Tradition In Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices

Tradition in Action claims to be a traditional website "committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions" against the Vatican II Conciliar Church.

Tradition In Action Contradictions and Beliefs

Tradition In Action ( is a self-professed non-sedevacantist organization, meaning that they believe the Vatican II claimants are valid Popes. They also believe that sedevacantism is a "fundamental error" and claim sedevacantists believe "a Pope can do no wrong":

Dan O'Connell, writing for Tradition In Action on Sede-Vacantism?, Sept. 17, 2008: “First of all, what is sede-vacantism? As I understand it, the sede-vacantist is a Catholic who believes in all the rights and authority of the Papacy but does not believe that the man currently holding the title of Pope, His Holiness Benedict XVI, is really the Pope; he is fundamentally someone posing as the Pope, an impostor, although the rest of the world accepts the man as the Pope. Hence the Latin term sede-vacante, “the chair (of Peter) is vacant.” (...)

There is also a similarity between the sede-vacantist and what I'll call the Novus Ordo Conservative (NOC). They both make the same fundamental error. That being, that "a Pope can do no wrong." If it were true that a Pope can do no wrong it would mean a forfeiture of his free will. The sede-vacantist and the NOC both share this false premise - albeit they draw different conclusions. For example, the NOC is not bothered when a Pope kisses the Koran, or announces to the world that the UN is the last hope of mankind, or allows topless women on the altar as part of the liturgy, or is anointed by a pagan witch doctor, or leads Jews to believe they don't need to convert to be saved. The NOC will clap and applaud and shout yippee because he's the Pope and "a Pope can do no wrong."

The see of Peter would be empty...

On the other hand, the sede-vacantist, also believing “a Pope can do no wrong,” is understandably shocked by all of the above (all actual papal incidents) and knowing that these things are clearly against the Faith, draws the conclusion that since "a Pope can do no wrong" and he is doing this bad stuff, ergo he cannot really be the Pope.

The basic problem with the premise "a Pope can do no wrong" is that it denies the Pope's God-given free will. (...)

To go on, the sede-vacantist reasoning goes something like this: "If a Pope becomes a heretic he is no longer a Catholic; and if he is not a Catholic he automatically loses the office of Pope."

On the surface this logic may seem attractive, but it actually poses some problems that make it untenable. For example, let's say a Pope, orthodox in all ways, one morning wakes up and decides that the Eucharist is only bread and wine and not the actual Body and Blood of Christ. (...)

Let's say this Pope fully embraced this error in his mind and even told a priest, who was one of his aides, about this new (false) belief. So then what happens if the next day, he sees the error of his way, truly repents and again embraces the Church's teaching?

(…) He clearly held a false idea, publicly for approximately 24 hours. (...) Other than the aide nobody else in the world knew anything about it and the aide said it was forgotten. If he automatically loses the papal office at some unidentified moment, but then wholeheartedly repents, does he automatically regain the office or would he have to be re-elected? It's really very absurd.”

First of, in reality, sedevacantists do believe that a Pope can do much wrong and commit many mortal sins and even be damned. What sedevacantism really teaches, as opposed to what Dan O'Connell claimed we believe (as we will see further on), is that a valid Pope cannot commit heresy and remain Pope.

Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin. It means that the valid successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.

Second, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope (see the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio in the section "A HERETIC CANNOT BE A VALID POPE" further below) and that a heretic cannot remain inside the Church, since a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. The Vatican II claimants, therefore, are non-Catholic Antipopes whose election was utterly null and void.

Third, those who refuse to believe in the dogma that a heretic cannot be the Pope until they understand how there is justice or reason in it – or as Dan O'Connell put it: "It's really very absurd" – are simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s revelation. Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His teaching first (dogma) and understand the truth in it (i.e., why it is true) second. A Catholic does not withhold his belief in Christ’s revelation until he can understand it. That is the mentality of a faithless heretic who possesses insufferable pride. St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point.

St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.”

Fourth, a Pope must also obstinately embrace a heretical position in order to be a heretic, or knowingly contradict a teaching that he knows that the Church officially holds. Hence if a Pope is not obstinate in a false position that he holds and that is not well known and taught by the Church, he may be a material heretic (a Catholic erring in good faith), such as Pope John XXII was a material heretic when he held the false view that the just of the Old Testament don’t receive the Beatific Vision until after the General Judgment (and this false view of his was later infallibly rejected by the Church and condemned as a heresy after he died, although the Pope was not obstinate nor condemned himself during his life).

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

Fifth, since it’s already a settled issue based on the Church’s dogma that a heretic cannot remain or be validly elected Pope, the question of when a Pope who fell into heresy would become Pope again after he lost his office and converted would be irrelevant. But in trying to answer this question, it could logically be explained by the fact, presupposing the pope has converted and is Catholic, that when his subjects confirm him as their lawful pope: they are validating his reinstated office and that he is their pope.

Sixth, it is also possible that God might prevent a specific pope from falling into occult or formal heresy by either allowing an orthodox pope to be elected instead or by ending the life of the pope or pope elect who would or was about to fall into some heresy in order to protect His Church (as He promised He would do).

Seventh, the article went on to compare the office of high priest with the office of the papacy. But the office of the High Priesthood in the old law is not analogous with the papacy in the new law. They are extraordinarily different. And really, the Church’s dogmas has already settled this question when it defined infallibly that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope or remain pope or be a member of the Church so the argument of the office of high priest with the office of the papacy is really irrelevant and not to the point.

When Does a Heretical Pope Become an Invalid Pope?

The Tradition In Action website further endorses the following response to a statement on their website:

A.S. Guimarães, writing for Tradition In Action on When Does a Heretical Pope Become an Invalid Pope?:

“In considering when an authority loses its validity, one is dealing with a social-political problem. Since the Church is a visible society, for an authority to lose its validity, the error that causes such loss must be known and rejected by a considerable number of its members or the more influential. (...)

Summarizing our position:

  • When a Pope becomes a pertinacious heretic, God knows it. Therefore, he loses the pontificate before God. He becomes an illegitimate Pope.

  • However, given that he has all the appearances of a Pope – duly elected by a College of Cardinals, followed by a hierarchy of Bishops, and accepted by the Church as such – he is still a valid or a de facto Pope. To stop being a valid Pope, a considerable part of the members of this visible society called the Catholic Church should resist his authority and make it inefficacious.
  • This is what occurs to me at the moment to explain how our position of resistance is correct. Only by uniting all traditionalists in this position will we be effective. In passing, it is sad to notice that those who are dividing our ranks are unconsciously perpetuating the validity of the progressivist authority they pretend to oppose.”

    The following is an email I sent to Tradition In Action in order to properly understand what their current position is on the Vatican II claimants since contradictive information was found on their website and on other sedevacantist or traditional websites[1]:

    Do you accept the Vatican II claimants as valid "popes" or as Catholic?

    Some information seem to be contradictive. You admit in one newer article that one is automatically excommunicated for heresy (on Muller:

    Yet throughout your website you call these automatically excommunicated heretics as popes and valid and that "they still remain valid authorities of the Church until a new Pope will declare their heresy, or until the ensemble of the faithful will make their authority lose its effectiveness." (

    What's worse, you even listed an email denouncing your position of viewing the antipopes as valid or Catholic in the "Hate mail"[2] (...)

    So what exactly do you believe. Are they non-Catholic automatically excommunicated heretics and hence lost their office for heresy and are therefore antipopes (e.g., John XXIII, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis I) or do they "still remain valid authorities of the Church until a new Pope will declare their heresy, or until the ensemble of the faithful will make their authority lose its effectiveness."

    Please answer. (...)

    [1]. Novus Ordo Watch, Tradition in Action Gets It Wrong Again on Public Heretics: "[UPDATE 6/28/13: Tradition In Action has corrected and apologized for the errors they published regarding automatic excommunication: SEE HERE. We gladly and gratefully accept this apology and retraction and hope that they will do the same regarding the question of loss of office due to public defection from the Faith...]"

