Note from Ville Hietanen (Jerome) of and Currently, I (but not my brother of the “prophecyfilm12” mail) have updated many of my old believes to be more in line with Vatican II and I no longer adhere to the position that Vatican II or the Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists or various Traditionalists Groups and Peoples etc. or the various teachings, Saints and adherents to Vatican II (and other canonized by Vatican II) such as Saint Mother Theresa or Saint Pope John Paul II etc. was heretical or damned or not Catholic (or not the Pope) – or that they are unworthy of this title. I have also embraced the sexual views on marriage of Vatican II, and I no longer adhere to the strict interpretations as expressed on this website and on my other websites. To read more of my views, see these articles: Some corrections: Why I no longer condemn others or judge them as evil I did before.Why I no Longer Reject Vatican II and the Traditional Catholic Priests or Receiving Sacraments from Them (On Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, Natural Family Planning, Una Cum etc.)Q&A: Damnation and Eternal Torments for Our Children and Beloved Ones is "True" and "Good" but Salvation for Everyone is "Evil" and a "Heresy"?

The Remnant Newspaper ( and Michael Matt Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices

This article contains content used from authors: Brother Peter Dimond and Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family

The Remnant ( is a newspaper published twice a month in the United States of America from a so-called traditional Catholic viewpoint. It is not affiliated with any particular group, although it is sympathetic to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X. The name The Remnant is a reference to the remnant of Isaiah.

In The Remnant's Statement of Purpose, they claim that “The Remnant strives to adhere to Catholic teaching in every aspect of its journalism. There has been great upheaval and revolution within the Catholic Church over the past five decades -- not unlike that encountered in the fourth century by St. Athanasius, called the Arian Heresy -- and, then as now, Catholics were obliged to oppose that which in any way contradicts the infallible teachings and immutable traditions of the Catholic Church.”

The Remnant is currently edited by Mr. Matt's youngest son, Michael J. Matt. Many leading “traditionalists”, including Thomas Woods, Brian Mershon, Christopher Ferrara, Brian McCall, Mark Alessio, Robert Dahl, Kenneth Wolfe, Sherry Foster and Martin Blackshaw write for the paper on a regular basis. Columns by Dr. John C. Rao, a professor at St. John's University, are another regular feature. So were columns by Michael Davies for many years before his death in 2004 and by Thomas Droleskey prior to adopting the sedevacantist position and taking a job with The Four Marks monthly located in Ballantine, MT. It was a very vigorous defender of the “pontificate” of Benedict XVI.

Various Heresies from the False Traditionalists in The Remnant Exposed

The Remnant on Sedevacantism

The Remnant's Statement of Purpose: "Catholics cannot leave the [Vatican II] Church, nor are they free to lambaste and deny the Pope [whom sedevacantists rightly deem an antipope] at will for things like his "Altar Girl Permission" or the "Assisi Affair" or the convening of the Second Vatican Council. Catholic lay people must guard against this attitude, which is commonly referred to as "sede vacantism." Nevertheless, Catholics must wake up to the fact that the Church is in a state of unprecedented revolution and turmoil at present, and that, since the Council, she has undergone a near total spiritual breakdown. We fight that which is novel and goes against the traditional Catholic liturgies and infallible teachings of the past. The Remnant is not interested in starting its own Church or in crowning its own "traditional" pope. We fight revolutionaries in the Church from within the Church. We are opposed to Modernism, phony ecumenism and anything else which compromises the traditional Catholic Faith-- but we labor for a restoration of the old Faith, not the foundation of a new "traditional" church."

Robert Siscoe, The Remnant, “Sedevacantism and the Manifest Heretic”: “Formal heresy in the internal forum only severs a man from the soul of the Church. It requires formal heresy in the external forum to sever a man from the body of the Church and, without getting too far ahead of ourselves, formal heresy in the external forum is declared heresy – either declared by the proper authorities, or else ‘declared’ by the individual himself who becomes a notorious and publicly manifest heretic (more on this point later). In all the discussions this author has had with defenders of the sedevacantist position, only two have been aware of this important point. All others erroneously believe that the sin of heresy (internal forum), and consequent loss of faith, severed a man from the body of the Church, thereby causing a pope who loses the faith to lose his office.”

Introductory Note: * A Heretic is a baptized person who rejects an authoritative teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. A schismatic is a person who refuses communion with a true Pope or refuses communion with true Catholics. An apostate is a person who rejects the Christian faith completely. All heretics, schismatics and apostates sever themselves from the Catholic Church automatically (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943). Therefore, if one is a heretic he is not a Catholic (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896). And most heretics convince themselves that they are not denying any dogma when they actually are.

Sedevacantism is the theological position held by traditional Catholics who recognize the Novus Ordo Church as a non-Catholic modernist religion, officially brought into being at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) and the leaders of that sect to be Antipopes, leaving the seat of St. Peter (who is regarded by Catholics as the first Bishop of Rome) vacant at the present time. Most proponents of the position regard the current antipapacy to have been in place since 1958 until the present time (there have been others in history).

There have been 260 valid popes in Catholic history, and more than 40 antipopes (i.e., men who posed as popes but had not been truly elected). There have been more than 200 papal vacancies (periods without a pope). *

Response: When consulting Siscoe’s article in The Remnant, the first thing I noticed is that there are almost no citations from popes in the entire article. In fact, he doesn’t like to quote the teaching of popes. That’s demonstrated by another article he wrote on the topic for “Catholic” Family News. In that article Siscoe cites no papal teaching whatsoever. He doesn’t cite anything from the infallible papal magisterium to support his primary point or argument in either article simply because he can’t. His positions and claims aren’t supported by anything in the infallible papal magisterium.

To sum up their position very simply: according to Siscoe and The Remnant, if you claim to be a Catholic (and thus have not declared yourself a heretic by openly leaving the Church) and if you have not been declared a heretic by a Church authority, you cannot be considered a heretic who is separated from the Body of the Catholic Church no matter what you say, do or believe. That’s their position. That’s what they are peddling in this article. It’s preposterous. Consider its implications.

Since basically no one in the world today has been declared a heretic by the Vatican II sect, and the only other way to become a declared heretic (according to them) is to openly leave the Catholic Church for a non-Catholic sect, that means that Siscoe and The Remnant regard as Catholics and members of the Body of the Church essentially everyone in the world who claims to be Catholic, no matter what they believe. That’s their position. If The Remnant or the author of the article respond by denying that this is their position, they would then be lying and contradicting what they published. Their position is directly contrary to what the Church has always taught, as we will see.

