opposition to the Vatican II sect; in response the Vatican II Church pretended to excommunicate them (however, heretics cannot excommunicate anyone and heretics are already automatically excommunicated from the Church), which they later claimed to rescind under Joseph Ratzinger.
Existing in around sixty countries to date, the SSPX claims to adhere to authentic Catholic doctrine and celebrates the traditional Latin Mass according to the missal promulgated by Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) in 1962.
Although they were not the first such society, the SSPX and the personality of Archbishop Lefebvre became, in the eyes of the wider world, the standard bearers of “Catholic tradition” in resistance to the diabolical and evil innovations of the Second Vatican Council and it’s spirit in the period after.
It is in large part because of the SSPX (and other traditionalist societies) that the Vatican II sect has responded by creating their own traditional societies to poach members and bring them under their control, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer. There have been break-aways from the SSPX over the years such as the Society of St. Pius V (or SSPV).
Society of St. Pius X - Marian Corps
The Society of St. Pius X - Marian Corps, also refered to as the SSPX-MC, (originally known as the Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance or SSPX-SO) is a break-away group from the SSPX, founded in September 2012, by members of the Society of St. Pius X who disagreed with Bishop Bernard Fellay’s overtures to modernist Rome. The first elected leader of the group is Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, one of the five co-founders along with Fr. Francois Chazal, Fr. Ronald J. Ringrose, Fr. Richard Voigt and Fr. David Hewko. They see themselves as holding true to the principles of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, opposing any drift towards liberalism and modernism, as laid out in their document the Vienna Declaration.
The SSPX-MC has not changed the operating rules of the Society of St. Pius X, but provides a refuge for priests who no longer believe they can fulfill their vows in that Society. Fr. Chazal has said that liberalism has seeped into the highest levels of the SSPX. The SSPX-MC has chapels affiliated with it in the US, Canada, Europe, and Asia.
SSPX-MC group is far worse (in regard to their doctrinal views) than most people can imagine. They completely reject Catholic teaching just as their main sect, the SSPX, as we will see. They are basically Protestants.
Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre (29 November 1905 – 25 March 1991) was a French Roman traditional “Catholic” and so-called archbishop who resisted many things about the post-Vatican II religion, recognizing them to be departures from traditional Catholicism. He recognized the New Mass to be Protestant and opposed to Tradition. He also opposed the heresies of false ecumenism and religious liberty, which were taught at Vatican II. He began seminaries for the formation of priests who would be offering exclusively the traditional Mass, and he ordained them in the traditional rite of ordination. In order to do this, he had to remain independent of the Vatican II antipopes, even though he continued to take the position that they were legitimate popes who held the office of the Papacy. He was also independent of the working communion of the so-called bishops who had gone along with the new religion. In 1970, Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). On June 30, 1988, Lefebvre decided (independently of the Vatican II antipopes) to consecrate four bishops in the traditional rite of Episcopal Consecration, so that these bishops could continue to ordain priests for the traditional rites. He was “excommunicated” by John Paul II within 72 hours, even though no prominent pro-abortion politician has yet been excommunicated by any of the Vatican II antipopes.
Brief Against the Society of St. Pius X
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who sadly was a heretic and schismatic, founded the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which, like its founder, is also heretical and schismatic.
1) The SSPX is guilty of the notorious crimes of the apostate antipopes of the Vatican II Church and the apostate Second Vatican Council that it does not correctly condemn. It does not condemn the crimes at all or diminishes their true nature. It does not condemn heresy as heresy, idolatry as idolatry, blasphemy as blasphemy, and apostasy as apostasy. Instead, it uses words that diminish the gravity of the crimes, words like “errors,” “deviations from the faith,” and “scandalous activities.” The crimes are much more than that.
1a) Consequently, it is also guilty for not denouncing the apostate antipopes as notorious heretics, idolaters, blasphemers, and apostates.
1b) And because it knows the Church law that a notorious heretic cannot be the pope, it is guilty for referring to the apostate antipopes as “popes” instead of denouncing them as apostate antipopes.
2) It denies the Salvation Dogma. It believes certain men who die worshipping false gods and practicing false religions can be saved by a so-called baptism of desire. It got this heresy from its heretical founder, Archbishop Lefebvre:
Archbishop Lefebvre, Lecture, 1973: “God knows all souls and, for that reason, knows that in Protestant communions, in Moslem communions, in Buddhist communions, in all humanity, there are souls of good will. And by the very fact that they do seek to do His holy will, they have the implicit baptism of desire.” (From a lecture given in Paris during May)
Archbishop Lefebvre, Lecture, 1974: “Those souls, whether Protestant, Buddhist or Moslem, who have implicitly this sincere desire to do the will of God, may have the desire for Baptism and so receive supernatural grace, the Grace of eternal life…” (From a lecture in Tourcoing on January 30)
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, 1976: “We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church, but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are unaware of it…” (From his sermon preached at the first Mass of one of his newly ordained priests in Geneva)
Here Lefebvre again denies the salvation dogma word for word:
Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986: “‘Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation’… Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. … The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit—baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.” (From his book Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986, Chapter X, Ecumenism, p. 73-4.)
Those who refuse to believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation until they understand how there is justice in it are simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s revelation. Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His teaching first and understand the truth in it (i.e., why it is true) second. A Catholic does not withhold his belief in Christ’s revelation until he can understand it. That is the mentality of a faithless heretic who possesses insufferable pride. St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point.
St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.”
We want to emphasize that the SSPX and Lefebvre has done many good things; it has been an avenue by which many have been introduced, and come back, to the traditional Catholic Faith. However, in various areas the SSPX’s positions are unfortunately heretical and contrary to the Catholic Faith. First, the SSPX as well as their founder, as we have seen, holds and teaches that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which is heretical.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God... But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
Notice the “etc.” The word “etc.” means “and the rest, and so on”! Archbishop Lefebvre is saying that there are many other religions in which people can be saved. This is heresy. Archbishop Lefebvre believed that men can be saved while worshipping false gods and many gods (Buddhism, Hinduism).
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
What we see here from the founder of the Society of St. Pius X is blatant heresy. He directly contradicts the solemnly defined dogma that Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation. Some adherents of the Society of St. Pius X have tried to defend these heretical words of Archbishop Lefebvre by pointing out that, although he did say that men can be saved in other religions, he emphasized that it is by the Catholic Church.
This response is a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible. In fact, those who attempt to defend Lefebvre in this way actually mock God. I could say that all men go to heaven (universal salvation), but all men go to heaven “by the Catholic Church.” Does this change the heresy? No, of course not. Thus, it doesn’t matter how Lefebvre tried to explain away or justify his heresy; he was still teaching that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which is heresy!
The dogma of the Catholic Church does not merely affirm that “no one is saved except by the Catholic Church”; it states that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church and that no one is saved without the Catholic Faith. This means that no one can be saved inside non-Catholic religions. The defenders of the SSPX need to get that through their heads. The dogma of the Catholic Church excludes the idea that anyone is saved in another religion.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
All the people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by the Gospel go to Hell for sins against the natural law and the other grave sins which they commit – which bad will and failure to cooperate with God’s grace is the reason He does not reveal the Gospel to them. The First Vatican Council defined infallibly, based on Romans 1, that the one true God can be known with certitude by the things which have been made, and by the natural light of human reason.
St. Paul, Romans 1:18-20: “For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”
Everyone can know with certainty that there is a supreme spiritual being, Who is the One True God and the Creator of the world and all that it contains. Everyone knows that God is not something that they have carved out of wood or jade or stone. They know that God is not the tree that they worship or the river they worship or the rock or the snake or the sacred tree frog. They know that these things aren’t the Creator of the universe. Every such person knows that he is worshipping a creature rather than the Creator. They are, as St. Paul says in verse 20, without excuse. St. Augustine explains this well in reference to persons who died ignorant of the Faith and without baptism.
St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: “Objection: It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.” St. Thomas replies: “It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
SSPX’s positions are unfortunately heretical and contrary to the Catholic Faith.
Fr. Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error.”
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
These statements constitute blatant heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation; yet they are printed in the very best-selling materials of the SSPX. In fact, almost all priests who even celebrate the traditional Mass hold this same heresy.
But this simply illustrates that all those who believe that salvation is possible for members of non-Christian religions without the principal mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) are admitting that a soul can be saved in any religion whatsoever: Islam, Buddhism, etc. It shows how those who reject the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of water baptism and faith in Christ and the Trinity reject all faith and actually have no faith.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Since he was teaching that people can be saved in another religion, Lefebvre’s emphasis that everyone is saved by the Catholic Church has no relevance. The words of Pope Gregory XVI in Summo Iugiter Studio cited above could have been addressed specifically to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X.
Archbishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”
Notice again, in fact, how Archbishop Lefebvre stated that men can be saved by the practice of false religions.
Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus (# 15), Nov. 9, 1846: “Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial.”
In the next quote, we find more heresy against the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and denial of the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Pages 73-74: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula Outside the Church there is no salvation, also reject the Creed, ‘I accept one baptism for the remission of sins,’ and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of martyrs who confessed their faith while still catechumens); and baptism of desire. Baptism can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, ‘Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.’ I told him, ‘No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you...’”
This statement by Lefebvre promote the so-called baptism of desire (BOD) and baptism of blood (BOB) apart from actually receiving water baptism.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament of water baptism] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Hence, anyone who obstinately denies the absolute necessity of receiving water baptism for salvation after being aware of this information, is anathema according to the Council of Trent.
3) It teaches that the contraceptive practice of Natural Family Planning, also known as the Rhythm Method, is not contraception, which is heresy for denying an infallible dogma of morals. (See Natural Family Planning Is Contraception.)