    Most Holy Family Monastery, Why would you say that John Vennari is a heretic?: "There is a very specific and very simple answer to this question. Every honest person will agree with this, since it is an undeniable fact. John Vennari holds that one can reject the Catholic Faith and still be a Catholic. Here’s the proof:

    John Vennari, Catholic Family News, “Father Ratzinger’s Denial of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus,” July 2005, Editor’s Postscript, p. 11: “This is not the first time Father Ratzinger denied the dogma ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’. In his 1966 book Theological Highlights of Vatican II, which was a commentary on the Second Vatican Council, Father Ratzinger rejoices that the true teaching of the Council document Lumen Gentium, according to the minds of the progressivists who drafted the document, (Ratzinger was one of them) was that conversion is now an option for the non-Catholic, not an obligation. He writes: ‘…A basic unity – of churches that remain churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.’ Cardinal Ratzinger admitted on numerous occasions that he had not changed since the time of the Council when he wrote these heterodox statements. In 1984, Ratzinger said that since the Council he ‘has not changed.’”

    John Vennari fully admits that Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) has rejected the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation for years and still rejects it. Yet, he holds that Ratzinger is a Catholic. It is a fact, therefore, that John Vennari holds that one can reject the Catholic Faith and still be a Catholic. John Vennari is a complete heretic and is not a Catholic. The same applies to “Tradition in Action,” who wrote the article entitled “Father Ratzinger’s Denial of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus” yet still holds that he is a Catholic. By continually admitting that people whom they still regard as Catholics reject Catholic dogma, they are simply mocking and denying the necessity of accepting Catholic dogma to be part of the Church.

    The truth is that Ratzinger does reject Catholic dogma and is therefore not a Catholic.

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic."

    [2]. "Anti-Pope John Paul II was excommunicated! If you support and believe that he is the Pope[3], then it is known that you do not understand the Catholic Faith!

    1917 Catholic Canon Law and Infallible Bull and Encyc. state that a catholic who teaches the heresies that JP II makes is excommunicated and a warlock! If you are still holding on to any heresy you will have no Hope of salvation at Judgment Day. The Mass was taken away, besides one must hold the Faith in totem before ever attending a Mass. The V2 does exactly what the Luthers do, and that is they have a meal or snack! Christ is NOT present in nor at these evil happenings. The only person that is in Holy Mother Church is one who obeys Her commandments!

    Abjure your heresy and denounce the last 5 Anti-Christ poser Popes and come back to the One Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church. (...)"

    [3]. Tradition In Action, "An honest presentation of some of the unusual activities of the post-Vatican II Popes..." :

    "The conduct of the last four Popes should be, in our judgement, a matter of concern for the faithful. It is all the more important and crucial for our times since His Holiness John Paul II has actually spoken of changing the face of the Papacy in his 1995 Encyclical Ut unum sint. It would seem that part of what he would like to change is already being applied by way of the facts. If this is true, one who analyzes the unusual things that are taking place has already seen some of the principle previews of the future papacy.

    "The principles that are orienting the Papcy today seem to be frontally opposed to the principles that previously oriented the Papacy. This change has been qualified as a revolution. Such a revolution in the Papcy seems to exceed the limits of the authority of a Pope. For this reason, the authors are against it.

    The authors, therefore, are releasing a photo-book to prove their thesis."

    (From the Introduction of "Previews of the New Papacy", By Atila Sinke Guimarães & Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D.)

    By the way, Francis’ encyclical Evangelii Gaudium contains numerous clear heresies, such as the heresy that “the followers of Islam… together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 252) and that “Non-Christians [such as atheists and pagans], by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 254). Concerning the Jews, Francis says: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked [i.e., Francis says that the Jewish Old Covenant that awaited the Messiah is still valid even though the Messiah has already come and the New Covenant taken its place]… As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols [false gods] and to serve the true God [i.e., Francis says Jews are not to be considered to be as those who turn from false gods in order to serve the true God Jesus Christ and the Trinity since he already believes they serve the true God!]… With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 247)

    Further, in his Apostolic Exhortation, “Evangelii Gaudium,” Francis professes that it’s admirable for Muslims to participate in daily Islamic prayers and religious services (252). He professes that non-Christians are justified by the grace of God (254), directly contrary to the Catholic profession of faith and Catholic dogma that only Christians, that is, those with the catholic faith can be justified. And, (254) of that document, Francis also speaks of non-Christian rites, signs and expressions, in other words, the false beliefs and wicked practices of non-Christian and pagan religions, as “God’s working” and things which “the Holy Spirit raises up.” And in his encyclical “Evangelii Gaudium” (255), Francis also professes that Religious Freedom, whereby everyone has the right to promote any religious view in public, is to be viewed a fundamental human right: “the importance of respect for religious freedom, viewed as a fundamental human right. This includes “the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 255).

    See: Antipope Francis’ Heresies, The Apocalypse & The End of the World

    Tradition In Action and their Posting of Mortally Sinful Inducing, Immoral Images

    It has come to our attention that the Tradition In Action website frequently post mortally sinful inducing and incident images and that they even damnably defend themselves while doing this – all to the destruction of souls and of morals and the offense of God. In truth, every person who has been led to commit the mortal sin of lust and adultery in their hearts through their website will rightly and justly demand that God executes his righteous vengeance on them on the day of judgment since they tempted them into lustful thoughts! This same judgment of course applies to any possible venial sin committed and all other temptations that has been aroused in others because of their evil and satanic postings.

    The following is an email that someone sent to “Tradition In Action” in order to get them to remove indecent photos:

    Remove Indecent Photos!


    Regarding the photo on your website at the link Benedict's Fans Tattoo their Lower Backs:

    What were you thinking? That photo is obviously indecent and should not have been put on your site. Talk about undermining your credibility.

    That the same site that publishes all the material by Marian Horvat relating to proper manners, decorum, dress, morals, etc. would publish such an inappropriate photograph defies logic.

    My hope is that this is just a temporary lapse of prudence.


    Tradition In Action responds:


    Thank you for the good lesson on morals. It is always edifying to see a person duly concerned about morality in such a filthy century like ours.

    TIA has affirmed Catholic Morals on every possible occasion. A brief visit to our pages on Morals, Catholic Virtues and Forgotten Truths, along with the pages on good customs, formation and manners that you mentioned suffices to prove this.

    When we expose indecent procedures of the conciliar Popes, progressivist Bishops and clergy, we do so not to indulge in any licentiousness, as you seem to suppose. We do so to prove how complacent these religious authorities have become with immorality. In short, we expose those authorities to resist them and to invite others to a healthy resistance.

    We believe that this is an effective way to fight Progressivism. We give you a practical example: Some years ago, we placed various photos of John Paul II with naked natives on our site. We received complaints that those photos were too graphic. We left them posted to show who JPII was. Today, many people on the internet are familiar with those photos and are vaccinated not to accept JPII as a blessed (here and here), as Benedict XVI will impose upon all Catholics on May 1, if God does not prevent him from doing so.

    Now, if we were to follow the advice of persons like you, our readers would not be prepared to defend themselves against this great fraud - the pretended sanctity of Pope Woytyla. So, those who asked us to take off those photos, conscious or unconsciously, were trying to cover for Wojtyla’s scandals.

    When a lawyer in a courtroom describes details of the sexual humiliation suffered by a victim of a pedophile priest, he is not doing so to promote immorality or induce the members of the jury to sin. He is showing the terrible extent of the crime and asking for justice. If someone in the name of morality would try to stop the lawyer from exposing those excesses, he could well be suspected of complicity by covering for the guilty priest.

    This is our simple logic: In order to protect the morality we love, we expose the excesses of immorality tacit or explicitly approved by the religious authorities who should be safeguarding Catholic Morals.

    In the specific case of those photos you mentioned, we are showing the great complacency of the religious authorities who organize WYDs and allow those manifestations of support for Benedict XVI.