For example, Pope Leo XIII teaches the following:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”

Francis does not teach that the faith of Rome (the Catholic faith) is to be held (as we will see). He teaches the opposite. For instance, in a recent meeting with a Protestant named Brian Stiller (The Global Ambassador of the World Evangelical Alliance), Antipope Francis stated this:

I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those. Rather, let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.” (Dispatches from Brian, 2014/07/09, “Lunch with the pope”)

Antipope Francis has taught this heresy numerous times before, as proven in the article below. He has explicitly rejected converting atheists, Jews, schismatics and others many times, as the article Antipope Francis’ Heresies, The Apocalypse & The End of the World show. But this is another very bold expression of his complete rejection of Catholic teaching. He therefore teaches that non-Catholics do not need to hold the faith of Rome. According to Catholic teaching, he is not to be considered a Catholic. It’s that simple.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Notice that Pius XII teaches that the offense of heresy itself, by its very own nature [suapte natura in Latin], severs a man, not just from the Soul of the Church, as Siscoe and The Remnant assert, but from the Body of the Church. Pius XII therefore directly contradicts what The Remnant and Siscoe published. In fact, he contradicts it almost word for word. It’s a remarkable example of blindness that Siscoe (and The Remnant) would publish an article that so blatantly contradicts the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis: i.e., that the offense of heresy, by its very own nature – in other words, before any declaration – severs a man from the BODY (not just the Soul) of the Church. Remember, Siscoe falsely claimed that the sin of heresy does not sever a man from the Body of the Church, but that only declared heresy does. He is completely wrong. This passage from the teaching of Mystici Corporis destroys his entire article and reveals his entire misunderstanding of this issue.

An automatic excommunication incurred for heresy, schism or apostasy that by its very own nature severs a member from the body of the Church is not made just for show without anything actually happening to the excommunicated individual, as Pope Pius VI in his encyclical Auctorem fidei makes perfectly clear:

Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ [by that very fact; automatically] have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.” (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, #47, Aug. 28, 1794)

Likewise, here’s an interesting quote from Anne Catherine Emmerich demonstrating this fact further:

I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet, they are [ipso facto, by that very fact] excommunicated whenever they cooperate to enterprises, enter into associations [with heretics or other evil people such as Freemasons], and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders, and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn.” (Anne Catherine Emmerich, Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, p. 69)

Precisely because God’s Laws and Judgments are always present and in force, so too, then, are the obligations which accompany those laws, valid and in force, even if the see of St. Peter is vacant and no formal excommunication has been made.

If you claim that you can judge a devil-worshiper to be outside the Church and Communion, then, you can also judge someone who professes to be a Catholic, yet who holds to one or more heresies. But this is common sense, unless one is a liar.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11 (1512-1517): “THE PENALTIES TO BE INCURRED, AUTOMATICALLY AND WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, for each and all of the aforesaid persons, if they act to the contrary (though may they not!), are immediate major excommunication, the incapacity for all and singular legal acts of any kind, being branded as infamous, and the penalties expressed in the law of treason;”

Here we see Pope Leo X affirming the dogmatic principle that some penalties are “incurred automatically and without the need for any further declarationwhenever one has committed a crime to which such an excommunication is attached. The 1917 Code of Canon Law lists some of these crimes:

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2335: “Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or against legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto [by that very fact] an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”

Pope Benedict XIV also made note of the term major excommunication:

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756: “Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass.”

As we have seen already, people excommunicated in this way are majorly excommunicated, which means that they must be shunned for religious purposes and the sacraments.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., Part, Q. 23, Art. 1: “The other is major excommunication which deprives a man of the sacraments of the Church and of the communion of the faithful [prayers, religious gatherings, etc.]. WHEREFORE IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE WHO LIES UNDER SUCH AN EXCOMMUNICATION.”


According to reports, a ‘traditionalist priest’, who for a long time has been closely affiliated with Nicholas Gruner, had taken the sedevacantist position. Apparently Francis’ newest document (which contains a number of massive heresies) was the clincher. Paul Leonard Kramer allegedly posted this on his Facebook page:

“Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description.

The Catholic Church teaches the following about the cessation of the Old Law and about all who continue to observe it:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began, and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath (not to be mistaken with the Christian Sabbath) and the other requirements of the law [that is, practicing Jews], the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

But as we saw above, in his astounding Apostolic Exhortation, “Evangelii Gaudium,” which Francis, by the way addressed to the universal Church, he professes that the Jews have a valid covenant with God (247), contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church in the dogmatic Council of Florence, as we just saw above.

Antipope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (# 247), Nov. 24, 2013: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked...”

Now, it must be made clear that Kramer is not a true Catholic. He holds heresies on the salvation dogma; he was ordained in the invalid New Rite of Ordination; and he has not (as far as we know) rejected the previous Vatican II antipopes. He also doesn’t seem to realize that the heresy he mentions in his post (which convinced him that Francis is not pope) was taught in Vatican II itself and by the other previous Vatican II antipopes.

For instance, Antipope John Paul II has repeatedly repudiated this dogma, a dogma taught by the Catholic Church for 2000 years, defined infallibly by the Council of Florence, and affirmed clearly by Pope Benedict XIV.

In an address to Jews in West Germany, Nov. 17, 1980, Antipope John Paul II spoke of quote, “the Old Covenant, never revoked by God…”

Antipope John Paul II, New Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 121: “… for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”

In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. This book rejects the dogma that the Old Covenant has ceased. It teaches that the Old Covenant is still valid, and that the Jews’ wait for the Coming of the Messiah (which was part of the Old Covenant) is also still valid. It teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the prophesied Messiah; it is possible to see Him, as the Jews do, as not the Messiah and not the Son of God.

In section II, A, 5, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states:

Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain...”

In section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states:

“…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of GodChristians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one…”

So, according to this Vatican book, Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish position that Jesus is not the Son of God and the prophesied Messiah is a possible one! The preface for this totally heretical book was written by none other than Joseph Ratzinger, the now Benedict XVI.

This is antichrist!

1 John 2:22: “… he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist…”

Heresy is a rejection of a dogma of the Catholic Faith; apostasy is a rejection of the entire Christian Faith. This book contains both heresy and apostasy, fully endorsed by Benedict XVI.

