Modernism and Modernists Exposed: What is Modernism, Beliefs, Movement, Definition, Characteristics, Examples

Modernism and Modernists: What is Modernism, Beliefs, Movement, Definition, Period, Characteristics

Modernism (Roman Catholicism)

Modernism was a term mostly used by Pope Pius X to describe the doctrines of a group of theologians (chiefly Alfred Loisy and George Tyrell), notably the assumption that the Christian Church and its dogma are human institutions that have evolved in time like other institutions, and which are expressed like others in human documents that bear the character of their historical context, which can be profitably analyzed in just the way all institutions and texts are scrutinized. Catholic "modernists" did not use this label for their own writings. They did not see themselves as a unified group: the term "modernist" was applied to them.

In his encyclical Lamentabili Sane of July 3, 1907, Pius X, “the fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable,” presented a syllabus condemning the errors of the Modernists in 65 condemned and proscribed propositions.

In his encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis of 1907, Pius X described Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” (Pascendi Dominici gregis, 39). This description was used not because Modernism combined ideas from many earlier heresies, but because it undermined Catholic doctrine in a more fundamental way than most earlier heresies: instead of critiquing particular points of doctrine, or setting up a competing source of authority, it denied the idea of objective unchanging truth or any authoritative teaching. Modernism involved the evolution of dogma, which means, according to them, that the teachings of the Church, which its members are required to believe, can evolve over time – not only in their expression but also in their substance – rather than remaining the same in substance for all time – in the Divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture and Tradition – which was present from the beginnings of the Church. This postulate was what made Modernism unique in the history of heresies in the Church. In stating the Modernist view on evolution of dogma in order to condemn it, Pius X expressed this as: “Truth is no more unchangeable than man himself, for it evolves with him, in him and through him” (Lamentabili sane).

In some respects, the Catholic Modernists seemed to be influenced by or in agreement with certain Protestant theologians and clergy, starting with the Tübingen school in the mid-19th century. Some, however, such as George Tyrell, disagreed strongly with this analogy; Tyrell saw himself as loyal to the unity of the Church, and disliked liberal Protestantism (Hales 1958).

In some respects the Church appeared to be reacting to cultural themes that had arisen with Renaissance humanism and had informed the "Enlightenment" of the 18th century.

The Modernist crisis took place chiefly in French and British intellectual Catholic circles, to a lesser extent in Italy, and virtually nowhere else.

Pope Pius X, in his encyclical the Oath Against the Modernists, 1910, “I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.”

Dogmas are "truths fallen from heaven"

Some will state that dogmas of the Catholic Church that true non heretical Popes have pronounced are somehow their own interpretation of how things work and that the Popes are not inspired by God when they speak infallibly from the chair of Peter. Such nonsense would mean that no foundation of truth could ever exist since there would be no infallible declarations by the Popes to rely on to explain Scripture to us. These woeful wretches are also condemned by our saintly Pope St. Pius X!

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned statement by Pope St. Piux X.

Dogmas are truths fallen from heaven which cannot possibly contain error. They are not merely human statements, written to warn Catholics and non-Catholics, which are subject to correction and qualification. Dogmas are infallible definitions of the truth which can never be changed or corrected, and have no need to be changed or corrected since they cannot possibly contain error. Dogmas are defined so that Catholics must know what they must believe as true from divine revelation without any possibility of error.

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their membersby divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptismThis is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin.”

What is Modernism? Other Definitions of Modernism

I frequently see writers refer to what they call “modernism.” Exactly what do they mean by this term? The history of “Christendom” for the past twenty centuries has been characterized by cycles. One of those recurring cycles is that of theological modernism. Modernism is a determined effort on the part of those who have lost their personal faith in the divine origin of the Holy Scriptures to convince others of their impoverished views.

For more than a century, modernism, in a very concerted fashion, has gnawed at the vital organs of the “Christian” movement. Consider some of the traits of this insidious system:

  1. Modernism repudiates the biblical description of the nature of God. The God of the Old Testament is seen as a hateful deity of vengeance and is rejected. Albrecht Ritschl, for example, repudiated the Bible affirmations regarding Jehovah’s holiness and wrath and viewed the Lord solely as a being of love. This view overlooks the justice of God, failing to recognize that Jehovah will punish the rebel.

  1. Modernism attacks the scriptural account of creation, suggesting that the Mosaic record is simply an ancient “myth” (cf. The Interpreter’s Bible, I.460ff). It denies that man has fallen from his holy estate; rather, it asserts that humanity has actually ascended from a brutish state (via the evolutionary process) to its current status. Lutheran theologian Helmut Thielicke declared that he was not embarrassed to confess that his grandfather was a monkey and his great-grandfather a tadpole.

  1. Modernism adopts a “higher critical” attitude toward the Bible, which ignores the testimony of Scripture itself. For example, it is claimed that Moses did not author the Pentateuch, as both Old and New Testament evidence suggest; rather, supposedly, the first five books of the Bible are but a compilation of documents (e.g., J, E, P, D—the initials signifying Jehovah, Elohim, Priestly, and Deuteronomic—code names for the alleged authors).