    So, if you do not have an agenda and are sincere in your complaint, but cannot see those pictures without having problems of purity, please, do not look at those photos. They are indeed strong. However, if you can transcend those problems, you will witness the extreme moral abyss into which Progressivism has dragged the Catholic Church. You will be invited to follow the passion of our Holy Mother Church and fight for her.

    We hope this elucidation may calm your indignant concerns.


    TIA correspondence desk

    This is totally evil. The Catholic Church based on Sacred Scripture and the Natural Law infallibly condemns immorality and the exposing of it to both young and old alike.

    Matthew 18:6: “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

    Luke 17:1-2: “And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals [that is, temptations or encouragements to sin] should not come: but woe to him through whom they come. It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.”

    As we can see here, Jesus says that it’s better to be drowned in the depths of the sea than to give “scandal” to anyone. Yet “Tradition In Action” does the exact opposite and (obstinately so) gives to all people that are visiting their website a direct cause for “scandal” and an occasion of falling into sin through the immoral, evil and sensual images that they permit and allows to be displayed there and, what is even worse, they do this even after they have been told not to do so and they even defend themselves!

    Pope Leo XIII, Exeunte iam anno (# 10), Dec. 25, 1888: “Now the whole essence of a Christian life is to reject the corruption of the world and to oppose constantly any indulgence in it…”

    For instance, Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Divini illius magistri specifically condemned sex education. In doing so, he pointed out that it’s not ignorance of such things which lead to sins in this regard, but rather exposure to such enticements.

    Pope Pius XI, Divini illius magistri, Dec. 31, 1931: “But much more pernicious are those opinions and teachings regarding the following of nature absolutely as a guide. These enter upon a certain phase of human education which is full of difficulties, namely, that which has to do with moral integrity and chastity. For here and there a great many foolishly and dangerously hold and advance the method of education, WHICH IS DISGUSTINGLY CALLED ‘SEXUAL,’ since they foolishly feel that they can, by merely natural means, after discarding every religious and pious aid, warn youth against sensuality and excess, by initiating and instructing all of them, without distinction of sex, even publicly, in hazardous doctrines; and what is worse, by exposing them prematurely to the occasions, in order that their minds having become accustomed, as they say, may grow hardened to the dangers of puberty.

    “But in this such persons gravely err, because they do not take into account the inborn weakness of human nature, and that law planted within our members, which, to use the words of the Apostle Paul, ‘fights against the law of my mind’ (Rom. 7:23); and besides, they rashly deny what we have learned from daily experience, that young people certainly more than others fall into disgraceful acts, not so much because of an imperfect knowledge of the intellect as because of a will exposed to enticements and unsupported by divine assistance.”

    In blatant disregard of this teaching of the Natural Law and Sacred Scripture, indecent pictures, including graphic ones (such as women dressed in bikinis!), are shown all over the Tradition In Action’s website, thus corrupting the innocence of children, youths and adults alike from their earliest years to their oldest. In fact, it would be a gross understatement to merely call these images “immoral.”

    Moreover, the Council of Trullo and Council of Trent both condemned the use and display of immodest paintings. This of course condemns even more any immodest photos (it is very sad that the Latin Church didn’t follow up very well on this moral dogmatic law with the almost innumerable immodest and evil paintings and statues found in religious houses throughout the world).

    Council of Trullo, Canon 100, A.D. 692: “‘Let thine eyes look aright, and keep thy heart with all diligence’ (Prov. 4:25 and 23), wisdom bids us. For the sensations of the body can easily foist their influence upon the soul. We therefore command that henceforth in no way whatever shall any pictures be drawn, painted, or otherwise wrought, whether in frames or otherwise hung up, that appeal to the eye fascinatingly, and corrupt the mind, and excite inflammatory urgings to the enjoyment of shameful pleasures. If anyone should attempt to do this, let him be excommunicated.”

    Concil of Trent, Sesssion 25, December 3d and 4th, 1563, On Sacred Images: “And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod ardently desires that they be utterly abolished; in such wise that no images, (suggestive) of false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up. … Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness. In fine, let so great care and diligence be used herein by bishops, as that there be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God.”

    Despite this, that so much immoral and naked religious images and statues have been made, spread and depicted even in churches! during the last 700 years (or more) is undoubtedly a sign of the gradual falling away from God and the corruption of morals within and without the Church by the people, and indicates why God ultimately abandoned it (the Church) to what it is has become today.

    It is clearly a mortal sin and against God’s law to knowingly post and lead others to lascivious images. For who but a satanically, perverted and evil mind would knowingly put himself and others into possible mortal sin (or even venial sin) of impurity and adultery against their own soul, and the all good God? A person who obstinately posts such images definitely commits mortal sin (and if they have been rebuked they have even less reason for excuse) not only for putting himself in totally unnecessary temptations and for beholding what is not lawful for him to behold, but also for tempting his neighbor and for exposing him to behold what is not lawful for him to behold.

    St. Alphonsus Liguori writes the following concerning this:

    But I do not see how looks at young persons of a different sex can be excused from the guilt of a venial fault, or even from mortal sin, when there is proximate danger of criminal consent. "It is not lawful," says [Pope] St. Gregory, "to behold what it is not lawful to covet." The evil thought which proceeds from looks, though it should be rejected, never fails to leave a stain upon the soul.” (The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

    “Brother Roger, a Franciscan of singular purity, being once asked why he was so reserved in his intercourse with women, replied, that when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

    Instead of posting and watching evil images (or films) of immodestly clothed women that are not lawful to behold, one can describe what this is about in modest terms in text format if one already knows what it is about, but one cannot actually post the images themselves, or search for them, because the Catholic Church and God himself infallibly condemns anyone that knowingly puts himself in unnecessary temptations and occasions of falling into sin, even if the motive seem “necessary” or “praiseworthy” (see below). I fear many people browse such kind of “religious” sites as Tradition In Action’s images section because they are perverts and have an “excuse” for beholding and secretly delighting in what is not lawful for them to behold.

    They said, if you “cannot see those pictures without having problems of purity, please, do not look at those photos. They are indeed strong.” So the photos are strong and induce impurity in people, and yet they post them for all their visitors to see to the destruction of their souls and the offense of God? This is evil. It is nothing less than demonic and a crime worthy of hellfire.

    Whatever warnings they make, since people are evil and sinful, when such incitements is brought before them, many will watch it despite their “warning” and especially so when it is disguised behind some “religious” motive... (you see, if you watched it and even posted it for us, why can we not watch it?) Do you see what kind of evil example this gives to others? Also, since their postings appear on the internet and any one on any site can link to their articles and pictures, many people can unknowingly enter their site or see their pictures without knowing the graphic content. And that is another reason why it is forbidden to post immodest images for any reason.

    That one must avoid the proximate occasion of sin in order to be Saved and receive Forgiveness of one’s sins from God is a certain fact of the Natural and Divine law that has always been taught by the Church and Her Saints. For instance, Blessed Pope Innocent XI during his papacy, condemned three propositions that denied this truth:

    Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #61, March 4, 1679: “He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

    Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #62, March 4, 1679: “The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

    Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #63, March 4, 1679: “It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

    Also, one may never commit evil that good may come:

    Romans 3:7-8: “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner? And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just.”

    St. Augustine, To Consentius, Against Lying: “Let us do evil that good may come? A thing which you see how the Apostle detests.”

    St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Q. 84, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 5: “That a man commit a sin with a good intention, seems to point to ignorance, in so far as he knows not that evil should not be done that good may come of it.”

    St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 64, Art. 5, Reply to Objection 3: “Again it is not lawful for anyone to take his own life for fear he should consent to sin, because “evil must not be done that good may come” (Romans 3:8) or that evil may be avoided especially if the evil be of small account and an uncertain event, for it is uncertain whether one will at some future time consent to a sin, since God is able to deliver man from sin under any temptation whatever.”

