Download as:

9. The Liturgical Revolution – A New Mass

Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.”1

THE NEW MASS VS. THE TRADITIONAL MASS

The Traditional Latin Mass, the most holy act of worship of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, was codified by Pope St. Pius V in his Bull Quo Primum in 1570.

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.

Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570: “Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”2

On April 3, 1969, Paul VI replaced the Traditional Latin Mass in the Vatican II churches with his own creation, the New Mass or Novus Ordo. Since that time, the world has seen the following in the Vatican II churches which celebrate the New Mass or Novus Ordo:

The world has seen Clown Masses, in which the “priest” dresses as a clown in utter mockery of God.

The world has seen a priest dressed as Dracula; in a football jersey accompanied by cheerleaders; a cheese-head…

…driving a Volkswagen down the aisle of church as the people sing hosanna. There have been disco Masses…

...gymnastic performances during the New Mass; balloon Masses; Carnival Masses;

…nude Masses, at which scantily clad or nude people take part. The world has seen juggling Masses, at which a juggler performs during the New Mass.

The world has seen priests celebrate the New Mass with Dorito Chips;

…with Mountain Dew; on a cardboard box; with cookies; with Chinese tea accompanied by ancestor worship; with a basketball as the priest bounces it all over the altar; with a guitar as the priest plays a solo performance. The world has witnessed the New Mass with a priest almost totally nude as he dances around the altar or with other high-wire abominations…

The world has seen New Masses with priests dressed in native pagan costumes;

…with a Jewish Menorah placed on the altar;

…with a statue of Buddha on the altar; with nuns making offerings to female goddesses; with lectors and gift bearers dressed up as voodoo Satanists. The world has seen the New Mass at which the performer is dressed in a tuxedo and tells jokes. The world has seen rock concerts at the New Mass;

…guitar and polka New Masses;

…a puppet New Mass; a New Mass where the people gather round the altar dressed as devils;

…a New Mass where people perform lewd dances to the beat of a steel drum band. The world has seen a New Mass where nuns dressed as pagan vestal virgins make pagan offerings.


The world has also seen New Masses incorporating every false religion. There have been Buddhist New masses;

…Hindu and Muslim New Masses;



…New Masses where Jews and Unitarians offer candles to false gods. There are churches where the entire congregation says Mass with the priest;

…where the priest sometimes talks to the people instead of saying Mass.

What we have catalogued is just a tiny sampling of the kind of thing that occurs in every diocese in the world where the New Mass is celebrated, to one degree or another. Our Lord tells us, “By their fruits you shall know them” (Mt. 7:16). The fruits of the New Mass are incalculably scandalous, sacrilegious and idolatrous. This is because the New Mass itself, is a false, invalid Mass and an abomination.

Even an organization which defends the New Mass was forced to admit the following about the typical New Mass – i.e., the New Mass normally offered in the churches (without even necessarily considering the aforementioned abominations and sacrileges that are commonplace): “Most of the New Masses we’ve attended… are happy-clappy festivities, the music is atrocious, the sermons are vacuous, and they are irreverent...”3

When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it. Keep in mind that what they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the so-called “most pure” version of the New Mass. Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention. It states:

“ The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”4

They could clearly see that the Latin version of the New Mass was a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent. Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass. The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated. The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.

Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”5

Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

A study of the propers and orations of the Traditional Mass versus the New Mass reveals a massacre of the Traditional Faith. The traditional Missal contains 1182 orations. About 760 of those were dropped entirely from the New Mass. Of the approximately 36% which remained, the revisers altered over half of them before introducing them into the new Missal. Thus, only some 17% of the orations from the Traditional Mass made it untouched into the New Mass. What’s also striking is the content of the revisions that were made to the orations. The Traditional Orations which described the following concepts were specifically abolished from the New Missal: the depravity of sin; the snares of wickedness; the grave offense of sin; the way to perdition; terror in the face of God’s fury; God’s indignation; the blows of His wrath; the burden of evil; temptations; wicked thoughts; dangers to the soul; enemies of soul and body. Also eliminated were orations which described: the hour of death; the loss of heaven; everlasting death; eternal punishment; the pains of Hell and its fire. Special emphasis was made to abolish from the New Mass the orations which described detachment from the world; prayers for the departed; the true Faith and the existence of heresy; the references to the Church militant, the merits of the saints, miracles and Hell.6 One can see the results of this massacre of the Traditional Faith from the propers of the New Mass.

The New Mass is fraught with sacrileges, profanations and the most ridiculous abominations imaginable because it reflects a false religion which has abandoned the traditional Catholic Faith.


The false religion the New Mass reflects is one reason why it is completely empty; it is why the fruits are utterly desolate, barren and almost unspeakably bad. The religion practiced at the churches where the New Mass is said, simply put, is a complete sacrilege and an empty celebration of man.


Even Dietrich von Hildebrand, a supporter of the Vatican II religion, said about the New Mass:

“Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with ruin of the liturgy could have done better.”7

With the exception of a single genuflection by the celebrant after the consecration, virtually every sign of respect for the Body and Blood of Christ which characterized the Traditional Mass has either been abolished or made optional for the New Mass.



It’s no longer obligatory for the sacred vessels to be gilded if they are not made of precious metals. Sacred vessels, which only the anointed hands of a priest could touch, are now handled by all.

The priest frequently shakes hands before distributing the host.8 The General Instruction for the New Mass also declares that altars no longer need to be of natural stone; that an altar stone containing the relics of martyrs is no longer required; that only one cloth is required on the altar; that it is not necessary to have a crucifix or even candles upon the altar.9

Not even one of the mandatory requirements developed over 2,000 years to ensure that the altar is of fitting dignity has been retained in the New Mass.

When the Protestants split from the Catholic Church in England in the 16th century, they changed the Mass to reflect their heretical beliefs. The altars were replaced by tables. Latin was replaced by English. Statues and icons were removed from the churches. The Last Gospel and the Confiteor were abolished. “Communion” was distributed in the hand. Mass was said out loud and facing the Congregation. Traditional music was discarded and replaced with new music. Three-fourths of the priests in England went along with the New Service.

This is also precisely what happened in 1969, when Paul VI promulgated the New Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. The similarities between the 1549 Anglican Prayer Book and the New Mass are striking. One expert noted:

“ The extent to which the Novus Ordo Mass departs from the theology of the Council of Trent can best be gauged by comparing the prayers which the Consilium removed from the liturgy to those removed by the heretic Thomas Cranmer. The coincidence is not simply striking – it is horrifying. It cannot, in fact, be a coincidence.”10

In order to emphasize their heretical belief that the Mass is not a sacrifice, but just a meal, the Protestants removed the altar and put a table in its place. In Protestant England, for example, “On November 23, 1550 the Privy Council ordered all altars in England destroyed and replaced by communion tables.”11

A Vatican II church with a Protestant-like table for its new Protestant “Mass”

The chief Protestant heretics declared: “The form of a table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the popish Mass unto the right use of the Lord’s Supper. For the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it: the use of a table is to serve men to eat upon.” 12 The Welsh Catholic martyr, Richard Gwyn, declared in protest against this change: “In place of an altar there is a miserable table, in place of Christ there is bread.”13

And St. Robert Bellarmine noted: “…when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the house of God.”14

Just like the new services of the Protestant revolutionaries, the New Mass is celebrated on a table.

The 1549 Anglican Prayer Book was also called “The Supper of the Lord, and the holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.” 15 This title emphasized the Protestant belief that the Mass is just a meal, a supper – and not a sacrifice. When Paul VI promulgated the General Instruction for the New Mass, it was entitled exactly the same way. Its title was: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass.”16

The 1549 Anglican Prayer Book removed from the Mass the psalm Give Judgment for me, O God, because of its reference to the altar of God. This psalm was also suppressed in the New Mass.

The 1549 Anglican Prayer Book removed from the Mass the prayer which begins Take away from us our sins, because it evokes sacrifice. This was also suppressed in the New Mass.

The prayer which begins We beseech Thee, O Lord, refers to relics in the altar stone. This prayer has been suppressed in the New Mass.

In the 1549 Anglican Prayer Book the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gospel and Creed were all retained. They have all been retained in the New Mass.

The equivalent to the Offertory Prayers: Accept, O holy Father…O God, Who has established the nature of man…We offer unto Thee, O Lord…In a humble spirit…Come, Thou Sanctifier, almighty… and Accept, most holy Trinity, were all suppressed in the 1549 Anglican Prayer Book. They have all been suppressed in the New Mass, except for two excerpts.

In the 1549 Anglican Prayer Book, the Lift up your hearts dialogue, Preface and Sanctus were all retained. They have been retained in the New Mass.

The Roman Canon was abolished by the 1549 Anglican Prayer Book. It has been retained only as an option in the New Mass.

Arch-heretics of the Protestant revolution:
Thomas Cranmer (left) and Martin Luther (right)

In fact, the Novus Ordo Mass also removed the traditional Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. This prayer has been replaced with a prayer, not that the Jews convert, but that they “grow” in faithfulness to His covenant! Thus, there is an expression of apostasy right in the official Good Friday prayer of the New Mass. It’s a promotion of Judaism and the heresy that the Old Covenant is still valid.

Two different Good Friday prayers for the Jews for two different religions

On Good Friday, the Novus Ordo religion prays: “for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to His covenant.”

But the Catholic Church prays on Good Friday: “for the perfidious Jews: that Our Lord and God may lift the covering off their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ Our Lord.”

The 1549 Anglican Prayer Book abandoned the discipline of the Roman Rite in distributing Communion under one kind and gave Communion under both kinds. At the New Mass Communion under both kinds is distributed in many places in the world.

The 1552 version of the Anglican Prayer Book instructed that Communion was to be given in the hand to signify that the bread was ordinary bread and that the priest did not differ in essence from a layman.18


The New Mass implements Communion in the hand in almost every place in the world, and it even goes farther than Cranmer by allowing communicants to stand and receive from a lay minister.


The prayers in the Traditional Mass which begin with: What has passed our lips as food and May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have eaten both make explicit reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Both have been suppressed in the New Mass.

The prayer which begins May the tribute of my worship be pleasing to thee, most holy Trinity, was the least acceptable prayer after Communion to all the Protestants, because of its reference to propitiatory sacrifice. Martin Luther, and Cranmer in his Anglican Prayer Book, suppressed it. Following their lead, it was suppressed in the New Mass.

Now to the Last Gospel. If the Last Gospel, which closes the Traditional Mass, had been included in the New Mass, then the New Mass would have clashed with the pattern of Protestant services, which conclude with a blessing. So it was not included in the New Mass.

The prayers after the Traditional Mass, the Leonine Prayers, including the Hail Mary; the Hail Holy Queen; the O God our refuge; the prayer to St. Michael; and the appeal to the Sacred Heart, formed, in practice, an important part of the liturgy. Five prayers less compatible with Protestantism could hardly be imagined. They have all been suppressed in the New Mass.

Considering all of this, even Michael Davies agreed: “It is beyond dispute that… the Roman Rite has been destroyed.”19

Besides the fact that the New Mass is a Protestant service, there is also the fact that the Novus Ordo churches bear a striking and undeniable resemblance to Freemasonic lodges. Look at the pictures. Here is a Freemasonic lodge:

And here is a Novus Ordo church:

The two are almost indistinguishable; the focus of both is on man, with the Presider’s Chair in the middle and a circular emphasis. Perhaps this is because the primary architect of Paul VI’s New Mass was Cardinal Annibale Bugnini, who was a Freemason.

Annibale Bugnini, primary architect of the New Mass and a Freemason

“Cardinal” Annibale Bugnini was Chairman of the Consilium which drafted Paul VI’s New Mass. Bugnini was initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963, according to the Masonic Register in 1976. 20

In addition to all of these problems with the New Mass, there is one that looms even larger. The biggest problem with the New Mass is that it is not valid. Jesus Christ is not present in the New Mass because the New Mass has altered the very words of consecration.

PROOF THAT THE NEW MASS IS NOT VALID – THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION HAVE BEEN CHANGED

A sacrament is said to be valid if it takes place. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is valid if the bread and wine become the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. In order for any sacrament to be valid, matter, form, minister and intention must be present.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: "All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."21

The problem with the validity of the New Mass comes with the form, those words necessary to confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The form necessary to confect the Eucharist in the Roman Rite was declared by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “…the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul… uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.”22

In Pope St. Pius V’s Decree De Defectibus, we find the same words repeated:

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: "The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.”23

This teaching appeared in the front of every Roman Altar Missal from 1570 to 1962. We can see that the same words mentioned by the Council of Florence are declared to be necessary by Pope St. Pius V. This is why all of these words of consecration are bolded in Traditional Roman Altar Missals, and why the Roman Missal instructs priests to hold the chalice until the completion of all these words.

Pope St. Pius V’s teaching states that if the words of consecration are changed so that the meaning is altered, the priest does not confect the Sacrament. In the New Mass the words of consecration have been drastically changed, and the meaning has been altered.

First, the original Latin version of the New Mass has removed the words mysterium fidei – “the mystery of Faith” – from the words of consecration. This causes a grave doubt, because “mysterium fidei” is part of the form in the Roman Rite. Though the words “mysterium fidei” are not part of some of the Eastern Rite formulas of consecration, they have been declared to be part of the Roman Rite. They are also found in some Eastern Rites. Pope Innocent III and the Canon of the Mass also tell us that the words “mysterium fidei” were given by Jesus Christ Himself.

Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202, in response to a question about the form of the Eucharist and the inclusion of ‘mysterium fidei’: "You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed... In the Canon of the Mass that expression, ‘mysterium fidei,’ is found interposed among His words... Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed... Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as they are found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them."24

The words “the mystery of faith” in the consecration are a clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These words were also removed by the heretic Thomas Cranmer in his 1549 Anglican Prayer book because of their clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.25 When words are removed from a rite because the meaning they express contradicts the intended meaning of the rite, a doubt is caused. More could be said on this matter, but we must now move to the crushing blow to the validity of the New Mass.

In almost all vernacular translations of the New Mass in the world, the words of consecration read as follows:

FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE NEW MASS

For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.”

The words “for you and for many unto the remission of sins” have been changed to for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. The word “many” has been removed and replaced with the word “all.” This huge change invalidates all the New Masses. First, the word many was used by Jesus to institute the sacrament of the Eucharist, as we see in Matthew 26:28: “For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” The words used by Our Lord, “for many unto remission of sins,” represent the efficacy of the blood that Jesus shed. Jesus’s blood is effective for the salvation of many, not all men. In the process of explaining this, The Catechism of the Council of Trent specifically states that Our Lord did not mean “all” and therefore didn’t say it!

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist, p. 227: "The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS FOR ALL NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."26

As we can see, according to The Catechism of the Council of Trent the words “for all” were specifically not used by Our Lord because they would give a false meaning.

St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist: "The words for you and for many are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault...27

The use of “all” changes the meaning of the form of consecration. No one, not even a pope, can change the words that Jesus Christ specifically instituted for a sacrament of the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947: "…the Church has no power over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign..."28

Since “all” doesn’t mean the same thing as “many,” the sacrament is not confected in the New Mass.

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: "The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament." 29

ANOTHER ANGLE TO THIS ISSUE ABSOLUTELY PROVES THAT THE NEW MASS IS INVALID

There is another angle to this issue that we must now examine. In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae in 1896, Pope Leo XIII teaches:

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “All know that the sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.”30

If it does not signify the grace which it effects and effect the grace which it signifies it is not a sacrament – period. So, what is the grace effected by the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” On the Eucharist, 1439: “Finally, this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.”31

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 73, A. 3: “Now it was stated above that the reality of the sacrament [of the Eucharist] is the unity of the mystical body, without which there is no salvation…”32

As the Council of Florence, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many other theologians teach, the grace effected by the Eucharist is the union of the faithful with Christ. St. Thomas calls this grace “the unity of the Mystical Body.” The grace effected by the Eucharist (the union of the faithful with Christ or the unity of the Mystical Body) must be carefully distinguished from the Eucharist itself: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

Since the union of the faithful with Christ is the grace effected by the Sacrament of the Eucharist – or what is also called the reality of the Sacrament or the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist – this grace must be signified in the form of the consecration for it to be valid, as Pope Leo XIII teaches. Okay, so we must look at the traditional form of consecration and find where this grace – the union of the faithful with Christ – is signified.

The traditional form of consecration, as declared by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence and Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus, is as follows:

“ FOR THIS IS MY BODY. FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.”

Note again: we are looking for that part of the form which signifies that the person who receives this sacrament worthily becomes united or more strongly united with Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body.

Do the words “OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words do not signify the Mystical Body, but rather they contrast the temporary and prefiguring sacrifices of the Old Law with the eternal and propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Do the words “THE MYSTERY OF FAITH” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words signify the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as Innocent III teaches; they do not signify the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

Do the words WHICH SHALL BE SHED” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words denote true sacrifice.

The only words left in the form of consecration are: “FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

The remission of sins is necessary for incorporation into the Mystical Body, and remission of sins is an indispensable component of true justification, by which one is fruitfully united to Jesus Christ. The words “for you and for many” denote the members of the Mystical Body who have received such remission.

The words “FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINSare the words in the form of Consecration which signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the union of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Now, if we look to the Novus Ordo form of consecration, do we find the Mystical Body/the union of the faithful with Christ (the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist) signified? Here is the form of consecration in the New Mass or Novus Ordo:

New Mass form: “This is my body. This is the cup of my blood, of the new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.”

Is the union of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ signified by the words “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven”? No. Are all men part of the Mystical Body? No. Are all men part of the faithful united with Christ? No. We can see very clearly that the New Mass or Novus Ordo most certainly does not signify the union of the Mystical Body (the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist), and therefore it is not a valid sacrament!

One does not have to say anything more… the New Mass is not valid!

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896: “All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.33

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896: “That form cannot be considered apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits that which it must essentially signify.”34

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1438: “…this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.”35

To further prove the point, we should note that in all the formulas of consecration in the liturgical rites of the Catholic Church, whether it is the Armenian Liturgy, the Coptic Liturgy, the Ethiopic Liturgy, the Syrian Liturgy, the Chaldean Liturgy, etc. the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body is signified in the form of consecration. No liturgy that has ever been approved by the Church fails to signify the union of the faithful with Christ.

Here are the portions of the forms of consecration of the Wine used in Eastern Rites which signify what the Traditional Mass does and what the New Mass doesn’t: the union and members of the Church

THE ARMENIAN LITURGY: “….shed for you and for many for the expiation and forgiveness of sins.”

Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified by the words “for you and for many for the expiation and forgiveness of sins.”

THE BYZANTINE LITURGY: “… shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified.

THE CHALDEAN LITURGY: “…shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified.

THE COPTIC LITURGY: “…shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.”

Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified.

THE ETHIOPIC LITURGY: “… shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sin.”

Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified.

THE LITURGY OF MALABAR: “… shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.”

Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified.

THE MARONITE LITURGY: (this form is identical to that which was always used in the Roman Rite)

The formula of consecration in all Catholic liturgies signifies the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body of Christ, as we can see. The New Mass, which says, “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven,” does not signify the Mystical Body, since all do not belong to the Mystical Body. Thus, the New Mass does not signify the grace which the Eucharist effects. It is not valid.

Therefore, a Catholic cannot attend the New “Mass” under pain of mortal sin. Those who persist in doing so are committing idolatry (worshipping a piece of bread). Jesus Christ is not present there. The host is merely a piece of bread, not Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The Church has always taught that to approach a doubtful sacrament (which employs doubtful matter or form) is mortally sinful. In fact, Pope Innocent XI, Decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679,36 even condemns the idea that Catholics can receive "probable" sacraments. And the New Mass is not merely doubtful, it is invalid, since it does not signify the grace it is supposed to effect. It is actually worse than a Protestant service; it is an abomination, which falsifies the words of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.

Note: At the time we are writing this there is some talk that the Vatican, in order to deceive traditionalists back into the Counter Church and the false New Mass, is planning to correct the “for all” error in the form of consecration. The fact that the Vatican is going to do this proves that “for all” gives, as we’ve said, a false signification. Even if they do this, a Catholic would still have to avoid all New Masses under pain of mortal sin because the New Mass itself is a non-Catholic service, it would still be missing the words “mysterium fidei” in the consecration, and most of the “priests” celebrating it are invalid anyway (as the next section proves).

Endnotes for Section 9:

1 The words of Dietrich Von Hildebrand, who was, nevertheless, a supporter of the Vatican II religion but felt compelled to make such a statement about the New Mass. Quoted by Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 1980, p. 80.

2 Pope St. Pius V, Bull Quo Primum, July 14, 1570.

3 New Oxford Review, Berkeley, CA, November, 2006, “Notes.”

4 The Ottaviani Intervention, Rockford, IL: Tan Books.

5 Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.

6 Fr. Anthony Cekada, The Problems With the Prayers of the Modern Mass, Tan Books, 1991, pp. 9-13.

7 Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, p. 80.

8 Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 126.

9 Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 395.

10 Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass.

11 Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 (The Cleaving of Christendom), Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000, p. 229.

12 Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order, Fort Collins, CO: Roman Catholic Books, 1995, p. 183.

13 Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 398.

14 Octava Controversia Generalis. Liber Ii. Controversia Quinta. Caput XXXI.

15 Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order, p. 65.

16 Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 285.

17 Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 320.

18 Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order, p. 210.

19 Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 504.

20 Also discussed in Pope Paul’s New Mass, pp. 102; 504-505.

21 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, 695.

22 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 581; Denzinger 715.

23 A common translation, found in many publications, of the Latin words from the Roman Altar Missal, in De Defectibus, Chap. 5, Part 1.

24 Denzinger 414-415.

25 Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order, p. 306.

26 The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, 1982, p. 227.

27 St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44.

28 Denzinger 2301.

29 A common translation, found in many publications, of the Latin words from the Roman Altar Missal, in De Defectibus, Chap. 5, Part 1.

30 Denzinger 1963.

31 Denzinger 698.

32 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Allen, TX: Christian Classics, Pt. III, Q. 73, A. 3.

33 Denzinger 1963.

34 The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, Tan Books, 1995, p. 401.

35 Denzinger 698.

36 Denzinger 1151.



10. The New Rite of Ordination

Michael “… every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”1

In addition to having invalidating changes made to the Mass, the Devil knew that he had to tamper with the rite of ordination so that the priests of the New Church would be invalid as well.

The New Rite of Holy Orders (bishops, priests, deacons) was approved and imposed by Paul VI on June 18, 1968. The following information is crucial for all Catholics to know, since it concerns the validity of essentially every “priest” ordained within the diocesan structure since approximately 1968; and consequently, it concerns the validity of countless confessions, indult Masses, etc.

On Nov. 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued an apostolic Constitution called “Sacramentum Ordinis.” In this Constitution, Pope Pius XII declared, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, the words that are necessary for a valid ordination to the priesthood.

TRADITIONAL FORM FOR ORDINATION OF PRIESTS

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: … In the ordination of priests, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence… But the form [of Ordination] consists of the words of the preface of which the following are essential and so required for validity:

► “ Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood (presbyterii dignitatem); renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”2

THE NEW FORM FOR ORDINATION OF PRIESTS

Here is the form of the New Rite of Ordination of Priests:

● “Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew within them the spirit of holiness. May they hold from You, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”3

The difference between the two forms is that the Latin word “ut” (which means “so that”) has been omitted in the New Rite. This may seem insignificant, but in Sacramentum Ordinis Pius XII declared that this word was essential for validity. Further, the omission of “so that” gives rise to a relaxation of the naming of the sacramental effect (conferring the office of the second rank).

Since the new rite purports to be the Roman Rite, this removal of “ut” (so that) renders the new rite of questionable validity. However, there is a much bigger problem which proves that the New Rite is invalid.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION IS NOT THE FORM, BUT THE SURROUNDING CEREMONIES WHICH HAVE BEEN REMOVED

The change to the essential form is not the only problem with the New Rite of Ordination promulgated by Paul VI. The following points are just as significant because the Sacrament of Order, although instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, was not instituted by Our Lord with a specific sacramental form – unlike the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Baptism, which were instituted by Our Lord with a specific sacramental form so that the form of words in Ordination is given its meaning and significance by the surrounding rite and ceremonies.

In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896, Pope Leo XIII solemnly declared that Anglican Ordinations are invalid. This means that the Anglican sect doesn’t have valid priests or bishops.

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “… of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.”4

In making this solemn pronouncement, it must be understood that Pope Leo XIII was not making Anglican Ordinations invalid, but rather he was declaring that they were invalid due to defects in the rite. But what were those defects or problems which Leo XIII saw with the Anglican Rite, which contributed to its invalidity?

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”5

Here we see Pope Leo XIII teaching that if a minister uses the Catholic rite in conferring the Sacrament of Order, with the correct matter and form, he is considered for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does – intending to do what the Church does is necessary for the validity of any sacrament. On the other hand, he tells us, if the rite is changed with the manifest intention of introducing a new rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, then the intention is not only insufficient, but is destructive of the Sacrament.

And what were the things that Pope Leo XIII described as showing the destructive intention of the Anglican rite of Ordination?

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”6

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood] of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium [priesthood] is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the Episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the Episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it; and this the more so because among the first duties of the Episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.”7

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between ‘the law of believing and the law of praying,’ under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if vitiated in its origin it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient since no change had taken place.”8

Dear reader, these things described above by Pope Leo XIII as the downfall of the Anglican Rite of Ordination – the systematic removal of every reference to the sacrifice of the Mass, consecration and the true sacrificing priesthood – are exactly the things that occurred in the New Rite of Ordination promulgated by Paul VI! In his book The Order of Melchisedech, despite his false conclusions on this and other matters, Michael Davies is forced to admit the following stunning facts:

Michael “As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”9

Michael “…there is not one mandatory prayer in the new rite of ordination itself which makes clear that the essence of the Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and that the sacrament imparts a character which differentiates a priest not simply in degree but in essence from a layman… There is not a word in it that is incompatible with Protestant belief.10

Here are some of the specific prayers and ceremonies which set forth the true nature of the priesthood in the Traditional Rite which have been specifically eliminated from the New Rite of Ordination of Paul VI. The following information is found in Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, pp. 79 and following.

In the Traditional Rite, the bishop addresses the ordinands and says:

► “ For it is a priest’s duty to offer sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize.”

This admonition has been abolished.

The Litany of the Saints then follows in the Traditional Rite. It has been cut short in the New Rite. The New Rite abolishes the following unecumenical assertion:

► “That Thou wouldst recall all who have wandered from the unity of the Church, and lead all believers to the light of the Gospel.”