  1. Modernism contends that the Bible, as a historical record, is not trustworthy. Advocates of this viewpoint do not hesitate to assert that the Scriptures contain a host of errors of a considerable variety. They believe that the basis of the biblical record is an ancient legendary tradition.

  1. Modernism, therefore, seeks to “de-mythologize” the Scriptures. Anything of a miraculous nature must be explained away as having some natural, though perhaps misunderstood, nature. According to this ideology, for example, Jesus did not walk upon the waves of the Sea of Galilee; instead, he was merely walking in the shallow surf near the coast, and the disciples, from a distance, just thought he was upon the surface of the sea.

  1. Modernism asserts that human conduct cannot be regulated by a “rule book” such as the Bible. Instead, one must individually make his own decisions on ethical issues, letting subjective “love” be the guiding principle in various situations. Joseph Fletcher’s school of situation ethics has peddled this hedonistic ideology.

There are additional modernistic traits that might be mentioned, such as the condemned heresy that dogmas can change their meaning, but these will suffice for the present. It hardly needs to be pointed out that “modernism” is actually just another term for infidelity.

Theological modernism was technically set forth in the writings of such men as F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and A. Ritschl (1822-1889). Later it was popularized in the works of men like Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969). Fosdick, an American Baptist "minister", authored some thirty books, including The Modern Use of the Bible and A Guide to Understanding the Bible. He was quite influential in the liberal movement that now ravages modern Protestantism. Many religious movements, to greater or lesser degrees, have been influenced by this insidious philosophy.

To justify all heresies, modernists teach dogmas can change their meaning

Pope Pius X teaches that one of the reasons the intellectual evolutionists, whom he places among the Modernists, heretically believe that dogmas change their meaning is to justify all heresies. Hence Pope Pius X calls the dogma-changer heresy the “synthesis of all heresies.”

Because some of these heretics are obstinately immoral, they ultimately justify their immorality by denying dogmas that deal with morality. For instance, a man who commits the sin of adultery ultimately justifies his sin by denying the moral dogma that adultery is a mortal sin. To justify changing the meaning of the moral dogma of adultery so that it is no longer a sin, he embraces the heresy that dogmas change their meaning.

Once the heresy that dogmas can change their meaning is believed, all dogmas can be redefined and thus denied; and as a result the Catholic religion, the full deposit of the Catholic faith, is destroyed in one swoop:

Pope Pius X, Pacendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907: “13. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles…

12. … Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion…

“38. … Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. … They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it [dogma] must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy…

“18. … Maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers…

“26. … They lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death—dogma, Church, worship, the books we revere as sacred, even faith itself.

“39. … And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction… of the Catholic religion.”

Hence the false Church of these heretical dogma changers is built on shifting sand and not on the Rock of Peter:

“Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. And every one that heareth these my words and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.” (Mt. 7:24-27)

Indeed, dogma changers and their Church are chaff (heresies) blowing in the wind, separated from the wheat (dogmas), and will burn in the everlasting fires of hell: “The chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (Mt. 3:12) Their Church is not a “pillar and ground of truth” (1Tim. 3:15), but a “pillar and ground of lies and contradictions,” a mound of shifting sand with no lasting root or support: “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” (Mt. 15:13)

“I have learned that all the works which God hath made, continue for ever: we cannot add any thing, nor take away from those things which God hath made that he may be feared. That which hath been made, the same continueth: the things that shall be, have already been: and God restoreth that which is past… For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. He that giveth testimony of these things, saith: Surely, I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” (Ecltes. 3:14-15; Apoc. 22:18-20)


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


The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is the infallible and inerrant word of God. Vatican I also declared that all those things in the written word of God must be believed with divine and Catholic Faith.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. III, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”[67]


Benedict XVI, A New Song for the Lord, 1995, p. 86: “The pagan creation accounts on which the biblical story is in part based end without exception in the establishment of a cult, but the cult in this case is situated in the cycle of the do ut des.”[68]

If the biblical creation account in the book of Genesis is based in part on pagan creation accounts, this means that the biblical account is neither original nor inspired directly by God. This statement from Benedict XVI is heresy and shows again that he is a faithless apostate.

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (# 20), Nov. 18, 1893: “For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.”[69]


In Exodus 31, we read that God gave Moses two stone tablets written with the finger of God.

Exodus 31:18: “And the Lord, when He had ended these words in mount Sinai, gave to Moses two stone tables of testimony, written with the finger of God.”