    Now, those who believe that it is permissible to post evil images are evidently blind to this Catholic truth, because most assuredly, they are encouraging themselves and other men and women to sin mortally.

    So these quotes directly condemns Tradition In Action’s evil “excuses” for continuing to post such evil, filthy images to the direct offense of God—whom they claim to worship—and the harm of souls. They said:

    Some years ago, we placed various photos of John Paul II with naked natives on our site. We received complaints that those photos were too graphic. We left them posted to show who JPII was. Today, many people on the internet are familiar with those photos and are vaccinated not to accept JPII as a blessed...

    Now, if we were to follow the advice of persons like you, our readers would not be prepared to defend themselves against this great fraud - the pretended sanctity of Pope Woytyla....

    This is our simple logic: In order to protect the morality we love, we expose the excesses of immorality tacit or explicitly approved by the religious authorities who should be safeguarding Catholic Morals....

    So, if you do not have an agenda and are sincere in your complaint, but cannot see those pictures without having problems of purity, please, do not look at those photos. They are indeed strong. However, if you can transcend those problems, you will witness the extreme moral abyss into which Progressivism has dragged the Catholic Church. You will be invited to follow the passion of our Holy Mother Church and fight for her.

    This is just satanic. It is evil excuses for perverts and that is only approved by perverts. Also, as we will see below, not to be disturbed by immodest images or sexual temptations can many times be a very bad sign (and not something good). Not that one is excused to watch or post such images anyway just because one “fools” oneself into thinking that one does not get affected by them (just as if that would excuse putting others into temptations and mortal sin). And only a liar would say that he does not get affected by graphic and strong sensual, suggestive images, for unless the lust of the flesh is completely dead in him—which is not to be expected by anyone in today’s evil and morally perverted society—he will obviously get affected and harden his heart and commit sin and offend God, however much he want to deny this truth.

    According to one such story found in the Life of the Holy Fathers it is explained how those people who, being already owned by the devil in other ways, may not even be tempted much by him with sexual temptations or imaginations, since, being already his own, he leaves them alone. Also, according to the same text, “those who are freed from [impure] thoughts are those who have moved into [sinful] deeds”. But if this is true with only thoughts, how much more true when actually viewing impure images? Hence if these people (such as Tradition In Action) were more troubled with sexual temptations, one should think that they would be more on their guard and be more careful about themselves and of falling and exposing themselves (and others) into this sin. But since the devil don’t want evil people to be on their guard and that they should continue giving others a bad example, he sometimes leaves off tempting them.

    Life of the Holy Fathers, Book 5, On Sexual Temptation: “There was a certain brother who was most zealous in ordering his life. And when he was grievously troubled by the demon of sex he went to a certain old man and told him his thoughts. When this “expert” heard, he was indignant and called the brother a miserable wretch unworthy of the monk's habit to entertain such thoughts. The brother, hearing this, despaired of himself, left his cell and began to go back to the world. But by the mercy of God, abba Apollo met him, and seeing that he was upset and unhappy he asked him, "Brother, why so sad?" In great confusion of mind he was at first unwilling to answer, but in the face of much questioning by the old man as to what the matter was he at last confessed, saying, "I am bothered by thoughts of sex, and I confessed to that old man and according to him there is no hope of salvation for me, so in despair I'm going back to the world." When father Apollo heard this he talked and reasoned with him like a wise physician, saying, "Don't be too dumbfounded, or despairing of yourself. Even at my age and state of life I can be greatly troubled by thoughts such as these. Don't collapse in this time of testing; it can be cured not so much by human advice as by the mercy of God. But just for today grant me one request: go back to your cell." This the brother did. Abba Apollo however hastened to the cell of that old man who had sown despair and standing outside prayed the Lord, "Lord, who allows us to be tempted for our good, [temptations often leads us to avoid putting ourselves in the proximate danger of falling] turn the battle which this brother has suffered against this old man, that in his old age he may learn from experience what he didn't learn long since, that you must have compassion on those who are troubled by this sort of temptation."

    Having completed his prayer he saw an Ethiopian standing by the cell casting arrows against this old man, who, severely wounded, began to stagger about here and there as if drunk with wine. Unable to bear it any longer he rushed out of the cell and began to return to the world by the same road as the young brother had taken. But abba Apollo, knowing what was happening, met him, and running up to him asked, "Where are you going? And what is the reason for the agitated state you are in?" But he, sensing that the holy man knew all about what was happening, could say nothing for very shame. "Go back to your cell," said abba Apollo, "and acknowledge your own weakness, recognise it as part of yourself. For either you have been overlooked by the devil up till now, or else despised as being so lacking in virtue as to be unworthy of striving against him. Did I say 'strife'? You weren't even able to put up with his attacks for a single day! But all this happened to you because when that young man was attacked by our common adversary, instead of giving him helpful advice against the devil as you ought, you drove him into despair, forgetful of that wise precept by which we are bidden to save those on a pathway towards death and neglect not to redeem the condemned (Proverbs 14). Nor have you heeded the sayings of our Saviour, 'A bruised reed he shall not break, and a smoking flax he shall not quench' (Matthew 12.20). No one can withstand the attacks of the enemy, or quench and contain the fire of rebellious nature, unless the grace of God comes to the aid of our natural infirmity, which in all our prayer we beg God in his mercy to heal in us, and that he may turn away from us the attacks launched against us, for it is of him that we are cast down and again restored to the way of salvation, it is he who strikes and then heals us with his hands, he humbles and exalts, he kills and makes alive, he leads us down to the depths and raises us up again" (1 Kings 2).

    “Having said this he prayed, and at once the old man was freed from that battle. And abba Apollo urged him to seek from the Lord a tongue of discretion, so that he might know when the time was right for giving a sermon.

    “V.v.5. Syrus Alexandrinus, when asked about sexual thoughts replied thus, "If you didn't have thoughts you would be a hopeless case, since those who are freed from thoughts are those who have moved into deeds, that is, those who have sinned in the body are the ones who have not fought against thoughts of sin, or turned them down. The one who sins in the body has gone beyond being troubled by thoughts." ”

    Concerning the same topic, see the following articles explaining why this is so:

    While many people would never post such images as “Tradition In Action” does, many nonetheless would have no problem or scruple about posting “less” immodest forms of pictures of both women and men immodestly dressed after the worlds fashion on their website or forum or link to these articles where such images are contained.

    In truth, if anyone obstinately posts any kind of immodesty at a website or a forum – such as by posting pictures that shows the so-called modern day women’s fashion that reveals the womanly figure by the wearing of pants and tight clothing in a revealing, sensual or immodest way – this would not only be immodest and immoral, but also completely evil and a mortal sin since such clothing has the direct and potential cause to incite a man’s lust and hence cause him – and all the visitors or viewers of that page – to commit the mortal sin of lust and adultery in their hearts.

    Matthew 5:28: “[Jesus said:] But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    Concerning immodest dress and worldly evil customs, St. Jean Eudes relates the following story:

    St. Jean Eudes, Priest and Missionary and Founder of the Congregation of Jesus and Mary: “But there is perhaps nothing more striking than what is reported by St. Jerome, one of the four great Doctors of Holy Church, and which took place during his lifetime, in a house which he knew perfectly and in regard to a Roman lady of high condition, named Praetextate. She was sister-in-law of St. Paula, the spiritual daughter of this great Saint. St. Paula wishing to quit the city of Rome, to visit the holy places in Judea which the Savior had hallowed by His presence, left her daughter Eustochium, who also wished to consecrate herself to God, in the care of her aunt, Praetextate. This latter wished to frustrate the designs of the pious Paula upon her daughter, and by the advice of her husband, obliged the young girl to lay aside her simple, modest dress and assume a more sumptuous one, at the same time compelling her to wear her hair according to the latest fashion and to paint her cheeks. A fearful chastisement overtook the worldly woman; for, on the night following, an Angel sent by God spoke to her thus: "Thou hast dared to prefer the command of thy husband to that of Jesus Christ, and with sacrilegious hands to adorn after a worldly fashion the head of this virgin of God. Behold the punishment of thy crime! Thy hands which have done this deed shall become withered, so that they will never more serve thee, and in five months from now thou shalt be cast into hell. And if thou shalt continue in thy wickedness, thy husband and all thy children shall likewise die." All of which, says St. Jerome, was accomplished to the letter, and, at the end of five months, the unhappy woman died suddenly, without giving any sign of repentance.”