Later on in the Traditional Rite, after pronouncing the essential form, which has been changed in the New Rite (see above), the bishop says another prayer, which includes the following:

► “Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the service of thy people, bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son.”

This prayer has been abolished.

In the Traditional Rite, the bishop then intones the Veni Creator Spiritus. While anointing each priest he says:

► “Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing, and our blessing. That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

This prayer has been abolished. And this prayer was so significant that it was even mentioned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei #43:

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “… they alone [priests] have been marked with the indelible sign ‘conforming’ them to Christ the Priest, and that their hands alone have been consecrated, ‘in order that whatever they bless may be blessed, whatever they consecrate may become sacred and holy, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.’”11

Notice that Pius XII, in speaking of how the priests have been marked in ordination, makes reference to this very important prayer which was specifically abolished by Paul VI’s new 1968 Rite.

Shortly after this prayer in the Traditional Rite, the bishop says to each ordinand:

► “ Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.”

This exceptionally important prayer has been abolished in the New Rite.

In the Traditional Rite, the new priests then concelebrate Mass with the bishop. At the end, each new priest kneels before the bishop who lays both hands upon the head of each and says:

► “Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

This ceremony and prayer has been abolished.

In the Traditional Rite:

► “… the new priests then promise obedience to their bishop who ‘charges’ them to bear in mind that offering Holy Mass is not free from risk and that they should learn everything necessary from diligent priests before undertaking so fearful a responsibility.”

This admonition has been abolished.

Finally, before completing the Mass, the bishop imparts a blessing:

► “ The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, come down upon you, and make you blessed in the priestly Order, enabling you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for the sins of the people to Almighty God.”

This blessing has been abolished.

Conclusion: It is totally obvious from these facts that there is no intention in the New Rite of ordaining a true sacrificing priest. Every single mandatory reference to the true sacrificing priesthood was deliberately removed, just like in the Anglican Rite – which was declared invalid for that very reason by Pope Leo XIII.

Thus, the following words declared by Pope Leo XIII apply exactly to the New Rite of Paul VI.

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself.”12

The New Rite fits this description precisely. Could anyone deny this fact? No, to do so one would have to bear false witness. The New Rite of Ordination specifically eliminated the sacrificing priesthood. The intention it manifests is therefore contrary to the intention of the Church and cannot suffice for validity.

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.” 13

Michael Davies proves the New Rite is invalid

In his book, The Order of Melchisedech, Michael Davies (a man who actually defended the validity of the New Rite of Ordination) is forced to make, in the face of the undeniable evidence, statement after statement which proves that the New Rite of Ordination must be considered invalid, just as the Anglican Rite. Here are a few:

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 97: “If the new Catholic rite is considered satisfactory, then the entire case put by Apostolicae Curae [of Leo XIII] is underminedIf the new Catholic rite, shorn of any mandatory prayer signifying the essential powers of the priesthood, is valid, then there seems no reason why the 1662 Anglican rite should not be valid too, and still less can there be any possible objection to the 1977 Anglican Series III Ordinal.”

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 99: As a final comment on the new Catholic ordinal, I would like to quote a passage from Apostolicae Curae and to ask any reader to demonstrate to me how the words which Pope Leo XIII wrote of Cranmer’s rite cannot be said to apply to the new Catholic Ordinal, at least where mandatory prayers are concerned.”

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 109: ... the differences between the 1968 Catholic rite and the new Anglican Ordinal are so minimal that it is hard to believe that they are not intended for the same purposeIt will be found that every imperative formula which could be interpreted as conferring any specifically sacerdotal power denied to the faithful at large has been carefully excluded from the new rite.”

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, pp. 94-95: “When the changes [to the Rite of Ordination] are considered as a whole it seems impossible to believe that any Catholic of integrity could deny that the parallel with Cranmer’s reform [the Anglican reform] is evident and alarming. It is quite obvious that there are powerful forces within the Catholic Church and the various Protestant denominations determined to achieve a common Ordinal at all costs… The sixteenth century Protestants changed the traditional Pontificals because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood. Archbishop Bugnini and his Consilium changed the Roman Pontifical in a manner which makes it appear that there is little or no difference between Catholic and Protestant belief, thus undermining Apostolicae Curae [of Leo XIII].14

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 60, A. 8: “… intention is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on. Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a rite other than that which is recognized by the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid; because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does.”

It’s also worth noting that Cranmer, in creating the invalid Anglican Rite, abolished the subdiaconate and minor orders and replaced them with a ministry in three degrees – bishops, priests, and deacons. This is exactly what Paul VI did in changing the Catholic rites.

The New Rite does mention that the candidates for ordination are to be elevated to the “priesthood” – but so does the invalid Anglican. The fact is that Pope Leo XIII explained in Apostolicae Curae that if an ordination rite implies the exclusion of the power to offer propitiatory sacrifices, as the New Rite does, then it is necessarily invalid, although it may express or mention the word “priest.”

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments admitted that the Catholic theology of the priesthood was not made explicit in the 1968 rite.15

The fact is that the New Rite of Paul VI is an entirely new rite, which rejects what the Church does, by rejecting what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament [the sacrificing priesthood], so it is clear that the necessary intention manifested by this rite is insufficient, and even adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Leo XIII). These facts prove that the New Rite of Ordination of Paul VI cannot be considered valid, but must be considered invalid.

Conclusion: This means that any Confessions made of grave sins to “priests” ordained in the New Rite must be made again to a validly ordained priest who was ordained in the Traditional Rite of Ordination by a bishop consecrated in the Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration, if a priest is available. However, there will certainly be almost impossible to find a valid non heretical priest nowadays, and thus you will have to confess your sins to God directly until God solves this apostasy and institutes new non heretical priests that are readily available for everyone. For more information about the Church's dogma against receiving the sacraments from heretics, CLICK HERE. If one cannot remember which sins were confessed to New Rite “priests,” and which were forgiven by a priest ordained in the Traditional Rite, then a Catholic must make a general confession mentioning all grave sins (if there were any) that may have been confessed to a “priest” ordained in the rite of Paul VI (the New Rite).

Obviously, no Catholic may lawfully approach “priests” ordained in the New Rite of Paul VI for either “Communion” or confession or any other sacrament requiring a valid priesthood under pain of grave sin, since they are not valid priests.

As mentioned already, Pope Innocent XI, Decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679,16 condemns the idea that Catholics can receive "probable" sacraments. In other words, even if one believed that the New Rite of Ordination is probably valid (which is clearly false, since it is clearly invalid), one is still forbidden to receive sacraments from those “ordained” in it under pain of mortal sin. Sacraments may only be received when matter and form are certainly valid.

These facts mean that all indult Masses celebrated by “priests” ordained in the New Rite of Paul VI (1968 Rite) are invalid and cannot be attended.

The Society of St. Pius X occasionally has men join their society who were “ordained” in the New Rite of Ordination, and they don’t always have them conditionally ordained – or at least they don’t publicly admit it. The “Masses” offered by such “priests” would be invalid, and it would be a mortal sin to attend any “Church” of heretics, whether valid or nonvalid priests, since all heretics are outside the Church and forbidden to use the sacraments, as this file prove in detail. To approach heretical priests and heretical church buildings is clearly condemned in Catholic dogma, and it doesn’t matter if the priest there is validly ordained or not, for so long as the priest remains a heretic, he is not a Catholic priest and his church is not a Catholic Church - but rather a meeting house of the heretics. This is proven in Catholic dogma.

Those priests who were “ordained” in this New Rite of Paul VI who are open to the truth must be re-ordained by a non heretical validly consecrated bishop in the Traditional Rite. This also necessarily means that the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Mass), without even considering its own problems which render it invalid, is of course invalid if celebrated by any “priest” ordained in the New Rite of Ordination.

Endnotes for Section 10:

1 Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books, 1993, p. 83.

2 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 2301.

3 The Oratory Catechism, Published by the Oratory of Divine Truth, 2000, p. 340; also The Rites of the Catholic Church, The Liturgical Press, Vol. 2, 1991, pp. 44-45.

4 The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1995, p. 405; Denzinger 1966.

5 The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, p. 404.

6 The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, p. 401.

7 The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, p. 402.

8 The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, pp. 402-403.

9 Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books, 1993, p. 83.

10 Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. xix.

11 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 127.

12 The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, pp. 402-403.

13 The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, p. 401.

14 Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, pp. 94-95.

15 Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. xxii.

16 Denzinger 1151.



11. The New Rite of Consecration of Bishops

Paul VI also changed the rite for consecrating bishops. This is very significant because groups such as the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King (indult groups who offer the traditional Latin Mass) ordain their men in the Traditional Rite of Ordination, but have the ordinations done by “bishops” who were made “bishops” in the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.

This issue is also significant because Benedict XVI, the man who currently purports to be the Bishop of Rome, was “consecrated” in this New Rite of Episcopal Consecration on May 28, 1977.1 If he is not a validly consecrated bishop, he cannot be the Bishop of Rome.

In Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII declared what is the essential form for the Consecration of Bishops:

TRADITIONAL FORM FOR CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: …in the Episcopal ordination or consecration… the form consists of the words of the ‘Preface,’ of which the following are essential and so required for validity:

► “Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”2

With its mention of “the fullness of Thy ministry… raiment of all glory” this traditional form unequivocally signifies the power of the episcopacy, which is the “fullness of the priesthood.” Paul VI’s new form in the 1968 rite is given below. The two forms only have one thing in common, the single word “et,” which means “and.”

PAUL VI’S NEW FORM FOR CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS

• “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by Him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”3

This new form does not unequivocally signify the power of the episcopacy. The phrase “governing Spirit” is used to refer to many things in scripture or tradition (e.g. Psalm 5:14), but it doesn’t unequivocally signify the powers of the episcopacy. Therefore, the new form is of gravely doubtful validity.

In addition to the devastating change to the essential form, many other things have been deleted. In fact, there is not one unambiguous statement about the intended sacramental effect of Episcopal Consecration that can be found. In the Traditional Rite of Consecration, the consecrator instructs the bishop elect in the following terms:

►"A bishop judges, interprets, consecrates, ordains, offers, baptizes and confirms."

This has been abolished.

► In the Traditional Rite, the bishop-to-be is asked to confirm his belief in each and every article of the Creed.

This has been abolished.

► In the Traditional Rite, the bishop-to-be is asked if he will "anathematize every heresy that shall arise against the Holy Catholic Church."

This has been abolished. The deletion of this requirement to anathematize heresy is significant, for this is indeed one of the functions of a bishop.

In the Traditional Rite, after the consecratory prayer, the functions of a bishop are once again specified in these words:

► "Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven... Whatsoever he shall bind upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, let it likewise be loosed in Heaven. Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit... Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal chair..."

This entire prayer has been abolished in the New Rite.

Conclusion: Paul VI’s New Rite of Episcopal Consecration has a radically different form from what Pius XII declared was necessary for validity.

The new form does not unequivocally signify the powers of the episcopacy. The New Rite of Episcopal Consecration cannot be considered valid, since doubtful matter or form is considered invalid.

All “priests” ordained by “bishops” consecrated in this rite, even if the Traditional Rite of Ordination was used, such as with most of the Fraternity of St. Peter priests, Institute of Christ the King priests, etc. cannot be considered valid priests. Their “Masses” must be avoided.

Endnotes for Section 11:

1 Biography of Benedict XVI, Vatican website: www.vatican.va

2 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 2301.

3 The Rites of the Catholic Church, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991, Vol. 2, p. 73.



12. New Sacraments: the Changes to the Other Sacraments

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.” (Prophecy of Pope Leo XIII about a future apostasy, 1888)

Besides making invalidating changes to the Mass, the Rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration, as we covered already, Paul VI changed the rites of all five other sacraments.

BAPTISM

The New Order of Baptism was promulgated on May 15, 1969. The questions “Do you renounce Satan?” and “Do you believe…?” are now directed toward the “parents and godparents”; they are no longer directed toward the candidate for baptism. In the new rite, the candidate for baptism is not even asked if he believes.

In the new rite, the newly baptized child no longer receives the lighted candle – instead it is given to a parent or godparent. Also, the newly baptized child no longer receives a white garment – it is only mentioned symbolically. The candidate for baptism is no longer required to make a baptismal vow.

In addition, all the exorcisms of the Devil are omitted in Paul VI’s new rite of Baptism! Why would one remove the exorcism prayers? Although Satan is mentioned in the texts, he is not banished.

Conclusion: As long as the person baptizing in the Novus Ordo Church pours water and uses the essential form – “I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” – with the intention to do what the Church does, then the baptism is valid, despite these other problems in the surrounding rite. But these changes to the rite of Baptism, although not essential to validity, serve to reveal the true character and intentions of the men who have implemented the Vatican II revolution. A conditional baptism should be made to put away any doubts about the validity of your baptism. Here is the way you should do a conditional baptism.

CONFIRMATION

The New Order of Confirmation was promulgated on Aug. 15, 1971. The form and the matter of the sacrament have been changed.

The traditional form for the sacrament of confirmation is:

► “I sign you with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm you with the Chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

The new form in the New Rite for the sacrament of confirmation:

● “N., receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”

As we can see, the traditional form of Confirmation has been fundamentally changed. The new form actually uses the form that is used in the Eastern Rites. Why would Paul VI replace the traditional form in the Roman Rite with the form of the Eastern Rite? We will see the significance of this change when we look at the matter of Confirmation, which has also been changed. Most theologians traditionally regard the imposition of hands and the signing and anointing of the forehead as the proximate matter of Confirmation, and the chrism of olive oil and balm consecrated by the bishop as the remote matter. In Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation, the imposition of hands has been abolished, and other vegetable oils may replace olive oil, and any spice may be used instead of balm!

In the New Testament, the imposition of hands was always present in confirmation (see Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6). But there is no imposition of hands in the New Rite of Confirmation. It has been abolished. This alone renders Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation highly doubtful. Further, in the Eastern Rite of Confirmation,when the form is pronounced by the bishop, he imposes his hands, thus completing by his action the words of the form. In the new rite, however, even though the Eastern Rite form is used, the words are not completed by the action of imposition of hands, as in the Eastern Rite, thus rendering it highly doubtful.

Conclusion: All the changes considered, the validity of the new Confirmation is highly doubtful.

CONFESSION

The Sacrament of Penance has been changed into a “Celebration of Reconciliation.” The New Order of Penance or Confession was promulgated by Paul VI on Dec. 2, 1973. The essential form necessary for a validly ordained priest to absolve someone are the following words:

“ I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Denzinger 696.)

Perhaps this will come as a surprise, but this essential form has not been changed in the New Rite of Confession. There are some Novus Ordo priests who do not say “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” but use new forms such as: “I free you from every bond of sin that you are under.” If one of these different forms is used, then the confession would be doubtful.

As we’ve shown, however, the “priests” at the Novus Ordo/Vatican II churches that have been ordained in the New Rite of Ordination (promulgated on June 18, 1968) are not validly ordained. This means that even if Novus Ordo “priests” use the essential form, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” if they were ordained in the New Rite they are not valid priests and it makes no difference.

Conclusion: The New Rite of Confession is valid, but only if the priest was ordained in the Traditional Rite by a bishop consecrated in the Traditional Rite – and if he adheres to the words “I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

EXTREME UNCTION

The New Rite of Extreme Unction was promulgated on November 30, 1972. The New Rite of Extreme Unction is now called the “Anointing of the Sick,” which is to be administered to those who are seriously ill. The term “in danger of death” is avoided. The new rite addresses itself much more to the healing of illness rather than to the preparation for the hour of death. The new consecration of the oil and the thanksgiving for the oil contain many passages concerning physical recovery. The prayer for Satan’s expulsion is abolished. And no longer are the angels, Guardian Angles, the Mother of God and St. Joseph invoked.

THE TRADITIONAL FORM OF EXTREME UNCTION

The traditional form of Extreme Unction is:

May the Lord forgive you by this holy anointing and His most loving mercy whatever sins you have committed by the use of your sight (hearing, sense of smell, sense of taste and power of speech, sense of touch, power to walk).

THE NEW FORM OF “ANOINTING OF THE SICK” (CALLED EXTREME UNCTION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH)

Through this holy anointing and His most loving mercy, may the Lord help you by the grace of the Holy Spirit (Penitent: Amen) so that when you have been freed from your sins, He may save you and in His goodness raise you up.

One can see that after the change the new form has acquired a considerably different emphasis. The emphasis is now on deliverance from illness. The fact that the new rite is called only “Anointing of the Sick” already suggests that one is to think of physical recovery. Consequently, the new rite is administered many times to the sick and elderly who are not in danger of death.

The new form is also ambiguous about when the forgiveness of sins is granted. The old form clearly indicated that the Lord is forgiving sins by this anointing. The new form mentions “when you have been freed of your sins,” which could mean sometime in the future.

The matter in the new rite has also been changed. Throughout the history of the Church, olive oil was the matter of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. In the new rite, however, instead of olive oil any other vegetable oil may be used. Instead of six anointings, only two are prescribed.

According to most theologians, the use of whatever vegetable oils one chooses renders the sacrament invalid. Not knowing whether the matter used in the New Rite is olive oil is enough to cause doubt.

Conclusion: The new rite of Extreme Unction is of doubtful validity.

MARRIAGE

The new order of marriage was promulgated on March 19, 1969. With the new celebration of marriage, almost all the prayers have been changed. In the traditional rite of marriage a reading from Ephesians (5:22-33) was prescribed, stipulating the subordination of the wife to the husband. In the new rite, a selection can be made from ten different readings, one of which is the Ephesians verse, but the reading specifically omits the verses that address the subordination of the wife to the husband! In the questioning of the bride and groom on their commitment to lead a true Christian marriage, they are not questioned separately, but together.

The nuptial Blessing has been changed; the wording has been altered.

Despite these problems, the form and matter of the Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be changed, because the matter is constituted by the people getting married, and the form is their mutual consent. However, the changes to the rite of the Sacrament of Matrimony show again the character and intention of those who have implemented the Vatican II revolution.

Conclusion: The new rite of marriage is valid, but a traditional Catholic cannot be married according to the new rite. Many of the mixed marriages which are allowed are invalid. The new rite of marriage doesn’t invoke God. The new rite of marriage is used to corrupt Catholic teachings and enforce a false understanding to the married couple. Since a priest is the witness of the church in marriage, a Catholic should not get married in front of any priest, even validly ordained, who is not 100% Catholic. To find a non heretical priest today will be almost impossible, and thus you will have to do the best you can in order to get married without having anything to do with heretics.

SUMMARY OF THE NEW SACRAMENTAL RITES CREATED BY PAUL VI FOR THE COUNTER-CHURCH

New Mass – invalid

New Rite of Ordination – invalid

New Rite of Episcopal Consecration – gravely doubtful

New Rite of Baptism – valid

New Rite of Confession – valid, if adhered to and used by a validly ordained priest

New Rite of Confirmation – gravely doubtful

New Rite of Extreme Unction – doubtful

New Rite of Marriage – valid



14. The Heresies of Paul VI (1963-1978), the man who gave the world the New Mass and the Teachings of Vatican II

How could a successor of Peter have caused in so short a time more damage to the Church than the Revolution of 1789?... the deepest and most excessive in Her history… what no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing?... Do we really have a pope or an intruder sitting on the Chair of Peter?”1 (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, commenting on Paul VI’s reign in 1976)

Paul VI

Paul VI was the man who claimed to be the head of the Catholic Church from June 21, 1963 to August 6, 1978. He was the man who promulgated the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass. We’ve already seen that the evidence indicates that the man who preceded and elevated Paul VI, John XXIII, was a Freemason and a manifest heretic. We’ve also seen that the documents of Vatican II contain many heresies, and that the New Mass, which Paul VI eventually promulgated, represented a liturgical revolution.

Paul VI solemnly ratified all 16 documents of Vatican II. It is not possible for a true pope of the Catholic Church to solemnly ratify teachings that are heretical. As we will show in more detail later in this book, the fact that Paul VI did solemnly ratify the heretical teachings of Vatican II proves that Paul VI was not a true pope, but an antipope.

It’s important to keep in mind that Paul VI was the one who gave the world the New Mass, the other new “sacraments,” and the heretical teachings of Vatican II. If you go to the New Mass or embrace the teachings of Vatican II, the confidence that you have that these things are legitimate is directly connected to the confidence that you have that Paul VI was a true Catholic pope.

We will now expose the amazing heresies of Paul VI. We will show, from his official speeches and writings, that Paul VI was a complete apostate who was not even remotely Catholic. All of the official speeches and writings of the men who claim to be pope are contained in the Vatican’s weekly newspaper, L’ Osservatore Romano. The Vatican has reprinted issues of their newspaper from April 4, 1968 to the present. From those speeches, we will now prove that Paul VI was not a true pope because of the irrefutable and undeniable evidence that he was a complete heretic and an apostate.

PAUL VI ON NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

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

Pope St. Gregory the Great, 590-604: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”5

All of the other religions belong to the Devil. This is the teaching of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture. See 1 Cor. 10:20 and Psalm 95:5. Anyone who shows esteem for non-Christian religions, or regards them as good or deserving of respect, denies Jesus Christ and is an apostate.

Paul VI, General Audience, Nov. 8, 1972: “Ecumenism began in this way; as respect for non-Christian religions…”6

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “… that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy... Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it...”7

Here is more of what Paul VI thought about non-Christian religions of the Devil:

Paul VI, Address, Sept. 22, 1973: “…noble non-Christian religions…”8

This is apostasy – a total rejection of Jesus Christ.

Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1972: “…a disconcerting picture opens up before our eyes: that of religions, the religions invented by man; attempts that are sometimes extremely daring and noble…”9

Here Paul VI says that religions invented by man are sometimes extremely noble! This is apostasy – a rejection of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.

Paul VI, Message, Dec. 6, 1977: “…non-Christian religions, which the Church respects and esteems…”10

He is saying that he esteems false religions.

Paul VI, Message, Nov. 24, 1969: “…overcome divisions, by developing a mutual respect between the different religious confessions.”11

Paul VI, Address, Dec. 3, 1970: “We greet with respect the representatives of all the other religions who have honored us by their presence.”12

Paul VI, General Audience, July 6, 1977: “We welcome with sincere respect the Japanese delegation of the Konko-kyo religion.”13

In his Address, Aug. 22, 1969, Paul VI praised the Hindu Gandhi, and stated that he was: “Ever conscious of God’s presence…”14

Hindus are pagans and idolaters who worship many different false gods. For Paul VI to praise the notorious Hindu Gandhi as “ever-conscious of God’s presence” shows again that Paul VI was a complete religious indifferentist. Paul VI also officially praised the false religion of Hinduism in the official Vatican II document Nostra Aetate #2 (on non-Christian religions), as we quoted in the section on Vatican II.

Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation, Dec. 8, 1975: “The Church respects and esteems these non- Christian religions…”15

Notice again that Paul VI esteems false religions; this is satanic.

Paul VI, Address, Aug. 24, 1974: “Religious and cultural differences in India, as you have said, are honored and respected… We are pleased to see that this mutual honor and esteem is practiced…”16

Paul VI says that religious differences are honored in India and that he is pleased to see this. This means that he honors the worship of false gods.

Paul VI, Address to Synod of Bishops, Sept. 2, 1974: “Likewise we cannot omit a reference to the non-Christian religions. These, in fact, must no longer be regarded as rivals, or obstacles to Evangelization…”17

Here Paul VI boldly reveals that he is preaching a new Gospel. Non-Christian religions, he tells us, are no longer our obstacle to evangelization. This is an antichrist religion of apostasy.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate’ (Athanasian Creed).”18

Paul VI, Address to Dalai Lama, Sept. 30, 1973: “We are happy to welcome Your Holiness today… You come to us from Asia, the cradle of ancient religions and human traditions which are rightly held in deep veneration.”19

Paul VI tells us that it is right to hold false religions which worship false gods in “deep veneration”! This may be the worst heresy that Paul VI uttered.

Paul VI, Message to Pagan Shinto Priests, March 3, 1976: “We know the fame of your temple, and the wisdom that is represented so vividly by the images contained therein.”21

This is one of the most evil, revealing and heretical statements that Paul VI ever uttered. He is praising the wisdom contained in the images in the pagan Shinto Temple; in other words, he is praising the idols of the Shintoists!

PAUL VI ON BUDDHISM

Buddhism is a false, pagan religion of the East which teaches belief in re-incarnation and karma. Buddhists hold that life is not worth living, and that every form of conscious existence is an evil. Buddhists worship various false gods. Buddhism is an idolatrous and false religion of the Devil. Here’s what Paul VI thought about Buddhism:

Paul VI, General Audience to Japanese Buddhists, Sept. 5, 1973: “It is a great pleasure for us to welcome the members of the Japanese Buddhists Europe Tour, honored followers of the Soto-shu sect of Buddhism… At the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church exhorted her sons and daughters to study and evaluate the religious traditions of mankind and to ‘learn by sincere and patient dialogue what treasures a bountiful God has distributed among the nations of the earth’ (Ad Gentes, 11)… Buddhism is one of the riches of Asia…”22

According to Paul VI, the false, pagan and idolatrous religion of Buddhism is one of the “riches” of Asia!

Paul VI, General Audience to Japanese Buddhist Mission Tour, Oct. 24, 1973: “Once again it is our pleasure to welcome a distinguished group of the Japan Buddhist Mission Tour. We are happy to reiterate the esteem we have for your country, your noble traditions…”23

Paul VI, Speech to Tibetan Buddhist Spiritual Leader, Jan. 17, 1975: “The Second Vatican Council has expressed sincere admiration for Buddhism in its various forms… We wish Your Holiness and all your faithful an abundance of Prosperity and Peace.”24

Notice his idolatry and apostasy in admiring, not only Buddhists, but the false religion of Buddhism.

Paul VI, Address to Buddhists, June 5, 1972: “It is with great cordiality and esteem that we greet so distinguished a group of Buddhist leaders from Thailand... We have a profound regard for… your precious traditions.”22

Paul VI to a group of Buddhist Leaders, June 15, 1977: “To the distinguished group of Buddhist leaders from Japan we bid a warm welcome. The Second Vatican Council declared that the Catholic Church looks with sincere respect on your way of life… On this occasion we are happy to recall the words of St. John: ‘The world, with all it craves for, is coming to an end; but anyone who does the will of God remains forever’.”26

He first says that the Catholic Church looks with sincere respect upon the Buddhists’ way of life. This is heresy. He then says that, on this occasion, he must recall the words of St. John: anyone who does the will of God remains forever. His meaning is clearly that Buddhists will live forever; that is, they will be saved. This is totally heretical.