Pope Pius XI adds teaches in Casti Connubii that the “sacredness of marriage which is intimately connected with religion and all that is holy, arises… from its purpose which is the begetting and education of children for God” and that all “Christian parents must also understand that they are destined… to propagate and preserve the human race on earth”. Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament of the Bible also connects the will to bear children to salvation, teaching that a woman: “shall be saved through child-bearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” (1 Timothy 2:15) The Holy Fathers of the Church all agree with the Holy Scriptures and the Magisterium of the Church in this regard.
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” (The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.--On the Procreation and Education of Children)
St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 468-542): “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN...WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233)
St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, A.D. 419: “It is one thing not to lie [with one’s wife] except with the sole will of generating [children]: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of the flesh in lying, although within the limits of marriage: this has venial fault [that is, venial sin as long as one is not against procreation].” (Book I, Chapter 17.--What is Sinless in the Use of Matrimony? What is Attended With Venial Sin, and What with Mortal?)
St. Jerome, Against Jovinian, Book 1, Section 20; 40, A.D. 393: “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? … He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his God and of his wife].”
Pope St. Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.): “But this kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. And since this observance is found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a shame if it be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshiping God.” (Recognitions of Clement, Chapter XII, Importance of Chastity)
Athenagoras the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.” (A Plea For the Christians, Chapter XXXIII.--Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage)
St. Finnian of Clonard (470-549), The Penitential of Finnian #46: “We advise and exhort that there be continence in marriage, since marriage without continence is not lawful, but sin, and [marriage] is permitted by the authority of God not for lust but for the sake of children, as it is written, ‘And the two shall be in one flesh,’ that is, in unity of the flesh for the generation of children, not for the lustful concupiscence of the flesh.”
St. Athanasius the Great (c. 296-373), On the Moral Life: “The law of nature recognizes the act of procreation: have relations with your wife only for the sake of procreation, and keep yourself from relations of pleasure.”
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): “For it [the Holy Scripture] regards it not right that this [sexual intercourse] should take place either in wantonness or for hire like harlots, but only for the birth of children.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XVIII.--The Mosaic Law the Fountain of All Ethics, and the Source from Which the Greeks Drew Theirs)
St. Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30, A.D. 400: “For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.”
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 5:8, A.D. 307: “There would be no adulteries, and debaucheries, and prostitution of women, if it were known to all, that whatever is sought beyond the desire of procreation is condemned by God.”
Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, Chapter LXI, Of the Passions, A.D. 314: “Moreover, the passion of lust is implanted and innate in us for the procreation of children; but they who do not fix its limits in the mind use it for pleasure only. Thence arise unlawful loves, thence adulteries and debaucheries, thence all kinds of corruption. These passions, therefore, must be kept within their boundaries and directed into their right course [for the procreation of children], in which, even though they should be vehement, they cannot incur blame.”
Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Let lust not go beyond the marriage-bed, but be subservient to the procreation of children. For a too great eagerness for pleasure both produces danger and generates disgrace, and that which is especially to be avoided, leads to eternal death. Nothing is so hateful to God as an unchaste mind and an impure soul.” (Chapter LXII.--Of Restraining the Pleasures of the Senses)
Apostolic Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, A.D. 375: “And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws;” (The Sacred Writings of Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Book V, Chap. XXVIII)
Apostolic Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, A.D. 375: “When the natural purgations do appear in the wives, let not their husbands approach them, out of regard to the children to be begotten; for the law has forbidden it, for it says: "Thou shalt not come near thy wife when she is in her separation." [Lev. xviii. 19; Ezek. xviii. 6.] Nor, indeed, let them frequent their wives’ company when they are with child. For they do this not for the begetting of children, but for the sake of pleasure. Now a lover of God ought not to be a lover of pleasure.” (The Sacred Writings of Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Book V, Chap. XXVIII)
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to "be fruitful and multiply." [Gen. 1:28] He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word of Ezekiel: "Put away your fornications." [Eze. 43:9] Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.” (The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.--On the Procreation and Education of Children)
St. Augustine, On The Good of Marriage, Section 11, A.D. 401: “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity [of begetting children] no longer follows reason but lust.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604): “The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure.” (St. Gregory the Great, "Pastoral Care," Part 3, Chapter 27, in "Ancient Christian Writers," No. 11, pp. 188-189)
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 597 A.D.): “Lawful copulation of the flesh ought therefore to be for the purpose of offspring, not of pleasure; and intercourse of the flesh should be for the sake of producing children, and not a satisfaction of frailties.” (Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli [English], Book XI, Letter 64)
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “Again, vice is the wrong use of our conceptual images of things, which leads us to misuse the things themselves. In relation to women, for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her. And the same is true with regard to other things and one’s conceptual images of them.” (Second Century on Love, 17; Philokalia 2:67-68)
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “There are also three things that impel us towards evil: passions, demons, and sinfulness of intention. Passions impel us when, for example, we desire something beyond what is reasonable, such as food which is unnecessary or untimely, or a woman who is not our wife or for a purpose other than procreation.” (Second Century on Love, 33; Philokalia 2:71)
St. John Damascene (c. 675-749): “The procreation of children is indeed good, enjoined by the law; and marriage is good on account of fornications, for it does away with these, and by lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to be inflamed into unlawful acts. Marriage is good for those who have no continence; but virginity, which increases the fruitfulness of the soul and offers to God the seasonable fruit of prayer, is better. "Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" [Hebrews 13:4].” (St. John of Damascus, also known as St. John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chap. 24)
Gratian, Medieval Marriage Law (c. 1140): “Also, Jerome, [on Ephesians 5:25]: C. 14. The procreation of children in marriage is praiseworthy, but a prostitute’s sensuality is damnable in a wife. So, as we have said, the act is conceded in marriage for the sake of children. But the sensuality found in a prostitute’s embraces is damnable in a wife.”
Venerable Luis de Granada (1505-1588): “Those that be married must examine themselves in particular, if in their mind thinking of other persons, or with intention not to beget children, but only for carnal delight, or with extraordinary touchings and means, they have sinned against the end, and honesty of marriage.” (A Spiritual Doctrine, containing a rule to live well, with divers prayers and meditations, p. 362)
Again, for a full discussion of why Natural Family Planning is evil, and for many more quotes from the Popes, Saints and Fathers of the Church, consult the article on our website:
4) Archbishop Lefebvre signed the heretical Vatican II documents; therefore, by consenting to these heretical documents, he became guilty of the heresies in them. If he was not already automatically excommunicated for heresy before the apostate Second Vatican Council, this act alone would have automatically excommunicated him and caused him to automatically lose his office. There is no record that he abjured from his signing the Vatican II documents.
5) In 1986, Archbishop Lefebvre committed the crime of schism by consecrating bishops contrary to the expressed will of a man he believed was the pope, John Paul II. A bishop does not always need a papal mandate to make bishops, but he can never make bishops contrary to the expressed will of the pope, which is an act of schism at all times and in all places. As a result of this crime, in principle, he, the bishops he consecrated, and the members of the SSPX were “excommunicated” by the Vatican II sect:
Excommunication of the Society of St. Pius X, Office of the Congregation for Bishops, July 1, 1988: “His Grace Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the Episcopal consecration of four priests, without a pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by can. 1364 par. 1 and can. 1382 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above mentioned Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See… The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.” (From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, July 1, 1988. Bernardinus Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops.)
5a) After his illegal consecrations (heretics ordain illicitly), Archbishop Lefebvre set up a parallel hierarchy of bishops in opposition to John Paul II and his bishops that he believed were the legitimate hierarchy, which is another crime of schism at all times and all places. This act completely severed him and his SSPX from the discipline and government of what he believed was the Catholic hierarchy and set up another government ruled by his bishops. Since the death of Lefebvre, the SSPX perpetuates this crime. The Vatican Council of 1870 infallibly condemns Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX as schismatics:
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 3, On the Power and Primacy of the Papacy, 1870: “2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both Episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”
While professing allegiance to the papacy and a man it believes is the pope and to his bishops, it does not render obedience where obedience is due:
Pope Pius IX, Quae in Patriarchatu, Sept. 1, 1876, To the Clergy and Faithful of the Chaldean Rite: “What good is it to proclaim the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over the declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is regarded as a duty? Again, does not the authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, - a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith? In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic, he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema.”
In certain cases disobedience to a pope and his bishops (who is evil, but not heretical) is just and necessary. But this does not apply to the above schismatic crimes of Lefebvre and his SSPX. Saints have disobeyed popes and bishops, but they never consecrated bishops contrary to the expressed will of the pope and set up a parallel hierarchy of bishops in opposition to the pope and his bishops.
6) Archbishop Lefebvre was no St. Athanasius. Even if Pope Liberius excommunicated St. Athanasius (for the record, it is very doubtful that he did), St. Athanasius did not make bishops contrary to the expressed will of Pope Liberius, and he did not set up a parallel hierarchy in opposition to Pope Liberius and his hierarchy of bishops. And St. Athanasius was not a heretic. He did not deny any dogmas nor did he consent to heretical documents by signing them. Archbishop Lefebvre did both and thus was a heretic. He denied the Salvation Dogma, he consented to the heretical Vatican II documents by signing them, he did not properly condemn crimes and criminals, and he believed in the heresy of Natural Family Planning (Rhythm Method).
7) One may ask, “Because John Paul II was a non-Catholic antipope, how could the Society of St. Pius X be schismatic for disobeying a man who was not the pope?” The SSPX is in schism, even though John Paul II was not the pope, because it believed he was the pope. While believing he was the pope, it disobeyed him where obedience would be due to a pope.