    Our Lady of Fatima in the year 1917 also warned about the evils of modern day women’s fashion and about the sins of the flesh in deed and thought that is directly caused by this most evil sin:

    Our Lady of Fatima: “The sins of the world are too great! The sins which lead most souls to hell are sins of the flesh! Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much. Those who serve God should not follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same. Many marriages are not good; they do not please Our Lord and are not of God.”

    Yet according to modern-day “Catholics” who know nothing about the Catholic faith and the teachings of the saints, current modern-day fashion in which women dress like men or with revealing and tight clothing showing off their womanly form (even if modestly), is not offensive to God. Well, they are completely wrong.

    St. Clement of Alexandria, Father of the Church, On Clothes (c. 198 A.D.): “Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily, and adhering as it were to the flesh, receives its shape, and marks out the woman’s figure. As a result, the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, although they cannot see the body itself.” (The Instructor or The Paedagogus, Book II, Chapter XI)

    How did most Catholic women, and even pagans and infidels, dress before in time? The answer is that they all dressed more like how nuns are dressed, that is, they were using a long dress totally covering their behind, front and legs down to the ankle and up to the waist with no tight fitting, visible parts whatsoever below the waist. And above the waist were usually worn, not some insignificant, small, thin shirt or “covering” as most woman dress today showing of their whole womanly form, even if not revealing any flesh, but rather a significant, thick, long shirt that covers the womanly figure, the arms down to the wrist, shoulders and neck. Neither did these dresses or shirts end visibly at the waist, thus inviting curious immodest thoughts or revealing any flesh or worse as modern day shirts, dresses, skirts and pants do, but these skirts or dresses were usually one part of the whole dress, or worn in such a way as to invite no immodest thoughts. Such dresses are totally without guilt. Everything else will at least have some fault. In general, the more the clothing reveals flesh and the bodily form, the more sinful it becomes. Not only did most women dress in such a good way before in time, but most women, and especially the poorer, did not wear any makeup at all, and all women also wore a head covering in the Church, and a large portion of the women also wore it in everyday occasions.

    All the saints and fathers of the Church have of course unanimously condemned and opposed the evil use of makeup.

    St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, Father of the Church (De Habit. Virg.): “I hold that not only virgins and widows, but also wives and all women without exception, should be admonished that nowise should they deface God’s work and fabric, the clay that He has fashioned, with the aid of yellow pigments, black powders or rouge, or by applying any dye that alters the natural features. . . They lay hands on God, when they strive to reform what He has formed. This is an assault on the Divine handiwork, a distortion of the truth. Thou shalt not be able to see God, having no longer the eyes that God made, but those the devil has unmade; with him shalt thou burn on whose account thou art bedecked.” (Quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, in the Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 169, Art. 2)

    St. Anthony Mary Claret, Archbishop of Santiago and Missionary: “Now, observe, my daughter, the contrast between the luxurious dress of many women, and the raiment and adornments of Jesus… Tell me: what relation do their fine shoes bear to the spikes in Jesus’ Feet? The rings on their hands to the nails which perforated His? The fashionable coiffure to the Crown of Thorns? The painted face to That [of Jesus] covered with bruises? Shoulders exposed by the low-cut gown to His, all striped with Blood? Ah, but there is a marked likeness between these worldly women and the Jews who, incited by the Devil, scourged Our Lord! At the hour of such a woman’s death, I think Jesus will be heard saying: ‘Cujus est imago haec... of whom is she the image?’ And the reply will be: ‘Demonii... of the Devil!’ Then He will say: ‘Let her who has followed the Devil’s fashions be handed over to him; and to God, those who have imitated the modesty of Jesus and Mary.’”

    Considering how most western woman dress today, it’s safe to say that many of them in fact dress in a mortally sinful fashion. A woman that does not desire to be lusted after by others and who do not want to give others an occasion of falling into sin, will of course never dress in a sensual or immodest way. Indeed, very few people today dress without any guilt at all. But amongst the few who do, most of them are definitely found amongst the pagans, infidels and idolaters, and especially in the poorer countries.

    Tradition In Action also compared himself when publicly posting mortally sinful inducing images for the whole world to see with “When a lawyer in a courtroom describes details of the sexual humiliation suffered by a victim of a pedophile priest, he is not doing so to promote immorality or induce the members of the jury to sin.” But this is a false argument since what is occurring behind closed doors (and that is not for the public) and for a legal purpose has no comparison with his own action of publicly posting immodest and mortally sinful inducing images for not only the whole world to see, but also for minors, youths, the married, the weak and even the old alike!

    No one ever needed to see such pictures to be able to understand truths of the Christian Faith, or in order to be saved. This is just a sinful excuse by Tradition In Action. Indeed, in a courtroom, when a criminal is being judged, for example, for possessing or selling drugs, the jury or judge does not try the drugs to see whether it is really drugs or not, but a single lab confirms this through a test, and the reason why not all in the courtroom does try it, is in part because all understand that drugs are harmful. This is a perfect example to sensual pictures: since these pictures act like a drug on the man or woman who look at them: one must do all in one’s power to restrict access to these and similar things so that the weak may not fall and enter hell. When sensual pictures exist that shows us something we need to explain or expose to others, they must be described in text, rather than in a picture, as the picture works in the same way as drugs on a drug addict.

    Also, it is an injustice to compare the current worldly and ungodly prosecuting system with the more honorable Catholic prosecuting system of old where more effort and weight was put on personal testimonies and oaths of that something actually took place without necessarily having to go into unnecessary, graphic details. (The moral standard was also much higher in the past.)

    Again, Bl. Pope Innocent XI condemned and still condemns Tradition In Action’s diabolical and invalid excuses for obstinately continuing to view and post immodest images to the destruction of their own and other people’s souls and the offense of God and scandal to their neighbor; but they are also condemned and still condemned for their evil practice of putting themselves and their neighbor’s soul not only in the direct proximate occasion of sinning, but also in the direct path of and in fact, in front view of – at least – a venial sin; but also a possible mortal sin to be committed against the all good God, as explained by St. Alphonsus, who quotes from Pope St. Gregory the Great:

    St. Alphonsus Liguori, Mortification of the Eyes: “But I do not see how looks at young persons of a different sex can be excused from the guilt of a venial fault, OR EVEN FROM MORTAL SIN, when there is proximate danger of criminal consent. "It is not lawful," says [Pope] St. Gregory, "to behold what it is not lawful to covet." The evil thought which proceeds from looks, though it should be rejected, never fails to leave a stain upon the soul.” (The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, p. 221)

    Concerning venial sins, Our Lord Jesus Christ said the following terrifying words:

    Moreover, know that just as all mortal sins are very serious, so too a venial sin is made mortal if a human being delights in it with the intention of persevering.” (The Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 7, Chapter 27)

    According to this definition by Our Lord Jesus Christ, if a person were to commit a venial sin but does not want to or intend to continue committing this sin again in the future, such a person would not be in a state of damnation because of his sin, even if it turned out that he committed it again in the future, because his will at the time was not to continue doing it.

    In contrast, if another person has “the intention of persevering” in a venial sin and does not repent with a firm resolution or will to stop doing this sin again in the future (such as the at least venial sin of continuing putting oneself in proximate or direct occasion of sinning), but intends to continue doing it and are unrepentant for his sin, then he is in a state of damnation.