PAUL VI ON ISLAM

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

Paul VI, Speech, Sept. 9, 1972: “We would also like you to know that the Church recognizes the riches of the Islamic faith – a faith that binds us to the one God.”28

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

Paul VI, Address, Sept. 18, 1969: “…Moslems… along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”29

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

Paul VI, Address to Muslim Ambassador, June 4, 1976: “... Moroccan Moslems … our brothers in faith in the one God. You will always be made very welcome and you will find esteem and understanding here.”30

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

Paul VI, Address, Dec. 2, 1977: “…the Moslems (who) profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day, as the Second Vatican Council solemnly declared.” 31

Paul VI, Address, August, 1969: “…Our lively desire to greet, in your persons, the great Moslem communities spread throughout Africa? You thus enable Us to manifest here Our high respect for the faith you profess… In recalling the Catholic and Anglican Martyrs, We gladly recall also those confessors of the Moslem faith who were the first to suffer death…”32

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

Paul VI, Angelus Address, Aug. 3, 1969: “Twenty-two martyrs were recognized, but there were many more, and not only Catholics. There were also Anglicans and some Mohammedans.”33

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

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: “….nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”34

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, dogmatic Athanasian Creed, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity…”35

PAUL VI ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Paul VI, Address, July 9, 1969: “She [the Church] has also affirmed, during Her long history, at the cost of oppression and persecution, freedom for everyone to profess his own religion. No one, She says, is to be restrained from acting, no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs… As we said, the Council demanded a true and public religious freedom…”36

This is completely false and heretical. The Catholic Church has affirmed during her long history, at the cost of oppression and persecution, that the religion of Jesus Christ is the only one that is true; and that Christ is truly God and truly man. Paul VI would have us believe, however, that the martyrs were tortured horribly, not for their profession of faith in Christ, but in order for all to have freedom to profess their various false religions! This is an astoundingly heretical distortion of the truth!

Paul VI, Message, Dec. 10, 1973: “… the repeated violations of the sacred right to religious liberty in its various aspects and the absence of an international agreement supporting this right…”37

Paul VI, Letter, July 25, 1975: “…the Holy See rejoices to see specifically emphasized the right of religious liberty.”38

Again, in the section on Vatican II we showed that the doctrine on religious liberty which was advocated by Paul VI was, in fact, condemned by Catholic popes.

PAUL VI ON THE “ORTHODOX”


Here we see Paul VI giving a clear Masonic handshake to the Eastern Schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras, on Jan. 5, 1964. The two also mutually lifted the reciprocal excommunications of 1054. Translation: this means that Paul VI considered that the Eastern "Orthodox" are no longer excommunicated even though they deny the Papacy. Therefore, according to him, the Papacy is not a dogma binding under pain of excommunication.

The Eastern Orthodox schismatics reject Papal Infallibility and the last 13 General of the Catholic Church. reject that the Holy Ghost proceeds the Second of the Trinity; they permit and remarriage; many of them reject the Immaculate Conception. ’s what Paul VI thought these schismatis:

Paul VI, Speech, April 19, 1970, speaking of the deceased schismatic Patriarch of Moscow: “To the very end he was conscious and solicitous for his great ministry.”39

He says that leadership in a schismatic church is a great ministry.

Paul VI, Address, Jan. 24, 1972: “…greet among us an eminent representative of the venerable Orthodox Church… a man of great piety...” 40

Paul VI, Speech, Jan. 23, 1972: “…the great, venerable and excellent Orthodox Patriarch…”41

Paul VI, Address to Schismatic Delegation, June 27, 1977: “Then, ten years later, we paid a visit to your holy Church…”42

Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 20, 1971: “… the venerable Eastern Orthodox Churches…”43

He says that schismatic churches are venerable.

Paul VI, speaking of the death of the Schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras, July 9, 1972: “…we recommend this great man to you, a man of a venerated Church…”44

Paul VI, Address, May 25, 1968: “…the venerable Orthodox Church of Bulgaria.”45

Paul VI, Common Declaration with Patriarch of Syrian Schismatic Sect, Oct. 27, 1971: “This should be done with love, with openness to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and with mutual respect for each other and each other’s Church.”46

So Paul VI respects the rejection of the Papacy and Papal Infallibility.

Paul VI, Telegram upon election of new Schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, July, 1972: “At the moment when you assume a heavy charge in the service of the Church of Christ…”47

This means that the schismatic Church is the Church of Christ according to antipope Paul VI.

Paul VI, Address, Dec. 14, 1976: “…very dear Brothers, sent by the venerable Church of Constantinople… we carried out the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the ancient anathemas, an act with which we wished to remove the memory of these events forever from the memory and the heart of the Church…”48

The schismatic “Orthodox” are anathematized by the Catholic Church for denying the Papacy, and not accepting dogmas of the Catholic Faith. But Paul VI solemnly lifted these anathemas against them, as we mentioned above. Like the statement above, this address of Paul VI means he attempted to overturn the Papacy as a dogma which must be believed under pain of anathema or condemnation.

Pope Gregory XVI, May 27, 1832: “Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.”50

Paul VI, Letter to Schismatic, November, 1976: “…the first Pan-Orthodox Conference in preparation for the Great Holy Council of the Orthodox Churches is beginning its work… for the best service of the venerable Orthodox Church.”51

He calls the schismatic council “holy” and the schismatic Church “venerable.” Paul VI was a schismatic.

Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 24, 1973: “…our brother of venerated memory, the ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople…”52

Paul VI, Message concerning deceased Russian schismatic, April 7, 1972: “…we express to Your Eminence and the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church our sincere condolences with the assurance of our prayers for the eternal repose of your pastor…”53

Paul VI, Message, May 23, 1968, to the Schismatic Patriarch of Moscow: “…Holiness, on the occasion of the celebrations for the fiftieth anniversary for the day when the Synod of the whole Orthodox Church of Russia re-established the Patriarchal See of Moscow… we have delegated to participate in the solemn celebrations which will take place in your Patriarchal City our very dear brothers in the Episcopate…”54

He calls the schismatic Patriarch “Holiness” and celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of the schismatic Church.

Paul VI, Speech to Schismatic, July 1, 1978: “We receive you with affection and esteem.”55

Paul VI, General Audience, Nov. 30, 1977: “We greet you joyfully, beloved brothers, who represent here His Holiness Patriarch Pimen and the Russian Orthodox Churchall our esteem and brotherly love to His Holiness Patriarch Pimen, to his clergy and to the whole people of the faithful.”56

Paul VI went on to say in a letter about the schismatic Athenagoras (July, 1972): “…we pray the Lord to receive into His heavenly kingdom him…”57

Paul VI, Joint Declaration with the Schismatic “Pope” Shenouda III, May 10, 1973: “Paul VI, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark… In the name of this charity, we reject all forms of proselytism… Let it cease, where it may exist…”58

This is all one really needs to see to know that Paul VI was a schismatic and not a Catholic. He makes a Joint Declaration with a schismatic “pope.” He acknowledges this schismatic as the holder of the See of St. Mark. This is a blasphemy against the Papacy, since this schismatic holds no authority whatsoever. He rejects all forms of proselytism – that is, trying to convert the schismatics – and he says “let it cease where it may exist”! Paul VI was a formal heretic and schismatic.

PAUL VI ON OTHER PROTESTANT SECTS

Protestantism began with the German priest Martin Luther, who left the Catholic Church and started the Protestant revolution in 1517. Luther denied free will, the Papacy, praying to the saints, Purgatory, Tradition, Transubstantiation and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Luther replaced the Mass with a memorial service commemorating the Last Supper. All the sacraments except Baptism and the Holy Eucharist were rejected. Luther held that after the fall of Adam man cannot produce any good works. Most Protestants hold the same beliefs as Luther, but all of them reject numerous Catholic dogmas. Here’s what Paul VI thought of these heretics and schismatics:

Paul VI, Angelus Address, Jan. 17, 1971: “From polemical opposition among the various Christian denominations we have passed to mutual respect…”59

Here Paul VI reveals that the Vatican II agenda with regard to Protestant sects has gone from polemical opposition – in other words, an opposition to their false doctrines – to an attitude of mutual respect for, their false religion.

Paul VI, Speech to Representatives of non-Catholic churches in Geneva, June, 1969: “The spirit that animates us… This spirit lays down, as the first basis of every fruitful contact between different confessions, that each profess his faith loyally.”60

Paul VI is saying that the Protestants should not become Catholic, but remain loyal to their own sects.

Paul VI, Homily, Jan. 25, 1973: “…express a respectful and affectionate thought in Christ to Christians of other denominations residing in this city and assure them of our esteem…”61

This is an incredible homily. In it he’s assuring the heretics of other denominations of his esteem. Consider that Paul VI didn’t even personally know all the people he was esteeming. He didn’t know anything about them except that they belong to one of these sects, and he assured them of his esteem on that basis!

Paul VI, Letter, Aug. 6, 1973, to the World Council of Churches: “The World Council of Churches has been created in order, by the grace of God, to serve the Churches and Ecclesial Communities in their endeavors to restore and to manifest to all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to His Church.”62

Paul VI says that the World Council of Churches has been created to restore and to manifest to all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to His Church. Notice the astounding implication of this statement. The perfect communion in faith and charity which is the gift of Christ to His Church is the organization of the Catholic Church, the universal Church founded by Christ. But Paul VI says that this is manifested by the World Council of Churches! He has replaced the Catholic Church with the World Council of Churches. The World Council of Churches is an organization made up of many different sects and denominations. A traditional commentator would correctly label it a Communist front group – meant to water-down and liberalize the “Christian” churches of the world. But it is undoubtedly a very heretical ecumenical organization made of various man-made religions.

Paul VI, Discourse, Dec. 12, 1968: “…our sons are on friendly terms with their Christian brothers, Lutheran Evangelicals…”63

Pope Pius IV, profession of faith, Council of Trent, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”64

Paul VI, Address, April 28, 1977: “…relations between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion… these words of hope, ‘The Anglican Communion united not absorbed,’ are no longer a mere dream.”65

This means that Paul VI wants to unite with the Anglican sect without absorbing them; that is, without converting them.

Paul VI, Speech, Aug. 2, 1969: “We wished to meet the Anglican Church which flourishes in this country. We wished to pay homage to those sons of whom it is most proud, those who – together with our own Catholic martyrs – gave the generous witness of their lives to the Gospel...”66

Paul VI, Speaking of the death of the Protestant Martin Luther King, Jr., April 7, 1968: “…we shall all share the hopes which his martyrdom inspires in us.”67

Pope Gregory XVI, May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”68

PAUL VI ON THE UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations is an evil organization that promotes contraception and abortion, and looks to take control of the decision-making for every country on the planet. Former UN Secretary General U Thant praised the Communist Lenin as a man whose “ideals were reflected in the United Nations Charter.”72 Here’s what Paul VI thought of the UN:

Paul VI, Address, Feb. 5, 1972: “…we have faith in the UN.”73

Paul VI, Message, April 26, 1968: “…may all men of heart join together peacefully in order that the principles of the United Nations may be not only proclaimed, but put into effect, and that not only the constitution of States may promulgate them, but public authorities apply them…”74

Paul VI, Address to Secretary General of the U.N., July 9, 1977: “We wish to listen to the voice of the authorized representative of the United Nations Organization… all this merely emphasizes more the beneficial and irreplaceable role of the United Nations Organization…”75

Paul VI, Message to U.N., Oct. 4, 1970: “Today we wish once more to repeat the words which we had the honor to pronounce on 4th October 1965 from the tribune of your assembly: ‘This Organization represents the path that has to be taken for modern civilization and for world peace… Where else, moreover, could these governments and peoples better find a bridge to link them, a table round which they can gather, and a tribunal where they may plead the cause of justice and peace?... who better than the United Nations Organization and its specialized agencies will be able to take up the challenge presented to all mankind?... There exists in effect a common good of man, and it is up to your Organization, because of its dedication to universality, which is its reason for being, to promote it untiringly.”76

First, Paul VI says that the U.N. is the path that has to be taken. He says that the U.N., not the Catholic Church, is the best means for the cause of justice and peace for the world. Second, he says that the U.N. is the universal (that is, Catholic) body for mankind! He is replacing the Church with the UN.

OTHER CHANGES MADE BY PAUL VI

In addition to all of the heresies we have covered in the speeches of Paul VI, he was the man who authoritatively implemented the false Second Vatican Council, changed the Catholic Mass into a Protestant service, and changed the rite of every single Sacrament. He changed the matter or form of the Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Confirmation. Paul VI wanted to put Christ to death in the Mass (by removing it and replacing it with a counterfeit), and wanted to kill His Catholic Church by attempting to change the Church completely.

Within two years of the close of Vatican II, Paul VI removed the index of forbidden books, a decision one commentator rightly called “incomprehensible.”


Paul VI then abolished the oath against Modernism, at a time when Modernism was flourishing as never before. On Nov. 21, 1970,107 Paul VI also excluded all cardinals over 80 years of age from participating in papal elections. Paul VI disestablished the papal court, disbanded the Noble Guard and the Palatine Guards.108 Paul VI abolished the rite of Tonsure, all four Minor Orders, and the rank of Subdiaconate.109

Paul VI gave back to the Muslims the Standard of Lepanto. The history of the flag was venerable. It was taken from a Turkish admiral during a great naval battle in 1571. While Pope St. Pius V fasted and prayed the Rosary, an out-numbered Christian fleet defeated a much larger Moslem navy, thus saving Christendom from the infidel. In honor of the miraculous victory, Pius V instituted the Feast of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary to commemorate her intercession. In one dramatic act, Paul VI renounced not only a remarkable Christian victory, but the prayers and sacrifices of a great pope and saint.”110

Under Paul VI, the Holy Office was reformed: its primary function now was research, not defending the Catholic Faith.111 According to those who watched a film of Paul VI’s visit to Fatima, he did not pray one Hail Mary.112

In 1969, Paul VI removed forty saints from the official liturgical calendar.113

Paul VI removed solemn exorcisms from the baptismal rite. In the place of the solemn exorcisms, he substituted optional prayer that makes only a passing passing reference to fighting the Devil.114


Paul VI granted more than 32,000 requests from priests who had asked to be released from their vows and returned to lay status – the greatest exodus from the priesthood since the Protestant revolution.115

Paul VI's disastrous influence was visible immediately. For example, in Holland not a single candidate applied for admission to the priesthood in 1970, and within 12 months every seminary there was closed.116 Spiritual destruction was everywhere; countless millions left the Church; countless others ceased practicing their Faith and confessing their sins.

And while Paul VI was the cause of this unrelenting disaster and spiritual destruction, like the sly serpent he was, he calculatingly misdirected the attention away from himself. In perhaps his most famous quotation, he noted that Satan’s smoke had made its way into the Temple of God.

Paul VI, Homily, June 29, 1972: “Satan’s smoke has made its way into the Temple of God through some crack…”117

When Paul VI made this statement, everyone looked at the cardinals, the bishops and the priests to discover where this smoke of Satan might be. They looked at everyone except the man who made the statement. But Paul VI was actually the smoke of Satan, and he made the statement to misdirect people away from himself; and in this he was successful. But what is perhaps most frightening is that Paul VI’s famous statement is basically a direct reference to Apocalypse 9:1-3.

Apoc. 9:1-3: “And there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit: and the smoke of the pit arose, as the smoke of a great furnace…”

In Apocalypse 9, we see a direct reference to the smoke of Satan, and to someone who is given the key to unleash it. Antipope Paul VI did not have the keys of Peter, but he was given the key to the bottomless pit. He was the one who brought in the smoke of Satan from the great furnace; as he says, from some crack.

Jean Guitton, an intimate friend of Paul VI, related what Paul VI said at the final session of Vatican II: “It was the final session of the Council,” Guitton wrote, “the most essential, in which Paul VI was to bestow on all humanity the teachings of the Council. He announced this to me on that day with these words, ‘I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse.’”118

PAUL VI ADMITTED HIS CHURCH IS THE WHORE OF BABYLON

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. Near the end of this book we bring forward the evidence that the 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.”

We have proven that Paul VI was a complete apostate who believed that false religions are true, that heresy and schism are fine, and that schismatics should not be converted, just to name a few.

If you accept Vatican II or the New Mass or the new sacramental rites – in short, if you accept the Vatican II religion – this is the man whose religion you are following, a manifestly heretical infiltrator, whose whole mission was to attempt to overturn and destroy as much of the Catholic Faith as possible.

Catholics must have no part with Antipope Paul VI’s New Mass (the Novus Ordo) and must completely reject Vatican II and the new sacramental rites. Catholics must completely reject Antipope Paul VI for the non-Catholic antipope he was. Catholics must reject and not support any group which accepts this apostate as a valid pope, or which accepts the New Mass or Vatican II or the new sacramental rites of Paul VI and stay away from all masses of heretical priests, whether valid or nonvalid.

Endnotes for Section 14:

1 Declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, August, 1976; partially quoted by Bishop Tissier De Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 2004, p. 505.

2 L’Osservatore Romano (the Vatican’s Newspaper), Dec. 14, 1972, p. 1.

3 L’Osservatore Romano, July 5, 1973, p. 1.

4 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 82.

5 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 230.

6 L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 16, 1972, p. 1.

7 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), pp. 313-314.

8 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 11, 1973, p. 10.

9 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 20, 1972, p. 1.

10 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 22, 1977, p. 2.

11 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 18, 1969, p. 2.

12 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 17, 1970, p. 7.

13 L’Osservatore Romano, July 14, 1977, p. 12.

14 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 9, 1969, p. 5.

15 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 25, 1975, p. 5.

16 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 12, 1974, p. 2.

17 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 10, 1974, p. 7.

18 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 238.

19 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 11, 1973, p. 4.

20 L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 14, 1969, p. 12.

21 L’Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1976, p. 12.

22 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 13, 1973, p. 8.

23 L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 1, 1973, p. 1.

24 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 30, 1975, p. 5.

25 L’Osservatore Romano, June 15, 1972, p. 5.

26 L’Osservatore Romano, June 23, 1977, p. 5.

27 L’Osservatore Romano, June 21, 1973, p. 5.

28 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 21, 1972, p. 2.

29 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 2, 1969, p. 2.

30 L’Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1976, p. 4.

31 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 22, 1977, p. 2.

32 L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 14, 1969, p. 10.

33 L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 7, 1969, p. 1.

34 Denzinger 714.

35 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 39-40.

36 L’Osservatore Romano, July 17, 1969, p. 1.

37 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 20, 1973, p. 3.

38 L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 14, 1975, p. 3.

39 L’Osservatore Romano, April 23, 1970, p. 12.

40 L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 10, 1972, p. 3.

41 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 27, 1972, p. 12.

42 L’Osservatore Romano, July 14, 1977, p. 10.

43 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 28, 1971, p. 1.

44 L’Osservatore Romano, July 13, 1972, p. 12.

45 L’Osservatore Romano, June 6, 1968, p. 5.

46 L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 4, 1971, p. 14.

47 L’Osservatore Romano, July 27, 1972, p. 12.

48 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 1, 1976, p. 6.

49 L’Osservatore Romano, March 18, 1971, p. 12.

50 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 230.

51 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 30, 1976, p. 8.

52 L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 1, 1973, p. 12.

53 L’Osservatore Romano, May 11, 1972, p. 4.

54 L’Osservatore Romano, June 6, 1968, p. 4.

55 L’Osservatore Romano, July 13, 1978, p. 3.

56 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 15, 1977, p. 4.

57 L’Osservatore Romano, July 13, 1972, p. 12.

58 L’Osservatore Romano, May 24, 1973, p. 6.

59 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 21, 1971, p. 12.

60 L’Osservatore Romano, June 19, 1969, p. 9.

61 L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 8, 1973, p. 7.

62 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 6, 1973, p. 8.

63 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 26, 1968, p. 4.

64 Denzinger 1000.

65 L’Osservatore Romano, May 5, 1977, p. 1.

66 L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 14, 1969, p. 1.

67 L’Osservatore Romano, April 18, 1968, p. 2.

68 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 229.

69 L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 26, 1970, p. 7.

70 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 5, 1968, p. 10.

71 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5 (1858-1981), p. 227.

72 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16291

73 L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 17, 1972, p. 5.

74 L’Osservatore Romano, May 2, 1968, p. 4.

75 L’Osservatore Romano, July 21, 1977, p. 6.

76 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 15, 1970, p. 3.

77 L’Osservatore Romano, June 17, 1976, p. 3.

78 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 22, 1977, p. 11.

79 L’Osservatore Romano, June 15, 1978, p. 3.

80 L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 11, 1971, p. 12.

81 L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 14, 1969, p. 8.

82 L’Osservatore Romano, May 27, 1971, p. 5.

83 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 2, 1971, p. 3.

84 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 20, 1972, p. 7.

85 L’Osservatore Romano, April 19, 1973, p. 9.

86 L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 7, 1974, p. 6.

87 L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 28, 1974, p. 3.

88 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 2, 1969, p. 12.

89 L’Osservatore Romano, May 8, 1969, p. 3.

90 L’Osservatore Romano, July 24, 1969, p. 12.

91 L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 5, 1971, p. 12.

92 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 12, 1968, p. 1.

93 L’Osservatore Romano, July 24, 1975, p. 2.

94 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 7, 1976, p. 2.

95 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 28, 1976, p. 4.

96 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 16, 1976, p. 4.

97 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 30, 1976, p. 1.

98 L’Osservatore Romano, June 19, 1969, p. 6.

99 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 25, 1969, p. 3.

100 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 1, 1976, p. 11.

101 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 30, 1976, p. 1.

102 The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, p. 425.

103 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 30, 1976, p. 5.

104 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 24, 1970, p. 2.

105 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 6.

106 Fr. Joaquin Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, pp. 394-395.

107 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 3, 1970, p. 10.

108 George Weigel, Witness to Hope, p. 238.

109 The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 81, p. 17.

110 Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, Niagra Falls, NY: Marmion Publications, 2003, p. 193.

111 Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 193.

112 Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 206.

113 Nino Lo Bello, The Incredible Book of Vatican Facts and Papal Curiosities, Ligouri, MO: Liguori Pub., 1998, p. 195.

114 The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVIII, No. 90, p. 8.

115 George Weigel, Witness to Hope, New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 1999, p. 328.

116 Piers Compton, The Broken Cross, Cranbrook, Western Australia: Veritas Pub. Co. Ptd Ltd, 1984, p. 138.

117 L’Osservatore Romano, July. 13, 1972, p. 6.

118 Jean Guitton, “Nel segno dei Dodici,” interview by Maurizio Blondet, Avvenire, Oct. 11, 1992.

119 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 19, 1968, p. 3.

120 The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, Second Edition, p. 512.

121 L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 23, 1972, p. 1.

122 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 7, 1971, p. 1.

123 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 26, 1974, p. 6.

124 L’Osservatore Romano, May 22, 1975, p. 3.

125 L’Osservatore Romano, May 18, 1969, p. 12.

126 L’Osservatore Romano, March 9, 1972, p. 2.

127 L’Osservatore Romano, July 12, 1973, p. 6.

128 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 9, 1969, p. 1.

129 Fr. Joaquin Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, p. 391.



15. The Scandals and Heresies of John Paul I

He could and did accept divorcees. He also easily accepted others who were living in what the Church calls ‘sin.’”1(Father Mario Senigaglia, secretary to John Paul I when he was “Patriarch” of Venice)

John Paul I (Albino Luciani)

The man who claimed to be pope between Paul VI and John Paul II for 33 days in 1978…

Albino Luciani (John Paul I) was born the son of a committed Socialist.1 John XXIII personally consecrated Luciani a bishop on Dec. 27, 1958.2 Luciani was named a “cardinal” by Paul VI.3

LUCIANI ON CHRISTIANS

In an Easter sermon in 1976, Luciani made the following statement:

“Thus Christian morality adopted the theory of the just war; thus the Church allowed the legalization of prostitution (even in the Papal States), while obviously it remained forbidden on a moral level.”4

It is a blasphemy to assert that the Catholic Church would allow the legalization of prostitution.

As Patriarch of Venice, on December 24, 1977, Albino Luciani stated the following about the French Revolution: “…the intentions of those who had kindled insurrection and revolution at the beginning had been very good ones, and the slogan proclaimed was ‘Liberty, Fraternity, Equality.’”5

John Paul I said the following in his first speech announcing the program for his “pontificate”:

1) “The echo of its daily life gives witness that, despite all obstacles, it (the Church) lives in the heart of men, even those who do not share its truth or accept its message.”6

2) “…the Second Vatican Council (to whose teachings we wish to commit our total ministry)…”7

3) “We wish to continue to put into effect the heritage of the Second Vatican Council. Its wise norms should be followed out and perfected.”8

Speaking to a friend about the schismatic Patriarch of Moscow, Nikodem, John Paul I called him “a real saint.”9

In a letter to the new schismatic patriarch of Moscow about the death of the recently deceased schismatic patriarch of Moscow, John Paul I said:

“… we express to Your Holiness and to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church our feelings of keen sorrow. We assure you of our prayer for the repose of the soul of this devoted servant of his Church and constructor of the deepening relations between our Churches. May God receive him into his joy and his peace.”10

John Paul I calls the deceased Russian schismatic, who rejected Papal Infallibility and the last 13 dogmatic councils (among other Catholic teachings), a “devoted servant of his Church.”

John Paul I “believed in greater power-sharing with the bishops throughout the world and planned to decentralize the Vatican structure.”11

John Paul I often spoke of Paul VI with admiration and affection: “He was a great pope and suffered much. He was not understood…”12

The Vatican claimed that John Paul I died of a massive heart attack around 11p.m. on September 28, 1978.13

We have proven that John Paul I was a manifest heretic who, among other things, fully approved of the religious indifferentism and false ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council. Since he was a heretic, he could not have been a validly elected pope. He was a non-Catholic antipope.