When Vatican II and its antipopes teaches that Jews, despite not belonging to the Church, are not to be considered as rejected by God, that means they remain in a valid covenant with God and can be saved. That’s also how the apostates in the Vatican II sect understood and implemented Nostra Aetate. Francis’ heresy on the Old Covenant is simply a reiteration of the doctrine of Nostra Aetate and the statements of the previous antipopes. It is also a further formalization of that heresy as the official doctrine of the Counter Church, for Francis teaches it openly in an Apostolic Exhortation addressed to the entire Church.

Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”

Without even going into details, it should be obvious to all that the statement of Nostra Aetate (#4) is heretical. Jews are rejected by God, because all who reject Jesus Christ are denied by God. This is a truth that Our Lord specifically revealed in Sacred Scripture.

Matthew 10:33: “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.”

The word “deny” means to reject or to repudiate. Look it up in the dictionary. Therefore, Vatican II and its antipopes is denying the divinely revealed truth of Matthew 10:33: he who denies Our Lord is rejected by Him. Thus, without even going farther into detail, one should easily see that Vatican II teaches blatant heresy in Nostra Aetate #4.

But this heresy gets even worse when one considers that the Council of Florence Bull Cantate Domino is a dogmatic definition on individuals who have a view on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity that is contrary to that of the Church (e.g., Jews, etc.). The Council of Florence solemnly defines that whoever has a view contrary to the Church’s teaching on Our Lord and the Trinity (e.g., the Jews) is condemned and rejected. Note: the Council is not merely saying that the view contrary to Our Lord is rejected and condemned, but that the individual (e.g., the Jew) is condemned and rejected!

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 SpiritTherefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”


In the Sept. 15, 2001 issue of The Remnant, Michael Davies also informs the world that he holds that Jews “who are convinced that the old covenant still prevails” can be saved without the Catholic Faith.

Michael Davies, The Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “He would, presumably, agree with me that Jews who are convinced that the old covenant still prevails and are perfectly sincere and conscientious in their observance of the Jewish law can be saved.”

This is formal heresy. In fact, that a Jew can be saved without the Catholic Faith was condemned not just once, but twice at the Council of Florence. Mr. Davies was certainly familiar with the Council of Florence; and, as he admitted, he had been “studying the dogma since 1979” (The Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001).

Michael Davies of The Remnant was one of the most prominent writers on traditional Catholic matters in the world. His books, especially on the changes in the liturgy, influenced the way in which countless souls viewed the New Mass and the liturgical revolution. He is already being hailed as a “great” man – and one of the greatest defenders of the Church of all time – by the false traditionalists. Just after his death, Michael Matt of The Remnant posted the following:

“Dear Friends: On Saturday, September 25 [2004], the great Michael Davies died. After a long and courageous battle with cancer, Mr. Davies was taken, perhaps mercifully by the Divine Judge, of a massive heart attack. The debt we all owe this extraordinary individual cannot be measured. We have lost a friend and mentor, the traditional movement has lost its uncontested elder statesman, and the Church has lost one of her greatest defenders of all time.

Though he was not martyred, the name Davies can surely and without hesitation be placed alongside those of More, Fisher and Campion, as men who gave their lives to the defense of the Holy, Roman Catholic Church in times of unparalleled attack…”

So, Davies can be placed along the side of St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher and St. Edmund Campion, according to Mr. Matt. Another false traditionalist website arrogantly proclaimed: “The Catholic Church mourns the death of Michael Davies,” as if the webmaster of this site had the authority to give his heretical opinion in the name of the Catholic Church. The question is: was Michael Davies really a defender of the Faith or was he, in fact, a faithless heretic? Tragically, but as the evidence shows, he was indeed a faithless heretic.

Michael Davies denied the Salvation Dogma, he believed certain men who die worshipping false gods and practicing false religions could be saved. He believed in the contraception heresy of Natural Family Planning, also known as The Rhythm Method. He never condemned the heresies in the Vatican II documents and the many other Vatican II Church documents. He never condemned John Paul II’s many notorious crimes of apostasy, heresy, idolatry, and blasphemy; therefore, he never denounced John Paul as an apostate, heretic, idolater, and blasphemer; consequently, he shared in the mortal guilt of the crimes and criminals he did not condemn and denounce.

Michael Matt, like Michael Davies, denies the Salvation Dogma and does not believe John Paul II teaches notorious heresy or commits acts of idolatry and blasphemy. In a written correspondence with a self-professed Catholic who abjured from the Great Apostasy, Michael said there is no definitive proof that John Paul II teaches heresy. This person then asked Michael if the Old Covenant is still in force, if Talmudic Jews are under a covenant with God, if they are God’s chosen people and elder brothers to Catholics, and if their religion of Talmudic Judaism is intrinsic to the Catholic religion. If Matt responded to these questions (which he did not), the person corresponding with him was prepared to show him where John Paul II teaches all these heresies, which is also apostasy.


In the Aug. 31, 2004 issue of The Remnant there is an article entitled “The Worst Pontificate in History” by John Rao. Mr. Rao thinks that John Paul II’s “Pontificate” is probably the worst one ever. Regarding the confusion about heresy and schism which has been sown by John Paul II, he states: “And on that score, the pontificates of men like Alexander VI barely enter into the competition, in light of the misdeeds of the current regime.” Rao implores help for the Church “which has been placed by the murkiness of his [John Paul II’s] pontificate under the daily control of illegitimate warlords dedicated to its annihilation.

So, you would think, then, that Mr. Rao believes that John Paul II is at least a bad man, wouldn’t you? After all, John Paul II is responsible for the “worst pontificate in history,” according to him, and John Paul II has given control to “illegitimate warlords dedicated to its [the Church’s] annihilation.” But no…

John Rao, “The Worst Pontificate in History,” The Remnant, Aug. 31, 2004, p. 13: “I, personally, am still inclined to believe that the Pope is an honest slave of Enlightenment rhetoric and its corollaries rather than its sinister master.”

So, John Paul II is an “honest” slave, i.e., he is mistaken in good faith; he is of good will? This is simply a ridiculous, wicked and heretical conclusion, which reflects the disgusting doctrinal liberalism rampant in false traditionalist publications such as this. Again and again they tell us that the most wicked enemies of the Faith are just honest and sincere people. They mix apostasy with Catholicism by equating apostates with sincere Catholics.