Archbishop Lefebvre and those he consecrated violated the law because in their hearts they believe John Paul II was a pope, and because they publicly profess that he was the pope, and thus they objectively practice and teach others that a Catholic bishop can consecrate bishops contrary to the expressed will of the pope and set up a parallel hierarchy in opposition to a pope and his legitimate hierarchy. That is what they believe in their heart and also objectively teach and practice.
8) Even though it thinks it is Catholic, the SSPX is not Catholic. It is a schismatic and heretical sect:
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra, Jan. 6, 1873: “4. We have indeed left no means untried in order to free you from this great evil. … Our wishes [have] been hindered by those men who call themselves Catholics, but are the enemies of the Cross of Christ… 6. The chief deceit used to conceal the new schism is the name of “Catholic.” The originators and adherents of the schism presumptuously lay claim to this name despite their condemnation by Our authority and judgment. It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error. St. Jerome, presbyter, referred to these men, among others, when he said: “The heretics are accustomed to say to their king or to Pharaoh, ‘We are the sons of wise men who have handed down to us from the beginning the Apostolic teaching; we are the sons of ancient kings who are called kings of the philosophers; and we possess the knowledge of the scriptures in addition to the wisdom of the world.’”
Give us the Mass; Forget the Faith
The Society of St. Pius X proves their priority is the Mass and not the Faith, which they do not possess anyway—they deny the Salvation Dogma, they believe certain men can be saved who died worshipping false gods and practicing false religions; they believe in the heresy of Natural Family Planning; and, they are schismatics for consecrating bishops contrary to the expressed will of a man they believe is the true pope. Accompanying the loss of the faith is the loss of reason, the loss of proper priorities.
The Superior General of the heretical and schismatic non-Catholic sect of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, had met with apostate Antipope John Paul II, whom he believes is Catholic and a pope. This inevitable meeting is only more proof that the Society of Saint Pius X is an opposition party set up by Satan to keep Sunday “Catholics”—those who put the Mass before the Faith—in the Conciliar Church and thus under the power of Satan. This fateful meeting only confirms what is already known of the motives of the SSPX (Society of St. Pius X). I will quote from Bishop Fellay’s official statement on 1/22/2001 that describes his meeting with John Paul II.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Menzingen, January 22, 2001: “4. December 30, during a few moments, the Superior General visits the Pope in his private chamber (no words of importance are exchanged).”
Did Bishop Fellay not speak of the apostasy, heresy, and idolatry when he met with John Paul II, if, as he said, “no words of importance are exchanged”? - If he did not speak of the heresies when he meet with John Paul II, or, if he he did speak of the heresies when he meet with John Paul II but called it “no words of importance” - why did he do that? Because Bishop Fellay and his sect are guilty of the same crimes by way omission and some by commission. The SSPX does not recognize the clear heresies in the Vatican II documents. They do not refer to heresy as heresy but only as errors or deviations, and thus they do not condemn as heretics those who teach them. They also believe in and embrace several heresies themselves, such as salvation outside the Church and Natural Family Planning. Not once have they denounced John Paul II or any other of the apostate antipopes as non-Catholic apostates, heretics, idolaters, and blasphemers; (the few SSPX followers however who call some of their actions blasphemy, idolatry or heresy nevertheless excuse the men perpetuating these crimes from the formal charge of heresy, or still regard them as popes anyway); thus, they are guilty of crimes and sins of omissions since they do not denounce the clear heresies rampant in the Vatican II hierarchy. If anyone in the SSPX did denounce the clear crimes of the Vatican II sect as formal heresy or apostasy, then they would have to break of communion and membership with the SSPX, since their beliefs would not be shared by the official SSPX position. If they did not break off communion with the SSPX, even if they do not share their beliefs, they would outwardly profess communion and membership with a heretical non-Catholic sect and hence fall outside the Catholic Church by tacit approval of heresy and heretics. What good could one derive from attending the Holy Mass if he does not have the Catholic faith? This would only result in sacrilegious receptions of the Holy Eucharist. This, alone, proves that the Holy Mass is being abused by traditional so-called Catholics, just as it was before Vatican II, in that these Sunday “Catholics” have no true regard (love) for the Catholic faith. In truth, “Without faith it is impossible to please God,” (Heb. 11:6) no matter how many Masses a heretic or schismatic attends.
Bishop Fellay clearly shows where his priorities lie.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Menzingen, January 22, 2001: “6. January 16, a new meeting with Cardinal Castrillon, during which the Superior General exposes the need for guarantees on behalf of Rome, before going further in possible discussion or agreement: +That the Tridentine Mass is granted to all the priests in the whole world. +That the censures which strike the bishops be cancelled.”
Bishop Fellay has put Mass before the Faith, and to be exact, the Mass while forgetting or ignoring the Faith. If the faith is not put before the Mass, then the Mass will only serve to damn those who receive unworthily to a deeper pit in hell. In truth what Bishop Fellay has said, in essence, is this: let us ignore and forget the Catholic faith, let us forget that John Paul II teaches Moslems worship the one true God and that he kissed the Koran; let us forget that he teaches and practices the heresy of Religious Liberty; let us forget that he teaches the apostate Jews worship the true God and that they are still in possession of the Covenant and are Catholics’ “elder brothers in the faith”; let us forget that John Paul II teaches Protestants and Schismatics are joined to the Catholic Church and that some have died as martyrs for the faith; let us forget that he teaches that Catholics are now allowed to pray in communion with non-Catholics; let us forget that he teaches that non-Catholic religions are a means to salvation; yes, let us forget and ignore all of that for now, just give us the Mass. We do not really care or deem as important, worthy of mention, if the priest or his flock teach and practice the Catholic faith or lead souls to hell; this, we will not think of or come to an agreement on now, just give us the Mass. Dear reader, can you not see the truth of the matter and, in fact, how evil this is? Where is the priority of Bishop Fellay and his sect, the SSPX? If you cannot see the truth (the Catholic Faith) vs. what is false (not the Catholic Faith), it is because you “will not to see it” and therefore God has sent you the operation of error that you may believe lying and thus be condemned to everlasting hell fire on your judgment day just as you deserve for your bad will and obstinacy (2 Thess. 2:9-11). God indeed will permit the faithless, godless people that rejects Him, and that loves pleasure more than they love Him, to receive the fruits of their sins and their own evil ways (Proverbs 1:31; Proverbs 14:14), just as they desired (2 Timothy 3:1-5) and in fact deserves as a recompense for their evil crimes (Proverbs 1:25).
Open Communion with the Vatican II Church
The SSPX is in the process of leading its wayward flock back into open communion with the Vatican II Church, which they claim to belong to. Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, is negotiating reconciliation with the Vatican II Church. The two points he requires for reconciliation are the uninhibited use of the Tridentine (Pius V) Mass and the lifting of their excommunications. He does not even mention the faith issues, the multiple crimes of idolatry, blasphemy, apostasy and heresy of the Vatican II Church and its apostate antipopes. Bishop Fellay, indeed, says, give us Pius V’s Mass, but forget the Faith!
The Catholic World Report, June 2003, "World Watch," pp. 8-9: “A move toward traditionalists? - Lefebvrist leader sees reason for optimism - A sensational report that appeared in an Italian newspaper late in April, alleging that the Vatican was close to a final reconciliation with the schismatic Society of St. Pius X… The new negotiations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that began in 2000 reportedly opened with a letter in which Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos assured the traditionalists that the Vatican would allow their continued use of the Mass of Pius V… SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay, led a delegation to talks with Rome, during which the SSPX representatives expressed regret that two key traditionalist concerns had not yet been resolved. The group sought an assurance from the Holy See that all priests would be assured of the right to use the Tridentine liturgy, and that all disciplinary measures meted out against traditionalists after the 1988 break would be lifted. The traditionalists said that they had not gained assurances on either point… Bishop Fellay, on the other hand, said that his group is continuing talks with the Congregation for the Clergy. “The negotiations are continuing,” he said. “They are not dead. But they are advancing with prudence on both sides.”… However he reiterated that traditionalists would insist on two conditions: every priest must have the right to use the pre-conciliar liturgy, and the excommunications that were imposed on traditionalist leaders in 1988 must be lifted.”
In essence, what Bishop Fellay said is this: “We do not care about the blasphemies and crimes against God so long as we have the Mass! Just give us the Mass of Pius V and lift our excommunications and then we can be in full and open communion with you. Restore our good name, but forget the good Name of God that is being blasphemed. Let us negotiate the Mass and our excommunications, but those other things (the heresies and apostasies) we can forget, for we wholeheartedly wish to be in full communion with you, if only we can get the mass!” Dear reader, can you not see how evil this is? Can you not see how Pius V’s Mass will not save these faithless bastards?
Dishonest Tactics of the SSPX
1) Omits Church teaching that manifest heretics cannot hold office
2) Misrepresent Sedevacantist Position
3) Put Family before God
4) Deceive by false analogies
5) Evasion by changing topic
The SSPX attacks the sedevacante position (the fact that the Holy See is vacant) quite often and many times with more vehemence than they attack the Conciliar Church and the apostate Antipopes. This indicates one of their main reasons for existence, that is, to keep confused fallen-away Catholics on the road to perdition by keeping them in the enemy camp and into believing in their heresies (Natural Family Planning; Salvation Outside the Church; Baptism of Blood and Desire), preventing them from making a necessary total break with the non-Catholic Conciliar Church and the Antipopes. The snake (Satan), the heresies (they believe in), the apostasies (they excuse), attaches to anyone who obstinately attends these chapels, and draws the lifeblood out of their souls, while injecting them with false consolations and feelings of false piety and tradition. All of this originates in the Vatican II sect and connects, and holds fast, all those who obstinately are associated with it in anyway. It pacifies the man by quelling his ability, not just to judge and condemn rightly, but, to judge and condemn at all. You will hear them use the term “judge not, least you be judged” out of context to not judge at all, and that Catholics cannot condemn anyone, or anything, and then appeal to a false charity when a Catholic does judge and condemn, by saying he is not charitable.