Endnotes for Section 15:

1 David Yallop, In God’s Name, p. 60.

2 Raymond and Lauretta Seabeck, The Smiling Pope, Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2004, p. 27.

3 Raymond and Lauretta Seabeck, The Smiling Pope, p. 58.

4 David Yallop, In God’s Name, p. 60.

5 Raymond and Lauretta Seabeck, The Smiling Pope, p. 120.

6 L’ Osservatore Romano (The Vatican’s Newspaper), Aug. 31, 1978, p. 6.

7 L’ Osservatore Romano, Aug. 31, 1978, p. 6.

8 L’ Osservatore Romano, Aug. 31, 1978, p. 6.

9 Raymond and Lauretta Seabeck, The Smiling Pope, p. 64.

10 L’ Osservatore Romano, Sept. 14, 1978, p. 2.

11 David Yallop, In God’s Name, p. 189.

12 Raymond and Lauretta Seabeck, The Smiling Pope, p. 44.

13 Raymond and Lauretta Seabeck, The Smiling Pope, p. 70.



16. The Heresies of John Paul II, the most traveled man in history and perhaps the most heretical




Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) claimed to be the pope from 1978-2005

THE HERESIES OF JOHN PAUL II

John Paul II taught universal salvation, that all men will be saved


The only difficulty in discussing the heresies of John Paul II is deciding where to begin. His heresies are so numerous that one is almost overwhelmed with the decision of where to start. A good place to begin is his consistent teaching of universal salvation. The idea that all men are saved is contrary to the clear words of the Gospel and numerous Catholic dogmas, especially the dogmas that Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and that all who die in original sin or mortal sin cannot be saved.

Pope Gregory X, 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274, ex cathedra: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only… immediately descend into Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”2

However, John Paul II held and taught that in the Incarnation, the Son of God united Himself with every man in an unbreakable union, which made it impossible, according to him, for anyone to go to Hell. John Paul II explicitly taught that this union between Christ and each man lasts forever.

John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979: “ We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery.”3

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 4), Dec. 7, 1990: “ The Redemption event brings salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.’”4

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (# 53): “ We are not dealing here with man in the ‘abstract,’ but with the real, ‘concrete,’ ‘ historical’ man. We are dealing with each individual, since each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and through this mystery Christ has united himself with each one forever.”5

Notice the word “forever” in all three of these quotations. Yes, in three different encyclicals, John Paul II bluntly asserts that every man is united with Christ forever. This means that all men are saved. Hell is eternal separation from God's mercy and goodness, but no one is ever separated from God according to John Paul II. Everyone is united with God forever. This is universal salvation.

There are many other quotations we could bring forward to prove that John Paul II taught that all men are saved. For example, in 1985, John Paul II explained how the redemptive Blood of Christ is not merely available to all (which is true), but that it actually reaches all and saves all.

John Paul II, Homily, June 6, 1985: “The Eucharist is the sacrament of the covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the covenant which is eternal. This is the covenant which embraces all. This Blood reaches all and saves all.”6

In contrast with this, the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church affirms that the Blood of Christ does not reach all or save all.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, ex cathedra: “But although Christ died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated.”7

Only those who are freed from original sin by Baptism, and united to Him through the sacraments and the true faith, receive the benefit of Christ’s death.

John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978: “Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of Grace.”9

Here John Paul II explains the whole of humanity been saved and is participatingin the divine life. The phrase “participating in the divine life” refers to the state of justification or the state of sanctifying grace. By saying that all of humanity participates in the divine life, John Paul II is saying that all of humanity is in the state of grace! That means that no one is in mortal sin or original sin.


With a doctrine such as this, who wouldn’t be loved by the world? John Paul II appealed to, and was loved by the masses, because he accepted everyone’s religion and taught that everyone is united with Christ no matter what they believed or did. This religious indifferentism characterized his anti-pontificate.

John Paul II taught that the Holy Ghost is responsible for non-Christian Religions

Besides his incredible doctrine of universal salvation and universal justification, there are many other heresies from John Paul II for us to examine. Of particular note is his teaching on the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost. What John Paul II taught about the Holy Ghost was so blasphemous and heretical that it was arguably his worst heresy.

John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 6), March 4, 1979: “Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body…”10

John Paul II says that the firm belief of the followers of non-Christian religions proceeds from the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Since we know from Sacred Scripture and Catholic teaching that Satan is the author of all non-Christian religions, what is being stated here by John Paul II is that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is actually the spirit of lies: Satan. This is an unbelievable blasphemy against God.

Scripture and Tradition teach us that non-Christian religions belong to the devil, and the “gods” they worship are actually demons.

Psalm 95:5- “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…”

1 Cor. 10:20- “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”

Since John Paul II taught that belief in these religions is a result of the Spirit of Truth, that is why he repeatedly praised, promoted and even prayed with the members and leaders of non- Christian religions.


John Paul II with African Animists (witch doctors), more on this later



John Paul II at the Buddhist Temple

In his second Asian journey in 1984, John Paul II visited the Buddhist Temple. Before reaching the Temple, he expressed how anxious he was to meet “His Holiness, the supreme Buddhist Patriarch in the Temple.” A few days before going to the Buddhist Temple, John Paul II also said:

John Paul II, May 6, 1984: "…the world looks to Korea with particular interest. For the Korean people throughout history have sought, in the great ethical and religious visions of Buddhism and Confucianism, the path to renewal of self… May I address a particular greeting to the members of the Buddhist tradition as they prepare to celebrate the festivity of the Coming of the Lord Buddha? May your rejoicing be complete and your joy fulfilled."16

John Paul II then went into the temple of idolatry and bowed to the Buddhist Patriarch who stood in front of a gigantic statue of Buddha. This constitutes an act of apostasy.

John Paul II in the Buddhist Temple

John Paul II, General Audience, Jan. 11, 1995: “I gladly take this occasion to assure those who follow the Buddhist religion of my deep respect and sincere esteem.”17

Pope Leo XIII, Dec. 8, 1892: “Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions...”18


John Paul II received the mark of the adorers of Shiva

On Feb. 2, 1986, John Paul II received on his forehead the Tilac or Tika, the red powdery paste of the Hindus, the sign of recognition of the adorers of Shiva. This is total idolatry and apostasy.

John Paul II venerated the Hindu Gandhi

In March of 1986, John Paul II went to New Delhi, India, the place where the Hindu Mahatma Gandhi was incinerated. Mahatma Gandhi was a pagan and an idolater who worshipped false gods.

John Paul II took off his shoes before Gandhi’s monument and stated: "Today as a pilgrim of peace, I have come here to pay homage to Mahatma Gandhi, hero of humanity."20

An idolater and a pagan was a “hero of humanity,” according to John Paul II.


As we see here, John Paul II also threw flowers on Gandhi’s tomb to honor and commemorate this pagan. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that just as there are heretical statements, there are heretical and apostate actions.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103, A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”21

St. Thomas even gives us an example:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Thelogica, Pt. II-II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: "...if anyone were to... worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate."22

One can manifest his apostasy by words or by deeds. By what he did, in addition to what he said, John Paul II manifested the equivalent of worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet. He venerated a Hindu.

John Paul II's Apostasy in Assisi


On Oct. 27, 1986, John Paul II invited the major leaders of all the false religions of the world to come to Assisi, Italy for a World Day of Prayer for Peace. John Paul II prayed with over 100 different religious leaders of various false religions, thereby repudiating the teaching of Scripture and the 2000-year teaching of the Catholic Church which outlaws such prayer with false religions.

The entire day of prayer with the pagans, infidels and heretics was John Paul II's idea. During this meeting the Dalai Lama placed a Buddhist statue on the tabernacle in the church of St. Francis.

The Statue of Buddha on the Tabernacle at Assisi


Among the various false religious leaders at Assisi there were rabbis, Islamic muftis, Buddhist monks, Shintoists, assorted Protestant ministers, Animists, Jainists and others.

During the meeting, a member of each false religion came forward and offered a prayer for peace – blasphemous prayers, for instance, as the Hindu prayer said: “Peace be on all gods.” (The Animist leader prayed to the “Great Thumb.”) But their gods are devils, as we saw above, so peace was being prayed for all the devils (who created these false religions) at the Vatican- sponsored World Day of Prayer for Peace! The Vatican II religion wants you to be in communion with devils.

In 1928, Pope Pius XI authoritatively condemned this inter-religious activity and denounced it as apostasy from the true Faith.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non- Catholics…”23

John Paul II, Angelus Address, Oct. 12, 1986: “In a few days we shall go to Assisi, representatives of the Catholic Church, of other Christian Churches and ecclesial communities, and of the great religions of the world... I issued this invitation to ‘believers of all religions.’”24

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 55), Dec. 7, 1990: “ God… does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression…”25

Here again we find a clear expression of John Paul II’s apostasy. He says that God makes Himself present through the spiritual riches of peoples, of which their religions are the main expression. This means that God makes Himself present to peoples through non-Christian religions, which means that non-Christian religions are true and inspired by God.

Pope Pius VIII, May 24, 1829: “Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”26

John Paul II, Address, May 22, 2002: “Praise to you, followers of Islam… Praise to you, Jewish people… Praise especially to you, Orthodox Church…”27

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.’”28

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (#10), Dec. 7, 1990: “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.”29

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, dogmatic Athanasian Creed, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...”30

John Paul II’s other ecumenical meetings

John Paul II continued with his wild program of apostasy, totally condemned by the teaching of the Catholic Church, after the Assisi event. John Paul II sponsored pagan prayer meetings at Kyoto (1987), Rome (1988), Warsaw (1989), Bari (1990), and Malta (1991), as well as numerous meetings after 1991.


John Paul II being “blessed” in a pagan ritual by an Indian Shaman in 1987 [31]

There was the outrageous pagan prayer meeting in 1999, which was officially dubbed “The Pan-Christian Encounter,” at which a large gathering of false religions came to the Vatican at the request of John Paul II (more on this in a bit).

John Paul II prayed with African Animists


On August 8, 1985, John Paul II prayed with African Animists (witch doctors). John Paul II recalled the meeting:

“Particularly noteworthy was the prayer meeting at the sanctuary of Our Lady of Mercy at Lake Togo where, for the first time, I also prayed with a group of Animists.”32

It has been stated that while in Togo he actually paid homage to the sacred snakes.

In Cotonou, Africa on Feb. 4, 1993, chanting girls treated John Paul II to a “trance inducing” voodoo dance.


John Paul II has also taken part in many events, both in Rome and abroad, where a native pagan ritual is included. These rituals spring from cultures which are entirely demonic and satanic in every aspect of their organized religious practices, yet were included in many of John Paul II’s liturgical events.


Above: John Paul II’s “Mass” in 2002 in Mexico City, which incorporated the customs of the demonic Aztec culture. Indians danced before the altar wearing headdresses and breastplates and some left their midriffs exposed. As they performed, the snake-like hiss of rattles and the beating of tom-toms could be heard. John Paul II himself was actually the recipient of a pagan “purification” ritual which a woman performed.



The “Pan-Christian” Encounter: John Paul II’s Apostate Prayer Meeting in 1999


Pictured above is John Paul II, surrounded by an assorted group of pagans and idolaters, including one half-dressed, on Nov. 7, 1999 – at another one of his countless apostate interreligious prayer meetings. Notice the masked pagan just behind John Paul II on our left and his right. John Paul II praised them and esteemed them for their false religions of the Devil. This is nothing other than a general occultism.

This meeting was called the “Pan-Christian Encounter.” This is interesting considering that, in his encyclical Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI described the heretics who promoted religious indifferentism as “These Pan-Christians…”33 Some of the things that occurred during John Paul II's October 1999 pan-religious meeting included: an American Indian pivoting in the center of St. Peter's Square at sunset “blessing the four corners of the Earth,” and Muslims who had spread out newspaper at the Vatican kneeling toward Mecca and praying.34


Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 9, May 5, 1514: "Sorcery, by means of enchantments, divinations, superstitions and the invoking of demons, is prohibited by both civil laws and the sanctions of the sacred canons."35

John Paul II’s Assisi II Prayer-Meeting with False Religions– another apostate prayer meeting in 2002

Most recently there was the spectacle of Assisi 2002. On Jan. 24, 2002, John Paul II held another pagan prayer meeting in the city of Assisi, Italy, a repeat of the abominable event that took place in 1986. However, this Assisi meeting may have been even worse.


During the Assisi II prayer meeting, the representative of every false religion involved was allowed to come to the pulpit and give a sermon on world peace. In the presence of John Paul II, a voodoo high priest came to the pulpit outside the Basilica of St. Francis and gave the voodoo prescription for world peace. (Voodooists, remember, are witchdoctors.) Therefore, by John Paul II’s arrangement, from a pulpit outside the historic Basilica of St. Francis, a witchdoctor was allowed to give a sermon and provide his prescription for world peace! This would involve slitting the throats of goats, chickens, doves and pigeons, and draining their blood from their arteries.

The Hindu woman told the entire crowd that everyone is God, as John Paul II looked on. After the Jew, the Buddhist, the Muslim, the Hindu, the witchdoctor and the rest were finished preaching, the various false religious leaders broke up into different rooms to pray to their false gods.


John Paul II had it arranged in advance that each false religion was given a separate room in which to worship the Devil.

All of the crucifixes were removed, and the crucifixes which could not be removed were covered. John Paul II made sure that the infidels, witchdoctors and pagans saw no sign of Jesus Christ.

The Muslims needed a room which faced East toward Mecca, and it was given to them. The Zoroastrians needed a room with a window, so that the smoke from the wood chips that they burned to the Devil could exit through it – and it was given to them. The Jews wanted a room that had never before been blessed; in other words, a room that had never been blessed in the name of Jesus Christ, and John Paul II provided them with one. Greater abomination, blasphemy and rejection of the true God almost cannot be imagined.

The Council of Elvira, A.D. 305: “It has been decreed that those who in adult age after receiving Baptism shall go into the pagan temples to worship idols, which is a deadly crime and the height of wickedness, shall not be admitted to communion even at death.”36

As we see from this regional council, in the early Church going into the pagan temple (which John Paul II did in Thailand) to worship idols was considered the height of wickedness. It represented such apostasy from the Faith that those who even repented of it were only admitted to confession (not Communion). If going into the pagan temple was considered such severe apostasy, what would they say about a purported leader of the Church who turns the Catholic churches themselves into pagan temples so that the pagans can worship false gods in them? They would undoubtedly consider it the height of apostasy.

Pope Pius XI, Ad Salutem (# 27), April 20, 1930: “…all the compulsion and folly, all the outrages and lust, introduced into man’s life by the demons through the worship of false gods.”37

John Paul II’s Apostasy with the Muslims

On May 14, 1999, John Paul II bowed to and kissed the Koran. The Koran is the Muslims’ “holy” book which blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity and denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ. To revere the holy book of a false religion has always been considered an act of apostasy – a complete rejection of the true religion. That people can see such a disgraceful act of apostasy by antipope John Paul II, and still call him a "Pope", is really wicked beyond words. This act alone made John Paul II an apostate; for it is equivalent to worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet, which St. Thomas points out would make one an apostate.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to…worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

During his visit to Germany on Nov. 17, 1980, John Paul II encouraged the Muslims to “Live your faith also in a foreign land...”38

In Feb. of 2000, John Paul II met with the Islamic “Grand Sheikh” Mohammed. John Paul II committed another act of apostasy in his speech to the Muslims.

John Paul II, Message to “Grand Sheikh Mohammed,” Feb. 24, 2000: “Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Islam has become a culture. Christianity has become also a culture... I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture. I thank those who are developing Islamic culture...”39

John Paul II thanked those who develop Islamic culture! He thanked the infidels for developing a culture which denies Jesus Christ, the Trinity and the Catholic Faith on a massive scale, and keeps hundreds of millions in the darkness of the Devil. Of all the evil things in the world that one can think of, Islamic culture probably ranks in the top five of the most evil.

Pope Callixtus III: “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet [Islam] in the East.”40

The middle ages were a constant spiritual and physical battle between the Christian West and the Islamic hordes. This statement of John Paul II constitutes a rejection of Jesus Christ and formal apostasy. No Catholic would ever make such a statement even one time.

John Paul II asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam!

On March 21st, 2000, John Paul II asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam (the religion of the Muslims), which denies Christ and the Trinity, and keeps hundreds of millions of souls in the darkness of the Devil.

John Paul II, March 21, 2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan...”41

This is to ask St. John to protect the denial of Christ and the damnation of souls.

On April 12, 2000, John Paul II met with the King of Morocco, a descendant of the false prophet of Islam, Muhammad. Paul II asked him, “You are a descendant the Prophet, aren’t you?”42

John Paul II teaches that Muslims and Catholics Have the Same God

Earlier in the book, we covered Vatican II’s heretical teaching that Catholics and Muslims together worship the one true God. John Paul II repeated this heresy of Vatican II countless times.

John Paul II, Encyclical On Social Concerns (# 47), Dec. 30, 1987: “… Muslims who, like us, believe in the just and merciful God.”45

John Paul II, Homily, Oct. 13, 1989: “… the followers of Islam who believe in the same good and just God.”46

John Paul II, Homily, Jan. 28, 1990: “… our Muslim brothers and sisters… who worship as we do the one and merciful God.”47

John Paul II, General Audience, May 16, 2001: “… the believers of Islam, to whom we are united by the adoration of the one God.”48

John Paul II, General Audience, May 5, 1999: “Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: ‘We believe in the same God…’”49

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

John Paul II, New Catechism (paragraph 841): “… Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”50

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

Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome, 382, Can. 15: “ If anyone does not say that He Jesus Christwill come to judge the living and the dead, he is a heretic.”51

John Paul II’s Apostasy with the Jews

On April 13, 1986, John Paul II traveled to the Jewish Synagogue in Rome.

John Paul II arriving at the Jewish Synagogue, April 13, 1986

Here we see John Paul II arriving the Jewish Synagogue Rome in 1986, where took part in Jewish worship . In taking part in a Jewish worship , John Paul II committed a act of apostasy, showed that he was a manifest heretic and an apostate. Notice John Paul II and the rabbi greeted other as if they were long-lost best friends. During stay at the synagogue, Paul II bowed head as the Jews prayed the coming of their "Messiah."

John Paul II in the Synagogue of the Jews

This incredible act of apostasy by John Paul II was directly connected to his heretical teaching that the Old Covenant is still in force. The Catholic Church teaches that with the coming of Jesus Christ and the promulgation of the Gospel, the Old Covenant (that is, the agreement made between God and the Jews through the mediation of Moses) ceased, and was replaced with the New Covenant of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It’s true that some aspects of the Old Covenant are still valid because they are included in the New and Eternal Covenant of Jesus Christ, such as the Ten Commandments; but the Old Covenant itself (the agreement between God and the Jewish people) ceased with the coming of the Messiah. Therefore, to say that the Old Covenant is still valid is to assert that Judaism is a true religion and that Jesus Christ is not really the Messiah. It is also to deny defined Catholic dogma, such as the teaching of the Council of Florence, which defined ex cathedra that the Old Law is now dead and that those who attempt to practice it (namely, the Jews) cannot be saved.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: “ The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”52

Pope Benedict XIV reiterated this dogma in his encyclical Ex Quo Primum.

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61): “ The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”53

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#’s 29-30), June 29, 1943: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished… on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [Eph. 2:15]… establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ‘To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’ On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death…”54

John Paul II repeatedly repudiated this dogma, in word and deed – a dogma taught by the Catholic Church for 2000 years, defined infallibly by the Council of Florence, and affirmed clearly by Popes Benedict XIV and Pius XII.

In an address to Jews in Mainz, West Germany, Nov. 17, 1980, John Paul II spoke of, “the Old Covenant, never revoked by God…”55

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 59), March 1, 1756: “However they are not attempting to observe the precepts of the old Law which as everybody knows have been revoked by the coming of Christ.”56

We see here that Pope Benedict XIV condemns the heresy taught by John Paul II, that the Old Covenant has never been revoked by God!

In fact, John Paul II teaches the same heresy on the Old Covenant in his new catechism, again directly opposed to Catholic dogma.

John Paul II, New Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 121: “… for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”59

John Paul II’s Unbelievable Message in Commemoration of the Jewish Synagogue

John Paul II, Message to Chief Rabbi of Rome, May 23, 2004: “To the most distinguished Dr. Riccardo Di Segni, Chief Rabbi of Rome. Shalom! With deep joy I join the Jewish Community of Rome which is celebrating the centenary [100th anniversary] of the Great Synagogue in Rome, a symbol and a reminder of the millennial presence in this city of the people of the Covenant of Sinai. For more than 2000 years your community has been an integral part of life in the city; it can boast of being the most ancient Jewish community in Western Europe and of having played an important role in spreading Judaism on this Continent. Today’s commemoration, therefore, acquires a special significance… Since I am unable to attend in person, I have asked my Vicar General Camillo Ruini, to represent me; he is accompanied by Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Holy See’s Commission for Relations with the Jews. They formally express my desire to be with you this day.

“ In offering you my respectful greeting, distinguished Dr. Riccardo Di Segni, I extend my cordial thoughts to all the Members of the Community, to their President, Mr. Leone Elio Paserman, and to all who are gathered to witness once again to the importance and vigor of the religious patrimony that is celebrated every Saturday in the Great Synagogue of RomeToday’s celebration, in whose joy we all readily join, recalls the first century of this majestic Synagogue. It stands on the banks of the Tiber, witnessing with the harmony of its architectural lines to faith and to praise of the Almighty. The Christian Community of Rome, through the Successor of Peter, joins you in thanking the Lord for this happy occasion [the 100th anniversary of the Synagogue!]. As I said during the Visit I mentioned, we greet you as our ‘beloved brothers’ in the faith of Abraham, our Patriarch… you continue to be the first-born people of the Covenant (Liturgy of Good Friday, General Intercessions, For the Jewish People)…

[These friendly relations] saw us united in commemorating the victims of the Shoah [deceased Jews who did not accept Christ], especially those who were wrenched from their families and from your beloved Jewish Community in Rome in October 1943 and interned in Auschwitz. May their memory be blessed and induce us to work as brothers and sisters…

the Church has not hesitated to express deep sorrow at the ‘failures of her sons and daughters in every age’ and, in an act of repentance, has asked forgiveness for their responsibility connected in any way with the scourges of anti-Judaism and anti- Semitism…

Today… we are addressing a fervent prayer to the Eternal One, to the God of Shalom, so that enmity and hatred may no longer overpower those who turn to our father, Abraham – Jews, Christians and Muslims

“ Our meeting today is, as it were, in preparation for your imminent solemnity of Shavu’ot and of our Pentecost which proclaim the fullness of our respective paschal celebrations. May these feasts see us united in praying David’s paschal Hallel.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 2, 2004, p. 7.)

Here is a brief summary of John Paul II’s 2004 message in commemoration of the synagogue:

1) He joins the Jewish community in commemorating the 100th anniversary of the synagogue – apostasy.

2) He says this Jewish community can boast of being the most ancient synagogue in Western Europe and of having spread Judaism – total apostasy.

3) He formally expresses his desire that he could have been with them, in the synagogue, commemorating it – apostasy.

4) He praises the importance and the vigor of the religion that is celebrated every Saturday in Rome – apostasy. The word “vigor” means “Active physical strength or energy; flourishing physical condition, vitality; mental or moral strength, force or energy.” Thus, he is telling them again that their Covenant with God is valid, flourishing, in force.

5) On behalf of the entire Christian Community in Rome, as supposed “successor of St. Peter,” he formally thanks the Lord for the 100 years of the synagogue! – apostasy!

6) He greets the Jews as beloved brothers of the faith of Abraham, which is another total denial of Christ, as scripture teaches that only those who are of Christ have the faith of Abraham.

Galatians 3:14- "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus: that we may receive the promise of the spirit by faith.”

Galatians 3:29- “And if you be Christ’s; then you are the seed of Abraham.”

Pope St. Gregory the Great (+ c. 590): “… if you be Christ’s then you are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:29). If we because of our faith in Christ are deemed children of Abraham, the Jews therefore because of their perfidy have ceased to be His seed.”60

Pope St. Leo the Great, Dogmatic Letter to Flavian (449), read at Council of Chalcedon (451), ex cathedra: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. He does not say “to his seeds” – as if referring to multiplicity – but to a single one, ‘and to thy seed,’ which is Christ (Gal. 3:16).”61

7) He states that the Jews “continue to be the first-born people of the Covenant,” quoting the Good Friday prayer of the New Mass, which prays that the Jews “continue” in faithfulness to God’s Covenant. John Paul II is blatantly teaching, once gain, that the Jews’ Covenant with God is still valid – bold heresy.

8) He commemorates those who died as Jews and says that their memory should be blessed – heresy.

9) On behalf of “the Church,” he repents for any anti-Judaism – apostasy. This would include the Church’s anti-Jewish dogma that Jews who die without conversion to Catholicism go to Hell, and therefore need to be converted and saved. He is just mocking Our Lord and the Church.

This speech ranks right near the top of John Paul II’s blasphemies and heresies. John Paul II was totally in favor of the denial of Christ; he clearly taught that the Old Covenant is still valid; he totally denied Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith; he put his apostasy right in the world’s face. Those who hold that this manifest heretic and apostate was a Catholic, while aware of these facts, and refuse to denounce him as a heretic, are truly enemies of God.

1 John 2:22 – “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.”

John Paul II’s best-friend, Jerzy Kluger, was a Jew.


John Paul II embracing his best-friend, the Jew, Jerzy Kluger

Of course, John Paul II never tried to convert Kluger. Kluger explicitly stated that John Paul II never gave him the slightest indication that he wanted to convert him. Rather, Kluger credits his life-long relationship with John Paul II with making him “feel more Jewish.” As a youth, John Paul II played soccer goalie on the Jewish squad with Kluger; they played against the Catholics. In a letter to Kluger on March 30, 1989, regarding the destruction of a synagogue during World War II, John Paul II wrote the following:

“ I venerate… also this place of worship [the synagogue], which the invaders destroyed.”62

This is blunt apostasy. By venerating the synagogue, John Paul II is venerating the Jews’ denial that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

But Jerzy Kluger was not the only Jew who was made feel more Jewish by John Paul II. There the Jewish maestro, Levine.

Jewish Maestro Gilbert Levine with John Paul II63

Levine noted that, in their many-year relationship, John Paul II never gave him the slightest indication that he wanted to convert him. Levine also noted publicly that, after getting to know John Paul II, he returned to the practice of Judaism.

John Paul II asked Levine to conduct a concert in the Vatican to commemorate the Holocaust. Levine agreed, and with Antipope John Paul II in attendance the concert took place in the Vatican. All of the crucifixes were covered.

John Paul II seated next to the Jewish Rabbi for the Holocaust Concert (a Jewish Prayer Service) in the Vatican

The concert began with “Kol Nidre,” the prayer sung on the "holiest" day of the Jewish calendar. A few of the many Jews in attendance also lit candles during the ceremony, which quickly became a Jewish religious service in the Vatican. After the concert Levine remarked:

“ It was like I was in a Jewish liturgical service in the Vatican. It was a night of prayer… of Jewish prayer.”64

After the concert John Paul II called for Levine to receive the Vatican Knighthood. Levine became a Knight Commander of the Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great. John Paul II chose “Cardinal” Lustiger of Paris to bestow the honor. Lustiger himself, who was raised a Jew, stated in a 1981 interview: “I am a Jew. For me the two religions are one.”65 The honor that John Paul II had bestowed on Levine is one of the very highest that can be received by laymen.