In the same article, Mr. Rao speaks of the false teachings of John Paul II which are supposedly too ambiguous for anyone to grasp:

John Rao, “The Worst Pontificate in History,” The Remnant, p. 13: “But, again, such concepts are torturously foggy and pseudo-mystical rather than refreshingly limpid in their heretical connotations. One reduces them to anathema proportions only through a mountain range of commentary…”

In other words, John Paul II’s statements are so foggy and “pseudo-mystical” that you can’t “reduce them to anathema” (i.e., find a clear heresy) without incredible effort, “a mountain range of commentary.” This is completely ridiculous and stupid. In an address to Jews in West Germany, Nov. 17, 1980, Antipope John Paul II spoke of, “the Old Covenant, never revoked by God…” That the Old Covenant is in force is directly condemned by the Council of Florence. So, we have reduced John Paul II’s statement to an “anathema proposition” in one sentence. It does not require “a mountain range of commentary,” as these heretics want us to believe, so that they can continue to assert that the Vatican II sect of Antipope John Paul II is the Catholic Church. They, and the devil guiding them, want people to believe that “it’s just so complex,” so that people remain in communion with an apostate “Church.”


By the way, Francis’ encyclical Evangelii Gaudium contains numerous other heresies as well, such as the heresy that “Non-Christians [such as atheists and pagans], 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” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 254). Concerning the Jews, Francis went on to say: “As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols [false gods] and to serve the true God [i.e., Francis says Jews are not to be considered to be as those who turn from false gods in order to serve the true God Jesus Christ and the Trinity since he already believes they serve the true God!]… With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 247)

This is apostasy; it is a denial of Christ. It alone proves that Francis is not the Pope since he totally denies, rejects, and spits upon the Gospel and the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 6), May 27, 1832: “Therefore, they must instruct them in the true worship of God, which is unique to the Catholic religion.”

Pope St. Gregory the Great, 590-604: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.” (The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 230)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate’ (Athanasian Creed).”

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.”

The Catholic Church has dogmatically defined the principle set forth in Romans 1 – which directly contradicts the teaching of atheism, agnosticism and Antipope Francis.

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 [or condemned].”

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 [or condemned].”

Jews and atheists reject that Jesus Christ is God, but Jesus says in John 8:24: “For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.”

Further, in his Apostolic Exhortation, “Evangelii Gaudium,” Francis professes that it’s admirable for Muslims to participate in daily Islamic prayers and religious services (252). He professes that non-Christians are justified by the grace of God (254), directly contrary to the Catholic profession of faith and Catholic dogma that only Christians, that is, those with the catholic faith can be justified. And, (254) of that document, Francis also speaks of non-Christian rites, signs and expressions, in other words, the false beliefs and wicked practices of non-Christian and pagan religions, as “God’s working” and things which “the Holy Spirit raises up.”

Vatican II document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 30: “They should also pray that the fullness of the strength and solace of the holy Spirit, the Paraclete, may flow out upon those many Christians of any Church whatsoever who, fearlessly confessing Christ, are undergoing suffering and distress.”

Contrary to the heresy of Vatican II and its antipopes, the Holy Spirit does not flow out upon members of any sect whatsoever; nor does the Holy Spirit raise up the false beliefs and wicked practices of non-Christian and pagan religions.

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: “… all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”

The Catholic Church teaches that all non-Catholic religions are false. There is only one true Church, outside of which no one can be saved. This is Catholic dogma.

Pope St. Gregory the Great, 590-604: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”

All of the other religions belong to the Devil. This is the teaching of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture.

But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.” (1 Corinthians 10:20)

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.” (Psalm 95:5)

Anyone who shows esteem or respect for non-Christian religions, or regards them as good or deserving of respect, denies and disrespects Jesus Christ and is an apostate.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “… that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthyNot only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”


Michael Matt, The Remnant, “Luther,” October 31, 2003, p. 11: “Perhaps some will protest that we’ve been too hard on Dr. Luther, and that his well meaning spiritual descendants in our day surely mustn’t share his anathemas. I have no desire, were it somehow within my power, to condemn baptized Lutherans to eternal hellfire. As the Church has always taught, we must leave such judgments to God. But, when considering how Protestantism came into being – in protest (protestant) of Christ’s Church and in defiance of His Vicar – it seems foolhardy to presume that all good Lutherans are guaranteed eternal bliss. If I cannot say as much about myself or my beloved wife, family and friends who are Catholic (and who are, as Christ advocated, trying to ‘work out’ their salvation by the ‘sweat of their brow’), how can I say it of these poor souls who’ve been robbed of the grace of Christ’s sacraments and who languish outside His Mystical Body?

Protestants are not ‘pious Hindus’ living on that proverbial desert island. They know Jesus Christ; reason tells them where His Church is and where it is not. They cannot stand behind the shield of invincible ignorance [as the ‘pious Hindus’ can]. We must pray for them, then, as we must recognize our own sacred duty before God to commit ourselves entirely to their conversion to the only true and sure means of salvation known to man – the Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.”

As has been pointed out, it is a fact that almost all of those who profess to be “traditional Catholics” today reject the Church’s teaching on the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, no matter how much they claim to hold it. Michael Matt, the editor of The Remnant, actually wrote an article on how the new film Luther (about the arch-heretic Martin Luther) attacks the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as if Mr. Matt believed in that dogma. But in his article Mr. Matt shows what he really believes by clearly indicating (see quote above) that both Lutherans and Hindus can be saved without the Catholic faith, and that “we must leave such judgments to God” – a cleverly heretical way of stating that we don’t know if God’s judgment that all who die as non-Catholics will not be saved (already revealed to the Church as infallibly true) is true. This is totally heretical – a flat out rejection of the divinely revealed truth that all who die without the Catholic Faith cannot be saved. And Matt is deceiving because he presents himself as one who adheres to and even defends the dogma when in truth he rejects it.

Mr. Matt is such a heretic, in fact, that he says: “it seems foolhardy to presume that all good Lutherans are guaranteed eternal bliss,” clearly indicating again that he holds that Lutherans can be saved and that the only point of contention is how many can be saved. Matt then tries to show the reader that the Lutherans are still under some obligation to enter the Church (even though he has already clearly indicated that some if not most can be saved outside of her) by pointing out that the Lutherans are not the “pious Hindus” who are “invincibly ignorant” of Christ. In other words, while Lutherans can be saved, it would be foolish to assert that they are all saved since they have heard of Christ and should know the Church; the “pious Hindus,” on the other hand, living in “invincible ignorance” have not. This clearly indicates that, according to Matt, Hindus also can be saved, since they are even less culpable than the Lutherans whom he has already indicated can be saved. What a bold rejection of Catholic teaching! And at the end of spewing his heretical explanation, Matt says “the Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation” – in the typical fashion of the dishonest heretics who pretend to believe in this dogma while they obstinately deny it and empty it of its meaning.