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, pp. 165-166, 168: “Q. …Were these laws really handed over to Moses by God when he appeared on Mount Sinai? As stone tablets, on which, as it says, ‘the finger of God had written?’… to what extent are these Commandments really supposed to come from God? A. [p. 166] …This [Moses] is the man who has been touched by God, and on the basis of this friendly contact he is able to formulate the will of God, of which hitherto only fragments had been expressed in other traditions, in such a manner that we truly hear the word of God. Whether there really were any stone tablets is another question… [p. 168] How far we should take this story literally is another question.”[70]


Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 153: “It is another thing to see the Bible as a whole as the Word of God, in which everything relates to everything else, and everything is disclosed as you go on. It follows straightaway that neither the criterion of inspiration nor that of infallibility can be applied mechanically. It is quite impossible to pick out one single sentence and say, right, you find this sentence in God’s great book, so it must simply be true in itself…”[71]


Benedict XVI, Oct. 18, 2006: “This poses two questions when it comes to explaining what happened [with Judas]. The first consists in asking ourselves how it was possible that Jesus chose this man and trusted him. In fact, though Judas is the group's administrator (cf. John 12:6b; 13:29a), in reality he is also called "thief" (John 12:6a). The mystery of the choice is even greater, as Jesus utters a very severe judgment on him: "Woe to that man by whom the son of man is betrayed!" (Matthew 26:24). This mystery is even more profound if one thinks of his eternal fate, knowing that Judas "repented and brought back the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying 'I have sinned in betraying innocent blood'" (Matthew 27:3-4). Though he departed afterward to hang himself (cf. Matthew 27:5), it is not for us to judge his gesture, putting ourselves in God's place, who is infinitely merciful and just.”[129]

These words of Benedict XVI indicate that he holds that Judas might not be in Hell. This is a denial of the Gospel. If Judas is not in Hell (as Benedict XVI indicates is possible), then Our Lord’s words in Matthew 26:24 (quoted below) would be false.

"Woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born" (Matthew 26:24).

If Judas didn’t go to Hell, then he went to Purgatory or Heaven. In that case, Our Lord (the all knowing God) could not have said that it is better for Judas not to have been born. That’s very clear and very simple; but these simple truths of the Catholic Faith are all thrown out the window by the non-Catholic Vatican II sect.

It’s quite interesting that, in this speech, Benedict XVI quotes the first part of Matthew 26:24 ("Woe to that man by whom the son of man is betrayed!"), but not the last part (“it were better for him, if that man had not been born”). You can see his omission of that critical part of the passage in the citation above. That’s a striking example of a heretic cutting out the part of the Gospel that he doesn’t like or is about to deny!

Further refuting Antipope Benedict XVI is the fact that Our Lord also says that Judas is “lost” and calls him the “son of perdition,” which means “the son of damnation.” Judas also ended his life with the mortal sin of suicide.

John 17:12- "None of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled."

The Catholic Church has always held that Judas went to Hell, based on the clear words of Our Lord.

St. Alphonsus, Preparation For Death, p. 127: “Poor Judas! Above seventeen hundred years have elapsed since he has been in Hell, and his Hell is still only beginning.”[130]

But just like the other defined dogmas on salvation, even the clearest words and messages of the Gospel are denied by the non-Catholic, manifestly heretical Vatican II sect and its antipopes.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi (# 3), Sept. 8, 1907: “Moreover, they [the Modernists] lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt.”[131]


The Resurrection of the Body is a very important dogma. Besides being part of the Apostles’ Creed, this dogma has been defined more than almost any other dogma of the Faith.

Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, ex cathedra: “The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds.”[136]

Pope Innocent III, 1215, ex cathedra: “…all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear…”[137]

Pope Benedict XII, 1336, ex cathedra: “…all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds…”[138]

Benedict XVI blatantly denies this dogma and proves again that he is a manifest heretic.

Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”[139]

Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, p. 353: “The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval…”[140]

Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, pp. 357-358: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”[141]

We can see that Benedict XVI denies this dogma in his book Introduction to Christianity (as quoted above) by teaching that St. Paul doesn’t teach the resurrection of physical bodies, and that the resurrection does not consist in the restoration of bodies. This is astounding heresy.


Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, pp. 236-237: “Paul, who places so much emphasis on the impossibility of justification on the basis of one’s own morality, is doubtless presupposing that this new form of Christian worship, in which Christians themselves are the ‘living and holy sacrifice’, is possible only through sharing in the incarnate love of Jesus Christ, a love that conquers all our insufficiency through the power of his holiness.

“If, on the other hand, we should acknowledge that Paul in no way yields to moralism in this exhortation or in any sense belies his doctrine of justification through faith and not through works, it is equally clear that this doctrine of justification does not condemn man to passivity – he does not become a purely passive recipient of a divine righteousness that always remains external to him.”

This is Protestantism, folks. Benedict XVI clearly states that Paul’s doctrine of justification is “through faith and not through works”! To put this heresy into perspective, think of it this way: The next time you engage a Protestant in a discussion about the Catholic faith, and he (wrongly) brings up a passage from St. Paul in an attempt to prove justification by faith alone apart from works, remember that Benedict XVI agrees with the Protestant.