    Our Lord’s words are crystal clear that a “venial sin is made mortal if a human being delights in it with the intention of persevering.” Hence, even if this sin was “only” venial: most people who view and search for such immoral images, even for a “good” motive, obviously do this with a direct and secret “delight” (if they did not like what they were doing: they would obviously feel a deep horror over the fact that they are offending God and harming their own and other people’s soul and that they are doing things that are contrary to God’s law of charity and morals etc., and if so, they would obviously seek a way so as not to expose themselves to this sinful occasion anymore; and if they do not feel any horror over the fact that they are offending God and harming their own soul and that of their neighbor, and if they do not seek a way to avoid putting themselves in this situation again in the future (such as by making a firm resolution not to view or search for such images anymore): it is a clear and infallible sign that they like what they are doing) and hence they fall under the direct condemnation of Jesus Christ above, and they commit a mortal sin since they have an “intention of persevering” doing this sin, for “the smallest sin, lusted after, is enough to damn anyone from the kingdom of Heaven, who does not repent.” (Jesus speaking to St. Bridget, Book 1, Chapter 32)

    The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, has the following interesting things to say about how a venial sin can become a mortal sin, and about the evil action of choosing sin before choosing to love God:

    “The very fact that anyone chooses something that is contrary to divine charity, proves that he prefers it to the love of God, and consequently, that he loves it more than he loves God. Hence it belongs to the genus of some sins, which are of themselves contrary to charity, that something is loved more than God; so that they are mortal by reason of their genus… Sometimes, however, the sinner’s will is directed to a thing containing a certain inordinateness, but which is not contrary to the love of God and one’s neighbor, e.g. an idle word, excessive laughter, and so forth: and such sins are venial by reason of their genus… It is written (Sirach 19:1): "He that contemneth small things shall fall by little and little." Now he that sins venially seems to contemn small things. Therefore by little and little he is disposed to fall away together into mortal sin.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Q. 88, Art. 2 & 3, Reply to Objection 1/On the contrary)

    And further on, he says:

    Whether a venial sin can become mortal? I answer that, The fact of a venial sin becoming a mortal sin… This is possible, in so far as one may fix one’s end in that venial sin, or direct it to some mortal sin as end, as stated above (Article 2). [Excerpt from article 2:] … it happens sometimes that a sin which is venial generically by reason of its object, becomes mortal on the part of the agent, either because he fixes his last end therein, or because he directs it to something that is a mortal sin in its own genus; for example, if a man direct an idle word to the commission of adultery [or if a man takes illicit and secret delight in beholding what is not lawful to behold, such as by viewing at and searching for immoral images].” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Q. 88, Art. 4 & 2)

    Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #61, March 4, 1679: “He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

    Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #62, March 4, 1679: “The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

    Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #63, March 4, 1679: “It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

    For instance, in order to help people avoid occasions of falling into sin, we often tell them about the absolute need to surf the internet without images on and with an adblock (which means that they can’t see images at all when surfing various websites or any internet ads) so as to avoid innumerable occasions of falling into sin, not only venial sins, but also mortal sins of impurity.

    (I have of course not seen any of the evil images mentioned at Tradition In Action’s website; nor did I allow any images to be shown on my web browser in order to write this section, since it would have been totally evil and stupid of me to have done that (considering that I knew the danger) since this text can be done perfectly fine by me without having to expose my self to damnation. But even if this work could not have been done without actually seeing these images, it would still not have been lawful for me to look at them without sin, for some things can never be excused even if they are done for a good motive (as Pope Innocent XI showed above) or even in order to save one’s own life! Hence that one cannot actually commit adultery, watch porn or deny Christ even if this is done in order to save one’s own life or the life of someone else, and it would be a mortal sin and apostasy to do this since no one cannot be excused from committing these sins. In truth, concerning many grave matters such as when exposing oneself to sexual temptations, one must always have an absolutely necessary motive in order to justify this action, otherwise it will always be a sin. One example demonstrating this fact (of when it would be lawful) would be if a male doctor absolutely needs to see a problematic body part of a woman in order to save her life. In that case it would be lawful, but without such a necessity, it is always unlawful.)

    That is why we always tell people to surf the internet without images on and with an adblock so as to avoid exposing oneself to innumerable temptations. Now, many people claiming to be Catholic and worshiping God and desiring forgiveness of their sins and enter Heaven strangely don’t care anything about this advice (of surfing the internet with an adblock and without images on) and even chose to ignore it because of their perverse and evil will and attachment to images. Now if they really wanted forgiveness of their sins and cared anything about God, and to please Him, and not to offend Him, they obviously would not surf the internet with images on and thus expose themselves to innumerable bad images of sensual women or men tempting them everyday to fall into occasions of sin against the all good God.

    It should go without saying, but when images is necessary or needed for what one is doing, then it is lawful to surf with them on for as long time as it is necessary — provided it is not a danger to one’s soul and the site is not bad. But how often do we need to see images at all times? Never. Only at a particular time or occasion, such as for a work, or when reading some article, but other than that we have no reason or necessity to have them on, and therefore, they must be off.

    And yes, it is a sin to refuse to follow this good advice since it is virtually impossible to escape bad and immodest images and commercials of men or women tempting you every day when surfing the internet (and the same of course applies to watching most media too, which is why we recommend people never to watch movable images and that they only listen to the audio). Only a condemned person not fearing God or sin at all would refuse to follow this good advice that helps him or her avoid falling into sexual temptations and sins everyday.

    “Brother Roger, a Franciscan of singular purity, being once asked why he was so reserved in his intercourse with women, replied, that when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

    (Please see this section for some more quotes on the issue and on the help and the steps on how to block images in your web-browser and surf the internet with an adblock:

    Those people who choose to ignore this advice despite being told not to do so, infallibly prove the point (i.e., the above explanation of why most people are damned due to their perverse, evil desire and intention of persevering in sin and the proximate occasion of sin).

    The great St. Ambrose said concerning this: “True repentance [and thus love of God] is to cease to sin [all sin, however small].”

    Most people just don’t care about God enough nor fear Him enough to avoid all sin and the occasions of falling into obvious sin, nor do they love Him more than they love their own perverse will or self-love—which is the direct reason for their indifferent lifestyle; neither do they care enough about God so as to avoid even what they obviously know will lead them into possible sin.

    Hence that most people are damned and always have been. So the only reason it would be hard for someone to be forgiven his sins and be saved is if he don’t love God enough, fear God enough, nor trust God enough with his whole hearttrust and love, such as believing in Him and that He will forgive you if you do what you must—and that He hears all your prayers and grants all your prayers that are good for you, such as all prayers for the grace of attaining forgiveness and salvation. Therefore, it is only hard to be saved for the bad — and not for the good souls.

    Concerning the great evil of giving to others a cause of “scandal”, St. Alphonsus Liguori preached the following words in a sermon to his congregation:

    St. Alphonsus Liguori, On the Sin of Scandal: “"The wolf catches and scatters the sheep." (John 10.12) The wolves that catch and scatter the sheep of Jesus Christ are the authors of scandal, who, not content with their own destruction, labor to destroy others. But the Lord says: "Woe to that man by whom the scandal comes." (Matt. 18.7) Woe to him who gives scandal, and causes others to lose the grace of God. Origen says that "a person who impels another to sin, sins more grievously than the other." If, brethren, there be any among you who has given scandal, I will endeavor this day to convince him of the evil he has done, that he may bewail it and guard against it for the future. I will show, in the first point, the great displeasure which the sin of scandal gives to God; and, in the second, the great punishment which God threatens to inflict on the authors of scandal.

    First Point. On the great displeasure which the sin of scandal gives to God.

    “1. It is, in the first place, necessary to explain what is meant by scandal. Behold how St. Thomas defines it: "Scandal is a word or act which gives occasion to the ruin of one’s neighbor." (S. Theol. 2-2, q. 45, art. 1) Scandal, then, is a word or act by which you are to your neighbor the cause or occasion of losing his soul [such as by posting or linking to soul slaying material that will induce others to sin]. It may be direct or indirect. It is direct when you directly tempt or induce another to commit sin. It is indirect when, although you foresee that sinful words or actions will be the cause of sin to another, you do not abstain from them. But scandal, whether it be direct or indirect, if it be in a matter of great importance, is always a mortal sin.