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.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

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.”


We will now look into the Church’s true teaching concerning all validly baptized Christians (Catholics) who outwardly adheres to non-Catholic sects but that have not yet severed their membership from the Body of the Church since they have not yet embraced any heresy (they are therefore Catholics in non-Catholic churches).

The Catholic Church has always taught that anyone (including a layman or a non-Catholic) can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter and form and if he has the intention of doing what the Church does.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denzinger 696)

The Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a member of the Church.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”

This means that all baptized infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers, are made members of the Catholic Church (i.e., are made Catholics). They are also made subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one point does this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing his membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff? After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she obstinately rejects any teaching of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

So, one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, Mormons, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving valid Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost. 2) Among those who are validly baptized as infants, they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever that membership (which they already possess) when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”

The fact is that all Protestants who reject the Catholic Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy, etc. have obstinately separated from the Faith of the Roman Church and have therefore severed their membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true with the “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately reject dogmas on the Papacy and Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to the Catholic Faith for salvation.

The baptized children who reach the age of reason (and become adults) in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don’t embrace any positions incompatible with the Catholic faith, Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law (see The Natural Law) or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, WOULD BE CATHOLICS IN A HERETICAL CHURCH BUILDING.

Council of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy, and then returns again, it is determined that penance is not to be denied to such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin. Let him do penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward to communion. If, indeed, there were children who were led astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be received without delay.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)

This means that the children above reason who were attending the church of a heretical sect with their parents were not heretics because they were not obstinately against something they knew to be taught by the Church! This fact is also true of all people of all ages who go to a heretical church without being obstinately opposed to any Church teaching. This is exactly the Catholic position and what the Church has always taught (as we have seen) – which is that to be a heretic one must obstinately reject something they know to be taught by God or the Catholic Church.

Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously [or obstinately] denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is 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 dogmas – and concerning whether such a person is to be considered a Catholic, an unbeliever or a heretic:


In his encyclical “Evangelii Gaudium” (255), Francis also professes that Religious Freedom, whereby everyone has the right to promote any religious view in public, is to be viewed a fundamental human right: “the importance of respect for religious freedom, viewed as a fundamental human right. This includes “the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 255).

The Catholic Church condemns the idea that religious freedom should be a universal civil right.

Pope Gregory XVI, Inter Praecipuas (# 14), May 8, 1844: “Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty.”

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.”

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (# 34), Nov. 1, 1885: “Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter Mirari Vos, dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated – namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man’s conscience is his sole and all-sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the state.”

Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty was without question the most notorious of all the documents of Vatican II. This is because its teaching on religious liberty was so heretical, so contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium, that even the most liberal heretics had trouble rationalizing it.

Vatican II teaches that religious liberty should be a civil right, which is directly condemned by Pope Pius IX. Vatican II also says that this right to religious liberty applies to public, as well as private, expression; and that no one should be prevented from the public expression or practice of his religion:

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as to become a civil right.”

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.”

It’s a dogma of the Catholic Church that States have a right, and indeed a duty, to prevent the members of false religions from publicly propagating and practicing their false faiths. States must do this to protect the common good – the good of souls – which is harmed by the public dissemination of evil. This is why the Catholic Church has always taught that Catholicism should be the only religion of the State, and that the State should exclude and forbid the public profession and propagation of any other.

We will now look at three propositions that were condemned by Pope Pius IX in his authoritative Syllabus of Errors.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors (# 77), Dec. 8, 1864: “In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned statement by Pope Pius IX.

Notice, the idea that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of other religions, is condemned. That means that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the State and that the others should be excluded from public worship, profession, practice and propagation. The Catholic Church however doesn’t force nonbelievers to believe in the Catholic Faith, since belief (by definition) is a free act of the will.

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (#36), Nov. 1, 1885: “And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’”

However, it teaches that Catholic States must forbid the propagation and public profession of false religions which lead souls to Hell.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors (# 78), Dec. 8, 1864: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned statement by Pope Pius IX.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors (# 55), Dec. 8, 1864: “The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” – Condemned statement by Pope Pius IX.

In Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX also condemned the idea that every man should be granted the civil right to religious liberty.

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (# 3), Dec. 8, 1864: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster THAT ERRONEOUS OPINION, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY…”

Thus it is abundantly clear that the teaching of Vatican II and Francis is direct heresy against the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX and a host of other popes. The teaching of Vatican II and Francis on religious liberty could literally have been added to the errors of the Syllabus of Errors condemned by Pope Pius IX.

Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty (which Antipope Francis adheres too) is precisely the reason why, following Vatican II, a number of Catholic nations changed their Catholic constitutions in favor of secular ones! The Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were actually suppressed at the express direction of the Vatican, and the laws of those countries changed to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions.


Francis continues with his heresies on Islam in his encyclical Evangelii Gaudium, saying that: “the followers of Islam… together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 252). Moslems don’t worship the one true God, the Holy Trinity, together with Catholics.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 6), May 27, 1832: “Therefore, they must instruct them in the true worship of God, which is unique to the Catholic religion.”

To assert that Muslims do worship the same God as Catholics is heresy. And Moslems certainly don’t worship God who will judge mankind on the last day, Jesus Christ.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434: “… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

Pope Callixtus III, 1455: “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet [Islam] in the East.”

John Paul II also taught that Muslims and Catholics have the same God and that Catholics and Muslims together worship the one true God. John Paul II repeated this heresy of Vatican II countless times.

John Paul II, Encyclical On Social Concerns (# 47), Dec. 30, 1987: “… Muslims who, like us, believe in the just and merciful God.”

John Paul II, Homily, Oct. 13, 1989: “… the followers of Islam who believe in the same good and just God.”

John Paul II, Homily, Jan. 28, 1990: “… our Muslim brothers and sisters… who worship as we do the one and merciful God.”

John Paul II, General Audience, May 16, 2001: “… the believers of Islam, to whom we are united by the adoration of the one God.”