James 2:24: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Romans 2:5-6: “… the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds.”

Romans 2:13: “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”

It’s no wonder that Benedict XVI was intimately involved in formulating and approving the heretical Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification. It also teaches justification by faith alone.

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, Annex to the Official Common Statement, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: “Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works.”


Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, pp. 255-256: “Peter takes it for granted that it was David who originally prayed this psalm, and he goes on to state that this hope was not fulfilled in David: ‘He both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day’ (Acts 2:29)… We need not go into the question here of whether this address really goes back to Peter and, if not, who else might have redacted it and precisely when and where it originated. Whatever the answer may be, we are dealing here with a primitive form of Resurrection proclamation, whose high authority in the early Church is clear from the fact that it was attributed to St. Peter himself and was regarded as the original proclamation of the Resurrection.”

Acts chapter 2 contains Peter’s Pentecost sermon, one of the most significant addresses in Church history. Benedict XVI doubts whether this address can even be attributed to Peter. This is outrageous heresy and filthy modernism. On July 1, 1933, the Pontifical Biblical Commission responded to a query concerning Acts 2:24-33, the very passage Benedict XVI mentions. The reply stated that it is not even permitted to interpret the words of Psalm 15:10-11, which are quoted by St. Peter in Acts 2:27, as referring to something other than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Denz. 2272). That is to say, those words of St. Peter definitely refer to Christ’s Resurrection. One can only imagine how the Commission would have replied if someone questioned whether the address was given by St. Peter at all.


Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, pp. 261-262: “The ending of Mark poses a particular problem. According to authoritative manuscripts, the Gospel comes to a close with 16:8 – ‘and they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.’ The authentic text of the Gospel as it has come down to us ends with the fear and trembling of women… For what reason our text breaks off at this point, we do not know. In the second century, a concluding summary was added, bringing together the most important Resurrection traditions and the mission of the disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world (Mark 16:9-20).

According to Benedict XVI, everything from Mark 16:9 to Mark 16:20 is not part of the original Bible, “the authentic text of the Gospel as it has come down to us”. He excludes this rather important section from the authentic biblical text.

Mark 16:15-20: “And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.”

The fact that there have been various views on the ancient manuscripts as they relate to Mark 16 is irrelevant. In the ancient Church, there were also disputes about which books constitute canonical Scripture. Since the Church has confirmed the authenticity of Mark’s Gospel, from beginning to end, as it is used in the Catholic Church, Benedict XVI’s statement is heresy. In fact, it’s interesting to consider that the First Vatican Council dogmatically incorporated into its infallible decree the very portion of Mark’s Gospel which Benedict XVI denies.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 2 on Revelation: “Wherefore, not only Moses and the prophets, but especially Christ the Lord Himself, produced many genuine miracles and prophecies; and we read concerning the apostles: "But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal and confirming the word with signs that followed" [Mark 16:20]. And again it is written: "And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place" [2 Pet. 1:19].”

If you still believe that Benedict XVI is the pope, then you and he don’t even have the same Bible.


Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, p. 106: “The problem of dating Jesus’ Last Supper arises from the contradiction on this point between the Synoptic Gospels, on the one hand, and St. John’s Gospel, on the other.”

In his book he spends quite a bit of time examining what he considers to be contradictions in the biblical accounts.


This has to be one of Benedict XVI’s worst heresies yet. It comes in the context of his repeated attempts to exonerate the Jews of any guilt in the death of Christ.

Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, p. 186: “An extension of Mark’s ochlos, with fateful consequences, is found in Matthew’s account (27:25), which speaks of ‘all the people’ and attributes to them the demand for Jesus’ crucifixion. Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here: How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus’ death? It seems obvious that the historical reality is correctly described in John’s account and in Mark’s.”

Wow! Benedict is commenting on the words of Matthew 27:25, “And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.” Benedict XVI not only criticizes the words of Matthew’s Gospel as having “fateful” consequences, but he also flat out denies that Matthew’s account is historically accurate. This is simply a rejection of the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. It is a denial of divine revelation and the Catholic faith. It’s time for people to wake up and see this man for what he is and what he teaches. He utters this massive heresy simply because, as his book makes clear, he desires to exonerate the Jews.

Pope Leo XIII, Proventissimus Deus (#20-21), Nov. 18, 1893: “For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."(57) Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write--He was so present to them--that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers… 21. It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error.”

Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus (#22), Sept. 15, 1920: “Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are - no less than are the aforementioned critics - out of harmony with the Church's teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other Fathers.”


Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 76: “Q. In the beginning the earth was bare and empty; God had not yet made it rain, is what it says in Genesis. Then God fashioned man, and for this purpose he took ‘dust from the field and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; thus man became a living creature.’ The breath of life – is that the answer to the question of where we come from? A. I think we have here a most important image, which presents a significant understanding of what man is. It suggests that man is one who springs from the earth and its possibilities. We can even read into this representation something like evolution.”[72]


Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, p. 152: “If someone has deep-seated homosexual inclinations – and it is still an open question whether these inclinations are really innate or whether they arise in early childhood – if, in any case, they have power over him, this is a great trial for him, just as other trials can afflict other people as well.”