The pseudo-intellects are filled with a modern theology that literally either absolves the most manifest criminal of any crime at all, or makes it impossible for anyone to accuse, condemn, and thus avoid manifest criminals. Yes, this modern theology that was around in the late 19th and 20th centuries, is the Snake’s poison it injects into the pseudo-intellects. Their convoluted and twisted arguments are plain for anyone of good will to see. Their modern theology is an endless web of contradictions, confusion, and chaos. The worse of these pseudo-intellects revel in this, thinking that the more complicated their theology is to understand, the deeper and more profound it is, when to those with eyes of faith, or those with just common sense, see them for what they are, idiots that babble on endlessly, enjoying the web of confusion they have constructed, who enjoy twisting the minds of their readers, and that is pure unadulterated Satan.
They first become obsessed and then possessed by devils, depending on how long they stay and the heresies they freely embrace. The lost sheep, who are of good will, are constantly fighting against this snake, by hacking at it during the week, trying to remove it from their belly, and thus have moments where they are free enough to see the truth, but alas, they return the next week to Mass at a non-Catholic church, and the snake reattaches. The blind sheep must then start hacking away again, just to get back to where he was the previous week. The blind sheep will either become fatigued and eventually quit and totally surrender to the snake, or they will eventually break free after a tedious, long, and hard fought battle. To stay home, to stay away from these churches is the step that must eventually be taken if he is ever to have a hope to see clearly the truth. The snake can then be hacked away, without coming back to cloud his mind and heart and cover him again with a veil of darkness that brings with it forgetfulness and then utter blindness; the utter blindness our Lord mentions when He says, they have eyes and do not see, and ears and do not hear (Mk. 8:18). Yes, forgetfulness, when they see Francis I celebrate Jewish holidays, John Paul II kiss the Koran, and hear him teach that Moslems worship the one true God, or when both of them teach that the Old Covenant is still valid, they know it is wrong, and may even say it is wrong, but then, they attend Mass at a non-Catholic church in communion with the Antipope (or any other church that believes in or adheres to some heresy) and the snake, since they do not wish to fully break from him, reattaches to them, and they forget or ignore what they had just seen and heard. “For a necessity, of which they were worthy, brought them to this end: and they lost the remembrance of those things which had happened.” (Wis. 19:4) Eventually in the last stages, utter darkness envelopes them, and they no longer see any real wrong done when Francis I says that God is not a Catholic God, or that the Jewish covenant has never been revoked, or when John Paul II kisses the Koran, or teaches Moslems worship the true God! They set out immediately to defend Francis I or John Paul II and make the crime seem as if it is no crime at all, or, at worst, personal error but not heresy or apostasy. Those who obstinately reach this stage of utter darkness are in the realm of the sin against the Holy Ghost. How many times will God allow them to utterly deny Him and His eternal truths, before He pull away His grace forever more from such souls? The snake, which holds fast the SSPX, manifests itself in many ways and shows its ugly head. Remember, the snake, Satan, is a liar, seducer, and deceiver, all crimes the SSPX are guilty of.
The SSPX priests are notorious criminals and heretics because their sect denies the Salvation Dogma; hence all SSPX priests must be presumed to deny the dogma. Indeed, every SSPX priest I have spoken with denies the Salvation Dogma. If they did not deny this dogma, they would be kicked out of the SSPX. If they did not deny the dogma but kept their belief secret so as to remain in the SSPX, then this would also make them guilty of heresy because Catholics must not only believe a dogma in their heart but also profess it when the situation demands it. That is why the early Christians who denied the faith when tortured fell outside the Catholic Church. Although they believed in Christ in their hearts, they outwardly denied Him under torture and thus became guilty of apostasy with the added mortal sins of hypocrisy and scandal. These apostates were known as lapsed Christians (lapsi) and had to abjure to re-enter the Catholic Church.
It is true that there might be a priest that is a material heretic somewhere in these churches that is unaware and not fully aware of the scandals and heresies rampant in the Vatican II sect and the SSPX, but it is also true that even protestant churches might have people that are material heretics (as long as they do not reject the essential mysteries or the natural law which one cannot be ignorant about), but these scenarios are very unlikely. However, we must judge on what we see, not on anything else.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: “For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”
Please consult the following sections to learn what things one can and cannot be ignorant about when it comes to the Catholic faith, its teachings and its dogmas, and concerning whether such a person described above is to be considered a Catholic, an unbeliever or a heretic:
b) The SSPX sect does not condemn the manifest heresies and other crimes of the Vatican II Church and does not properly denounce its notorious heretical antipope, bishops, and priests. The SSPX has no excuse for not fulfilling these Catholic obligations because the crimes of the Vatican II Church and its members are manifest to all in these latter days of the Great Apostasy. Therefore by sins of omission and association, all the members of the SSPX who agrees with their heresies and all those who know about SSPX’s heresies and willingly attend Mass at an SSPX church share in the guilt of the crimes of the SSPX sect and thus in the guilt of the crimes of the Vatican II Church and its antipopes and bishops.
Also, anyone who contemplates attending Mass at an SSPX church obviously has access to the SSPX priest. Therefore before attending his Mass, all one has to do is ask the priest what he believes regarding the above two points. His answer will confirm that he is a notorious heretic. Thus the following statement which some traditional heretics condone in attending SSPX Masses, is illogical and heretical: “Since it is okay to attend an SSPX [Mass] to get sacraments as long as the priest is not a notorious heretic…” It is illogical because the person who asked the question has easy access to the priest and thus can easily find out what the priest believes. All he has to do is open the mouth God has given him and ask the priest what he believes, point by point. From the priest’s answer, he will receive confirmation that the priest is a notorious heretic that must be avoided. The statement is also heretical because by not asking the priest what he believes, this person sins by omission by omitting to perform the spiritual acts of mercy of instructing the ignorant and admonishing sinners and by omitting the Catholic obligation to profess the faith when necessity requires (which is an implicit denial of the Catholic faith):
1917 Code of Canon Law: ―1325§1 –Obligation to Profess the Faith: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor.”
Pope St. Felix III (483-492): “Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Catechism Question: “In how many ways may we either cause or share in the guilt of another’s sin?” Answer: “We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways: …6. By concealment; 7. By being a partner in the sin; 8. By silence.”
To knowingly enter into a religious house for worship that is heretical or schismatical is of course to profess religious unity outwardly in a way that is completely unacceptable. The scandal this provokes in the eyes of true Catholics is easy to understand. For every person that sees you entering a “church” for worship where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, will assume that you agree with his heresy or schism. The unity of faith that must exist between people who call themselves Catholic and who worship God is one constant that can never be changed, according to Catholic teaching. This is called Divine Law. Without the unity of faith, there is only darkness and eternal hell fire, as Pope Leo XIII and the following quotes makes clear:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896: “For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Pope St. Clement I, 1st Century: “If any man shall be friendly to those with whom the Roman Pontiff is not in communion, he is in complicity with those who want to destroy the Church of God; and, although he may seem to be with us in body, he is against us in mind and spirit, and is a much more dangerous enemy than those who are outside and are our avowed foes.”
III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”
1) Omits Church teaching that manifest heretics cannot hold office
While attacking the sedevacante position, the SSPX deliberately omits the Catholic Church teachings that a manifest heretic cannot be pope. They frequently overlook the evidence that proves this. By this evasion they have impugned the truth, and, if this be done on purpose in order to deceive, they have sinned mortally by omission. They avoid quoting the Fathers, Doctors, saints, theologians, Canon Law 188.4 on “Tacit Resignation of Office” and the canonists’ commentary on it, and most grievously omit to refer to the infallible Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, by Pope Paul IV, 1559 that teaches a manifest heretic cannot be validly elected to the papacy, or any office in the Church.
2) Misrepresents Sedevacantist Teachings
The official press organ of the SSPX in the United States, “The Angelus,” in an article in the November of 1998 edition attacked the sedevacante position, while trying to defend their own schismatic and heretical position. As always they resort to lies, half-truths and arguments based on pure sentiments without the least concern of justifying their position by solid theological or dogmatic arguments based upon the dogmas and canonical laws of the Church. This indicates a total disrespect and disobedience to Church dogmas and Ecclesiastical laws just like the Protestants and Greek Schismatics.
In the article, “The Angelus” used deception by misrepresenting the true sedevacante position that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and John Paul II is an apostate antipope; that John Paul II cannot be the pope in anyway. In the article they put forward the ridiculous and heretical Formaliter/Materialiter position, also known as the Cassiciacum Thesis formulated by the Thucite Bishop Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers. This position is not the sedevacante position, as those who hold it will readily admit. They believe that John Paul II is the pope, and he is not the pope. They believe he is formally not the pope, meaning he has no authority or jurisdiction, while at the same time he is materially the pope, meaning he physically occupies the Chair of Peter; that he is physically the pope, but not spiritually. Thus they have a body without a soul ruling the Church, a corpse ruling the Church. That is why it is a ridiculous position, because it insults common sense. It is also heretical because it denies the infallible teachings of the Vatican Council of 1870, that a pope has primacy, supreme power, and jurisdiction over the universal Church.