John Paul II, General Audience, May 5, 1999: “Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: ‘We believe in the same God…’”

This is blasphemy and apostasy. Muslims reject the Most Holy Trinity. They don’t worship the one true God. By asserting that Muslims and Catholics believe in the same God over and over again, John Paul II denied the Most Holy Trinity over and over again. Furthermore, one is struck by the specificity with which John Paul II (just like Vatican II) denied Jesus Christ in many of these quotations. For example:

John Paul II, New Catechism (paragraph 841): “… Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Here we find John Paul II’s catechism teaching that the Muslims’ god (who is not Jesus Christ) will judge mankind on the last day. This means Jesus Christ will not judge mankind on the last day, but rather the god whom the Muslims worship will. This is a denial of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to judge the living and the dead.

Perhaps the most striking heresy in the whole of Vatican II is found in Lumen Gentium 16.

Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16: “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MOSLEMS are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD WHO WILL JUDGE HUMANITY ON THE LAST DAY.”

This is an amazing blasphemy! Catholics are worshippers of Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity; the Muslims are not!

Some people attempt to defend this awful heresy of Vatican II by asserting that Muslims acknowledge and worship one all-powerful God. They argue thus: There is only one God. And since Muslims worship one all-powerful God – not many deities, as the polytheists – they worship the same all-powerful God that we Catholics do.

If it were true that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics because they worship one, all-powerful God, then anyone who professes to worship one, all-powerful God worships the one true God together with Catholics. There is no way around that. That would mean that those who worship Lucifer as the one true and all-powerful God worship the same God as Catholics! But this is clearly absurd. This should prove to anyone that the teaching of Vatican II is heretical. Those who reject the Holy Trinity don’t worship the same God as those who worship the Holy Trinity!

It’s clearly a denial of the Most Holy Trinity to assert that Muslims worship the true God without worshipping the Trinity. Secondly, and even worse when considered carefully, is the astounding statement that Muslims worship the One Merciful God Who will judge humanity on the last day! This is an incredible heresy. Muslims don’t worship Jesus Christ, who is humanity’s supreme judge on the last day. Therefore, they don’t worship God who will judge mankind on the last day! To say that Muslims do worship God who will judge mankind on the last day, as John Paul II, Francis etc. and Vatican II does in Lumen Gentium 16, is to deny that Jesus Christ will judge mankind on the last day.

Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome, Can. 15: “If anyone does not say that HE (JESUS CHRIST) WILL COME TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD, HE IS A HERETIC.”

Islam is a false religion which denies the Divinity of Christ and rejects the Most Holy Trinity. Besides rejecting the true God, Islam allows polygamy up to four wives, and its followers (Muslims) spread this false religion with a zeal unequalled by the others. Islam is the most viciously anti-Christian major false religion in the world. To convert to Christianity in many Islamic countries means death. The propagation of the true Faith is strictly prohibited by the Muslims. Islamic society is one of the most evil things in human history. Here is what Paul VI thought about this false religion which rejects Christ and the Trinity:

Paul VI, Speech, Sept. 9, 1972: “We would also like you to know that the Church recognizes the riches of the Islamic faith – a faith that binds us to the one God.”

Paul VI speaks about the “riches” of the Islamic Faith, a “Faith” that rejects Jesus Christ and the Trinity. He says this “Faith” binds us to the One God. This is apostasy.

Paul VI, Address, Sept. 18, 1969: “… Moslems… along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

Moslems don’t worship the one true God, the Holy Trinity, together with Catholics, as we covered in the section on the heresies of Vatican II, John Paul II, and Francis. To assert that Muslims do worship the same God as Catholics is heresy. And Moslems certainly don’t worship God who will judge mankind on the last day, Jesus Christ.

Paul VI, Address to Muslim Ambassador, June 4, 1976: “… Moroccan Moslems… our brothers in faith in the one God. You will always be made very welcome and you will find esteem and understanding here.”

He says that Muslims are brothers in the Faith. This is apostasy. He then says that Muslims will always find esteem at the Vatican II.

Paul VI, Address, Dec. 2, 1977: “… the Moslems (who) profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day, as the Second Vatican Council solemnly declared.”

Paul VI, Address, August, 1969: “… Our lively desire to greet, in your persons, the great Moslem communities spread throughout Africa? You thus enable Us to manifest here Our high respect for the faith you profess… In recalling the Catholic and Anglican Martyrs, We gladly recall also those confessors of the Moslem faith who were the first to suffer death…”

He mentions his high respect for the false faith of Islam, and he commemorates Muslims who witnessed to this false religion through death. This is total apostasy.

Paul VI, Angelus Address, Aug. 3, 1969: “Twenty-two martyrs were recognized, but there were many more, and not only Catholics. There were also Anglicans and some Mohammedans.”

This is probably the most scandalous statement we’ve ever seen regarding the heresy that there are non-Catholic martyrs. Paul VI says that Muslims (who don’t even believe in Christ or the Trinity) are martyrs, in addition to Anglicans. This is truly amazing and totally heretical.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra [infallible statement from the Chair of St. Peter]: “… 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.”

Pope Pelagius II declared the same in 585, a truth that has always been taught in the Church.

Pope Pelagius II, Dilectionis Vestrae, 585: “Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and the fire, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair. Such a one can be slain; he cannot be crowned.”

Francis is a formal heretic and an antipope. Francis says that “Today there is an ecumenism of blood… whether people are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox.” He clearly teaches the condemned heresy that there are non-Catholic Saints and Martyrs. In fact, he even promotes the idea that a Lutheran “pastor” could be advanced to beatification.

Concerning the various groups, he says, “We are united in blood.” He then says, “I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism. After him, in the list of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: “I will continue to deal with the cause, but both of their causes, not just the Catholic priest’s.” [Francis:] This is what ecumenism of blood is...”

Notice that Francis endorses and promotes the idea that a Lutheran who is killed could be advanced to “beatification.” This is formal heresy.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, dogmatic Athanasian Creed, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity…”

Here we find Vatican II teaching that Muslims worship the one God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth:

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 3: “The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to GodHence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”

This is similar to, but slightly different from, the heresy that we have already exposed in Lumen Gentium. The false god of the Muslims (which is not the Trinity) didn’t create Heaven and Earth. The Most Holy Trinity created Heaven and Earth.