    “2. Let us now see the great displeasure which the destruction of a neighbor’s soul gives to God. To understand it, we must consider how dear every soul is to God. He has created the souls of all men in his own image. "Let us make man in our image and likeness." (Gen. 1.26) Other creatures God has made by a fiat -- by an act of his will; but the soul of man he has created by his own breath. "And the Lord breathed into his face the breath of life." (Gen. 2.7) The soul of your neighbor God has loved for eternity. "I have loved you with an everlasting love." (Jer. 31.3) He has, moreover, created every soul to be crowned in Paradise, and to be a partner in his glory. "That by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 2.4) In heaven he will make the souls of the saints partakers of his own joy. "Enter into the joy of your Lord." (Matt. 25.21) To them he shall give himself as their reward. "I am your reward exceedingly great." (Gen. 15.1)

    “3. But nothing can show the value which God sets on the souls of men more clearly than what the Incarnate Word has done for their redemption from sin and hell. "If," says St. Eucharius, "you do not believe your Creator, ask your Redeemer, how precious you are." Speaking of the care which we ought to have of our brethren, St. Ambrose says: "The great value of the salvation of a brother is known from the death of Christ." We judge of the value of everything by the price paid for it by an intelligent purchaser. Now, Jesus Christ has, according to the Apostle, purchased the souls of men with his own blood. "You are bought with a great price." (1 Cor. 6.20) We can, then, say that the soul is of as much value as the blood of a God. Such, indeed, is the language of St. Hilary. "Tam copioso munere redemptio agitur, ut homo Deum valere videatur." Hence, the Savior tells us that whatever good or evil we do to the least of his brethren, we do to himself. "So long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me." (Matt. 25.40)

    “4. From all this we may infer how great is the displeasure given to God by scandalizing a brother, and destroying his soul. It is enough to say that they who give scandal rob God of a child, and murder a soul, for whose salvation he has spent his blood and his life. Hence, St. Leo calls the authors of scandals murderers. "Quisquis scandalizat, mortem infert animae proximi." They are the most impious of murderers; because they kill not the body, but the soul of a brother, and rob Jesus Christ of all his tears, of his sorrows, and of all that he has done and suffered to gain that soul. Hence the Apostle says: "Now, when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ." (1 Cor. 8.12) They who scandalize a brother, sin against Christ; because, as St. Ambrose says, they deprive him of a soul for which he has spent so many years, and submitted to so many toils and labors. It is related that St. Albert the Great spent thirty years in making a head, which resembled the human head, and uttered words: and that St. Thomas, fearing that it was done by the agency of the devil, took the head and broke it. St. Albert complained of the act of St. Thomas, saying: "You have broken of mine the work of thirty years." I do not assert that this is true; but it is certain that, when Jesus Christ sees a soul destroyed by scandal, he can reprove the author of it, and say to him: Wicked wretch, what have you done? You have deprived me of this soul, for which I have labored thirty-three years.

    “5. We read in the Scriptures that the sons of Jacob, after having sold their brother Joseph to certain merchants, told his father that wild beasts had devoured him. "Fera pessima devoravit eum." (Gen. 37.20) To convince their father of the truth of what they said, they dipped the coat of Joseph in the blood of a goat, and presented it to him, saying: "See whether this be your son’s coat or not" (v. 32). In reply, the afflicted father said with tears: "It is my son’s coat: an evil wild beast has eaten him" (v. 33). Thus, we may imagine that, when a soul is brought into sin by scandal, the devils present to God the garment of that soul dipped in the blood of the Immaculate Lamb, Jesus Christ -- that is, the grace lost by that scandalized soul, which Jesus Christ had purchased with his blood and that they say to the Lord: "See whether this be your son’s coat or not." If God were capable of shedding tears, he would weep more bitterly than Jacob did, at the sight of that lost soul -- his murdered child -- and would say: "It is my son’s coat: an evil wild beast has eaten him." The Lord will go in search of this wild beast, saying: "Where is the beast? where is the beast that has devoured my child?" When he finds the wild beast, what shall he do with him?

    “6. "I will," says the Lord by his prophet Hosea, "meet them as a bear that is robbed of her whelps." (Hosea 13.8) When the bear comes to her den, and finds not her whelps, she goes about the wood in search of the person who took them away. When she discovers the person, oh! with what fury does she rush upon him! It is thus the Lord shall rush upon the authors of scandal, who have robbed him of his children. Those who have given scandal will say: My neighbor is already damned; how can I repair the evil that has been done? The Lord shall answer: Since you have been the cause of his perdition, you must pay me for the loss of his soul. "I will require his blood at your hands." (Ezek. 3.20) It is written in Deuteronomy, "You shall not pity him, but shall require life for life" (19.21). You have destroyed a soul; you must suffer the loss of your own. Let us pass to the second point.

    Second Point. The great punishment which God threatens to those who give scandal.

    “7. "Woe to that man by whom the scandal comes." (Matt. 18.7) If the displeasure given to God by scandal be great, the chastisement which awaits the authors of it must be frightful. Behold how Jesus Christ speaks of this chastisement: "But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matt. 18.6) If a malefactor dies on the scaffold, he excites the compassion of the spectators, who at least pray for him, if they cannot deliver him from death. But, were he cast into the depths of the sea, there would be no one present to pity his fate. A certain author says that Jesus Christ threatens the person who scandalizes a brother with this sort of punishment, to signify that he is so hateful to the angels and saints, that they do not wish to recommend to God the man who has brought a soul to perdition. "He is declared unworthy not only to be assisted, but even to be seen." (Mansi. ch. 3, no. 4)

    “8. St. John Chrysostom says that scandal is so abominable in the eyes of God, that though he overlooks very grievous sins, he cannot allow the sin of scandal to pass without adequate punishment. "Tam Deo horribile est scandalum, ut peccata graviora dissimulet non autem peccata ubi frater scandalizatur." God himself says the same by the prophet Ezekiel: "Every man of the house of Israel, if he... set up the stumbling block of his iniquity... I will make him an example and a proverb, and will cut him off from the midst of my people." (Ezek. 14.7, 8) And, in reality, scandal is one of the sins which we find in the sacred Scriptures punished by God with the greatest rigor. Of Eli, because he did not correct his sons, who gave scandal by stealing the flesh offered in sacrifice (for parents give scandal, not only by giving bad example, but also by not correcting their children as they ought), the Lord said: "Behold, I do a thing in Israel: and whosoever shall hear it, both his ears shall tingle." (1 Sam. 3.11) And speaking of the scandal given by the sons of Eli, the inspired writer says: "Wherefore the sin of the young men was exceedingly great before the Lord." (Ibid. 2.17) What was this exceedingly great sin? It was, says St. Gregory, in explaining this passage, drawing others to sin. "Quia ad pecandum alios pertrahebant." Why was Jeroboam chastised? Because he scandalized the people: he "has sinned, and made Israel sin." (1 Kings 14.16) In the family of Ahab, all the members of which were the enemies of God, Jezebel was the most severely chastised. She was thrown down from a window, and devoured by dogs, so that nothing remained but her "skull, and the feet, and the extremities of her hands." And why was she so severely punished? Because "she set Ahab on to every evil."

    “9. For the sin of scandal hell was created. "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." (Gen. 1.1) But, when did he create hell? It was when Lucifer began to seduce the angels into rebellion against God. Lest he should continue to pervert those who remained faithful to God, he was banished from heaven immediately after his sin. Hence Jesus Christ said to the Pharisees, who by their bad example scandalized the people, that they were children of the devil, who was from the beginning a murderer of souls. "You are of your father, the devil: he was a murderer from the beginning." (John 8.44) And when St. Peter gave scandal to Jesus Christ, by suggesting to him not to allow his life to be taken away by the Jews, and thus endeavoring to prevent the accomplishment of redemption, the Redeemer called him a devil. "Go behind me, Satan; you are a scandal to me." (Matt. 16.23) And, in reality, what other office do the authors of scandal perform, than that of a minister of the devil? If he were not assisted by such impious ministers, he certainly would not succeed in gaining so many souls. A scandalous companion does more injury than a hundred devils.