The First Vatican Council, 1870: “That Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world... full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church... If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to discipline and government... let him be anathema.”
Thus, to say that there can be such a thing as a pope without primacy, supreme power, and jurisdiction is heresy and those who obstinately teach it despite being aware of this information are heretics. This is the position, the Cassiciacum Thesis, that “The Angelus” put forward as the sedevacante position and it is an outright lie. They have done this to discredit the true position with a false and obviously foolish one. It is a typical tactic of deceivers, to represent something for what it is not, and thus discredit the position or person. Deceivers resort to such tactics because they know that they cannot stand against the truth.
Marcel Lefebvre on the Verge of the Sedevacantist Position
Archbishop Lefebvre made numerous statements which demonstrated that he was on the verge of the sedevacantist position (that is, the position which completely rejects the Vatican II sect, its hierarchy and its popes as antipopes) back in the 1970’s and 1980’s. These quotations may be known by many members of the Society of St. Pius X.
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976: “The Council [Vatican II] turned its back on Tradition and broke with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council… If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope… Because ultimately, since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate, the conscience and faith of all Catholics have been faced with a serious problem. How is it that the pope, the true successor of Peter, who is assured of the help of the Holy Ghost, can officiate at the destruction of the Church – the most radical, rapid, and widespread in her history – something that no heresiarch has ever managed to achieve?”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Aug. 29, 1976: “The new rite of Mass is an illegitimate rite, the sacraments are illegitimate sacraments, the priests who come from the seminaries are illegitimate priests…”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Meeting with Paul VI, Sept. 11, 1976: “[The document of Vatican II on religious liberty] contains passages that are word for word contrary to what was taught by Gregory XVI, and Pius IX.”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Feb. 22, 1979: “Insofar as it is opposed to Tradition, we reject the Council [Vatican II].”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986: “This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I have not created it. I would die to make it go away! We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope. Because it seems to me initially – I do not yet want to say it solemnly and publicly – that it is impossible for a pope to be publicly and formally heretical.”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Aug. 27, 1986: “He who now sits upon the Throne of Peter mocks publicly the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue [The Ten Commandments]. The scandal given to Catholics cannot be measured. The Church is shaken to its very foundations.”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Oct. 28, 1986: “John Paul II has encouraged false religions to pray to their false gods: it is an unprecedented and intolerable humiliation to those who remain Catholic…”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Meeting with "Cardinal" Ratzinger, July 14, 1987: “If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi… being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Meeting with "Cardinal" Ratzinger, July 14, 1987: “Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy.”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 29, 1987: “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of our Lord is being rapidly carried out… This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs.”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration given to the Press before 1988 Episcopal Consecrations: “The Church holds all communion with false religions and heresy… in horror... To safeguard the Catholic priesthood which perpetuates the Church and not an adulterous Church, there must be Catholic bishops.”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Speaking of the leaders of the Vatican II sect: “We cannot work together with these enemies of our Lord’s reign.”
Archbishop Lefebvre, Speaking of the leaders of the Vatican II sect: “We cannot follow these people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration!”
PROOF FOR THE SEDEVACANTIST POSITION
As infallible taught in the bull Cum ex apostolatus officio: someone who calls himself the “Pope”, even if unanimously elected by all the cardinals, but who is a heretic must be rejected by us as an antipope. Therefore, this also proves that we must reject Francis as an antipope since he rejects many Catholic dogmas and the Natural law (such as Francis’ heresy on atheism and homosexuality) which no one can reject and be a ‘material heretic’ or in material heresy or ignorant about.
Francis’ Heretical Teaching on Homosexual “Civil Unions” and Homosexuality
As we will show, since Antipope Francis teaches heresies against the natural law (a law which no one can reject and be a ‘material heretic’, or in material heresy or ignorant about without becoming a heretic), such as his heresies on atheism and homosexuality, all those who regard him as the Pope after being aware of these facts sin mortally against their conscience and become heretics and schismatics.
The natural law is written on the heart of all men, so that all men know that certain things are against God’s law and that certain things are in accordance with the natural law of charity, etc.
The natural law is the law that every person knows by instinct from birth. It is planted by the Creator in our heart, and everyone – even pagans who have never heard about God or the true Catholic religion – receive this gift from God. Examples of sins that break the natural law and that are easy to recognize are abortion, murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, homosexuality, slander, and lying. The conscience always convicts a person who does these things and thus there can never be an excuse for people who commit such sins.
Romans 2:14-16: “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”
As the Haydock Bible and Commentary correctly explains about Romans 2:14-16:
“these men are a law to themselves, and have it written in their hearts, as to the existence of a God, and their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful...”
As we will see, Francis says he respects those who favor the abomination of same sex “marriage”, and says he never was disrespectful to sodomites and perverts. Francis also says he does not “judge” homosexuals and that a person who is gay can have “good will”.
Discussing homosexuals (people in general and clergy), Francis said in July 2013:
“If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?”
Francis claims to be the first Judge in the Catholic Church, a pope, and yet says “who am I to judge” homosexuals. It is shocking and a total inversion of Catholic morals… It is not surprising that Francis believes such horrible things when he idolizes man.
Also notice the following interesting statements Francis makes about gay “marriage” and homosexuals.
Francis, On Heaven and Earth, p. 117: “When the head of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, did not appeal the judge’s opinion right away authorizing a [same-sex] wedding, I felt that I had something to say, to inform; I saw myself with an obligation to state my opinion. It was the first time in eighteen years as bishop that I criticized a government official. If you analyze the two declarations that I formulated, at no time did I speak about homosexuals nor did I make any derogatory reference toward them… Macri told me that these were his convictions; I respected him for that, but the head of the Government does not have to transfer his personal convictions to law. In no moment did I speak disrespectfully about homosexuals…”
Here we see that Francis says he respects those who favor the abomination of same sex “marriage”, and that he never was disrespectful to sodomites and perverts.
Francis also mentions how he allowed the pro-gay “marriage” supporting president of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, to preside over a “Catholic” memorial service to honor deceased “Catholic priests” and seminarians:
Francis, Conversations, p. 145: “I even asked him to preside over the ceremony when he arrived at the church…”
Later when the apostate president died, Francis immediately offered a public “requiem mass” for him.
Francis also allowed politicians who are vocal pro-abortion and gay “marriage” supporters to receive “communion” at his installation “mass”.
LifeNews, Mars 20, 2013: “Pro-abortion Biden and Pelosi Received Communion at Mass for Antipope Francis - The communion issue was exacerbated when, despite their pro-abortion views, Vice President Joe Biden and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi both received communion at the Mass to celebrate Pope Francis’ inauguration. Biden’s office confirmed to the Washington Times that he had received communion and reporters in the White House presidential reporting pool confirmed in an email to LifeNews that Pelosi had received it as well. … “At a Mass during which our new Pope emphasized the duty public officials – and all the rest of us – have to protect the weakest among us, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have the audacity to receive Communion while publicly renouncing their responsibility to protect the weakest among us.”
It has now also been documented and confirmed that Francis favored homosexual civil unions when he was in Argentina. He just didn’t want a homosexual civil union to be called a marriage.
CNN, March 21, 2013: “Behind closed doors, pope supported civil unions in Argentina, activist says - Less than an hour after he fired off an angry letter to Catholic Church leaders about their handling of Argentina’s same-sex marriage debate, Marcelo Marquez says his phone rang. … "He [Francis, then the “archbishop” of Buenos Aires] told me. … ‘I’m in favor of gay rights and in any case, I also favor civil unions for homosexuals, but I believe that Argentina is not yet ready for a gay marriage law," said Marquez, a gay rights activist, a self-described devout Catholic and a former theology professor at a Catholic seminary.”
HuffingtonPost, March 20, 2013: “Pope Francis Advocated For Civil Unions For Gay Couples In 2010 As Argentina’s Cardinal Bergoglio - Pope Francis supported civil unions for gay couples as recently as 2010. … As Argentina’s legislature debated President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s bill to allow gay marriage, Francis -- then known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio -- suggested to his bishops that the Church support civil unions as a compromise of sorts. At the time, civil unions were already legal in parts of Argentina ABC noted. Civil unions were the “lesser of two evils,” said Sergio Rubin, authorized biographer for then-Cardinal Bergoglio, according to The New York Times. “He [Bergoglio] wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.”
It has also been reported that Francis still favors homosexual civil unions as “Pope”.
DailyMail, March 10, 2014: “Pope to stop condemning same-sex civil partnerships hints leading cardinal in move which could be step towards Catholic gay marriage - Pope Francis has suggested that the Vatican could support gay civil unions in the future, according to one of the church’s most senior cardinals. Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that the pontiff wants the Catholic Church to study same-sex unions, ‘rather than condemn them’. Cardinal Dolan told American television that Francis wants church leaders to ‘look into it and see the reasons that have driven them.’ … In an interview to mark his first year in the church’s top job, Pope Francis last week reaffirmed the Vatican’s opposition to gay marriage but indicated that some types of civil unions could be acceptable to the church. The Pope restated the church’s teaching that ‘marriage is between a man and a woman,’ but added ‘We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety.’ Some countries justify civil unions as a way to provide the same economic and legal rights to cohabitating couples as those who are married, the Pope said in the interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. … Francis’ comments are the first time that a Pope has indicated even tentative acceptance of civil unions, according to Vatican watchers. … In recognition for the perceived change in stance Francis appeared on the cover of gay magazine The Advocate as their person of the year.”