Gilbert Levine revealed the full depths of John Paul II’s apostasy in an interview on Larry King Live, April 4, 2005.

During an interview on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 4, 2005, Gilbert Levine revealed that John Paul II:

- sent each of his sons letters to congratulate them for their bar mitzvahs;

- that John Paul II himself gave his family a Jewish menorah;

- that John Paul II had “Cardinal” Kasper send the Levines a letter on the occasion of the bar mitzvah that was “astounding,” which told them to be proud of their Jewish heritage and live it out to the full, and that the letter was so Jewish that the rabbi said it was from a rabbi, when it was actually from Kasper at the behest of John Paul II.

This proves that John Paul II officially encouraged the practice of Judaism; that he officially encouraged the denial of Christ; that he officially helped people practice the Old Covenant; and that he celebrated their observance of the Jewish religion with them. In light of these facts, anyone who says that John Paul II was not a non-Catholic apostate simply denies Jesus Christ – period. Here is an excerpt from the interview on CNN’s Larry King Live:

“ KING: How much of music did he understand?

“ LEVINE: Wonderfully. So much so that I, as a Jewish conductor, suggested for that 1994 concert that I do a work of Mahler. And he said, "didn't Mahler convert to Catholicism to become the music director of the Vienna Philharmonic?" I as a musician didn't -- didn't think of that. It's not that I didn't know it, I didn't think of it. That's the kind of sensitivity he had to Jewish issues. And he wanted to broaden it out. And what happened was he felt like it was a -- music could be a vehicle for inter- faith dialogue.

“ KING: The pope congratulated your children's bar mitzvahs?

“ LEVINE: Not only congratulate us, he sent us a menorah.

“ KING: He sent you a menorah?

“ LEVINE: He gave it to us, actually, didn't send it. Actually gave us a menorah. I think it's from the 16th century in Prague. It's the most beautiful menorah. He sent a letter on the occasion of each of my son's bar mitzvahs. He also had the cardinal in charge of Catholic/Jewish relations send a letter that was read out in my Orthodox shul on the occasion of my son's recent bar mitzvah, and the rabbi read it as if it were from a rabbi. At the end, it said, "it's by Rabbi Joel Schwartz." He said, but it wasn't by Rabbi Joel Schwartz. It was by Rabbi -- by Cardinal Kasper. It was astounding. It was a letter that said, you should be proud of your Jewish heritage and live it out to its full.

“ KING: Where have you been? Why have we just found you? You conduct all over?

“ LEVINE: Yes. I conduct all over, and I conducted for him in the Vatican many times. I conducted also for him at World Youth Day in Denver. Me, conducting for Catholic youth? And on that occasion, he came over to me and disrupted the entire performance, put his arm around me and said, did I disturb you, Maestro? And he had in fact stopped the whole show.

“ KING: Are you going to the funeral?

“ LEVINE: Of course. I am leaving tomorrow morning. And I will be at the funeral. I couldn't not be there.” – End of except from interview66

Notice that Gilbert Levine wanted to use the music of the former Jew, Mahler, for the concert, but John Paul II discouraged it by pointing out that Mahler was a Jew who converted to Catholicism!

John Paul II Praying at the Wailing Wall

On March 26, 2000, John Paul II prayed at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. The Western Wall is the stone remnant of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Jews pray at the Western Wall as the "holiest" site in Judaism.



John Paul II praying at the Wailing or Western Wall in Jerusalem

The destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., leaving only the Western Wall, has always been understood by Catholics to signify God’s judgment on the Jews. The destruction of the Temple prevented Jews from being able to offer sacrifice, which meant that their religion had come to an end. The destruction of the Temple was God’s powerful sign to the Jews that the Messiah had come, that the Old Covenant had ceased, and that the Temple had been replaced by the Catholic Church.

So when a Jew prays at the Western Wall, or leaves a prayer there, it is a denial that Jesus is the Messiah; it is an affirmation that he holds that the Old Covenant is still in force; and it is a pitiful and sad attempt to ignore God’s very obvious sign that the Jews must abandon the destroyed Temple and enter the Catholic Church.

So when John Paul II himself prayed at the Western Wall in March of 2000, it was an attempt to validate Judaism. It was a denial that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, an indication that he holds that the Old Covenant is still in force, and a mockery of God’s clear sign that the Jews must abandon the destroyed Temple and enter the Catholic Church. One informed commentator pointed out that, when John Paul II prayed at the Western Wall, most of the nation of Israel was watching on television. This means that every Jew watching on television was given the impression by John Paul II that he doesn’t need to convert to Jesus Christ because Christ is not the Messiah.

The prayer that John Paul II left at the Western Wall asked forgiveness for sins against the Jewish people.

Other Apostasy with the Jews during the Reign of John Paul II

In late 2001, a Vatican Commission under John Paul II released a book entitled The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible. The book argues that the Jews’ wait for the coming of the Messiah is still valid. There is more on this book in the section later on dealing with Benedict XVI.

On August 12, 2002, the American bishops in union with John Paul II issued a document on the Jews. Spearheaded by the notorious apostate William Keeler of Baltimore, and without a peep of objection from John Paul II, the document publicly declared: “… campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”67

All of this proves that John Paul II and his bishops were/are complete apostates from the Catholic Faith.

John Paul II’s incredible Heresies regarding Baptized Non- Catholics (i.e., heretics and schismatics)

We have already examined and exposed in detail John Paul II’s undeniable apostasy with paganism, Islam and Judaism. Besides the many statements and acts of heresy and apostasy that John Paul II committed with those false and non-Christian religions, there are also his incredible heresies regarding baptized non-Catholics and their heretical sects. For example:

John Paul II taught that schismatics don’t need to be converted

John Paul II in the Syrian “Orthodox” Cathedral of St. George with schismatic Patriarchs Zakka I Ignatius in 2001[68]

John Paul II taught that Eastern Schismatics (the so-called Orthodox) don’t need to be converted to the Catholic Church. To provide a little background: The Eastern Schismatics (the so-called “Orthodox”) reject the dogma of the Papacy, which means that they reject the supreme authority of all the true popes in history. They reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility: the truth that a pope teaches infallibly when speaking from the Chair of Peter. They reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, they refuse to accept the last 13 Councils of the Roman Catholic Church, and they allow divorce and re-marriage.

John Paul II, Homily, May 23, 2002: “I wish to repeat once again, honor also to you, the holy Orthodox Church…”69

In his outrageous Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism (#125), John Paul II encouraged interfaith worship with these Eastern Schismatics and stated: “… any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided.”70 As we cover later, John Paul II approved the Directory on Ecumenism in Ut Unum Sint # 58 and elsewhere.

To proselytize is to convert someone. So John Paul II held that any effort to convert the Eastern Schismatics should be avoided. Here are the words of a real Catholic pope, Pope Benedict XIV, on the exact same topic.

Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt (# 19), July 26, 1755: “First, the missionary who is attempting with God’s help to bring back Greek and eastern schismatics to unity should devote all his effort to the single objective of delivering them from doctrines at variance with the Catholic faith.”71

Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt (# 19): “For the only work entrusted to the missionary is that of recalling the Oriental to the Catholic faith…”72

One can easily see the difference between the two religions: the Catholic religion teaches that all of its teachings must be accepted and that non-Catholics need to be converted. The non-Catholic religion of John Paul II (the Vatican II religion) teaches that the Catholic faith is meaningless and that non-Catholics should not be converted.

Walter Kasper, a high-ranking member of the Vatican II Church, understands this quite well. Kasper was made a “cardinal” and the head of the Vatican’s Council for Promoting Christian Unity by John Paul II. Benedict XVI confirmed Kasper in his position as head of the Vatican’s Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Expressing the view of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Kasper stated:

“… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”73

Catholics who were tortured and martyred because they refused to become Eastern Schismatics

In his 1945 encyclical Orientales Omnes Ecclesias, Pope Pius XII gives a few examples of Catholics in history who were tortured and killed because they wouldn’t abandon fidelity to the Papacy and become Eastern “Orthodox” schismatics. St. Josaphat is one famous example, but there are many others. St. Josaphat converted many Eastern Schismatics back to the Catholic Faith until he was murdered by them for his efforts to bring people back into union with the Papacy.

Pope Pius XII, Orientales Omnes Ecclesias (# 15), Dec. 23, 1945: “Josaphat Kuntzevitch… was famed for his holiness of life and apostolic zeal, and was an intrepid champion of Catholic unity. He was hunted down with bitter hatred and murderous intent by the schismatics and on 12th November 1623 he was inhumanly wounded and slain with a halbred.”74

There were many others who were fined, flogged, tortured, drowned and killed because they wouldn’t become Eastern Schismatics.

Pope Pius XII, Orientales Omnes Ecclesias (# 20), Dec. 23, 1945: “Those of the faithful who would not depart from the true faith, and dutifully and undauntedly resisted the union with the dissident [schismatic] Church imposed in 1875, were shamefully punished with fines and flogging and exile.”75

Pope Pius XII, Orientales Omnes Ecclesias (# 46), Dec. 23, 1945: “The Ruthenian community received… a noble company of confessors and martyrs. To preserve their faith unimpaired and to maintain their zealous loyalty to the Roman pontiffs, these did not hesitate to endure every kind of labor and hardship, or even to go gladly to their death... Josaphat Kuntzevitch… He was the outstanding martyr for Catholic faith and unity at that period, but not the only one; not a few of the clergy and the laity received the same palm of victory after him; some were slain with the sword, some atrociously flogged to death, some drowned in the Dneiper, so passing from their triumph over death to Heaven.”76

Pope Pius XII, Orientales Omnes Ecclesias (# 49), Dec. 23, 1945: “Besides all of this a new and no less bitter persecution of Catholicism was begun a few years before the partition of Poland. At the time when the troops of the Russian emperor had invaded Poland many churches of the Ruthenian rite were taken away from Catholics by force of arms; the priests who refused to abjure their faith [and become schismatics] were put in chains, insulted, scourged and cast into prison, where they suffered cruelly from hunger, thirst and cold.”77

By its heretical teaching that the “Orthodox” schismatics are not outside the Church and don’t need conversion for salvation, the Vatican II sect utterly mocks the saints and martyrs who suffered horribly not to become schismatics.

The Vatican’s Balamand Statement with the Eastern Schismatics, approved by John Paul II, rejects converting these non-Catholics as “outdated ecclesiology”

On June 24, 1993, the Vatican signed the Balamand Statement with the Eastern Schismatics (the so-called “Orthodox Church”). In this Balamand Statement (quoted below), which was approved by John Paul II, any attempt to convert the Eastern Schismatics is rejected as “the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church.” Here are some passages from the amazingly heretical Balamand Statement:

Vatican II Sect’s Balamand Statement with the “Orthodox,” 1993, #10: “The situation thus created resulted in fact in tensions and oppositions. Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as "to bring them back" to one's own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found…”

#’s 14-15: “…According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, 27). 15. While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.”

22. “Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.”

30. “To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the out-dated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. Their education should be objectively positive with respect of the other Church.” (http://www.cin.org/east/balamand.html)

This is incredibly bold heresy! This document, approved by the Vatican II antipopes, is definitely one of the worst heresies of the Vatican II sect. It bluntly mentions, and then totally rejects, the traditional dogma of the Catholic Church that the schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith for unity and salvation.

John Paul II called the Balamand Statement a “new step” that “should help all the local Orthodox Churches and all the local Catholic Churches, both Latin and Oriental, which live together in a single region, to continue their commitment to the dialogue of charity and to begin or to pursue relations of cooperation in the area of their pastoral activity.”78

Please notice especially #’s 14-15, which state that “in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation…” Please notice #22, which states that the Catholic Church “has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church” and #30, which rejects the “outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church.” Notice how all of this bluntly rejects the Catholic dogma that non-Catholics must return to the Catholic Church for salvation and Christian unity.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”79

So it is a fact that John Paul II and his false sect reject word-for-word the dogma of the Catholic faith: Christian unity is only achieved by conversion to Catholicism. We see this rejection of Catholic dogma again in the next quote.

More of John Paul II’s incredible heresies with the Eastern Orthodox” Schismatics

John Paul II, Homily, Jan. 25, 1993: “The way to achieve Christian unity, in fact,’ says the document of the Pontifical Commission for Russia, ‘is not proselytism but fraternal dialogue...”80

It is therefore a fact that John Paul II teaches that the faith of Rome is not to be held by non-Catholics; therefore, he cannot be looked upon as holding the true Catholic Faith.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “ You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”81

Those who assert, in the face of these facts, that John Paul II is to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith (in other words, that was a true Catholic pope) are denying this teaching of the Catholic Church.

In his encyclical on Sts. Cyril and Methodius (#27), John Paul II again indicated that Eastern Schismatics should not be converted to the Catholic Church. He stated that unity with the schismatics is neither absorption nor fusion,”82 which means not by conversion. As we saw above, The Balamand Statement with the Orthodox actually quoted this very phrase from John Paul II’s encyclical on Sts. Cyril and Methodius to prove that Catholics should not convert the Orthodox.

John Paul II has confirmed his heresy in countless meeting with the schismatics. On Feb. 24, 2000, John Paul II met with the non-Catholic, schismatic Bishop of Alexandria, "Pope" Shenouda III.

John Paul II meeting with the schismatic Bishop of Alexandria, who calls himself “Pope” Shenouda III

In his message to the schismatic bishop, John Paul II called him "Your Holiness" and said:

John Paul II, Message to "Pope" Shenouda III, Feb. 24, 2000: "I am grateful for all you have said, Your Holiness... God bless the Church of Pope Shenouda. Thank you."83

In other words, John Paul II said: “God bless the schismatic Church!” This is a rejection of the Catholic Faith. Scripture specifically tells us that we cannot say “God speed” (in other words, “God bless”) to heretics.

“ If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.” (II John 10)

By saying “God bless” to a false Church, one is asking God to multiply and propagate that false sect.



John Paul II and Teoctist (the schismatic Patriarch of Romania) jointly denouncing converting each other in a 2002 Joint Declaration

On October 12, 2002, John Paul II and the schismatic Patriarch of Romania jointly denounced trying to convert each other in a common declaration. They stated: “Our aim and our ardent desire is full communion, which is not absorption…”84 This means not by conversion. John Paul II frequently used the phrase “neither absorption nor fusion” to indicate that unity with the schismatics is not by converting them. Remember, that phrase was used with this very meaning in the Balamand Statement (cited earlier) with the schismatic “Orthodox.”

Teoctist, the schismatic Patriarch of Romania, had already revealed in 1999 that John Paul II made a large donation to his non-Catholic Church.85 Zenit News Service and others (see previous page) reported that John Paul II’s donation to the schismatic patriarch was $100,000!

“Romanian Orthodox clergy said today that John Paul II has donated $100,000 toward the construction of an Orthodox Cathedral here that will accommodate up to 2,000 people, Agence France-Presse reported.”86

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3 on Heretics, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics."87

In his address on the same day as their Joint Declaration, John Paul II told the schismatic Patriarch Teoctist: “The goal is… to reach a unity which implies neither absorption nor fusion…”88

So, John Paul II has publicly ensured his listeners over and over again that Catholics should not try to convert non-Catholics and that the Catholic Faith is not necessary for attaining salvation.

Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation.”89

In fact, in the same address to the schismatic Patriarch of Romania, John Paul II made this incredible statement:

“ For her part, the Catholic Church recognizes the mission which the Orthodox Churches are called to carry out in the countries where they have been rooted for centuries. She desires nothing else than to help this mission…”90

So much for the Papacy! So much for the last 1000 years of dogmatic statements that the schismatics reject! So much for divorce and re-marriage! And so much for the Catholic Church, according to John Paul II. According to this apostate, all of this means nothing and in fact should not be believed because “the Church” desires nothing else than to keep these people in schism and outside her teachings.

Pope Gregory XVI, May 27, 1832: “Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.”91

Pope Leo XII, Encyclical, May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that… you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”92

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “ It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”93

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship… if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”94


Here we see John Paul II and the schismatic Patriarch Teoctist sitting on equal level chairs

In the Summer of 2003, John Paul II again repudiated the proselytism of the Eastern Schismatics.

John Paul II, Ecclesia in Europa, Post-Synodal Apost. Exhortation, June 28, 2003: “At the same time I wish to assure once more the pastors and our brothers and sisters of the Orthodox Churches that the new evangelization is in no way to be confused with proselytism...”95

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.”96

This infallible definition of Vatican I declares that anyone who deviates from the dogma of the Papacy (that the Pope of Rome holds sovereign power in the Church of Christ), such as the “Orthodox” schismatics and the Protestants, cannot keep his faith and salvation. Yet, John Paul II tells us that the Orthodox schismatics and the Protestants not only can keep their faith and salvation while denying the Papacy, but should not believe in the Papacy. He was a complete heretic who rejected this dogma of Vatican I.

John Paul II Declaring a Communion and Unity of Faith with non-Catholic Sects

In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II declared that his “Church” is in communion with non-Catholic sects an incredible 16 times, and he declared that he has the same faith as non-Catholic sects 8 times.

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 62), May 25, 1995, speaking about the non-Catholic and Schismatic Patriarch of Ethiopia: “When the Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, paid me a visit in Rome on June 11, 1993, together we emphasized the deep communion existing between our two Churches: ‘We share the same faith handed down from the Apostles… moreover, we can affirm that we have the one faith in Christ…’”97

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 129: “Wherefore, since outside the Catholic Church there is nothing perfect, nothing undefiled… we are in no way likened with those who are divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no communion.”98

When John Paul II asserts that he has the same faith and communion as non-Catholic sects, he is asserting that he is a non-Catholic.

John Paul II gave a relic to schismatic Karekin II, and he declared that his sect is the “Bride of Christ”

John Paul II also gave Karekin II, the head of the schismatic Church in Armenia, a relic of St. Gregory the Illuminator.

John Paul II gives a relic of St. Gregory the Illuminator to the head of the schismatic “Church” in Armenia

John Paul II, Homily to schismatic Patriarch Karekin II, Nov. 10, 2000: “… I am delighted to return to Your Holiness a relic of St. Gregory the Illuminator… The relic will be placed in the new cathedral now being built… My hope is that the new cathedral will adorn with still greater beauty the Bride of Christ in Armenia...”99

St. Gregory the Illuminator (c. 257-332 A.D.) was the “apostle of Armenia,” the one who propagated the true Christian Faith (the Catholic Faith) in Armenia:

“Working very closely together, King Tiridates and St. Gregory the Illuminator destroyed all the old pagan shrines in Armenia, beginning with those of the goddess Anahit and the god Tir, for whom the King had been named. Crosses were erected in their place. Very large numbers of people were baptized.”100

By giving the relic of this great Christian apostle of Armenia to the schismatics, John Paul II was clearly indicating that he considered the schismatics as possessors of the true Christian Faith – the true Faith that St. Gregory the Illuminator held. Further, in the homily above, we can see that John Paul II called the schismatic Orthodox Church “the Bride of Christ,” a title reserved to the Catholic Church!

John Paul II’s Heresy with the Anglican Sect

Because Margaret Clitherow refused to accept the Anglican sect and its “Mass” – but rather invited Catholic priests into her home against the penal laws – she was martyred by being crushed to death under a large door loaded with heavy weights. This style of execution is so painful that it is called “severe and harsh punishment.” She suffered it all because she wouldn’t accept Anglicanism. The Vatican II sect, however, teaches that Anglicans are fellow “Christians” who don’t need conversion, and whose invalid “bishops” are actually true bishops of the Church of Christ. The Vatican II sect teaches that her martyrdom was pointless.

John Paul II goes to the Anglican Cathedral and takes part in the worship of the Anglican sect – formal heresy by deed

John Paul II speaking at the Anglican Cathedral of Canterbury in 1982[101]

John Paul II mocking the English Martyrs by his joint prayer with the Anglican "Archbishop" of Canterbury, 1982

John Paul II in common prayer with the schismatic and heretical “Archbishop” of Canterbury (an Anglican), who is just a layman posing as a bishop

On May 29, 1982, in the Anglican Cathedral John Paul II knelt in a "prayer of interfaith" with the "Archbishop" of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, thus mocking the martyrdoms of so many Catholic saints, who bravely shed their blood rather than accept the false Anglican sect or partake in false worship.

Pope Pius IX, Neminem vestrum (# 5), Feb. 2, 1854: “We want you to know that those same monks sent Us a splendid profession of Catholic faith and doctrine… They eloquently acknowledged and freely received the regulations and decrees which the popes and the sacred congregations published or would publish – especially those which prohibit communicatio in divinis (communion in holy matters) with schismatics.”102

John Paul II Bestowed the Pectoral Cross on the head of the Anglican Sect, a Layman

In 2003, John Paul II bestowed the pectoral cross upon Rowan Williams, the Anglican“Archbishop” of Canterbury.

John Paul II kissing the ring of Rowan Williams, the head of the Anglican sect, on whom he also bestowed a pectoral cross, even though Williams is just a layman

For those who don’t know, the Anglican non-Catholic sect doesn’t even have valid priests or valid bishops. Pope Leo XIII infallibly declared that Anglican ordinations are invalid.

Pope Leo XIII, “Apostolicae Curae,” Sept. 13, 1896, ex cathedra: “… by Our authority, of Our own inspiration and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that ordinations enacted according to the Anglican rite have hitherto been and are invalid and entirely void…”103

Anglican “priests” and “bishops” are, therefore, laymen, besides being non-Catholic heretics and schismatics. Yet, after the election of the new Anglican “Archbishop” of Canterbury (Rowan Williams), John Paul II dispatched the apostate Walter Kasper to give this non-Catholic layman a pectoral cross and a telegram of approval! This is so heretical that there are almost no words to describe it.

Anglican “Archbishop” of Canterbury Rowan Williams to John Paul II, Oct. 4, 2003: “In 1966 Pope Paul VI gave Archbishop Michael Ramsey his own Episcopal ring, which has been treasured by his successors and which I wear today. I am glad to thank you for the personal gift of a pectoral cross, sent to me on the occasion of my enthronement earlier this year. As I took on my new ministry I appreciated deeply that sign of a shared task…”104

The pectoral cross is a traditional Catholic symbol of episcopal authority. By bestowing the pectoral cross upon the apostate Rowan Williams – who is also in favor of women priests and homosexuals being ordainedJohn Paul II not only flatly denied by his deed Pope Leo XIII’s infallible definition that Anglican orders are invalid, but he also made a complete mockery of the Catholic dogmas on the Papacy and the Church of Christ.

And what makes this action of John Paul II even more incredible is the fact that Williams himself has been banned from conducting “Communion” services in 350 Anglican parishes for his view in favor of women priests!105 But that didn’t stop John Paul II; he just pushed ahead with the apostasy.

As shown above, during a meeting with Rowan Williams, John Paul II also kissed his ring, which demonstrated again that John Paul II recognized this non-Catholic layman as a legitimate bishop in the Church of Christ. John Paul II mocked Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church and all the English martyrs who suffered horrible tortures for refusing to abandon Catholicism and become Anglican. With this action, John Paul II rejected the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Episcopacy, Ordination, Apostolic Succession and Church Unity.

John Paul II went to the Lutheran Temple

John Paul II in the Lutheran temple in 1983

In 1983, John Paul II visited a Lutheran temple for the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's birth. This is another heretical action – partaking of the worship ceremonies of a non-Catholic religion and celebrating a heresiarch – which absolutely proves that John Paul II was not a Catholic.

John Paul II praised Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Hus

John Paul II also praised the greatest enemies that the Catholic Church has ever known, including the Protestant revolutionaries Luther and Calvin. In Oct. 1983, John Paul II, speaking of Martin Luther, stated: “Our world even today experiences his great impact on history.”107 And on June

14, 1984, John Paul II praised Calvin as one who was trying to “make the Church more faithful to the will of the Lord.”108 To patronize, support and defend heretics is to be a heretic. To praise the worst heretics in Church history, such as Luther and Calvin, is beyond heresy.

Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical, May 8, 1844: “ But later even more care was required when the Lutherans and Calvinists dared to oppose the changeless doctrine of the faith with an almost incredible variety of errors. They left no means untried to deceive the faithful with perverse explanations of the sacred books...”109

John Paul II also praised the notorious heretics Zwingli and Hus. He even went so far as to say that John Hus, who was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Constance, was a man of “infallible personal integrity”!110

John Paul II approved the Vatican-Lutheran Agreement on Justification


On Oct. 31, 1999, “Cardinal” Edward Cassidy and Lutheran “Bishop” Christian Krause shake hands at the signing of The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in Augsburg, Germany. This agreement, which was approved by John Paul II, teaches: that Justification comes by "faith alone" (Annex, 2, C); that the Canons of the Council of Trent no longer apply to the Lutherans (#13); that none of the Lutheran teaching in the Joint Declaration, including the heresy of Justification by faith alone and numerous other Lutheran heresies, is condemned by Trent (#41). In short, this agreement between the "Church" of John Paul II and the Lutheran sect utterly rejects the dogmatic Council of Trent. It is a veritable declaration that the sect of John Paul II is a Protestant sect. (A little later in the book there is a section on this amazingly heretical agreement.)

John Paul II, Jan. 19, 2004, At a Meeting with Lutherans From Finland: “… I wish to express my gratitude for the ecumenical progress made between Catholics and Lutherans in the five years since the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.”111

John Paul II taught that non-Catholics can receive Communion

John Paul II also taught that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion. Canon 844.3 of his 1983 Code of Canon Law states that:

“ Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church...”112

The idea that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion or the other sacraments is contrary to the 2000 year teaching of the Catholic Church.

Pope Pius IX, Encyclical, April 8, 1862: “ … ‘whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.’”113

What’s particularly significant about this heresy of John Paul II (that it is lawful to give Holy Communion to non-Catholics) is the fact that it also appears in his new catechism, paragraph # 1401. This document was promulgated by the so-called supreme apostolic authority of John Paul II. In his constitution Fidei Depositum, John Paul II promulgated his new catechism using his “apostolic authority” to declare that it is a “sure norm for teaching the faith.”