    “10. On the words of Hezekiah, "Behold, in peace is my bitterness most bitter" (Isa. 38.17), St. Bernard, in the name of the Church, says: "Peace from pagans, peace from heretics, but no peace from children." At present the Church is not persecuted by idolaters, or by heretics, but she is persecuted by scandalous Christians, who are her own children. In catching birds, we employ decoys, that is, certain birds that are blinded, and tied in such manner that they cannot fly away. It is thus the devil acts. "When," says St. Ephrem, "a soul has been taken, it becomes a snare to deceive others." After having made a young man fall into sin, the enemy first blinds him as his own slave, and then makes him his decoy to deceive others; and to draw them into the net of sin, he not only impels, but even forces him to deceive others. "The enemy," says St. Leo, "has many whom he compels to deceive others." (Serm. de Nativ.)

    “11. Miserable wretches! the authors of scandal must suffer in hell the punishment of all the sins they have made others commit. Cesarius relates (Bk. 2, ch. 6) that, after the death of a certain person who had given scandal, a holy man witnessed his judgment and condemnation, and saw that, at his arrival at the gate of hell, all the souls whom he had scandalized came to meet him, and said to him: Come, accursed wretch, and atone for all the sins which you have made us commit [by your deeds and actions, such as by immodest forum posts, images or links that contained such images etc]. They then rushed in upon him, and like so many wild beasts, began to tear him in pieces. St. Bernard says that, in speaking of other sinners, the Scriptures hold out hopes of amendment and pardon; but they speak of those who give scandal as persons separated from God, of whose salvation there is very little hope. "Loquitur tanquam a Deo separati, unde hisce nulla spes vitae esse poterit."

    “12. Behold, then, the miserable state of those who give scandal by their bad example, who utter immodest words before their companions [or post immodest images or videos, or promotes them, or links to them], in the presence of young females, and even of innocent children, who, in consequence of hearing those words [or seeing those images in the news article or video clip], commit a thousand sins. Considering how the angel-guardians of those little ones weep at seeing them in the state of sin, and how they call for vengeance from God against the sacrilegious tongues [and actions] that have scandalized them. A great chastisement awaits all who ridicule those who practice virtue. For many, through fear of the contempt and ridicule of others, abandon virtue, and give themselves up to a wicked life. What shall be the punishment of those who send messages to induce others to sin? or of those who boast of their own wicked actions? God! instead of weeping and repenting for having offended the Lord, they rejoice and glory in their iniquities! Some advise others to commit sin; others induce them to it; and some, worse than the devils, teach others how to sin. What shall we say of fathers and mothers, who, though it is in their power to prevent the sins of their children, allow them to associate with bad companions, or to frequent certain dangerous houses [or internet sites, or allow them watching the television or listening to secular sinful music], and permit their daughters to hold conversations with young men? Oh! with what scourges shall we see such persons chastised on the day of judgment!

    “13. Perhaps some father of a family among you will say: Then, I am lost because I have given scandal? Is there no hope of salvation for me? No: I will not say that you are past hope -- the mercy of God is great. He has promised pardon to all who repent. But, if you wish to save your soul, you must repair the scandal you have given. "Let him," says Eusebius Emmissenus, "who has destroyed himself by the destruction of many, redeem himself by the edification of many." (Hom. 10 ad Mon.) You have lost your soul, and have destroyed the souls of many by your scandals. You are now bound to repair the evil. As you have until now drawn others to sin, so you are bound to draw them to virtue by words of edification, by good example, by avoiding sinful occasions, by frequenting the sacraments, by going often to the church to pray, and by attending sermons. And from this day forward avoid, as you would death, every act and word which could scandalize others. "Let their own ruin," says St. Cyprian, "suffice for those who have fallen." (Bk. 1, L. 3) And St. Thomas of Villanova says: "Let your own sins be sufficient for you." What evil has Jesus Christ done to you that it is not enough for you to have offended him yourselves, but you wish to make others offend him? This is an excess of cruelty.

    “14. Be careful, then, never again to give the smallest scandal. And if you wish to save your soul, avoid as much as possible those who give scandal. These incarnate devils shall be damned; but, if you do not avoid them, you will bring yourself to perdition. "Woe to the world because of scandals," says the Lord (Matt. 18.7), that is, many are lost because they do not fly from occasions of scandal. But you may say: Such a person is my friend; I am under obligations to him; I expect many favors from him. But Jesus Christ says: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you, having one eye, to enter into life, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire." (Matt. 18.9) Although a certain person was your right eye, you must withdraw for ever from her; it is better for you to lose an eye and save your soul, than to preserve it and be cast into hell.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (nn. 2-4) taken from Ascetical Works, Volume XVI: Sermons for all Sundays in the Year (1882) pp. 152-173)

    All of this means that it is absolutely forbidden to post links to many news website/articles by default since they contain totally immoral and immodest pictures all over the place. Yet many evil people -- and not infrequently so -- even traditional so-called “Catholics”, on various forums and websites links to such sites containing such immodesty all the time even though they are perfectly aware of that they contain such immodesty to the destruction of their own soul (since they must not put themselves in temptations or enter such sites with images on if they have images on) and the souls of others (whom gets scandalized) and the offense of God (whom they grieve by their bad life and example)—whom they claim to worship.


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

    It is a proven fact that Bergoglio (Francis I) is a non-Catholic heretic. The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope (see the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio below), since a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. Jorge Bergoglio therefore is a non-Catholic Antipope whose election was utterly null and void.

    Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

    (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

    (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

    (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way

    (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

    10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

    Given in Rome at Saint Peter’s in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

    + I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

    In the Apocalypse, chapters 17 and 18, there is predicted that a whore will arise in the last days from the city of seven hills, which is Rome. This whore will tread upon the blood of the martyrs and saints. This whore is clearly contrasted with the immaculate bride of Christ, the Catholic Church. In other words, the whore of Babylon will be a false church from Rome that will appear in the last days. This Whore of Babylon is the Vatican II sect, a false bride which arises in Rome in the last days in order to deceive the Catholic Faithful.

    In her appearance at La Salette, France, Sept. 19, 1846, the Blessed Mother predicted: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”

    See this article for more information: Is the Vatican II sect the Whore of Babylon Prophesied in the Apocalypse?

    The Teaching of the Catholic Church on Heresy

    To understand why Francis cannot be the Pope, one must understand heresy and apostasy. Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an article of divine and Catholic Faith. In other words, a baptized person who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is a heretic. Pope Leo XIII proclaims this teaching in his encyclical Satis Cognitum.

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

    Apostasy, on the other hand, is not merely the denial or doubt of one or more teachings of the Catholic Church, but a complete rejection of the Christian Faith altogether. In this article we have shown that Francis is both a heretic and an apostate.

    As the teaching of Pope Leo XIII shows, a heretic is outside Catholic communion and alien to the Church. The same therefore goes for apostates, since all apostates are also heretics. The fact that a heretic is outside the Catholic Church is a defined dogma affirmed by many Popes. A heretic cannot be inside the Catholic Church, because by denying the faith he is automatically expelled from Her.

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics…”

    We see here that Pope Eugene IV defined infallibly that all heretics are outside the Catholic Church.

    Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

    We see in this solemn profession of faith of Pope Innocent III that the one true Church of Christ cannot include heretics.

    In fact, so foreign are heretics to the Catholic Church that the Catholic Church has actually defined that heretics are the gates of hell.

    Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

    Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Another translation of Sermon 4 reads:

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

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

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

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

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

    Related articles:
    Free Videos
    Free DVDs, Articles and Books