Sergio Rubin is an Argentine journalist and authorized biographer of Francis. He wrote (in 2010) the only biography of Jorge Bergoglio (now Antipope Francis) available at the time of his election. Rubin testified that while taking a strong stand against same-sex marriage, Bergoglio raised the possibility in 2010 with his bishops in Argentina that they support the idea of civil unions as a compromise position. On Gay Unions, a Pragmatist Before He Was a Pope. The article went on to say that “a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him”.
In addition to Marquez and Rubin’s testimonies, two other Argentine journalists and two senior officials of the Argentine “bishops conference”, supported Rubin’s account:
NCR Online, Apr. 12, 2013: “On March 19, The New York Times reported that when Argentina was gearing up for a bitter national debate on gay marriage in 2009 and 2010, Bergoglio quietly favored a compromise solution that would have included civil unions for same-sex couples. … On this score, I was told by three sources in Argentina that the Times basically got it right: Bergoglio did, in fact, favor civil unions. That was confirmed on background by two senior officials of the bishops’ conference in Argentina, both of whom worked with Bergoglio and took part in the behind-the-scenes discussions as the conference tried to shape its position. "Bergoglio supported civil unions," one of those officials told me. Mariano de Vedia, a veteran journalist for La Nación, has covered church/state issues in Argentina for years and said he could confirm Bergoglio’s position had been correctly described in the Times account. Guillermo Villarreal, a Catholic journalist in Argentina, said it was well known at the time that Bergoglio’s moderate position was opposed by Archbishop Héctor Rubén Aguer of La Plata, the leader of the hawks.”
This is heresy. It means that Francis approved perverted and abominable sexual behavior that is condemned in Scripture and Catholic teaching. His stance is no different at all from endorsing abortion under the condition that the state does not give abortion special or privileged status by using state funds for it.
All of this without a doubt proves that Francis is certainly not a Catholic. He’s not a pope, he’s not a lover of truth and of the true God, he’s not honest, he’s not seeking to convert souls to the one true faith, etc. As he cannot defend openly gay pseudo-marriage, he uses relativism to defend the “gay agenda”, reducing the issue of homosexuality to the mere political lobby. “If a person is gay and seeking God, who am I to judge her?”, says Antipope Francis.
Since Francis idolizes man, it’s no wonder he endorses such blasphemies and perversions. One hear the “You can’t judge!” heresy so many times it makes one sick. Heretics love this evil phrase and will recite it every time someone charitably rebukes their sinful lifestyle. They don’t seem to grasp the fact that God has already judged (Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9).
More on Francis’ Heresies on Homosexuals and Homosexuality
Antipope Francis recently gave a shocking interview to the editor of the so-called Jesuit journal, La Civilta Cattolica. He was interviewed by Antonio Spadaro on behalf of La Civilta Cattolica, Thinking Faith, America and several other major Jesuit journals around the world. The interview was conducted in Italian. After the Italian text was officially approved, a team of five independent experts were commissioned to produce the English translation, which is also published by America.
We will be quoting from the English pdf translation found in the Jesuit journal Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013.
On p. 7 of the interview, Francis is talking about homosexuals. He says:
“In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexuals persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.” He goes on to say, “it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 7.
He then re-quotes something he said previously about homosexuals:
“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: “‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 8.
This is wicked heresy! First he says, he’s “no one to judge” and that “the church does not want to do this [that is, condemn the homosexuals].” That’s interesting because the First Vatican Council declared that a Pope (a true Pope) is the supreme judge of the faithful. Francis doesn’t judge or condemn anyone because he’s not a Catholic and he’s not the Pope. Also, to say that the Church does not condemn homosexuals is equivalent to saying that God does not condemn homosexuals. There is no difference between the two.
Second, he’s discussing homosexuals. He says he’s no one to judge, and he teaches that God and the Church doesn’t condemn them or reject them. That indicates quite clearly, that homosexuals could be justified despite their wickedness and abominable behavior. And, we know Francis is including active homosexuals in his comments, because he makes no distinction between people who merely consider themselves to have a homosexual orientation, and those who engage in homosexual behavior.
Indeed, we know he’s talking about those who engage in homosexual acts because Francis refers to homosexuals who have claimed to him that they feel excluded. That obviously includes active homosexuals. In fact, in this very context Francis speaks of confession. “This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 8.
The Vatican II sect would only consider homosexual acts, not the homosexual orientation, matters for confession. (both are equally wrong, however).
Antipope John Paul II, New Catechism, #2357: “Homosexuality… Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”
And Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) and John Paul II both approved of the following statement concerning homosexuality:
“Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly [homosexuality] are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. …
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, nr. 4, 2003)
By the way, Scripture is quite clear that the homosexual orientation is unnatural and results from mortal sin, idolatry and apostasy. See Romans chapter 1.
Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.”
People can be delivered from it by the grace of God. See Overcoming Homosexuality.
Francis then speaks in the very same context of gay “marriage”. That obviously refers to, and includes practicing homosexuals. Francis also says in this very context, “that we must consider their situation” and look upon things with “mercy” which come in the context of his reference to confession, and which can only have meaning if he’s referring to practicing homosexuals, since the Vatican II sect would only consider homosexual acts, not the homosexual orientation, matters for confession.
Francis also applied his comments to both “homosexual persons” and to “homosexuality.”
Read carefully in context, there is no doubt that Francis’ teaching that he does not judge, condemn or reject homosexuals or homosexuality including practicing homosexuals. That is totally evil and it is heresy.
Francis’ Heresies on Atheism and Atheists
Antipope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (# 254), Nov. 24, 2013: “Non-Christians [such as pagans and atheists], by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs.”
It is infallibly taught in Sacred Scripture that everyone above the age of reason can know with certainty that there is a God. They know this by the things that are made: the trees, the grass, the sun, the moon, the stars, etc. Anyone who is an atheist or agnostic (who believes that God does not exist or is unknowable) is without excuse. The natural law convicts him. This is a revealed truth of Sacred Scripture.
Creation itself bears witness that there is a God, that is, a living, omnipotent and intelligent Being who created it. The apostle Paul wrote to the saints in Rome that since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and Godhead – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made (Romans 1:20); and David said that the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork (Psalm 19:1). Therefore, since the existence of God is so clearly witnessed by His works, those who deny His existence are without excuse. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 53:1).
God defined infallibly, based on Romans 1, that the one true God can be known with certitude by the things which have been made, and by the natural light of human reason.
Romans 1:19-21: “Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and divinity: SO THAT THEY ARE INEXCUSABLE.”
Yet, the Vatican II sect and Francis officially teaches that one can be an atheist through no fault of his own and that atheists can be excused and saved:
Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16: “Nor does divine providence deny the helps that are necessary for salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, have not yet attained to the express recognition of God yet who strive, not without divine grace, to lead an upright life.”
Vatican II is teaching here that there are some people who, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, have not yet attained to the express recognition of God. In other words, there are people who, through no fault of their own, don’t believe in God (i.e., are atheists). This is heresy.
St. Paul teaches that atheists are inexcusable because God’s creation proves His existence. Vatican II and Francis, on the contrary, teaches that atheists can be excused and saved. This causes us to ask, “What bible was Vatican II and Francis using?” It must have been the revised satanic edition. Their statement about those who don’t acknowledge God is not only condemned by St. Paul, but also by Vatican Council I. Vatican I dogmatically defined the principle set forth in Romans 1 – which directly contradicts the teaching of atheism, agnosticism, Antipope Francis and the Vatican II sect.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, On Revelation, Can. 1: “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, On God the Creator, Can. 1: “If anyone shall have denied the one true God, Creator and Lord of visible and invisible things: let him be anathema.”
Vatican II and Francis falls directly under these anathemas by its heretical teaching above.
Yet despite this dogmatic teaching based on Romans 1, in On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13 Francis says he respects atheists and doesn’t try to convert them. He also says that their “life is not condemned”:
“I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him… nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not. For that reason alone everyone has a series of virtues, qualities, and a greatness of his own.” (Francis, On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13)
In contrast to Francis, the Council of Florence dogmatically defined that any individual who has a view contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Trinity, or any one of the truths about Our Lord or the Trinity, is rejected, condemned and anathematized by God.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “… the holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy Spirit… Therefore it [the Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ [and of God], which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”
An atheists interviewed Francis for the Italian newspaper The Republic. The interview was published on October 1, 2013. Francis directly told the atheist that he has no intention of trying to convert him. Francis rejects proselytism four different times in this interview. Francis declared: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.”
Now, our Lord commanded the apostle to go and proselytize, to go and teach. He said: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commended you.” (Matthew 28:19)
How clear is that? And what’s really outrageous about this statement is that he’s essentially spitting on and mocking the martyrs, who suffered, died, were tortured, for teaching, preaching and spreading the true faith; and this apostate has the nerve to call it a solemn nonsense. That anyone claiming to be the Pope says such an evil statement, is incredible.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”
Pope Pius IV, profession of faith, Council of Trent, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that atheists are condemned and that they must be converted to the Catholic faith for salvation. Yet, Antipope Francis is dominating the headlines around the world with his assertion that people don’t need to believe in God to get to heaven.
Antipope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (# 254), Nov. 24, 2013: “Non-Christians [such as atheists], by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs.”
Concerning atheists, Francis wrote:
“First of all, you ask if the God of Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God’s mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.” (“Pope” Francisco writes to La Repubblica: “An open dialogue with non-believers”, 2013/09/11/)
Here Francis clearly indicates that people who don’t believe in God can be forgiven and saved if they obey their own conscience and follow what they perceive to be good; and later in his “Evangelii Gaudium” (254) he confirmed that this indeed was what he meant. So don’t allow any liar to claim that Francis’ statement has been misrepresented. It has not been misrepresented as Antipope Francis himself confirmed.