Pope St. Leo IX, Congratulamur vehementer, April 13, 1053: “For I firmly believe that the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is one omnipotent God, and in the Trinity the whole Godhead is co-essential and consubstantial, co-eternal and co-omnipotent, and of one will, power, majesty; the creator of all creation, from whom all things, through whom all things, in whom all things which are in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible. Likewise I believe that each person in the Holy Trinity is the one true God, complete and perfect.”

Benedict XVI also teaches that Islam and Christianity have the same God:

Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 273: “… Islam, too, … has inherited from Israel and the Christians the same God…”

Islam and Christianity don’t have the same God. The followers of Islam reject the Trinity. Christians worship the Trinity.

Benedict XVI, Catechesis, August 24, 2005: “This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them.”

Notice that Benedict XVI doesn’t merely esteem the members of false religions, but the false religions themselves. This is apostasy.

Related articles:

But there were many other heresies taught by the antipopes on various topics that were just as explicit as the one Kramer finds so appalling. He should have been convinced a long time ago. In fact, years ago someone we know personally spoke with Kramer. In one of those conversations he expressed doubts about the validity of John Paul II. However, his rejection of Antipope Francis is interesting because it’s another example of how even some of the most obstinate false traditionalists, who have misled so many for years, are now finding Francis so indefensible that they must reject him as an antipope. It’s a big embarrassment to the false traditionalist crowd.

Over the years Kramer has said some good things. We hope he comes around to the true positions on all the issues. His paragraph is an example of how simple it really should be for people to come to the correct conclusion on Francis (i.e., that he’s without any doubt a heretical non-Catholic antipope) if they are being even slightly honest about the situation.


Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.” (Paul VI, solemnly closing every document of Vatican II; Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, The America Press, 1966, p. 366, etc.)

Chris Ferrara, one of the writers of The Remnant, also repeats a myth very near and dear to the hearts of the false traditionalists: the idea that Paul VI never forbade the use of the Old Mass, and never made the New Mass obligatory.

Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, “A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Nov. 15, 2005, p. 11: “As already mentioned, even Vatican officials, including the 1984 cardinalate commission, have conceded that the traditional Mass was never actually abolished de jure by the promulgation of the New Mass, and that priests have always been free to continue using the preconciliar Missal… In essence, Paul VI merely created a new rite alongside the old rite, leaving the old intact and never actually forbidding its continued use.”

Well, let’s quote Paul VI himself to explode and destroy this falsehood:

Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.

“It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith

The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo [without people]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent

“We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)

There you have it. Paul VI himself directly refutes Chris Ferrara and the false traditionalists on their two main contentions. Paul VI declares that it is “certainly not” the “free choice” of priests or faithful to not adopt the New Ordo Missae. He also denounces their assertion that the Second Vatican Council is not binding, and he indicates that the logical consequence of the position of Lefebvre, which rejects the New Mass and Vatican II, and operates independently of the hierarchy it recognizes, is to place him outside the Church.

We have exposed in detail the heresies of Vatican II. We have also shown that the men who implemented this non-Catholic Council were not true popes of the Catholic Church, but antipopes. Despite all of the evidence, some people remain unconvinced. They hold that there are indeed doctrinal problems with Vatican II; but, according to them, this is no problem for Paul VI because he did not infallibly promulgate any of the Vatican II heresies. “The heresies of Vatican II don’t matter,” they say, “because Vatican II was not infallible!” We have now shown that if Paul VI had been a true pope, the documents of Vatican II would have been promulgated infallibly. This prove, again, that Paul VI (the heretic who promulgated the apostate documents of Vatican II, changed the rites to all seven sacraments, changed the Mass into a Protestant service, oversaw the systematic and world-wide dismantling of Catholicism, ruined the world-wide Catholic school system, and initiated the greatest apostasy from Catholicism in history) was not and could not have been a true pope. He was an antipope.

Please read more:

It’s time for everyone to wake up and realize that the Vatican II sect is a counterfeit sect from head to toe, and there is no way to salvage it or its antipopes.

Conveniently, this refutes another UTTERLY RIDICULOUS and dishonest assertion that Michael Matt just made in a recent article for The Remnant. In an article entitled “SSPX Not in Schism – Rome Has Spoken,” Michael Matt quotes “Cardinal” Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Matt quotes Castrillon Hoyos who recently asserted that the position of the SSPX is not a “formal schism,” and that the “Mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished.” Based on this “proof,” Matt concludes:

“[the SSPX is not in schism… and]… Pope Paul VI never actually abrogated the Tridentine Mass! It’s still there just as it always has been, and the “option” called the Novus Ordo Missae is just that—an option, which Catholics are free to reject. End of story! Traditionalists win! We don’t pretend to know why Cardinal Castrillón elected to make these statements which are now part of the permanent record, but, clearly, the debate is over.” (The Remnant, Nov. 30, 2005)

Does anyone fail to see that this statement is utterly absurd, dishonest and illogical?

Does anyone really believe that if Castrillon Hoyos had said the SSPX is in schism The Remnant would have published an article stating “SSPX is in Schism – Rome has Spoken!”? Of course not. “Rome has Spoken” for Matt when he likes what a particular Roman “prelate” has said. He likes Castrillon Hoyos’s statement because he thinks that it allows his schismatic buddies, the Bishops of the SSPX, off the hook.

Rome only speaks when it says what Matt likes to hear about Lefebvre or the Traditional Mass. Rome doesn’t speak when Paul VI (his “Pope”!) says:

Paul VI: “The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council.”

And Rome certainly doesn’t speak when Benedict XVI says that Protestants are not heretics; no… not at all. A statement from a Vatican prelate only constitutes Rome speaking when it tickles Matt’s ears, and justifies the schismatic position of his friends (the leaders of the SSPX), who operate a world-wide apostolate outside of communion with the hierarchy they recognize, while rejecting its official teaching and solemn “canonizations,” just to name a few.

So, in conclusion: the debate is over, and the false traditionalists lose. The statement from Paul VI utterly refutes the recent declarations of both Ferrara and Matt (on Lefebvre, Vatican II, and the New Mass) in one fell swoop. The New Mass is the binding liturgy of the Vatican II sect. Vatican II is the binding teaching of the Vatican II sect. If they are false, as they certainly are, then the claims to the Papacy by the men who imposed them (the Vatican II antipopes) are just as false. There is no way around this fact. All of this shows us again the inconsistency of the false traditionalist position, which attempts to remain united with the false Church and its manifestly heretical non-Catholic antipopes.