John Paul II, Fidei Depositum, Oct. 11, 1992: “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrineI declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith.”114

John Paul II’s catechism is not a sure norm for teaching the faith. It’s a sure norm for teaching heresy. Therefore, since John Paul II has pretended to declare from the Chair of Peter that his catechism is a sure norm for teaching the faith when it is not, we know that he does not sit in the Chair of Peter. A pope cannot err when speaking from the Apostolic See, that is, with his apostolic authority from the Chair of Peter.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra: “… in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated.”115

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra: “ So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair…”116

This heresy on non-Catholics being allowed to receive Holy Communion was also taught in Vatican II, as we covered already. John Paul II also commented on this teaching with approval in Ut Unum Sint:

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 58), May 25, 1995: “… By reason of the very close sacramental bonds between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church… the Catholic Church has often adopted and now adopts a milder policy, offering to all the means of salvation and an example of charity among Christians through participation in the sacraments and in other sacred functions and objectsThere must never be a loss of appreciation for the ecclesiological implication of sharing in the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.”117

He notes the “ecclesiological implication” of sharing in the sacraments with the “Orthodox.” His implication is that they are part of the same Church.

John Paul II taught that non-Catholic sects are a means of salvation, he also taught that non-Catholic sects have Saints and Martyrs

John Paul II repeatedly taught that non-Catholic sects have saints and martyrs.

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995, Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”: “Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the saints - those who, at end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”120

This is undeniable, clear-cut manifest heresy. It is an article of divine and Catholic Faith that those who are not in the Catholic Church, even if they shed blood in the name of Christ, cannot be saved.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “… no one, even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”121

This solemnly defined dogma of the Council of Florence was repeated by Pope Pius XI:

Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in terra (# 99), Dec. 31, 1929: “It stands out conspicuously in the lives of numerous saints, whom the Church, and she alone, produces, in whom is perfectly realized the purpose of Christian education…”122

It’s hard to imagine a more specific and explicit denial of this particular dogma than Ut Unum Sint #84 of John Paul II (quoted above).

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832: “ Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”123

Also, please notice that not only does the manifest heretic John Paul II declare in Ut Unum Sint #84 that “saints” come from non-Catholic Churches (clear heresy), but he goes beyond that and declares that such non-Catholic sects “gave them” their salvation: “the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation.”

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 1), May 25, 1995: “The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigor to the Council’s call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation.”126

John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris (# 22), Feb. 11, 1984: “ Christ’s resurrection has revealed ‘the glory of the future age’ and, at the same time, has confirmed ‘the boast of the cross’: the glory that is hidden in the very suffering of Christ and which has been and is often mirrored in human suffering, as an expression of man’s spiritual greatness. This glory must be acknowledged not only in the martyrs for the Faith but in many others also who, at times, even without belief in Christ, suffer and give their lives for the truth and for a just cause. In the sufferings of all of these people the great dignity of man is strikingly confirmed.”127

John Paul II, Angelus Address, Sept. 19, 1993: “ In the unbounded space of Eastern Europe, the Orthodox Church too can well say at the end of this century what the Fathers of the Church had proclaimed about the initial spread of the Gospel: ‘Sanguis martyrum – semen Christianorum’ [the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians].”128

John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente (# 37), Nov. 10, 1994: “The witness to Christ borne even to the shedding of blood has become a common inheritance of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants, as Pope Paul VI pointed out in his Homily for the Canonization of the Ugandan Martyrs.”129

John Paul II, General Audience, May 12, 1999: “The experience of martyrdom joined Christians of various denominations in Romania. The Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants gave a united witness to Christ by the sacrifice of their lives.”133

All of this is repeated, public and formal heresy. And to think that some “traditionalists” have the audacity to assert that John Paul II never denied a dogma! What an outrage and a lie! This heresy alone, without even considering all the others, proves that he was not a Catholic. It proves that John Paul II directly rejected the solemnly defined dogma (from the Council of Florence above) that non-Catholics cannot be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ.

Pope Pelagius II, epistle (2) Dilectionis vestrae, 585: “Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair. Such a one can be slain; he cannot be crowned.”134

John Paul II approved of the practice of Altar Girls

John Paul II also approved of the practice of altar girls, a practice that is rampant in Vatican II churches. The practice of altar girls was condemned as evil by Pope Benedict XIV, Pope St. Gelasius and Pope Innocent IV.

Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical, July 26, 1755: “ Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: ‘Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.’ We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution...”135

John Paul II also “canonized” people who fully embraced the heresies of Vatican II, the New Mass and religious indifferentism. This is impossible for a true pope to do, since canonizations by true popes are infallible. This again serves to prove that John Paul II was not a true pope.

John Paul II also condemned the Crusades. The Crusades were solemnly approved by four councils and more than 10 popes, including Pope Urban II, Pope Callistus II, Pope Alexander III, Pope Callistus III, Pope Clement V and others.

John Paul II awarded by Freemasons

John Paul II receiving the B’nai B'rith (Freemasonic Lodge of New York) on March 22, 1982

In December of 1996, the Grand Orient Lodge of Italian Freemasonry offered John Paul II its greatest honor, the Order of Galilee, as an expression of thanks for the efforts that he made in support of Freemasonic ideals. The representative of Italian Freemasonry noted that John Paul II merited the honor because he had promoted “the values of universal Freemasonry: fraternity, respect for the dignity of man, and the spirit of tolerance, central points of the life of true masons.”136

John Paul II apologized to Red China

On Oct. 24, 2001, John Paul II apologized to Red China. That’s correct: John Paul II apologized to the satanic Communist regime in China for the supposed wrongs of Catholics! He even praised the social justice of Red China.

John Paul II, Oct. 24, 2001: “The Catholic Church for her part regards with respect this impressive thrust and far-sighted planning… The Church has very much at heart the values and objectives which are of primary importance also to modern China: solidarity, peace, social justice…”137

Social justice in China includes a one-child-per-family policy, which is imposed by forced abortion and contraception. The Chinese Government slaughters millions of children every year, in addition to imprisoning, torturing and murdering Catholics.

John Paul II stated that the Catholic Church and China are two ancient institutions “not in opposition to one another.”138 To praise the social justice of Communist China is beyond heresy; it’s satanic.

John Paul II promoted the theory of evolution

On Oct. 22, 1996, John Paul II declared that evolution is “more than a mere hypothesis.”139 This indicated that he considered evolution to be true.

John Paul II said that Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are not actual places

In a series of speeches in the summer of 1999, reported in the official Vatican newspaper, John Paul II said that Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are not actual places.

At his general audience on July 21, 1999, John Paul II said that Heaven is not an actual place.140

On July 28, 1999, John Paul II said:

1) "It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation of Hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life."141

2) "By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will 'weep and gnash their teeth'... The images of Hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy."142

3) "Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of Hell - and even less the improper use of biblical images - must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry ‘Abba, Father!’”143

This speech of John Paul II in itself constitutes formal heresy. He says we don’t know whether human beings are damned. It’s a divinely revealed truth of the Gospel that human beings are involved in eternal damnation, as Jesus says repeatedly. For instance:

Matthew 13:39-42- “Even as cockle therefore is gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world. The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

In a brief audience in Polish to fellow countrymen, John Paul II recalled the teaching of the heretic Hans Urs von Balthasar that, "There is a Hell, but it could be empty."144

On August 4, 1999, John Paul II said that Purgatory is not an actual place.145

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Session 25, Dec. 3-4, 1563: "As the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit, has taught from holy scripture and the ancient tradition of the fathers in its councils and most recently in this ecumenical synod that Purgatory exists, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful and most of all by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar."146

John Paul II changed the Rosary

John Paul II venerating a loaf of bread?!

John Paul II also changed the Rosary. In Oct. 2002, John Paul II added five new mysteries to the Rosary, called “the Mysteries of Light.” In the document which promulgated the mysteries of light, John Paul II stated:

“Anyone who contemplates Christ through the various stages of his life cannot fail to perceive in him the truth about man.”148

When we contemplate the mysteries of Christ, we don’t perceive in Him the truth about man. John Paul II said this because he taught that man is God; and specifically, that the truth about man is that he is Jesus Christ.

Concluding Points about John Paul II

So the question that everyone professing to be Catholic must ask himself is this: was John Paul II the head of the Catholic Church? Or was John Paul II part of a different religion? If John Paul II was part of a different religion – and who would dare deny this in light of the undeniable and overwhelming evidence we have just presented? – then he could not have been the head of the Catholic Church.

St. Francis De Sales, Doctor of the Church: “ It would indeed be one of the strangest monsters that could be seen – if the head of the Church were not of the Church.”165

We have proven beyond doubt that John Paul II was a manifest heretic. Since he was a heretic, he could not have been a validly elected pope. He was a non-Catholic antipope. As quoted already, Pope Paul IV solemnly taught in his Feb. 15, 1559 Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus officio, that it is impossible for a heretic to be a validly elected pope.

Endnotes for Section 16:

1 www.cnn.com, archives of Larry King Live show, April 4, 2005.

2 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 464.

3 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 5 (1958-1981), p. 255.

4 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1996, p. 497.

5 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 643.

6 L' Osservatore Romano (The Vatican’s Newspaper), July 1, 1985, p. 3

7 Denzinger 795.

8 L’Osservatore Romano, June 23, 1980, p. 3.

9 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 1, 1979, p. 8.

10 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5 (1958-1981), p. 249.

11 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 517.

12 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 542.

13 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 280.

14 L’Osservatore Romano, May 7, 1984, p. 3.

15 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 260.

16 L’Osservatore Romano, May 14, 1984, p. 7.

17 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 18, 1995, p. 11.

18 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 304.

19 L’Osservatore Romano, April 16, 1997, p. 3.

20 Quoted in Abbe Daniel Le Roux, Peter, Lovest Thou Me?, Angelus Press, 1988, p. 147.

21 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4.

22 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Thelogica, Pt. II-II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2.

23 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.

24 L’Osservatore Romano CD-Rom, Year 1986, Vatican City, Angelus Address of John Paul II, Oct. 12, 1986.

25 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 540.

26 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 222.

27 L’ Osservatore Romano, May 29, 2002, p. 4.

28 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 237-238.

29 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 502.

30 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger 39-40.

31 Our Sunday Visitor, April 17, 2005.

32 L’Osservatore Romano, August 26, 1985, p. 9.

33 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 316.

34 Associated Press, "Religious Leaders denounce Extremism," Oct. 29, 1999.

35 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 625.

36 Quoted by Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law, Philadelphia, PA: The Dolphin Press, 1935, p. 177.

37 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 381.

38 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 9, 1980, p. 5.

39 L’Osservatore Romano, March 1, 2000, p. 5.

40 Von Pastor, History of the Popes, II, 346; quoted by Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of

Christendom), Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1993, p. 571.

41 L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.

42 The Catholic World Report, “World Watch,” June, 2000, p. 16.

43 L’Osservatore Romano CD-Rom, Year 2001, Speech of John Paul II from the mosque, May 6, 2001.

44 Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom (The Building of Christendom), Vol. 2, p. 298.

45 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 474.

46 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 23, 1989, p. 12.

47 L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 19, 1990, p. 12.

48 L’Osservatore Romano, May 23, 2001, p. 11.

49 L’Osservatore Romano, May 12, 1999, p. 11.

50 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, by John Paul II, St. Paul Books & Media, 1994, p. 223.

51 Denzinger 73.

52 Denzinger 712.

53 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 98.

54 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 42.

55 L’ Osservatore Romano, Dec. 9, 1980, p. 6.

56 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 98.

57 Documentation Catholique 94 (1997), 1003; quoted in The Bible, The Jews and the Death of Jesus, Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2004, p. 31.

58 Bulletin du prieure Marie-Reine [195 rue de Bale, 68100 Mulhouse]; also The Angelus, Feb-March 2004, p. 70.

59 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #121.

60 The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Chicago: Regnery Press, 1959, Vol. 1., p. 92.

61 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 78.

62 Darcy O' Brien, The Hidden Pope, New York, NY: Daybreak Books, 1998, pp. 368-369.

63 http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/lehman/enews/2005_09_26/feat_pac.html

64 Gilbert Levine, Interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes.

65 Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 1998, p. 578.

66 www.cnn.com, archives of Larry King Live show, April 4, 2005.

67 Catholic Family News, Niagra Falls, NY, September, 2002, p. 3.

68 L’ Osservatore Romano, 2001.

69 L’ Osservatore Romano, May 29, 2002, p. 5.

70 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Boston, MA: St. Paul Books & Media, pp. 78-79.

71 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 57.

72 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 58.

73 Adista, Feb. 26, 2001.

74 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 93.

75 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 95.

76 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 99.

77 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 100.

78 Information Service 84 (1993/III-IV) 145; http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg- us.aspx?eccpageID=82&IndexView=alpha#footnote45

79 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.

80 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 27, 1993, p. 2.

81 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 399.

82 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 248.

83 L' Osservatore Romano, March 1, 2000, p. 5.

84 L’ Osservatore Romano, Oct. 16, 2002, p. 5.

85 America Magazine, “A New Chapter in Catholic-Orthodox Relations,” July 3-10, 1999, Vol. 181, No. 1

86 Zenit.org, November 2, 2000.

87 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 234.

88 L’ Osservatore Romano, Oct. 16, 2002, p. 4.

89 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 297 and footnote 4.

90 L’ Osservatore Romano, Oct. 16, 2002, p. 4.

91 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 230.

92 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 207.

93 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 201.

94 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 318.

95 L’Osservatore Romano, July 2, 2003, p. V.

96 Denzinger 1827.

97 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 953.

98 Quoted in Sacerdotium, # 2, Instauratio Catholica, Madison Heights, WI, p. 64.

99 L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 15, 2000, p. 6/7 – Joint Communique of John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin II.

100 Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Christendom Press, 1985, Vol. 1, p. 539.

101 30 Days Magazine, November, 1996.

102 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 321.

103 Denzinger 1966.

104 L’Osservatore Romano, 10/8/03, p. 9.

105 CWNews, Sept. 8, 2003.

106 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 8, 2003, p. 9.

107 L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 14, 1983, p. 9.

108 L’Osservatore Romano, July 9, 1985, p. 5.

109 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 268.

110 30 Days Magazine, Issue No. 7-8, 1995, p. 19.

111 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 28, 2004, p. 4.

112 The Code of Canon Law (1983), A Text and Commentary, Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, Edited by

James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1985, p. 609.

113 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 364.

114 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 5.

115 Denzinger 1833.

116 Denzinger 1837.

117 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 950.

118 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 216.

119 Denzinger 1000.

120 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 965.

121 Denzinger 714.

122 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 368.

123 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 229.

124 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 965.

125 L’ Osservatore Romano, Nov. 15, 2000, p. 5.

126 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 914.

127 Salvifici Doloris, Apostolic Letter of John Paul II, Feb. 11, 1984, Pauline Books, p. 35.

128 L’Osservatore Romano CD-Rom, Year 1993, Angelus Address of John Paul II, Sept. 9, 1993.

129 L’Osservatore Romano CD-Rom, Year 1994, Tertio Millennio Adveniente of John Paul II, Nov. 10, 1994.

130 L’Osservatore Romano CD-Rom, Year 1994, Tertio Millennio Adveniente of John Paul II, Nov. 10, 1994.

131 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 965.

132 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 965.

133 L’ Osservatore Romano, May 19, 1999, p. 11.

134 Denzinger 247.

135 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 64.

136 The Remnant, St. Paul, MN, April 30, 2000, p. 6.

137 L’ Osservatore Romano, Oct. 31, 2001, p. 3.

138 L’ Osservatore Romano, Oct. 31, 2001, p. 4.

139 Statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Oct. 22, 1996, Original French Version.

140 National Catholic Register, Mt. Morris, IL, August 1-7, 1999, p. 4.

141 L' Osservatore Romano, August 4, 1999, p. 7.

142 L' Osservatore Romano, August 4, 1999, p. 7.

143 L' Osservatore Romano, August 4, 1999, p. 7.

144 National Catholic Register, August 8-14, 1999.

145 National Catholic Register, August 15-21, 1999, p. 5.

146 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 774.

147 L’ Osservatore Romano, June 19, 2002, p. 9.

148 L’ Osservatore Romano, Oct. 23, 2002, p. 5.

149 L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 2, 1978, p. 1.

150 L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 27, 1984, p. 1.

151 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 8, 1992, p. 9.

152 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 22, 1990, p. 6.

153 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 2, 1985, p. 3.

154 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 1, 1979, p. 1.

155 L’ Osservatore Romano, Jan. 2, 2002, p. 1.

156 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 6, 1986, p. 1.

157 L’Osservatore Romano, April 2, 1991, p. 1.

158 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 30, 2002, p. 6/7.

159 L’Osservatore Romano, June 16, 2004, p. 8.

160 L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 29, 1988, p. 10.

161 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 19, 2001, p. 10.

162 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5 (1958-1981), pp. 251-252.

163 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 6.

164 Piers Compton, The Broken Cross, p. 72.

165 St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic Controversy, Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1989, p. 45.



18. The Vatican II sect vs. the Catholic Church on partaking in non-Catholic worship

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “… this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”1

John Paul II in common prayer in 1982, in the Anglican Cathedral, with the schismatic and heretical “Archbishop” of Canterbury (an Anglican), who is just a layman posing as a bishop

We’ve already documented that the Vatican II antipopes repeatedly partake in non-Catholic religious ceremonies. This was condemned by Pope Pius XI. Expressing the universal Tradition of the Church on this matter, he stated:

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “… this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”2

All Catholic moral theology manuals before Vatican II reiterated this truth. They taught that it’s a mortal sin against the divine law for Catholics to partake in non-Catholic worship.

Pope Pius IX, Neminem vestrum (# 5), Feb. 2, 1854: “We want you to know that those same monks sent Us a splendid profession of Catholic faith and doctrine… They eloquently acknowledged and freely received the regulations and decrees which the popes and the sacred congregations published or would publish – especially those which prohibit communicatio in divinis (communion in holy matters) with schismatics… They acknowledge that they condemn the error of the schismatic Armenians and recognize that they are outside of the Church of Jesus Christ.”3

Notice that the decrees and regulations of the popes prohibit communication in divine things with schismatics.

Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 31-32), April 13, 1791, speaking of priests who went along with the notoriously heretical civil constitution of the clergy in France: “Above all, avoid and condemn the sacrilegious intruders… do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”4

Speaking of priests who belong to the “Old Catholic” sect, which publicly rejects Vatican I and its definition on Papal Infallibility, Pope Pius IX declared:

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875: “They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction.”5

Canon 1258.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics.”6

But the Vatican II sect and its “popes” officially teach just the opposite:

Vatican II document, Unitatis redintegratio (# 15): “These churches [the schismatic “Orthodox”], though separated from us, yet possess true sacraments… Therefore some worship in common, given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authority, is not merely possible but to be encouraged.”7

This is an attempt to overturn the divine law forbidding Catholics to partake in non-Catholic worship. It is heresy. This is why we have repeatedly seen the post-Vatican II antipopes partake in non-Catholic worship and pray with non-Catholics.

Benedict XVI praying ecumenical Vespers on Sept. 12, 2006.8 Notice that Benedict XVI explicitly acknowledges that he is worshipping with them.

Benedict XVI, Address during ecumenical Vespers service, Sept. 12, 2006: “Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ! We are gathered, Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants – and together with us there are also some Jewish friends – to sing together the evening praise of God… This is an hour of gratitude for the fact that we can pray together in this way…”9

In this book, we have given and will continue to give many other examples of this activity from the Vatican II antipopes.

The incredible Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism

Perhaps the clearest expression of the new religion in regard to participation in non-Catholic worship is the Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, promulgated by John Paul II and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in 1993.

In # 23, it encourages Episcopal Conferences to take "special measures" to avoid the "danger of proselytism" (trying to convert others).10

In # 50c, it encourages Catholic religious to organize meetings among Protestants of “various churchesfor liturgical prayer, for recollection, and spiritual exercises.”11

In # 85, the Directory explains how "it is useful" to encourage exchanges between Catholic monasteries and those of other religions.12

In # 118, the Directory says that Catholics who attend non-Catholic churches are "encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the Church in which they are guests.”13

As we can see, #50c and #118 specifically encourage exactly what Pius XI said the Apostolic See has never allowed: participation in non-Catholic worship.

In # 119, it states: "In a Catholic liturgical celebration, ministers of other Churches or ecclesial Communities may have the place and liturgical honors proper to their rank and their role..."14

In # 137, it states, "if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries."15

In # 158, the Directory says that when mixed marriages take place "the local Ordinary may permit the Catholic priest to invite the minister of the party of the other Church or ecclesial Community to participate in the celebration of the marriage, to read from the Scriptures, give a brief exhortation, and bless the couple."16

In # 187, the Directory recommends that Catholics and non-Catholics work together in drawing up texts of common Creeds, psalms, scriptural readings, and hymnbooks to be used when they pray and witness together.17

This is a new religion. It is an official program of participation in non-Catholic worship, directly contrary to the divine law which teaches that Catholics are forbidden to partake in non-Catholic worship.

On March 25, 1993, Antipope John Paul II "approved this Directory, confirmed it by his authority and ordered that it be published. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding."18 John Paul II also approved this incredibly heretical directory on ecumenism in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint:

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 16), May 25, 1995: “More recently, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, issued with my approval by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has applied them to the pastoral sphere.”19

So, the question is: How can the Catholic Church now teach and recommend (participation in non-Catholic worship) exactly what the Catholic Church has always forbidden under pain of mortal sin? The answer is that it cannot overturn something that involves the Faith and is connected to the divine law. The answer is that such a new teaching is absolute proof that the Vatican II sect and its antipopes are formally heretical and hold no authority in the Catholic Church.

Endnotes for Section 18:

1 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.

2 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.

3 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 321.

4 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 184.

5 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 452

6 The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, translated by Dr. Edward Von Peters, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001, p. 83.

7 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, , Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 2, pp. 915-916.

8 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 20, 2006, p. 10.

9 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 20, 2006, p. 10.

10 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, by the Pontifical Council for

Promoting Christian Unity, Boston, MA: St. Paul Books & Media, p. 21.

11 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, p. 37.

12 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, p. 59.

13 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, p. 77.

14 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, p. 77.

15 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, p. 83.

16 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, pp. 90-91.

17 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, pp. 105-106.

18 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, p. 124.

19 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1996, p. 924.



19. The Vatican II sect vs. the Catholic Church on non-Catholics receiving Holy Communion

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “ Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.1

Benedict XVI giving Communion to the public heretic, Bro. Roger Schutz,2 the Protestant founder of Taize on April 8, 2005

In the preceding sections on the heresies of Vatican II and John Paul II, we covered that they both teach the heresy that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion. It’s important to summarize the Vatican II sect’s official endorsement of this heretical teaching here for handy reference:

Vatican II

Vatican II document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum #27: “Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of the sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”3

Paul VI solemnly confirming Vatican II

Antipope Paul VI, at the end of every Vatican II document: “EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY...

I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”4

Their New Official Catechism

John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 1401): Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church…”5

John Paul II solemnly confirming New Catechism

John Paul II, Fidei Depositum, Oct. 11, 1992: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrineI declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith.”6

Their New Code of Canon Law

Canon 844.4, 1983 Code of Canon Law: “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.”7

Canon 844.3, 1983 Code of Canon Law: “Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.”8

Encyclical

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 46), May 25, 1995: “…Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church...”

Speeches (this is just one of many quotes that could be given)

John Paul II, General Audience, Aug. 9, 1995: “Concerning aspects of intercommunion, the recent Ecumenical Directory confirms and states precisely all that the Council said: that is, a certain intercommunion is possible, since the Eastern Churches possess true sacraments, especially the priesthood and the Eucharist.

“On this sensitive point, specific instructions have been issued, stating that, whenever it is impossible for a Catholic to have recourse to a Catholic priest, he may receive the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick from the minister of an Eastern Church (Directory, n. 123). Reciprocally, Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick to Eastern Christians who ask for them.”

Encyclical commenting on this heresy

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 58), May 25, 1995: “… By reason of the very close sacramental bonds between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church… the Catholic Church has often adopted and now adopts a milder policy, offering to all the means of salvation and an example of charity among Christians through participation in the sacraments and in other sacred functions and objectsThere must never be a loss of appreciation for the ecclesiological implication of sharing in the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.”9

He notes the “ecclesiological implication” of sharing in the sacraments with the “Orthodox.” His implication is that they are part of the same Church.

There are other quotes we could have given. This clearly proves that if the Vatican II antipopes are true popes, it’s the official teaching of the Catholic Church that heretics and schismatics may be lawfully given Holy Communion. But that’s impossible since the Catholic Church has infallibly taught the opposite.

The Catholic Church and her popes teach just the opposite

For 20 centuries the Catholic Church consistently taught that heretics cannot receive the sacraments. This teaching is rooted in the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins, defined by Pope Boniface VIII. It is also rooted in the dogma that sacraments only profit unto salvation those inside the Catholic Church, as defined by Pope Eugene IV.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one.’”10

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”11

Only for those who abide in the Catholic Church do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation. This is a dogma! But this dogma is repudiated by Vatican II’s outrageous teaching that it is lawful to give Holy Communion to those who do not abide in the Catholic Church. Popes throughout the ages have proclaimed that non-Catholics who receive the Holy Eucharist outside the Catholic Church receive it to their own damnation.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “ Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”12

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’”13

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “…whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”14

As we can see, this is not a merely disciplinary matter which a pope could change; for it’s connected with the dogma that heretics are outside the Church and in the state of sin. Being outside the Church and in a state of sin, they cannot receive the Eucharist unto salvation (Eugene IV), but only unto damnation. To change this law is to attempt to change dogma.

The fact is that the Catholic Church cannot authoritatively teach that it’s lawful for non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion, just like it cannot authoritatively teach that it’s lawful for people to get abortions. The idea that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion is a heresy that has been repeatedly condemned. It is contradicted by the entire history of the Church. This issue alone proves that the Vatican II antipopes are not true popes, and that we are dealing with two different religions (the Catholic religion and all the popes vs. the religion of the Vatican II sect and its antipopes).

Endnotes for Section 19:

1 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 222.

2 Catholic News Service, 2005.

3 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 2, p. 907.

4 Walter Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, New York: The America Press, 1966, p. 386, etc.

5 Catechism of the Catholic Church, by John Paul II, St. Paul Books & Media, 1994, #1401.

6 Catechism of the Catholic Church, by John Paul II, p. 5.

7 The Code of Canon Law (1983), A Text and Commentary, Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, Edited by James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1985, p. 609.

8 The Code of Canon Law (1983), A Text and Commentary, p. 609.

9 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1996, p. 950.

10 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 468.

11 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.

12 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 222.

13 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 256.

14 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 364.