That’s an astounding heresy because it’s a basic dogma of Catholicism that faith is necessary for salvation. This is a fundamental issue. As Hebrews 11:6 says, “…without faith it is impossible to please God.”
The dogma of the Church, that no one can be justified, saved or pleasing to God without faith was taught throughout history and solemnly declared by the Council of Trent and Vatican I. Both Councils repeated the truth of Hebrews 11:6. Of course, it’s also a dogma that one must have the Catholic faith to be saved, and that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. These truths have been defined by many popes.
Francis’ heresy trashes and denies all of those proclamations...
3) Puts Family Before God
Does family come before God and His eternal truths? Is that what the martyrs thought? Many place the love of their family over the love of God, or, for the sake of temporal peace in their home they do not rebuke, admonish, nor avoid if necessary, family members. In the same article in “The Angelus” of November 1998, one of the SSPX’s arguments against the sedevacante position is that it divides families and creates chaos in homes. Well I guess, according to their warped worldview, our Lord Jesus Christ was wrong when he taught; “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.” (Mt. 10:34-37) “There shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father…” (Lk. 12:51-53)
Catholic commentary on this verse; “I came to set a man at variance, etc... Not that this was the end or design of the coming of our Saviour; but that his coming and his doctrine would have this effect, by reason of the obstinate resistance that many would make, and of their persecuting all such as should adhere to him.”
The SSPX has put family above God. And even in this they are hypocrites, because their own heretical and schismatic position has caused splits and divisions in families (the SSPV for instance is a split from the SSPX), many of which are split in their allegiance to the Conciliar churches that offer the Novus Ordo Mass and the Conciliar churches that offer the indult Roman Rite of the Mass as codified by Pope Pius V offered by the Fraternity of Saint Peter and others, as opposed to those in the same families that attend the SSPX chapels. Divisions in families are caused by the SSPX position in opposition to those who attend the Conciliar churches. If, as the SSPX teaches, whatever causes divisions in families is a sure sign of evil, then they are condemning themselves.
The truth, as our Lord teaches, is that there will be divisions and endless division among heretics and schismatics, as is proven by the many Protestant and Schismatic churches. Heretics and schismatics are ever dividing and splitting from one another, as there is no honor among thieves, and discord and division always reign where there is sin and iniquity. Out of all these divisions there can be only one group that is Catholic and thus divided from all the rest. Our Lord concerns Himself with His own sheep, which He says must be divided from obstinately non-Catholic family members and friends. “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.” (1Cor. 11:19)
Catholic commentary on this verse; “Ver. 19. There must be also heresies: By reason of the pride and perversity of man’s heart; not by God’s will or appointment; who nevertheless draws good out of this evil, manifesting, by that occasion, who are the good and firm Christians, [and who are not,] and making their faith more remarkable. (Challoner) --- The providence of God draweth good out of evil, but woe to the man, says the Scripture, by whom scandal cometh, such as sects and heresies. Hence St. Augustine, chap. viii. de vera relig. says: ‘Let us use heretics not so as to approve their errors, but to make us more wary and vigilant, and more strenuous in defending Catholic doctrine against their deceits.’”
The priority, then, is the faith, even if one must abandon his family due to their obstinacy in sins against the faith or immorality that they try to impose on other family members (1Cor. 5:11).
Let not your desire for companionship with family members and friends override your love of God and your primary duty as a baptized Catholic to spread the faith and wake up fallen-away Catholics and try to convert other non-Catholics. “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.” (Mt. 10:37) “And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mk. 16:15) If God’s eternal truths cause conflicts within your family, then it is the family that must be cut asunder, not God and His eternal truths. Jesus said to the disciples that would follow Him, “Follow me. And he said: Lord, suffer me first to go and to bury my father. And Jesus said to him: Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. And another said: I will follow thee, Lord; but let me first take my leave of them that are at my house. Jesus said to him: No man putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 9: 58-62) Let the example of the following saints, who almost lost their faith because of an inordinate affection to family members, be an example to you.
SS. Mark and Marcellianus, June 18 of the Roman calendar: “… According to the Acta of St. Sebastian..., Mark and Marcellianus, after having fearlessly confessed the Christian Faith in the midst of torments, were on the point of denying it, being overcome by the tears of their parents who came to visit them in prison. Thus we see how great a danger to souls of the religious is to be found in unrestrained family affection, as St. Philip Neri well observes in reference especially to these two martyrs.” (Fr. Lasance, The New Roman Missal, 1945, p.1701)
If a Catholic took the proper stance and accomplished God’s will, God would take care of his family members who are of good will. A Catholic’s stance against their obstinate family members is one of their only hopes of salvation. The family members that do not convert will be damned to hell. If the Catholic did not warn his family members sufficiently that they are in damnation and separate from them if necessary, then he would go to hell with them for not warning them, and by mortal sins of omission and by way of association; if he associated with them and their evil ways (Ezechiel 3:17-19).
Many are afraid to lose temporal possessions, their vacations, their fancy cars, their jobs, or other sources of income, etc., and/or are afraid of physical persecution, so they abandon the faith. But with this attitude they will be persecuted even more, and not for the glory of God, but as a just punishment, as traitors to the faith. Men cannot escape God, and there is no true peace without obedience first and foremost to God. “There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord.” (Isa. 57:21) Even if all may seem peaceful and prosperous, do not be fooled for your time will come when Almighty God judges you. “For though, for the present time, I should be delivered from the punishments of men, yet should I not escape the hand of the Almighty neither alive nor dead.” (2 Mach. 6:26) Then you will see there truly is no peace for the wicked.
Those who love their families more than God, will be punished by their own families as an act of God’s justice, and they will come to realize, many too late, that compromise does not bring peace in families but a most wicked discord and abuse that they will not be able to escape unless they repent because they put their trust in family and/or the world over that of God. The whole order of families is turned upside down. Children shall rule parents and women shall rule men, all as a punishment from God.
“And the people shall rush one upon another, and every man against his neighbour: the child shall make a tumult against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. … As for my people, their oppressors have stripped them, and women have ruled over them [feminism and pathetic, weak men not properly governing their own household].” (Isaias 3:5, 12) “And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against their parents and shall work their death.” (Mark 13:12)
This is already occurring, and succeeded in a major way in the 1960’s, the beginning of the Great Apostasy, during the hippie and feminist rebellions, race riots, and Vatican II rebellion. Rebellious men are already punished by the discord in their life. Those who do not repent and convert, God shall surely destroy and punish them, and when, as a last resort, they finally call to God for help He will not hear them because they put their faith in the world, family, and friends instead of in Him, choosing them instead of Him.
“Then shall they cry to the Lord, and he will not hear them: and he will hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved wickedly in their devices.” (Micheas 3:4)
“Seek the Lord while he may be found.” (Isaias 4:6)
“You shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither you cannot come.” (John 7:34)
“You have despised all my counsel, and have neglected my reprehensions. I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared. When sudden calamity shall fall on you, and destruction, as a tempest, shall be at hand: when tribulation and distress shall come upon you: Then shall they call upon me, and I will not hear: they shall rise in the morning, and shall not find me: Because they have hated instruction, and received not the fear of the Lord, Nor consented to my counsel, but despised all my reproof. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and shall be filled with their own devices.” (Proverbs 1:25-31)
When God allows them to be destroyed, on the brink of their destruction, they will know the utter worthlessness of their putting their faith in their families and the world over that of God, when their families will be destroyed before their face, just as God had allowed Babylon to destroy Egypt whom the unfaithful Israelites had put their trust instead of God. God destroyed both Egypt and the unfaithful Israelites. God does not change. He remains eternally the same. His justice as well as His mercy is perfect and HE WILL NOT BE MOCKED! Many may not see His justice on earth, because they are blind and faithless, but they surely will upon their judgment day, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God, who kills or saves, both body and soul eternally. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb. 10:31) Your family members will not judge you on judgment day. It is Almighty God, Jesus Christ the Second Person of the Divine, Holy, and Eternal Trinity who will judge you, as your soul stands naked before Him. Your family members and friends will not be able to console you in hell.
St. Catherine of Siena: “The will of the Blessed is so united with God that a father or mother seeing their son, or a son seeing his father or mother, in Hell, they do not trouble themselves, and they are even contented to see them punished as His enemies.” (Dialogue, Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1950, p. 112)
St. John Eudes: “Think how many saints there are in Heaven who see their fathers, mothers, brothers, or other relatives in the damnation of Hell, and, notwithstanding this, they adore, they love, they bless with joy and happiness that most just Will of God because they see that such is the decree of Divine Justice concerning these relatives... For the saints in Heaven, the accomplishment of the Will of God is so completely adequate to give them happiness and heavenly bliss that many of them, even beholding their dear loved ones, punished in Hell, must rejoice in the manifestation of God’s eternal justice.” (Letters and Shorter Works, St. John Eudes, trans. Ruth Hauser, NY: Kennedy & Sons, 1948, p. 6; The Life of Jesus in Christian Souls, St. John Eudes, publ. Msgr. Wm. Doheny, CSC, 1945, p. 64)
St. Theresa of Avila: “It is great folly to be willing to violate the friendship of God rather than the law of human friendship.” (Mary Help of Christians, Fr. Bonaventure Hammer, OFM, NY: Benzinger Bros., 1909, p. 356)
4) Deceive by false analogies
A Pope is a Spiritual Father, not a Biological Father
The SSPX deceives by using a false analogy between a pope and a biological father. They say that if a son caught his father stealing in a store, and the father told his son to steal, that the son is to disobey his father and not steal, but his father is still his father. They then say that a pope is the father to Catholics and that if he were to commit sins against the faith, Catholics are not to obey him by committing his sins, but he is still the pope. A pope cannot be compared to a biological father. The pope is the spiritual father to Catholics, and if he dies, resigns, or loses his office by tacit resignation, he would no longer be the spiritual father to Catholics. The pope that replaces him would then become the spiritual father of Catholics. For example, Pope St. Celestine V had voluntarily resigned his office and Pope Boniface VIII was elected the next pope.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913: “Pope St. Celestine V (Pietro di Murrone.) Born 1215, in the Neapolitan province of Moline; elected at Perugia 5 July, 1294; consecrated and crowned at Aquila, 29 August; abdicated at Naples, 13 Dec., 1294; died in the castle of Fumone, 19 May, 1296. … Celestine’s resolution was irrevocably fixed; summoning the cardinals on that day, he read the constitution mentioned by Boniface in the "Liber Sextus", announced his resignation, and proclaimed the cardinals free to proceed to a new election. After the lapse of the nine days enjoined by the legislation of Gregory X, the cardinals entered the conclave, and the next day Benedetto Gaetani was proclaimed Pope as Boniface VIII.”