The heretical position of Siscoe and The Remnant is also dogmatically refuted by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence. The Council declared:

Latin: “Quoscumque ergo adversa et contraria sentientes damnat, reprobat et anathematizat et a Christi corpore, quod est ecclesia, alienos esse denuntiat.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “It [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects and anathematizes all thinking opposed and contrary things, and declares them to be aliens from the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”

Notice that Pope Eugene IV infallibly teaches that all thinking opposed and contrary things to the Church are expelled not just from the Soul of the Church, but from the Body of Christ, which is the Church. The word here for “thinking” in the original Latin is sentientes. It’s the masculine accusative present participle of the verb sentire: to sense, think, suppose. It shows that thinking opposed and contrary to the Church expels one from the Body (not just the Soul) of the Church, even if there hasn’t been a declaration or a warning. This further refutes the heretical position published in The Remnant: “Formal heresy in the internal forum only severs a man from the soul of the Church. It requires formal heresy in the external forum to sever a man from the body of the Church...” (Robert Siscoe, The Remnant, “Sedevacantism and the Manifest Heretic”)

Moreover, while it’s not necessary to prove the point, it should be noted that the position of the article published in The Remnant is also refuted by Pope Paul IV in his Bull Cum ex Apostolatus, Feb. 15, 1559.

In Cum ex Apostolatus, Pope Paul IV teaches that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope, even if he is elected by all the cardinals and accepted by the whole Church. He says that a heretical cleric cannot hold office in the Church. Concerning those invalidly elected as heretics, Pope Paul IV also declares that all Catholics, without any declaration by Church authority, “shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs”. Paul IV makes it clear that all of this applies to the time period before any declaration. He explicitly states that it occurs and can be recognized “without the need for any further declaration.” Therefore, contrary to the aforementioned article in The Remnant, heretics lose their offices and are expelled from the Body of the Church – and can be recognized as heretics, warlocks and heathens who don’t hold office in the Catholic Church or have membership in the Body – before any declaration by Church authority. The position expressed in the aforementioned article is false.

See: The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic would cease to be pope, and that a heretic couldn’t be validly elected pope

It’s interesting that Pope Paul IV stated that he wanted to make it clear to the faithful that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope, “lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place.” The pope thus intimates that the abomination of desolation would be connected with a heretic purporting to sit on the papal throne. His language was prophetic; for in the post-Vatican II period we see quite clearly that the prophesied Great Apostasy is indeed connected with heretical antipopes pretending to occupy the Chair of Peter and the various forms of spiritual destruction this has wrought. By their corruption of Catholic teaching, false traditionalists such as Siscoe and The Remnant perpetuate the deception and contribute to the abomination Pope Paul IV wanted to prevent.

Thus, it is infallible Catholic truth that a heretic cannot be a member of the Catholic Church. Many other authorities could be brought forward to further prove this point, but we will simply quote Pope Leo XIII again, who summarizes this dogmatic teaching of the Church quite well.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

And because a heretic cannot be a Catholic or a member of the Catholic Church, it is a fact that a heretic cannot be a Pope, because a Pope is the head of the Catholic Church.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Chap. 3: “… the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church…”

The Pope is the head of the whole Catholic Church. And we already saw that heretics cannot be members of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is infallible that a heretic cannot be a Pope, because a heretic cannot be the head of that which he is not a member. This is why the Saints and Doctors of the Church consistently teach that if a Pope were to become a manifest heretic he would immediately lose the office of Pope.

St. Antoninus: “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.” (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

St. Alphonsus, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the Pontificate.” (Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232)

St. Francis De Sales, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…” (The Catholic Controversy, TAN Books, pp. 305-306)

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church: “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits. The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

The testimonies of these great Catholic saints show that it is impossible for a heretic to be the head of the Catholic Church, because he is not a member of Her. This is not to say that a wicked man, who was not a heretic, could not be Pope. A wicked man who did not deny the faith could certainly be Pope, as Church history shows; but a heretic who denies the faith can never be Pope, because heresy places one outside the Church, while immorality without heresy places one in a state of mortal sin but not outside the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church and Salvation by heresy, schism or apostasy.

Moreover, in judging that Francis is a heretic and is not the Pope (and is therefore an Antipope), one is not judging the Holy See; rather, as the teaching already quoted shows, one is correctly identifying that a manifest heretic is outside the Church and therefore cannot occupy the Holy See.

In two of his coronation sermons, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) — considered one of the greatest canonists of his time — explained how a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not believe” the Faith and that a pope who falls into the sin of heresy is already “judged.”

Pope Innocent III: “Without faith it is impossible to please God.’… And so the faith of the Apostolic See never failed, even in the most trying circumstances [turbatione], but always continued intact and undiminished, so that the privilege of Peter remained constant and unshaken. “To this end faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for a sin committed against faith that I may be judged by the Church. [propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari.] For ‘he who does not believe is already judged’.” (Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL 218:656)

Pope Innocent III: “You are the salt of the earth… Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. [quia potest ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescit in haeresim.] For he who does not believe is already judged.” (Sermo 4: In Consecratione, PL 218:670)

Another translation of Sermon 4 reads:

Pope Innocent III, Sermon 4, 1198: “The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, (should a pope ‘lose his savor’) could cast him out or trample him under foot—since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’? Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if, for example, he should wither away into heresy; because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” (Sermo 4: In Consecratione, PL 218:670)

A pope who commits the sin of heresy, then, can indeed be “shown to be judged.”

St. Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

And the truth expressed by these saints, such as St. Robert Bellarmine, that a heretic cannot be the Pope, is not merely their fallible opinion, as some defenders of Francis have argued; rather, the teaching expressed by these saints is a dogmatic fact. It is rooted in the infallible dogma that heretics cannot be members of the Catholic Church, which is why Pope Innocent III taught that a Pope is “already judged, if, for example, he should wither away into heresy.”

Therefore, to hold the position that a heretic can be the Pope is heretical. So let no defender of Francis tell you that it does not matter whether or not he is a heretic, or that even if he is a heretic he can still be the Pope. No, this is not true, as we have proven. If Francis is the Pope, he cannot be a heretic. He must be a Catholic and a member of the Catholic Church. But, as we have shown, Francis is definitely neither a Catholic nor a member of the Catholic Church. Therefore, he absolutely cannot be its head.

Related articles:
Free DVDs, Articles and Books