20. The Heresies of Benedict XVI (2005-)

Benedict XVI “Hailed for Praying like Muslims Toward Mecca,” Dec 1, 2006 —ISTANBUL (Reuters) – “ Pope Benedict ended a sensitive, fence-mending visit to Turkey on Friday amid praise for visiting Istanbul's famed Blue Mosque and praying there facing toward Mecca ‘like Muslims. … ‘The Pope’s dreaded visit was concluded with a wonderful surprise,’ wrote daily Aksam on its front page. ‘In Sultan Ahmet Mosque, he turned toward Mecca and prayed like Muslims,’...’”[1]

Benedict XVI praying like Muslims toward Mecca in a mosque, with arms crossed in the Muslim prayer gesture called “the gesture of tranquility,” on Nov. 30, 2006




BENEDICT XVI’S HERESIES ON THE JEWS


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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain...”[4]

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

“…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one…”[5]

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

This is antichrist!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benedict XVI also denies Jesus Christ in his book Milestones:

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

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

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

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

This is a total rejection of Catholic dogma.

Benedict XVI’s Public Act of Apostasy at the German Synagogue

All of this is why on August 19, 2005 – a Friday at noon, the same day and hour that Jesus was crucified – Benedict XVI arrived at the Jewish Synagogue in Cologne, Germany and took active part in a Jewish worship service. To take active part in non-Catholic worship is a sin against the divine law and the First Commandment, as was always taught before Vatican II.

St. Ambrose, Sermo 37, The Two Ships: “The faithlessness of the Synagogue is an insult to the Savior. Therefore He chose the bark of Peter, and deserted that of Moses; that is, He rejected the faithless Synagogue, and adopts the believing Church.”[10]

Benedict XVI in the synagogue of the Jews, taking active part in Jewish worship on Aug. 19, 2005[11]

In taking part in a Jewish worship service, Benedict XVI committed a public act of apostasy. At the synagogue, Benedict XVI was seated prominently near the front. The synagogue was packed with Jews who were there to see him. Benedict XVI was not only an integral part of the Jewish worship service, he was its main feature. This is without any doubt active participation in the Jewish religion.



Very close to Benedict XVI, the cantor of the synagogue prayed and sang Jewish prayers at the top of his lungs. Benedict made gestures, such as bowing his head and clapping his hands, to show his approval and participation in the Jewish service. He joined the Jews in the Kaddish prayer, and Yiddish music blared in the background.



When Benedict XVI rose to speak (and eventually to pray) in the synagogue, the entire synagogue rose to its feet and applauded him – applauded him for his acceptance of their religion. Everyone on earth who saw this event knows that it had one meaning: Benedict XVI has no problem with Jews who reject Jesus Christ, and (according to him) they have no obligation to accept Jesus Christ to be saved.


Benedict XVI teaches that Jews can be saved, that the Old Covenant is valid, and that Jesus Christ is not necessarily the Messiah. He is a bold heretic against the Gospel and the Catholic Faith.






Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”[12]

Benedict XVI encourages the Chief Rabbi of Rome in his “mission”

Benedict XVI exchanges a gift with rabbis at Castelgandolfo, Sept. 15, 2005[13]

Benedict XVI, Address to Chief Rabbi of Rome, Jan. 16, 2006: “Distinguished Chief Rabbi, you were recently entrusted with the spiritual guidance of Rome’s Jewish Community; you have taken on this responsibility enriched by your experience as a scholar and a doctor who has shared in the joys and sufferings of a great many people. I offer you my heartfelt good wishes for your mission, and I assure you of my own and my collaborators’ cordial esteem and friendship.”[14]

This is apostasy. Benedict XVI encourages the Chief Rabbi in his “mission”! He also expresses his esteem for the Rabbi and his Christ-rejecting apostolate.

Benedict XVI, General Audience, Jan. 17, 2007: “For almost 20 years now the Italian Bishops’ Conference has dedicated this Judaism Day to furthering knowledge and esteem for it and for developing the relationship of reciprocal friendship between the Christian and Jewish communities, a relationship that has developed positively since the Second Vatican Council and the historic visit of the Servant of God John Paul II to the Major Synagogue in Rome…. Today I invite you all to address an ardent prayer to the Lord that Jews and Christians may respect and esteem one another…”[15]

He speaks positively of a day dedicated to Judaism. This day, according to Benedict XVI, is to further esteem for Judaism (a false religion which rejects Christ). This is an utter rejection of the Catholic Faith and Jesus Christ.

BENEDICT XVI TEACHES THAT PROTESTANTS AND SCHISMATICS DON’T NEED TO BE CONVERTED


Benedict XVI as a “cardinal” in 1984 meeting with Syrian schismatic Patriarch Zakka

Heretics and schismatics, such as Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox, are outside the Catholic Church and must be converted to the Catholic Faith for unity and salvation. It’s necessary for them to accept all the Catholic dogmas and councils, including the dogmatic definitions at Vatican I in 1870. This is infallible Catholic teaching.

However, Benedict XVI teaches that Protestants and Eastern Schismatics don’t need to be converted, and don’t need to accept Vatican Council I. He says that non-Catholics are not required to accept the Papal Primacy:

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy [the Papacy] has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this…”[17]

Benedict XVI is referring to the Papal Primacy here, and he says that all Christians are not bound to believe in the Papal Primacy as defined by Vatican I in 1870! This means that Benedict XVI claims to be a Catholic and the pope while he holds that heretics and schismatics are not bound to believe in the Papacy! This is one of the greatest frauds in human history. Further, notice that Benedict XVI even admits that Paul VI’s ecumenical gestures with the schismatics were meant to show precisely that the schismatics don’t have to accept the Papal Primacy. This is a blatant denial of Vatican Council I.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra: "… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole worldThis is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation."[18]

The Church itself was founded by Our Lord upon the Papal Primacy, as the Gospel declares (Matthew 16:18-20) and as Catholic dogma defines:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “…we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff..”[19]

People need to seriously meditate on how bad this is that Benedict XVI holds that all Christians are not required to accept the primacy of the popes. It alone proves that he is a manifest heretic. But it gets even worse…

Benedict XVI not only denies the dogma that non-Catholics need to believe in the Papacy, but questions whether popes have supreme jurisdiction in the Church at all!

For long sections of his book, Principles of Catholic Theology, Benedict XVI engages in detailed discussions of issues dealing with the Eastern “Orthodox” (the schismatics), as well as Luther, the Protestants, etc. These discussions are fascinating for our purposes, since they constitute a veritable position paper of Benedict XVI on these topics. In his discussion concerning the “Orthodox,” one discovers that Benedict XVI doesn’t even believe in the dogma of the Papacy. It is important to remember that the Eastern Schismatics (the so-called “Orthodox”) often readily admit that the popes are the successors of St. Peter as Bishops of Rome. Many of the “Orthodox” also say that the pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is “the first among equals” with a “primacy of honor”; but they deny – and in this consists their chief heresy and schism – that the popes have a primacy of supreme jurisdiction from Christ to rule the entire Church.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 7), Jan. 6, 1928, speaking of heretics and schismatics: “Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful.”[20]

Benedict XVI discusses the position of these schismatics, which rejects the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the popes, and here’s what he says:

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’.’ It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”[21]

The above is an astounding and explicit denial of the dogma of the Papacy and the infallible canon below! Benedict XVI announces the position of the schismatic patriarch, which acknowledges no primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the popes, and he not only tells us that the position of the schismatic is acceptable (as we saw already), but that the schismatic position may in fact be the true position on the Bishop of Rome! In other words, the Papacy (the supreme jurisdiction of the popes over the universal Church by the institution of Christ as successors of St. Peter) may not exist at all! This is an astounding, incredible and huge heresy!

The fact that this man now claims to be the pope when he doesn’t even believe in the Papacy is surely one of the greatest frauds in human history. Those who obstinately hold that this non-Catholic is the pope assist in perpetuating that monumental fraud.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Canon, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power… let him be anathema.”[22]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“CARDINAL” KASPER AND BENEDICT XVI BOTH REJECT THE ECUMENISM OF THE RETURN – CONVERTING PROTESTANTS

“Cardinal” Walter Kasper: “… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”[27]

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”[28]

As this comparison shows clearly, just like the notorious heretic “Cardinal” Kasper, Benedict XVI blatantly rejects the “ecumenism of the return,” that is, that non-Catholics need to return to the Catholic Church by conversion and reject their heretical sects. They both reject the teaching of Pope Pius XI word for word.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”[29]

Benedict XVI is formally heretical. He holds that Protestants and Eastern Schismatics don’t need to be converted and accept Vatican I. He is a blatant rejecter of the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation, and the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I.

That is why Benedict XVI joins Paul VI and John Paul II in praising the overturning of the excommunications against the “Orthodox” – and therefore in denying Vatican I

Benedict XVI, Ecumenical Message to Schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, Nov. 26, 2005: “This year we commemorate the 40th Anniversary of 7 December 1965, that day on which Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, dissatisfied with what had occurred in 1054, decided together at Rome and Constantinople ‘to cancel from the Church’s memory the sentence of excommunication which had been pronounced.’”[30]

In the year 1054, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, broke communion with the Catholic Church and the pope of Rome. Cerularius rejected the supreme authority of the pope and closed Roman Rite churches in Constantinople. Cerularius was excommunicated by Pope St. Leo IX, and the Great Schism of the East was formalized.[31]

Thus, what “occurred in 1054,” mentioned by Benedict XVI above, refers to the excommunications leveled by the Catholic Church against those who followed Michael Cerularius into schism and into a rejection of the Papacy. Paul VI “lifted” these excommunications at the end of Vatican II, and John Paul II praised and commemorated the lifting of them many times. Now we see that Benedict XVI follows John Paul II’s example and also commemorates the event.

All of this simply means that Paul VI, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI have attempted to overturn the Papacy as a dogma which must be believed under pain of heresy and excommunication. But as we saw already, Vatican I declared many times and in many ways that those who reject the dogma of the Papacy are anathematized, cut off from the Faith. Hence, to attempt to overturn the excommunications against those who still reject the Papacy is simply to boldly reject the teaching of Vatican I. It’s formal heresy and schism signified in word and deed.


Benedict XVI with Lutheran “minister”

Benedict XVI prays ecumenical Vespers with schismatics and Protestants and says he loves the schismatic Orthodox Church



Benedict XVI praying ecumenical Vespers on Sept. 12, 2006.[32] This is active participation in non-Catholic worship. It is a manifestation of heresy by deed.

Benedict XVI, Address during ecumenical Vespers service, Sept. 12, 2006: “Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ! We are gathered, Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants – and together with us there are also some Jewish friends – to sing together the evening praise of God… This is an hour of gratitude for the fact that we can pray together in this way and, by turning to the Lord, at the same time grow in unity among ourselves… Among those gathered for this evening’s Vespers, I would like first to greet warmly the representatives of the Orthodox Church. I have always considered it a special gift of God’s Providence that, as a professor at Bonn, I was able to come to know and to love the Orthodox Church, personally as it were, through two young Archimandrites, Stylianos Harkianakis and Damaskinos Papandreou, both of whom later became Metropolitans… Our koinonia [communion] is above all communion with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit; it is communion with the triune God, made possible by the Lord through his incarnation and the outpouring of the Spirit. This communion with God creates in turn koinonia among people, as a participation in the faith of the Apostles…”[33]

This is another major heresy of Benedict XVI. First, he takes active part in the prayer and worship of non-Catholics, which is condemned in Catholic teaching.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”[34]

Second, he says that he loves the Orthodox Church – a schismatic and heretical non-Catholic sect. What can be more heretical than saying: “I love the schismatic Church”? He then indicates that he, the schismatics, and the Protestants have a communion with God, communion with each other, and communion with the Faith of the Apostles. This is all totally heretical. Benedict XVI is a public heretic in communion with non-Catholics.

Benedict XVI’s worst heresy? He prays with the leader of the world’s “Orthodox” schismatics and signs a Joint Declaration with him telling him he’s in the Church of Christ



Benedict XVI embracing the leader of the world’s Eastern “Orthodox” schismatics, Bartholomew I, in his Nov. 2006 visit to Turkey

BBC News, Nov. 29, 2006 –“Benedict XVI has met Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in Turkey, on the second day of a landmark visit to the largely Muslim country. The Istanbul talks with the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians aimed to heal an old rift. The two leaders began their meeting by holding a joint prayer service at the St George [Orthodox] Church in Istanbul.”[35]

During his 2006 trip to Turkey, Benedict XVI went into two schismatic cathedrals and met with three schismatic patriarchs, including the leader of the world’s schismatics: Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I. Benedict XVI not only committed a forbidden act of communication in sacred things with the schismatic, but he may have committed his worst heresy in his joint declaration with him.

Benedict XVI, Joint Declaration with Schismatic Patriarch Bartholomew, Nov. 30, 2006: “This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God's work, and in a certain sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lord's will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ… As far as relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are concerned, we cannot fail to recall the solemn ecclesial act effacing the memory of the ancient anathemas which for centuries had a negative effect on our Churches.”[36]

Did you get that? He says: “… our responsibility as pastors IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST”! What could be more heretical than: declaring in a joint declaration with the leader of the world’s schismatics that the schismatic leader, who rejects the Papacy and Papal Infallibility, is “in the Church of Christ”?

Benedict XVI made this formally heretical declaration in a schismatic cathedral as part of a joint declaration during a divine liturgy with a notorious schismatic! Thus, it’s official: Benedict XVI has declared in a public joint declaration that one can reject the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, Vatican I, etc. and be in the Church of Christ. He is without any doubt a public heretic. Anyone who denies this, in light of these facts, is also a heretic. Even the most dishonest and hardened defender of Antipope Benedict XVI will find it impossible to explain this one away.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896 – Bishops Separated from Peter and his Successors Lose All Jurisdiction: “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from that Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone… No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”[37]

All of this heresy from Benedict XVI is also a total mockery of the saints and martyrs who suffered because they refused to become Eastern “Orthodox,” as was covered earlier in the section entitled: Catholics who were tortured and martyred because they refused to become Eastern Schismatics.

That is why Benedict XVI even encourages the Schismatic Patriarch to Resume His Ministry

Benedict XVI, Address, Nov. 12, 2005: “In this regard, I ask you, venerable Brothers, to convey my cordial greeting to Patriarch Maxim, First Hierarch of the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria. Please express to him my best wishes for his health and for the happy resumption of his ministry.”[38]

Benedict XVI encourages the non-Catholic, schismatic patriarch to resume his non-Catholic and schismatic ministry. Further, on his trip to Turkey, Benedict XVI recalled John Paul II’s gesture of giving relics to the schismatics. Benedict XVI said that such an action is a sign of communion.

Benedict XVI, Speech to schismatic patriarch Bartholomew, Nov. 29, 2006: “… St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. John Chrysostom… Their relics rest in basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican, and a part of them were given to your Holiness as a sign of communion by the late Pope John Paul II for veneration in this very cathedral.”[39]

This proves again that the “gestures of ecumenism” signify a rejection of the dogma that schismatics must accept the Papal Primacy to be in communion with the Church.

Benedict XVI’s incredible heresy on the schismatic “Archbishop” of Athens

Benedict XVI, Address, Oct. 30, 2006: “I am also pleased to address my thoughts and good wishes to His Beatitude Christodoulos, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece: I ask the Lord to sustain his farsightedness and prudence in carrying the demanding service that the Lord has entrusted to his care. Through him I wish to greet with deep affection the holy synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece and the faithful whom it serves lovingly and with apostolic dedication.”[40]

Benedict XVI says that Christodoulos, the schismatic, non-Catholic “Orthodox” bishop in Greece, has authority over all of Greece! He also indicates that the schismatics are the “faithful” and that the Lord entrusted the schismatic bishop with a “demanding service.” Further, notice the amazing headline which appeared in the official Vatican newspaper when this non-Catholic bishop came to visit Benedict XVI. The official Vatican newspaper (quoting Benedict XVI) referred to this non-Catholic schismatic “archbishop” in Greece as the "Archbishop of Athens and All Greece" in huge headlines which were repeated throughout its newspaper. All of this is an utter rejection of Catholic dogmatic teaching on the unity of the Church.



MORE HERESIES WITH THE PROTESTANTS FROM BENEDICT XVI


Benedict XVI’s ecumenical prayer meeting in the Lutheran church: he powers ahead with major ecumenical heresy

Benedict XVI in common prayer during an Ecumenical Meeting at a Lutheran temple in Warsaw on May 25, 2006 – don’t be confused by the crucifix; many Lutheran churches use crucifixes

Benedict XVI, Address at Ecumenical Meeting in Lutheran church in Warsaw, May 25, 2006: “Together with you I give thanks for the gift of this encounter of common prayer… our ecumenical aspirations must be steeped in prayer, in mutual forgiveness… The words of the Apocalypse remind us that we are all on a journey towards the definitive encounter with Christ, when he will reveal before our eyes the meaning of human history… As a community of disciples, we are directed towards that encounter, filled with hope and trust that it will be for us the day of salvation, the day when our longings will be fulfilled, thanks to our readiness to let ourselves be guided by the mutual charity which his Spirit calls forth within us… Allow me to recall once more the ecumenical encounter that took place in this church with the participation of your great compatriot John Paul II…

“Since that encounter [with John Paul II in the Lutheran church], much has changed. God has granted us to take many steps towards mutual understanding and rapprochement. Allow me to recall to your attention some ecumenical events which have taken place in the world during that time: the publication of the Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sintthe signing at Augsburg of the ‘Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification’; the meeting on the occasion of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 and the ecumenical memorial of 20th-century witnesses of the faith [Protestant martyrs]; the resumption of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue on the world level… the publication of the ecumenical translation of the New Testament and the Book of Psalms… We note much progress in the field of ecumenism and yet we always await something more.”[42]

There’s quite a bit of heresy in this speech that Benedict XVI gave in the Lutheran church. Allow us to quickly summarize the main points. First, Benedict XVI goes to the Lutheran temple and takes active part in a “common prayer” service (his words) with Lutherans, other Protestants and “Orthodox” schismatics. This is a manifestation of heresy by deed – attendance at a non-Catholic Lutheran temple.

Second, he mentions the Second Coming of Christ, and says: “we [i.e., he and the Lutherans and “Orthodox”] are directed towards that encounter, filled with hope and trust that it will be for us the day of salvation”; in other words, the Protestants and schismatics to whom he was speaking will have salvation. This is complete heresy.

Third, he describes himself and the Lutherans and “Orthodox” as a single community of disciples: “As a community of disciples…” This shows that Benedict XVI is part of the same Church as the Lutherans and the schismatics; that is, he is part of a non-Catholic sect.

Fourth, Benedict XVI recalls many false ecumenical achievements, including the totally heretical, Council-of-Trent-trashing Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification. He also recalled the “ecumenical memorial of 20th-century witnesses of the faith,” which was the commemoration of non-Catholics as martyrs for the Faith. He also recalled Ut Unum Sint, which is filled with heresies, including the idea that there are non-Catholic saints. He also promotes a new ecumenical translation of the Bible. Benedict XVI is a manifestly heretical non-Catholic antipope.

Benedict XVI encourages the invalid head of the Anglican Church in his “ministry” and says the Anglican Sect is grounded in Apostolic Tradition

Benedict XVI, Address to Anglican “Archbishop of Canterbury,” Nov. 23, 2006: “It is our fervent hope that the Anglican Communion will remain grounded in the Gospels and the Apostolic Tradition which form our common patrimony… The world needs our witness… May the Lord continue to bless you and your family, and may he strengthen you in your ministry to the Anglican Communion!”[43]

The Anglican Sect is grounded, not in Apostolic Tradition, but in the “tradition” of Henry VIII’s adultery and schismatic break from the Catholic Church. Benedict XVI encourages the schismatic and heretical head of the Anglican Sect in his “ministry,” and mocks all the saints and martyrs who suffered and died as martyrs because they wouldn’t become Anglicans.

AT VATICAN II, BENEDICT XVI ALSO DENIED THAT NON-CATHOLICS SHOULD BE CONVERTED

Benedict XVI, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, 1966, pages 61, 68: “… Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches. … A basic unity – of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion…”[44]

Benedict XVI is not even remotely Catholic.

BENEDICT XVI PRAISES THE “GREATNESS” OF LUTHER’S “SPIRITUAL FERVOR”

Martin Luther was one of the worst heretics in Church history. Luther attacked the Catholic Church and its dogmas with ferocity. While never denouncing Luther as a heretic, Benedict XVI often speaks positively of Luther’s views and even praises him.

At Vatican II, Benedict XVI even complained that the document Gaudium et Spes relied too much on Teilhard de Chardin and not enough on Martin Luther.[45] Benedict XVI is also credited with saving the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, which declared that Luther’s heresy of Justification by faith alone (and many others) are somehow no longer condemned by the Council of Trent.

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 263: “That which in Luther makes all else bearable because of the greatness of his spiritual fervor…”[46]

BENEDICT XVI ENCOURAGES METHODISTS TO ENTER INTO THE TOTALLY HERETICAL JOINT DECLARATION WITH THE LUTHERANS ON JUSTIFICATION, WHICH REJECTS THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

Benedict XVI, Address to Methodists, Dec. 9, 2005: “I have been encouraged by the initiative which would bring the member churches of the World Methodist Council into association with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999.”[47]

As covered already, the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification totally rejects the Council of Trent by teaching that its infallible canons no longer apply to the Lutherans. Benedict XVI adheres to this Protestant agreement and asserts that it was signed by “the Catholic Church.”

BENEDICT XVI PRAISES THE NON-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL MONASTERY OF TAIZE AND SAYS MORE SHOULD BE FORMED

The ecumenical Monastery of Taize is located in France. It is a monastery made up of over a hundred brothers from various non-Catholic denominations, including Protestants.[48]

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 304: “…Taize has been, without a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical inspirationSimilar communities of faith and of shared living should be formed elsewhere…”[49]

So, more non-Catholic ecumenical monasteries should be formed, according to Benedict XVI.

BENEDICT XVI GAVE COMMUNION TO THE PROTESTANT FOUNDER OF TAIZE

Benedict XVI giving Communion to public heretic, Bro. Roger Schutz, the Protestant founder of Taize[50]

Benedict XVI gave Communion to Bro. Roger, the Protestant founder of the Taize community, on April 8, 2005. And when Bro. Roger died in August, 2005, Benedict XVI said that this Protestant heretic went immediately to heaven.

Benedict XVI, Aug. 17, 2005, on Bro. Roger: "Bro. Roger Schutz [founder of a non-Catholic sect] is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has arrived at eternal joy…"[51]

So much for the fact that Bro. Roger left the Catholic Church, rejected its dogmas for decades and became the founder of his own non-Catholic sect. He still went to Heaven, according to Benedict XVI. This is manifest heresy. Benedict XVI even said that the heretic Bro. Roger is guiding us from on high.

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “Bro. Roger SchutzHe is now visiting us and speaking to us from on high.”[52]

Benedict XVI also praised Bro. Roger’s “witness of faith.”[53] If you believe that Benedict XVI is a Catholic pope, you might as well attend the Protestant church.

Pope St. Gregory the Great: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”[54]

BENEDICT XVI TEACHES THAT THE PROTESTANT “EUCHARIST” IS A SAVING EUCHARIST!

Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 248: “Even a theology along the lines of the concept of [apostolic] succession, as is in force in the Catholic and in the Orthodox Church, should in no way deny the saving presence of the Lord in the Evangelical Lord’s Supper.”[55]

John 6:54- “Amen, amen I say to you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”

Protestants don’t have a valid Eucharist. They don’t have valid bishops and priests, since they lack apostolic succession. But Benedict XVI says above that even if one accepts the Catholic dogma of apostolic succession, one should in NO WAY DENY THE SAVING PRESENCE OF THE LORD IN THE EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT “LORD’S SUPPER.” According to Benedict XVI, the Protestants are not deprived of the saving Eucharistic Presence. This means that you can get the saving Eucharistic presence at the local Protestant church. This is astounding heresy.

BENEDICT XVI TEACHES THAT PROTESTANTISM (EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY) SAVES

Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 251: “… the burdensome question of [apostolic] succession does not detract from the spiritual dignity of Evangelical Christianity, or from the saving power of the Lord at work within it…”[56]

This is a bold rejection of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If it were true, there would be absolutely no reason to be Catholic.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:

“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”[57]

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT PROTESTANTISM IS NOT HERESY

Benedict XVI, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”[58]

Protestantism is the rejection of many dogmas of the Catholic Faith. Protestantism is not only heresy, but the most notorious collection of heresies with which the Church ever had to contend.

Pope Pius XI, Rerum omnium perturbationem (# 4), Jan. 26, 1923: “… the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.”[59]

But Benedict XVI tells us that Protestants are not heretics, and that Protestantism itself is not heresy. This is undeniable proof that Benedict XVI is not a Catholic, but a complete heretic. This is one of Benedict XVI’s worst heresies.

BENEDICT XVI’S HERESIES AGAINST THE SACRAMENTS

In 2001, the Vatican approved a document with the Assyrian Schismatic Church of the East. The document says that members of the Vatican II Church can go to the schismatic church and receive Communion and vice versa. The document was approved by Benedict XVI. The problem with this document, besides the fact that the Assyrian schismatics are not Catholics, is that this schismatic liturgy has no words of consecration, no “institution narrative.” Benedict XVI mentioned the problem in his book Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith:

Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 232: “…This case needed special studies to be made, because the Anaphora of Addai and Mari most commonly in use by the Assyrians does not include an institution narrative. But these difficulties were able to be overcome…”[62]

Benedict XVI admits that this schismatic liturgy has no “institution narrative,” which is the words of consecration. But he still approved receiving Communion at this schismatic liturgy which has no words of consecration.







Benedict XVI came to this incredible decision because he denies that words are necessary for a valid consecration!

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 377: “…we are witnesses today of a new integralism [read: traditionalism] that may seem to support what is strictly Catholic but in reality corrupts it to the core. It produces a passion of suspicions, the animosity of which is far from the spirit of the gospel. There is an obsession with the letter that regards the liturgy of the Church as invalid and thus puts itself outside the Church. It is forgotten here that the validity of the liturgy depends primarily, not on specific words, but on the community of the Church...”[63]

This is a total rejection of Catholic sacramental teaching.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: “All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.”[64]

The fact that Benedict XVI holds that Masses without any words of consecration are valid proves that he doesn’t even have a whiff of the Catholic Faith. He is a manifest heretic against the Church’s sacramental teaching. And this heresy is repeated in a number of his books.