Innate means “inborn.” He is saying that some people might be born as homosexuals. This contradicts biblical teaching on the unnatural abomination of homosexuality (see Romans 1).


Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, pp. 168-169: “… an eventual decision on the case of Jesus… John tells us that the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together. These were the two leading groups within Judaism at the time of Jesus, and on many points they were opposed to one another. But their common fear was this: ‘The Romans will come and destroy both our holy place [that is, the Temple, the holy place for divine worship] and our nation’ (11:48). One is tempted to say that the motive for acting against Jesus was a political concern shared by the priestly aristocracy and the Pharisees, though they arrived at it from different starting points… Nevertheless, we must not be too hasty in condemning the ‘purely political’ outlook of his opponents. For in the world they inhabited, the two spheres – political and religious – were inseparable.”

Benedict XVI clearly attempts to exonerate those who were responsible for the death of Christ (i.e., the Jews).

Acts 3:12-19: “But Peter seeing, made answer to the people: Ye men of Israel, why wonder you at this? or why look you upon us, as if by our strength or power we had made this man to walk?... But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you. But the author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses… But those things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”

The Errors of Peter Abelard, Condemned by Innocent II, July 16, 1140, #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” – Condemned statement.


Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, pp. 184-185: “Now we must ask: Who exactly were Jesus’ accusers? Who insisted that he be condemned to death? We must take note of the different answers that the Gospels give to the question. According to John it was simply ‘the Jews’. But John’s use of the expression does not in any way indicate – as the modern reader might suppose – the people of Israel in general, even less is it ‘racist’ in character… In John’s Gospel this word has a precise and clearly defined meaning: he is referring to the Temple aristocracy.”

This is another concerted effort on the part of Antipope Benedict XVI – the man who wears the Jewish Star of David on his mitre – to rewrite the Gospel and excuse the Jews. His incessant teaching in favor of the Jews is consistent with one who leads the Jewish Counter Church of the Antichrist. Divine revelation, however, is clear that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-15: “For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men…”

Acts 10:39: “And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree.”

Acts 2:5, 22-23, 37-38: “Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven… Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain… Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Benedict XVI admits that in Mark’s Gospel, the “circle of accusers” is broadened. However, he (of course) still finds a way not to blame the Jews.

Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, p. 185: “In Mark’s Gospel the circle of accusers is broadened in the context of the Passover amnesty (Barabbas or Jesus): the ‘ochlos’ enters the scene and opts for the release of Barabbas. ‘Ochlos’ in the first instance simply means a crowd of people, the ‘masses’. The word frequently has a pejorative connotation, meaning ‘mob’. In any event, it does not refer to the Jewish people as such.”


Based on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that it is necessary for salvation to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.

John 8:23-24: “… for if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith… it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ... the Son of God is God and man...”[2]

The Catholic Church also teaches infallibly that the Old Covenant ceased with the coming of Christ, and was replaced with the New Covenant. The Council of Florence taught that those who practice the Old Law and the Jewish religion are sinning mortally and are “alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”[3]

In 2001, however, 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...”[4]

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…”[5]

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.

Benedict XVI teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the Messiah

Benedict XVI teaches the same denial of Jesus Christ in a number of his books:

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts… There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”[6]

Benedict XVI says that there are perfectly good reasons for not believing that the Old Testament refers to Christ as the prophesied Messiah. He says that the Old Testament doesn’t point unequivocally to Our Lord as the Messiah. This is another total denial of the Christian Faith.

What makes this apostasy all the more outrageous is the fact that the New Testament is filled with passages which declare that Our Lord is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. To quote just one passage of many, in John 5 Our Lord specifically tells the Jews that what is written in the Old Testament concerning Him will convict them.

John 5:39, 45-47 – “Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of methe one who will accuse you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me.”

But, according to Benedict XVI, all of these Biblical declarations that Our Lord is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, including Our Lord’s own words, may be false. According to Benedict XVI, the Jewish reading that Our Lord is not the Messiah, not the Son of God, and not foretold in the Old Testament, is possible and valid. This is totally heretical, apostate and antichrist.

Benedict XVI also denies Jesus Christ in his book Milestones:

Benedict XVI, Milestones, 1998, pages 53-54: “I have ever more come to the realization that Judaismand the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel’s Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways…”[7]

Benedict XVI again declares that Scripture is open to holding the Jewish view of Jesus, that Jesus is not the Son of God. This is precisely why Benedict XVI repeatedly teaches the heresy that Jews don’t need to believe in Christ for salvation.

Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”[8]

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, pages 150-151: “…their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation…”[9]

This is a total rejection of Catholic dogma. It is heresy, blasphemy and apostasy. The destruction of the Jewish Temple and the end of its cult signified that Judaism is dead. The Messiah had come. All true Jews were to be incorporated into the universal covenant of the Savior. There is no future or re-discovery for Judaism after the destruction of the Temple. It’s over and finished; it has passed into the Church.