Pope Boniface was then the spiritual father to Catholics, while Pietro di Murrone, the previous Pope Celestine, who was still alive, was no longer pope, and thus no longer the spiritual father to Catholics. Even though both men were alive at the time of Pope Boniface’s election of the papacy, Catholics did not have two spiritual fathers, but only one. Whereas, a biological father is a biological father for life, for eternity, no matter how many or what type of sins he commits. A pope who commits mortal sins of immorality is still Catholic, is still the pope, and therefore is still the spiritual father to Catholics. A pope who falls into sins against the faith, by heresy or apostasy, is no longer Catholic, is outside the Catholic Church, and automatically loses his office, and thus is no longer the pope and spiritual father to Catholics. A biological father is a biological father for life, a spiritual father or brother can cease to be a spiritual father or brother if he falls away from the Catholic faith and thus is no longer Catholic. “Who is my mother and my brethren? … For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother.” (Mk. 3:33, 35) Catholics are related to one another by the Catholic faith not by the physical seed. “That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed.” (Rom. 9:8) It is not our race or family line that makes us children of Abraham and children of God, it is the Catholic faith that does. “Know ye therefore, that they who are of the faith, the same are the children of Abraham... For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:26) If a Catholic loses the Catholic faith he is no longer a member of the spiritual family of God, he is no longer a spiritual father or brother to Catholics. Dear reader, can you now see clearly how the SSPX has tried to deceive you by this false analogy?
5) Evasion by changing topic
Where is the Pope and the Church?
A tactic of a deceiver is to change topics when he cannot defend himself. The SSPX does this quite often. When we show the SSPX the evidence that John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis I etc. teaches and practices idolatry, apostasy, and heresy, and therefore, he is an idolater, apostate, and heretic, and thus is not the pope, because a manifest heretic cannot be pope, they change the topic and say, “Then where is the pope?” When we prove to them that the Conciliar documents and hierarchy are guilty of the same crimes, they change the topic and say, “Where is the Church?” One has nothing to do with the other. By changing topic they hope you will address their unrelated questions and thus avoid having to answer your first accusations. Pin them down on the heresies in the Vatican II documents, of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis I etc., and the Conciliar Church teaching instruments and do not let them change the topic. If they do change the topic and thus do not answer your accusations, they are guilty by omission and evasion. If they do address your accusations by trying to explain away the crimes and criminals, then they are guilty by sins of commission, for directly trying to defend manifest, inexcusable heresy and heretics. If a man who calls himself a Catholic priest cannot detect and point out a manifest heresy and accuse the perpetrators of being heretics, then what kind of a shepherd is this? Is the priest ignorant of the Catholic faith and the antipopes’ and the Vatican II sects’ manifest, clear heresies, you think? Then instruct him. If he still remains obstinate, avoid him. He is then a non-Catholic wolf in sheep’s clothing, who defends and patronizes other wolves.
The Numbers Game: We are more than you.
When the truth is presented to them that the Conciliar Church cannot be the Catholic Church and that John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis I etc. is not Catholic and cannot be a pope, instead of addressing the evidence, the teachings and acts of idolatry, apostasy, and heresy, and the deposition teachings, they change the topic and ask: “Well if that is true where is the Catholic Church, or how will we get the next pope,” etc. That is like a man who refuses to believe his house is on fire, because he has no other house to go to, and thus he stays in the house and burns to death. Someone may want to eat a steak, but all they have is chopped liver, and do not know were to get a steak. No amount of imagination will make the chopped liver a steak. If they want a steak they have to seek for it. No matter how much one imagines the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church it can never be the Catholic Church. A man will certainly not be able to find the Catholic Church until he first learns the Catholic faith. You may have the Holy Mass, all the sacraments and sacramentals, the Gregorian chant, monasteries, all the beautiful hymns, prayer books, rosaries and processions, but without the Catholic faith, you do not have the Catholic Church nor the supernatural life in you. The Greek Schismatics appear to be very holy and pious, and have the Holy Eucharist, but in reality they are rotten and corrupted heretics and rebels sadly headed for hell. As I said to a heretic priest, I may not be able to tell you where there is a Catholic bishop or priest, and thus a church you can go to, but I guarantee you, the Church you are in is on fire, it is not the Catholic Church, it does not teach nor practice the Catholic faith. That is an indisputable fact. The priest evaded this indisputable fact by changing the topic. He played the number game. He sarcastically said, I suppose you few are the Catholic Church. I said, the Catholic Church is where the faith is, even if there was only one Catholic left in the world.
“In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars.” (Anne Catherine Emmerich)
“The holy man is perished out of the earth, and there is none upright among men.” (Micheas 7:2-4) “Moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people wickedly transgressed.” (2 Par. 36:14) “For the children of Israel shall sit many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without ephod, and without theraphim.” (Osee 3:4) “Yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” (Lk. 18:8)
In 2 Thessalonians 2, St. Paul speaks of the last days being characterized by a great apostasy that will be the worst ever – even worse than was experienced in the Arian crisis in the 4th century, in which an authentically Catholic priest was hardly to be found.
Fr. William Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (A.D. 380), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”
Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”
St. Gregory Nazianz, Against the Arians (A.D. 380): “Where are they who revile us for our poverty and pride themselves in their riches? They who define the Church by numbers and scorn the little flock?”
If the Arian crisis – just a prelude to the Great Apostasy – was this extensive, how extensive will the Great Apostasy foretold by Our Lord and Saint Paul be?
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Antichrist” indicates that St. Bernard believed that the Antichrist would be an antipope:
“… St. Bernard speaks in the passage of the Antipope [as the Beast of the Apocalypse].”
Bl. Joachim (d. 1202): “Towards the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.”
But whether or not one believes that the Antichrist will be an antipope, it has definitely been prophesied that the forces of Antichrist will overtake Rome in the final days. On Sept. 19, 1846, Our Lady of La Salette prophesied that Rome would lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist in a final days apostasy from the one true Catholic Faith.
Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”
Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, pp. 88-90: “The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. … Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”
Anne Catherine Emmerich, October 4, 1820: “Even if there remained but one Catholic, the church would conquer again because she does not rest on human counsels and intelligence.”
With God, it is not a numbers game. Our Lord teaches that the numbers, the vast majority, are never with Him, and that only few will be saved. In Noah’s day only eight in the whole world remained faithful. Jesus Christ said the final days would be like the days of Noah (Mt. 24:37-39). The SSPX has chapels worldwide and is a fairly large visible structure, indicating one of the reasons many fallen-away Catholics are swayed to their side: by shear force of numbers, the democratic principle; “the majority wins,” so they throw in their lot with them. This shows that they do not love God above all, the faith not being their primary interest. Well, if they are right, that just because they have many chapels and followers worldwide, and that by this fact they are a legitimate Catholic entity, then I guess the Greek Schismatic Church must be better than the SSPX, because they have been around for almost 1000 years and have millions of followers worldwide. Why not go to their churches? They have valid bishops, priests, and the Holy Eucharist, and appear very holy and pious and even teach many truths on most Sundays. However, just as it is forbidden and unlawful to associate oneself with the Greek Schismatic churches, so likewise is it unlawful and forbidden to associate with any other unholy heretics or schismatics, and to unite oneself to their communion.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, On Leviticus 17:3: “It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite oneself to their communion.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Dialogues (c. 593 A.D.): “Rather ought every one to submit to death, than to receive the sacrament of communion from the hand of a heretic.” (Quoted by Gratian, Decretum, 42. xxiv. q. 1)
Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 129: “Wherefore, since outside the Catholic Church there is nothing perfect, nothing undefiled, the Apostle declaring that "all that is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23), we are in no way likened with those who are divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no communion.”
St. John Damascene: “With all our strength, therefore, let us never receive communion from or grant it to heretics; ‘Give not that which is holy unto dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,’ (Matt. 7:6); lest we become partakers in their dishonor and condemnation.” (Patrologia Graeca, vol. 94, col. 1149, 1152, 1153; Also De Fide Orthodoxa (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith), Book IV, Chapter XIII)
We have now showed how the SSPX deceives by omission, commission and evasion. The effect of this tactic is served if you address the other unrelated topics the SSPX diverted to, instead of pinning them down on the initial topic of idolatry, apostasy, heresy, and the teachings that a manifest heretic cannot be a pope, and pinning them down on their rebellion against what they believe is legitimate Church authority.