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 comingceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#’s 29-30), June 29, 1943: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished… on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [Eph. 2:15]… establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ‘To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’ On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death…”


Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 43: “The conflict over infant baptism shows the extent to which we have lost sight of the true nature of faith, baptism and membership in the Church… It is obvious also that the meaning of baptism is destroyed wherever it is no longer understood as an anticipatory gift but only as a self-contained rite. Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, baptism loses its raison d’etre [its reason to be].”[65]

This is an incredible, astounding and gigantic heresy! Benedict XVI says that wherever baptism is severed from the catechumenate – for example, in infant baptism – it loses its reason to be. Infant baptism has no meaning or purpose, according to Benedict XVI. That is why in his book God and the World, Benedict XVI REJECTS THE NECESSITY OF INFANT BAPTISM AS “UNENLIGHTENED.”

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 401: “Q. …what happens to the millions of children who are killed in their mothers’ wombs? A. …the question about children who could not be baptized because they were aborted then presses upon us that much more urgently. Earlier ages had devised a teaching that seems to me rather unenlightened. They said that baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God. Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to Hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable.”[66]

He says that earlier ages “had devised” (not received from Christ) the teaching about the necessity of baptizing infants for them to attain sanctifying grace. He says that this teaching is “unenlightened”! This is gross heresy. It was infallibly defined by the Councils of Florence and Trent that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that infants who die without the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be saved.

Some may wonder why, then, Ratzinger practices infant baptism? It’s because he sees no problem practicing and going through the motions with something that, to him, has no meaning or purpose. In the same way, he poses as “the pope” even though he doesn’t even believe in the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the popes, as proven already. In the same way, he poses as the head of the Church of Jesus Christ when he doesn’t even believe that Jesus Christ is necessarily the Messiah, as proven already.

Benedict XVI also denies that the Papacy was even held in the first millennium and tells us that this is why we cannot bind the schismatics to believe in it!

Benedict XVI with schismatic Patriarch Mesrob II, rejecter of the Papacy and head of the Turkish Armenian schismatic Orthodox sect

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 198-199: “… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”[23]

This is another astounding major heresy against the Papacy and Vatican I. Benedict XVI again says that the schismatic position of the non-Catholic Patriarch Athenagoras, which rejects the Papacy and merely acknowledges the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter with a primacy of honor BUT NOT OF SUPREME JURISDICTION, is sufficient. Further, Benedict XVI says that the reason we cannot expect the “Orthodox” to believe in the Papacy (the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the popes, not just a primacy of honor) is because it wasn’t even held in the first millennium (according to him)! Therefore, Benedict XVI holds that the primacy of supreme jurisdiction conferred by Jesus Christ upon St. Peter and his successors is just a fiction, an invention of later ages, not held in the early Church. He says that the schismatic position of Athenagoras – holding that the successor of St. Peter possesses a mere primacy of honor – is “the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium” and that “Rome need not ask for more”! Notice how directly Benedict XVI denies Vatican I, which defined that in all ages the primacy of jurisdiction was recognized:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “Surely no one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ Himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.”[24]

Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) totally rejects this dogma and the entire Catholic Faith.

Moving back to Benedict XVI’s heretical teaching that non-Catholics are not bound to believe in the Papacy, this has also been taught by Benedict XVI’s Prefect for Promoting Christian Unity, “Cardinal” Walter Kasper.

“Cardinal” Walter Kasper: “… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”[25]

Kasper’s statement is so heretical that even many of the defenders of Benedict XVI have labeled Kasper a heretic. But as we’ve seen, Benedict XVI believes the exact same thing. In the following quote, we see that Benedict XVI uses basically the exact same words as Kasper in rejecting Catholic dogma!

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”[26]


What we have seen thus far proves many times over that Benedict XVI rejects the defined dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation. Benedict XVI holds that we shouldn’t even convert heretics and schismatics. But here are some more examples of heresy where Benedict XVI specifically addresses and denies this crucial dogma.


Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 24: “Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”[102]

The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church. Benedict XVI teaches that there is undoubtedly salvation outside the Church on a large scale. This is a bold rejection of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.


Benedict XVI, Truth and Tolerance, 2004, p. 207: “The fact that in every age there have been, and still are, ‘pagan saints’ is because everywhere and in every age – albeit often with difficulty and in fragmentary fashion – the speech of the ‘heart’ can be heard, because God’s Torah may be heard within ourselves...”[103]

This is bold heresy. Remember, Pope Eugene IV infallibly defined that all who die as “pagans” are not saved.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “…all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life…”[104]


Benedict XVI, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 217: “The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality; why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation, it should be required of us to bear day after day the whole burden of ecclesial dogmas and of the ecclesial ethos. And so we come again to the question: What exactly is Christian reality? What is the specific element in Christianity that not merely justifies it, but makes it compulsorily necessary for us? When we raise the question about the foundation and meaning of our Christian existence, there slips in a certain false hankering for the apparently more comfortable life of other people who are also going to heaven. We are too much like the laborers of the first hour in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16). Once they discovered that they could have earned their day’s pay of one denarius in a much easier way, they could not understand why they had had to labor the whole day. But what a strange attitude it is to find the duties of our Christian life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be gained without them! It would seem that we – like the workers of the first hour – want to be paid not only with our own salvation, but more particularly with others’ lack of salvation. That is at once very human and profoundly un-Christian.”[105]

Benedict XVI asks that all-important question: Why is it necessary to practice the Christian Faith if there are other ways to salvation? Benedict XVI answers the question by admitting that there are many other ways besides the Christian Faith that lead to salvation. He even criticizes people for asking such a question.

Benedict XVI has bluntly rejected a revealed truth of the Catholic Faith: Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under Heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”[106]


Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 29: “… in all religions there are men of interior purity who through their myths somehow touch the great mystery and find the right way of being human.”[107]

This is totally heretical.



Benedict XVI, Feast of Faith, 1981, p. 130: “The Council of Trent concludes its remarks on Corpus Christi with something which offends our ecumenical ears and has doubtless contributed not a little toward discrediting this feast in the opinion of our Protestant brethren. But if we purge its formulation of the passionate tone of the sixteenth century, we shall be surprised by something great and positive.”[108]

Benedict XVI says the Council of Trent’s infallible declaration “offends” his ecumenical ears and that its “formulation” needs to be “purged,” which means to make clean or rid of objectionable elements! This is totally heretical.


Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 247-248: “… [Talking about the Protestant versus Catholic views of the Priesthood] The Council of Trent did not attempt here a comprehensive treatment of the problem as a whole. Therein lies the weakness of the text it promulgated, the effect of which was all the more disastrous…”[109]


Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 100: “… the problem of tradition as it exists in the Church…The Church is tradition… into which – let us admit – much human pseudotradition has found its way; so much so, in fact, that even, and even precisely, the Church has contributed to the general crisis of tradition that afflicts mankind.”[110]

This is a repudiation of one of the two sources of Revelation, Sacred Tradition.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, ex cathedra: “…all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition…”[111]

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 378: “Not every valid Council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been just a waste of time.”[112]


Benedict XVI, In the Beginning, 1986, p. 72: “…Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin.’”[113]

The Council of Trent promulgated an infallible “Decree on Original Sin” in which it used the term “original sin” no fewer than four times.[114]


Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 326: “… Perhaps it will have to be admitted that the tendency to such a false development, which only sees the dangers of responsibility and no longer the freedom of love, is already present in the [Apostles’] Creed …’”[115]



Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabusAs a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected..."[116]

Benedict XVI could not be more formally heretical. He is admitting that Vatican II’s teaching (which he adheres to) is directly contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium in the Syllabus of Errors condemned by Pope Pius IX. We have shown that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty contradicts traditional Catholic teaching. Benedict XVI just admitted it. One could hardly ask for more of a confirmation that the teaching of Vatican II is heretical. In his book, Benedict XVI repeats this again and again, calling the teaching of Vatican II “the countersyllabus,” and saying that there can be no return to the Syllabus of Errors.

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, the optimism of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the former one."[117]

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: "The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage."[118]

This is astounding heresy!



For those who don’t know, Hans Kung denies Papal Infallibility and the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, among other things.

Hans Kung

Hans Kung can correctly be described as an Arian, since he denies that Our Lord is of the same substance as the Father.

Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1996, pp. 95-96: “Q. And about Hans Kung’s path? I mean, he now hopes for a rehabilitation. A. … he [Hans Kung] has taken back nothing of his contestation of the papal office; indeed, he has further radicalized his positions. In Christology and in trinitarian theology he has further distanced himself from the faith of the Church. I respect his path, which he takes in accord with his conscience, but he should not then demand the Church’s seal of approval but should admit that in essential questions he has come to different, very personal decisions of his own.”[132]

Benedict XVI doesn’t merely say that he respects Hans Kung, which would be bad enough; he says that he respects his path – that is, the denial of Jesus Christ! This is total apostasy.


Benedict XVI, Address to ambassador of Spain, May 20, 2006: “The Church also insists on the inalienable right of individuals to profess their own religious faith without hindrance, both publicly and privately, as well as the right of parents to have their children receive an education that complies with their values and beliefs without explicit or implicit discrimination.”[134]

This is precisely the opposite of the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church condemns the very thing he said the Church insists! See for yourself how clearly opposed Benedict XVI’s teaching is to the dogmatic teaching of Pope Pius IX. Notice especially the underlined portion, and compare it to the teaching of Benedict XVI:

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “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; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY. But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”[135]

          Benedict XVI                    vs.               ex cathedra Catholic teaching

The Church also insists on the inalienable right of individuals to profess their own religious faith without hindrance, both publicly and privately


Francis’ Heresies on God

Francis has been making headlines ever since he was elected Antipope on March 13, 2013, and now he’s getting even more attention. “I believe in God, not in a Catholic God,” he said in an interview.

Antipope Francis, October 1, 2013: “And I believe in God. Not in a catholic God; a catholic God does not exist; God exists. And I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my master/teacher and pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?” Francis said in the interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

Bergoglio is a complete Modernist on top of an apostate and heretic. First, he says, “There is no Catholic God;” which is complete heresy; and then he says, “And I believe in Jesus Christ, his [Francis’ non-Catholic God’s] incarnation.” Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and is God, the Catholic God, He is the Incarnation of God and, as the Last Gospel makes clear, is God.

Francis then says, “God is my light, Jesus is my teacher. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?” Yes, Francis, we believe you are very far apart. In fact, you are as far apart from God the Father as Hell is from Heaven!

Francis is clearly on a mission to try to destroy anything Catholic. He doesn’t even believe in the Catholic God, let alone believing that the Catholic faith is necessary for salvation. Francis is a clear Modernist/Heretic/Apostate, like Martin Luther was a Lutheran and Arius was an Arian. And modernism is a condemned heresy just like Arianism or Luthernism.

Francis’ Heretical Teaching on Sin

Francis, Conversations, pp. 120-121: “I often say that the only glory we have, as Saint Paul says, is that of being sinners.”

Saint Paul doesn’t say this. This is outrageous.

Francis then goes on to say on the next page:

That’s why, for me, sin is not a stain I need to clean.” (Francis, Conversations, p. 122)

Francis – a question of sin

Francis, Conversations, p. 129: “… it is a problem of sin. For four years Argentina has been living a sinful existence because it has not taken responsibility for those who have no food or work.”

Notice that the only sin Francis speaks of is not giving people food or work; he says nothing about sins against God and God’s faith.

Antipope Francis, La Repubblica, October 1, 2013: “The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old. … This, to me, is the most urgent problem that the Church is facing.”

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.”

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.”

Francis respects regardless of beliefs

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 himnor 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 SpiritTherefore 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 manbut 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.”

Some may argue that when Francis continued in his Evangelii Gaudium, saying: “they [false religions, practices and beliefs] can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences” -- that this means they will be converted. But we already know he doesn’t believe the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, and that he rejects proselytizing atheists; so that is not what he means. He is just saying it could happen - “they can” - not that it will, which is why he said: they can be justified if they follow their conscience. And then he ended saying: “which can help us better to live our own beliefs.” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 254)

His position is of course, heresy and apostasy. He made a similar statement in an open letter to the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica.

Statements like this only confirm what we’ve documented about the Vatican II antipopes, and what was proven in the video “What Francis Really Believes.” I’ve read Francis’ entire letter. The headlines accurately reflect what Antipope Francis wrote in his Evangelii Gaudium.

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, but it gets even worse, because there are specific dogmatic definitions against the notion that atheists can be excused or saved.

Based on Romans 1:20, which teaches that all who deny the existence of God are inexcusable, Vatican I solemnly declared in Canon 1, On Revelation, “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.”

Therefore, the position that atheists can be excused for not recognizing what is clear from the natural light of human reason, namely, that there is a God, is an anathematized heresy.

In Canon 1, On God the Creator, Vatican I also declared, “If anyone shall have denied the one true God, Creator and Lord of visible and invisible things, let him be anathema.”

That means that anyone who denies God or His existence, is specifically anathematized.

Francis’ statements rejects these dogmatic definitions, in addition to all the others previously mentioned. People need to recognize the significance of this heresy.

The truth that one must have faith is a basic and fundamental teaching of Christianity. His statement that people can be saved without faith is equivalent to denying Jesus is God, that Mary is the Mother of God, or that Jesus rose again. They are all basic dogmas.

He has openly repudiated the teaching of Christianity, the necessity of faith. He is a complete heretic, not that more proof was required, but Francis’ statement in the interview, and later confirmed in his “Apostolic Exhortation” addressed to the “universal Church,” is another proof that he is not the pope, but a heretical non-Catholic antipope.

The organization he represents, the Vatican II sect, is not the Catholic Church, but the End Times Counter Church.

Francis’ Heretical Teaching on Homosexual “Civil Unions” and Homosexuality

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.

The Antonio Spadaro Interview

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.

Vatican Council I – A true Pope is Supreme Judge

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.

Pope St. Pius V, Horrendum Illud Scelus, August 30, 1568: “We establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.” (In Bullarium Romanum, Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

The Church calls homosexuals out of their wickedness and out of their perversion. It calls them to convert. But as they are, they are in a state of condemnation.

See the video “What Francis Really believes” and our website for more information about Francis’ apostasy and the true Catholic faith.

Related articles:

Free Videos
Free DVDs, Articles and Books