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT INFANT BAPTISM HAS NO REASON TO EXIST

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

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

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

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

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

BENEDICT XVI’S HERESIES AGAINST SACRED SCRIPTURE


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

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

BUT BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT SACRED SCRIPTURE’S CREATION ACCOUNT IS BASED ON PAGAN CREATION ACCOUNTS

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

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

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

BENEDICT XVI CALLS INTO DOUBT THE STONE TABLETS OF THE EXODUS ACCOUNT

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

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

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

BENEDICT XVI TEACHES THAT SENTENCES IN THE BIBLE ARE NOT TRUE

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

BENEDICT XVI ON EVOLUTION

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

BENEDICT XVI’S HERESIES AND APOSTASY WITH ISLAM

Islam is a false religion which rejects the Trinity and the Divinity of Our Lord. The Catholic Church officially teaches that Islam is an abomination – a false religion from which people need to be converted and saved.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, 1434: “… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”[74]

Pope Callixtus III: “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet [Islam] in the East.”[75]

BENEDICT XVI HAS “DEEP RESPECT” FOR THE FALSE RELIGION OF ISLAM

Benedict XVI, General Audience, Sept. 20, 2006: “I hope that in the various circumstances during my Visit – for example, when in Munich I emphasized how important it is to respect what is sacred to others – that my deep respect for the great religions, and especially the Muslims, who ‘worship God…’ appeared quite clear!”[76]

Notice that he has “deep respect” for not only the false religion of Islam, but other false religions. This is apostasy. Also notice that he considers respect for the false religion itself as the same thing as respecting Muslim “believers.” He speaks of the two interchangeably, as we see. This is important to keep in mind because Benedict XVI frequently says that he respects Muslim believers or Muslims as believers. In so doing he is respecting their false religion, as we see proven clearly in the next quote.

Benedict XVI, Address, Dec. 22, 2006: “My visit to Turkey afforded me the opportunity to show also publicly my respect for the Islamic Religion, a respect, moreover, which the Second Vatican Council (declaration Nostra Aetate #3) pointed out to us as an attitude that is only right.”[77]

Notice that Benedict XVI admits here that Vatican II itself teaches respect for the false religion of Islam.

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THERE IS A NOBLE ISLAM

Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 244: “And, to prescind from the schism between Sunnites and Shiites, it [Islam] also exists in many varieties. There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco, and there is also the extremist, terrorist Islam, which, again, one must not identify with Islam as a whole, which would do it an injustice.”[78]

He is saying that a false religion is good. This is apostasy.

BENEDICT XVI SAYS MUSLIMS ARE BELIEVERS

Benedict XVI, Address to Representatives of Islam, August 20, 2005: “The believer – and all of us, as Christians and Muslims, are believers – … You guide Muslim believers and train them in the Islamic faith... You, therefore, have a great responsibility for the formation of the younger generation.”[80]

BENEDICT XVI ESTEEMS FALSE RELIGIONS

Benedict XVI, Catechesis, August 24, 2005: “This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them.”[81]

Notice that Benedict XVI doesn’t merely esteem the members of false religions, but the false religions themselves. This is apostasy. He also says that Islam and Judaism, two false religions which rejects the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the entire Catholic Faith, represents “great religious traditions.” This is apostasy. Islam and Judaism represents infidelity, the rejection of the Trinity and darkness.

Benedict XVI, Address, Sept. 25, 2006: “I would like to reiterate today all the esteem and the profound respect that I have for Muslim believers, calling to mind the words of the Second Vatican Council which for the Catholic Church are the magna Carta of Muslim-Catholic dialogue: ‘The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent… At this time when for Muslims the spiritual journey of the month of Ramadan is beginning, I address to all of them my cordial good wishes, praying that the Almighty may grant them serene and peaceful lives. May the God of peace fill you with the abundance of his Blessings, together with the communities you represent!”[82]

Benedict XVI respects the believers of this diabolical sect; he says they worship God; he wishes them God’s blessings during their “spiritual journey” of Ramadan. This is simply apostasy.

BENEDICT XVI ESTEEMS ISLAMIC CIVILIZATIONS

Benedict XVI, General Audience, Dec. 6, 2006: “ I thus had the favorable opportunity to renew my sentiments of esteem for the Muslims and for the Islamic civilizations.”[84]

Islamic civilizations are among the most evil and anti-Christian things in history. This statement by Benedict XVI, therefore, is complete apostasy.

Benedict XVI, Address in Turkey to Muslim figures, Nov. 28, 2006: “… I was pleased to express my profound esteem for all the People of this great Country and to pay my respects at the tomb of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk… I extend my greetings to all the religious leaders of Turkey, especially the Grand Muftis of Ankara and Istanbul. In your person, Mr. President, I greet all the Muslims in Turkey with particular esteem and affectionate regard… This noble Land has also seen a remarkable flowering of Islamic civilization in the most diverse fields… There are so many Christian and Muslim monuments that bear witness to Turkey’s glorious past. You rightly take pride in these, preserving them for the admiration of the ever-increasing number of visitors who flock here… As believers, we draw from our prayer the strength that is needed to overcome all traces of prejudice and to bear joint witness to our firm faith in God.”[85]

He first mentions that he paid respects at the tomb of the nonbeliever Ataturk. He then says that he esteems all the Muslims in Turkey. To esteem someone is to admire him. This means that he admires all the Muslims in Turkey. That means that he not only admires millions who reject Christ, but even the criminals among the Muslims in Turkey; for certainly there are some. He then praises the “remarkable flowering of Islamic civilization,” which keeps millions in darkness and infidelity. He then praises the Muslim monuments of the past, and says that Muslims “rightly take pride in these.” Finally, he says that as “believers” Muslims can draw strength from their prayer – indicating that the practice of Islam is true and authentic. Benedict XVI is a complete and utter apostate.

BENEDICT XVI TEACHES THAT ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY HAVE THE SAME GOD

Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 273: “… Islam, too, … has inherited from Israel and the Christians the same God…”[86]

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

BENEDICT XVI SAYS HE RESPECTS THE KORAN AS THE HOLY BOOK OF A GREAT RELIGION

Benedict XVI, speech apologizing for his comments on Islam, Sept. 2006: “In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion.”[87]

Benedict XVI respects the Koran as a holy book of a great religion. The Koran blasphemes the Trinity, denies the Divinity of Christ, and says those who believe in it are as excrement. It also says that all Christians are damned. This statement by Benedict XVI is total apostasy. We already covered how John Paul II kissed the Koran; this is to kiss the Koran in words.

BENEDICT XVI GOES INTO A MOSQUE AND PRAYS TOWARD MECCA LIKE THE MUSLIMS











On Nov. 30, 2006, during his trip to Turkey, Benedict XVI took off his shoes and entered the Blue Mosque. He followed the Muslim’s command to turn toward “the Kiblah” – the direction of Mecca. Then the prayer began. Benedict XVI prayed like the Muslims toward Mecca in the mosque. He even crossed his arms in the Muslim prayer gesture called “the gesture of tranquility.” This incredible act of apostasy was reported and shown all over the mainstream media. It’s no exaggeration to say that Benedict XVI was initiated into Islam.

Benedict XVI “Hailed for Praying like Muslims Toward Mecca,” Dec 1, 2006 —ISTANBUL (Reuters) – “Pope Benedict ended a sensitive, fence-mending visit to Turkey on Friday amid praise for visiting Istanbul's famed Blue Mosque and praying there facing toward Mecca ‘like Muslims.… ‘The Pope's dreaded visit was concluded with a wonderful surprise,’ wrote daily Aksam on its front page. ‘In Sultan Ahmet Mosque, he turned toward Mecca and prayed like Muslims,’ the popular daily Hurriyet said, using the building's official name… ‘I would compare the Pope's visit to the mosque to Pope John Paul's gestures at the Western Wall,’ said veteran Vatican mediator Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, referring to Pope John Paul II's prayers at Jerusalem's Western Wall in 2000. ‘Yesterday, Benedict did with the Muslims what John Paul did with the Jews.’”[88]

This absolutely proves that Benedict XVI is an apostate. This is one of the most scandalous actions in human history.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

St. Thomas says that one who worships at the tomb of Mahomet is to be deemed an apostate; praying in a mosque, and toward Mecca like the Muslims, is much worse. That’s why no pope in history ever even went into a mosque; they all knew that to even go there would be to signify the acceptance of the false religion. With this action, the debate about whether Benedict XVI is the pope is utterly and completely over for anyone familiar with these facts and in possession of a modicum of good will. Tell your friends and relatives: Benedict XVI is a heretic, an apostate and therefore an antipope.

Benedict XVI, General Audience, Dec. 6, 2006: “In the area of interreligious dialogue, divine Providence granted me, almost at the end of my Journey, an unscheduled Visit which proved rather important: my Visit to Istanbul’s famous Blue Mosque. Pausing for a few minutes of recollection in that place of prayer, I addressed the one Lord of Heaven and Earth, the Merciful Father of all humanity.”[89]




BENEDICT XVI’S HERESIES WITH PAGANISM


BENEDICT XVI FULLY FAVORS ECUMENISM AND THE DEVIL-WORSHIPPING ECUMENICAL CEREMONIES AT ASSISI

We’ve already covered John Paul II’s notorious ecumenical gatherings at Assisi in 1986 where he prayed with over 130 different religious leaders of all kinds of false and demonic religions, putting the true religion on a par with idol worship. This activity is totally condemned by Catholic Tradition. It was denounced as apostasy by Pope Pius XI.

Well, the train that took the false religious leaders from the Vatican to the 2002 Assisi event (the repeat performance) was described by Benedict XVI as “a symbol of our pilgrimage in history… the reconciliation of peoples and religions, a great inspiration…”[90]

In 2006, Benedict XVI also praised the 1986 interreligious prayer meeting at Assisi.

Benedict XVI, Message, Sept. 2, 2006: “This year is the 20th anniversary of the Interreligious Meeting of Prayer for Peace, desired by my venerable Predecessor John Paul II on 27 October 1986 in Assisi. It is well known that he did not only invite Christians of various denominations to this Meeting but also the exponents of different religions. It constituted a vibrant message furthering peace and an event that left its mark on the history of our time… attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions.

“Among the features of the 1986 Meeting, it should be stressed that this value of prayer in building peace was testified to by the representatives of different religious traditions, and this did not happen at a distance but in the context of a meeting… We are in greater need of this dialogue than ever… I am glad, therefore, that the initiatives planned in Assisi this year are along these lines and, in particular, that the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue has had the idea of applying them in a special way for young people… I gladly take this opportunity to greet the representatives of other religions who are taking part in one or other of the Assisi commemorations. Like us Christians, they know that in prayer it is possible to have a special experience of God and to draw from it effective incentives for dedication to the cause of peace.”[91]

Benedict XVI is in favor of the apostate ecumenical gatherings at Assisi where John Paul II prayed with leaders of all kinds of demonic and idolatrous religions – where John Paul II had the crucifixes removed from Catholic rooms so that pagans could worship false gods. Notice that Benedict XVI says that other religions know that prayer gives them an experience of God. This means that their religious experiences, such as worshipping false gods in prayer, are true.

BENEDICT XVI CRITICIZES AS “HOTHEADS” THOSE WHO DESTROYED PAGAN TEMPLES

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 373: “There were in fact Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything more than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated.”[92]

Those “hotheads” whom he criticizes would include St. Francis Xavier and St. Benedict.

St. Francis Xavier [regarding the heathen children he had converted to the Catholic faith, +1543): “These children… show an ardent love for the Divine law, and an extraordinary zeal for our holy religion and imparting it to others. Their hatred for idolatry is marvelous. They get into feuds with the heathens about itThe children run at the idols, upset them, dash them down, break them to pieces, spit on them, trample on them, kick them about, and in short heap on them every possible outrage.”[93]

St. Benedict overthrew a pagan altar and burned the groves dedicated to Apollo when he first arrived at Mount Cassino:

Pope Pius XII, Fulgens Radiatur (# 11), March 21, 1947: “… he [St. Benedict] went south and arrived at a fort ‘called Cassino situated on the side of a high mountain; on this stood an old temple where Apollo was worshipped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the ancient heathens. Around it likewise grew groves, in which even till that time the mad multitude of infidels used to offer their idolatrous sacrifices. The man of God coming to that place broke the idol, overthrew the altar, burned the groves, and of the temple of Apollo made a chapel of St. Martin. Where the profane altar had stood he built a chapel of St. John; and by continual preaching he converted many of the people thereabout.’”[94]

BENEDICT XVI TELLS US THAT PAGAN AND IDOLATROUS RELIGIONS ARE HIGH AND PURE

Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 23: “And so we can also see that in the Indian religious cosmos (‘Hinduism’ is a rather misleading designation for a multiplicity of religions) there are very different forms: very high and pure ones that are marked by the idea of love, but also wholly gruesome ones that include ritual murder.”[95]

He says that idolatrous religions are high and pure. This is heresy and apostasy.

1 Cor. 10:20- “… the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.”

Pope Leo XIII, Ad Extremas (#1), June 24, 1893: “… the blessed Apostle Thomas who is rightly called the founder of preaching the Gospel to the Hindus. Then, there is Francis Xavier… Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundreds of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion.”[96]

BENEDICT XVI HAS A PROFOUND RESPECT FOR FALSE FAITHS

Benedict XVI, Homily, Sept. 10, 2006: “We do not fail to show respect for other religions and cultures, we do not fail to show profound respect for their faith…”[97]

Notice that Benedict XVI doesn’t merely respect the members of false faiths, but he shows PROFOUND RESPECT for the false faiths themselves! This is apostasy. This means that he respects the denial of Christ, the rejection of the Papacy, the endorsement of contraception and abortion, etc. (which are all part of the teaching of other “faiths”).

Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella fede (# 15), Dec. 8, 1892: “Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions...”[98]

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THE PRESENCE OF FALSE RELIGIONS IS A SOURCE OF ENRICHMENT FOR ALL

Benedict XVI, Speech, Nov. 28, 2006: “… I am certain that religious liberty is a fundamental expression of human liberty and that the active presence of religions in society is a source of progress and enrichment for all.”[99]

This means that the various false religions are a source of progress and enrichment for all! This is apostasy.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi (# 14), Sept. 8, 1907: “[According to the Modernists] It is this experience which, when a person acquires it, makes him properly and truly a believer. How far off we are here from Catholic teaching we have already seen in the decree of the Vatican Council. We shall see later how, with such theories, added to the other errors already mentioned, the way is opened wide for atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with the other doctrine of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion? In fact that they are to be found is asserted by not a few. And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is clear.”[101]

BENEDICT XVI DENYING OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION

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

BENEDICT XVI ADDRESSES OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION AND COMPLETELY REJECTS IT

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

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

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT THERE ARE PAGAN SAINTS

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

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

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

BENEDICT XVI TEACHES THAT THERE ARE MANY WAYS THAT LEAD TO HEAVEN BESIDES THE CHRISTIAN FAITH


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

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

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

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

BENEDICT XVI TEACHES THAT ALL RELIGIONS CAN LEAD TO GOD

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

This is totally heretical.

BENEDICT XVI INSULTING CATHOLIC DOGMA

BENEDICT XVI INSULTS THE COUNCIL OF TRENT’S DECREE ON THE EUCHARIST

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

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

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT TRENT’S DOCTRINE ON THE PRIESTHOOD WAS WEAK AND DISASTROUS IN ITS EFFECT

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

BENEDICT XVI TOTALLY BLASPHEMES CHURCH TRADITION

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

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

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

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

BENEDICT XVI TEACHES THAT THE TERM “ORIGINAL SIN” IS FALSE

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

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

BENEDICT XVI CRITICIZES THE APOSTLES’ CREED

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

BENEDICT XVI ADMITTING THAT VATICAN II HAS CHANGED OR REJECTED CATHOLIC DOGMA

BENEDICT XVI BLUNTLY ADMITS THAT VATICAN II CONTRADICTS THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF POPE PIUS IX ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND FALSE RELIGIONS

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

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

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

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

This is astounding heresy!

BENEDICT XVI ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE VATICAN II SECT HAS ABANDONED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S TRADITIONAL PROHIBITION OF CREMATION

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 436: “Q. Is it permissible to have dead bodies cremated, or is that just a heathen ritual? A. … Right up to the Second Vatican Council, cremation was subject to penalties. In view of all the circumstances of the modern world, the Church has abandoned this.”[119]

The Church’s traditional law condemns cremation, and forbids ecclesiastical burial to those who requested it.

BENEDICT XVI’S HERESIES AGAINST THE CHURCH

BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT CHURCH TEACHING DOESN’T EXCLUDE THOSE WHO HOLD OPPOSING VIEWS

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 229: “The statement of the Congregation… proposes to meet the crisis by a positive presentation especially of those points of Church doctrine that are under dispute and to establish the identity of Catholicism, not by excluding those who hold opposing views…”[120]

This is blatantly heretical.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441: “Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”[121]

BENEDICT XVI TEACHES THAT THE “CHURCH” EXISTS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

Benedict XVI, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 29: “… there neither can nor should be any disavowal of the presence of Christ and of Christian values among separated Christians… Catholic theology must state more clearly than ever before that, along with the actual presence of the word outside her boundaries, ‘Church’ is also present there in one form or another…”[122]

Benedict XVI states that the Church itself exists outside of the Church. This is heretical nonsense which denies that there is only one Church.

The Nicene-Constantinople Creed, 381, ex cathedra: “We believe in… one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.”[123]

BENEDICT XVI TOTALLY REJECTS THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The unity or oneness of the Catholic Church is a very important dogma. It’s one of the four marks of the Church, as in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. When heretics form sects, they don’t break the unity of the Catholic Church, since the unity of the Church cannot be broken. They simply leave the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 4), June 29, 1896: "The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature…"[124]

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5): " … This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts."[125]

OTHER HERESIES OF BENEDICT XVI

BENEDICT XVI SAYS JUDAS MIGHT NOT BE IN HELL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BENEDICT XVI RESPECTS HANS KUNG’S PATH OF DENIAL OF JESUS CHRIST!

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


Hans Kung

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

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

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

BENEDICT XVI SAYS IT’S IMPORTANT THAT EVERY PERSON CAN BELONG TO THE RELIGION OF HIS CHOICE

Benedict XVI, Address, May 18, 2006: “Likewise, peace is rooted in respect for religious freedom, which is a fundamental and primordial aspect of the freedom of conscience of individuals and the freedom of peoples. It is important that everywhere in the world every person can belong to the religion of his choice and practice it freely without fear, for no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone.”[133]

According to Benedict XVI, it’s important that every person can belong to the religion of his choice. This is more religious indifferentism. Benedict XVI then explains his reason for saying this: “for no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone.” In other words, life is more than material being; there is a spiritual reality, so it’s important to embrace a religion – any religion of your choice! What an apostate.

BENEDICT XVI UTTERS MORE HERESY ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING THE DOGMATIC TEACHING OF POPE PIUS IX

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

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

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY. But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”[135]

Benedict XVI vs. ex cathedra Catholic teaching

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

…that a right resides in the citizens …WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS WHATEVER, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN [such an evil opinion]

BENEDICT XVI DENIES THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION ABOUT BENEDICT XVI

Benedict XVI is a manifest heretic. We have proven this without any doubt. He teaches that Our Lord may not be the Messiah; that the Old Covenant is valid; that Jews and others can be saved without believing in Christ; that schismatics and Protestants don’t need conversion; that non-Catholics are not bound to accept Vatican I; that Protestant Monasteries should be formed; that Protestantism is not even heresy; that Mass is valid without words of consecration; that infant baptism has no purpose; that Scripture is filled with myths; that the false religion of Islam is noble; that pagan religions are high; that salvation can be had outside the Church; that Catholic dogmas need to be purged; that Vatican II rejected Catholic teaching on religious liberty; that the unity of the Church does not exist; and that the Resurrection of the Body will not occur, just to name a few.

Since he is a heretic, he could not have been a validly elected pope. As quoted already, Pope Paul IV solemnly taught in his Feb. 15, 1559 Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus officio, that it is impossible for a heretic to be validly elected pope.

Therefore, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, Benedict XVI is not a pope, but a non-Catholic antipope whom Catholics must completely reject. He presides over the new religion of Vatican II, a counterfeit Catholicism that has abandoned the Catholic Church’s traditions and dogmas.

One of Benedict XVI’s main characteristics is that he is a deceiver. While he teaches undeniable, astounding and manifest heresies, one of the ways by which he has convinced so many that he is conservative is that, among these astounding heresies in his writings, there are many conservative passages. But this is nothing new. Pope Pius VI pointed out that heretics, inspired by the Devil, have always used such tactics to inculcate heresies and deceive people.

Pope Pius VI, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794: “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties… by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.”

Pope Pius VI points out that camouflaging the heresies in statements that are ambiguous or seemingly conservative or contradictory was the tactic of the heretic Nestorius, and that Catholics cannot allow heretics to get away with this or deceive them by it. They must hold such heretics to their heresies regardless:

Pope Pius VI, “Auctorem fidei": “… it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement… such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"…It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.”

Heretics have always used ambiguity and deception to insinuate their heresies and make them seem not quite as bad. In fact, the more deceptive the heretic is usually equates to how successful he is for the Devil. The heretic Arius effectively spread his denial of the Divinity of Christ because he impressed people with his appearance of ascetism and devotion.

Pope Pius XI, Rite expiatis (# 6), April 30, 1926: “…heresies gradually arose and grew in the vineyard of the Lord, propagated either by open heretics or by sly deceivers who, because they professed a certain austerity of life and gave a false appearance of virtue and piety, easily led weak and simple souls astray.”[143]

Pope Pius VI concludes his point by giving Catholics instructions on how to deal with such deception or ambiguity among the writings of heretics:

“In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”

Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity. But this is only common sense: if a man says that he is against abortion, but repeatedly votes in favor of it, he is a supporter of abortion and a heretic. The fact that he sometimes claims to hold Church teaching against abortion means nothing.

Likewise, the fact that Benedict XVI says some conservative, ambiguous or contradictory things doesn’t change the fact that he teaches astounding heresies and is not a Catholic.

BENEDICT XVI’S RETRACTION OF HIS STATEMENT ON ISLAM REVEALS HIS TRUE NATURE AS A DECEIVER

Almost all of those who are reading this book probably heard about Benedict XVI’s controversial remarks about Muhammad in a speech in Bavaria on Sept. 12, 2006. In this now-famous speech, Benedict XVI quoted a medieval emperor who denounced Muhammad’s policy (and therefore Islam) as evil and inhuman.

Benedict XVI, Speech in Bavaria, Sept. 12, 2006: “In the seventh conversation... the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war… saying: ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’ The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God,’ he says, ‘is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature.’”[144]

In context, we can clearly see that Benedict XVI doesn’t merely quote the statement from the emperor against Muhammad’s policy, but he endorses the statement of the emperor.

So, why would Benedict XVI make a statement against Islam? Is it because he believes that Islam is evil? Of course not. Benedict XVI has said that Islam represents “greatness” (Truth and Tolerance, p. 204). Benedict XVI fully endorses Vatican II’s teaching in favor of Islam, as we saw already. Benedict XVI thinks that John Paul II – who loved the false religion of Islam and committed countless acts of apostasy praising it – was a great pope worthy of canonization. The reason that Benedict XVI made this one statement is simply because his mission is, as we’ve pointed out, to occasionally make some conservative statements and do some conservative things in order to deceive traditionalist-minded folks back into the clutches of the false Church – all the while preaching the Vatican II apostasy. And this one conservative statement had its intended effect, until God allowed it to backfire on him.

Immediately after Benedict XVI’s Sept. 12 speech got around, we were contacted by individuals who had, in the past, struggled with issues pertaining to whether or not the antipopes are true popes. One of the individuals wrote to us and made reference to Benedict XVI’s speech on Islam; his faith against the Counter Church was clearly weakening. It’s truly pathetic and actually disgusting that one conservative statement or action here or there from the antipope – even though the antipope denies Christ, worships at the synagogue, says we shouldn’t convert Protestants, etc., etc., etc. – is all this person’s weak faith needed to see to be obliterated.

But that’s the way it is with many. They don’t have a true faith in Christ, they don’t hate evil, or their faith is as fragile as a reed. Many of them can be swept away by a single conservative statement here or there, even from a well-documented public heretic and apostate who doesn’t even believe that Jesus is the Messiah, as we’ve proven. That’s why Benedict XVI, who is thoroughly under the power of the Devil, does this type of thing.

THE TRUTH COMES OUT: BENEDICT XVI APOLOGIZES FOR HIS SPEECH ON ISLAM AND SAYS THAT THE STATEMENT AGAINST MUHAMMAD’S TEACHING DOESN’T “IN ANY WAY EXPRESS” HIS PERSONAL THOUGHT!

Benedict XVI, Apology for his Sept. 12, 2006 speech: “At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.”[145]

This is very, very interesting on a number of levels.

First, this is ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT BENEDICT XVI IS A LIAR AND A DECEIVER. It proves that he is a liar because we already saw that Benedict XVI clearly endorsed the quote from the emperor in the speech on Sept. 12. That is undeniable. But now he is saying that the statement from the emperor doesn’t in any way express his personal thought, which totally contradicts the Sept. 12 speech. Thus, no matter which way you look at it, Benedict XVI is caught in a huge lie.

Second, in addition to PROVING that Benedict XVI is a public liar and a deceiver, his statement that the quote from the emperor doesn’t in any way express his personal thought proves that he is an apostate. For in the face of the reaction to his speech, he had every chance to stand by his ostensible position that Islam is evil. He was presented with a great opportunity during the swirling controversy to persuade people that the position of his speech was proven true by the Muslims’ evil reaction and desire to kill; but no… he repudiated the statement against Islam instead. He followed it up by being initiated into Islam by prayer toward Mecca in a mosque with a mufti on Nov. 30, 2006.

Thus, what was originally surely intended as a neat plan by the Devil, through his Antipope Benedict XVI, to make a conservative statement which would deceive certain “traditionalists” was foiled when God allowed the plan to backfire after the Muslim reaction became so volatile that Benedict XVI had to apologize and reveal his true feelings – thus obliterating his credibility with anyone who has eyes to see what a liar he therefore has proven himself to be.

So don’t be fooled if the manifest heretic and raging liar, Antipope Benedict XVI, says or does something else that is conservative with the intention of deceiving traditionalists. Don’t be fooled if Benedict XVI grants a universal indult to say the Latin Mass at a time when most of the priests are invalid and would have to accept the Vatican II apostasy to take advantage of it. The Devil will concede all of this as long as one accepts Benedict XVI’s new religion, or accepts Benedict XVI and his apostate Bishops as Catholics while they teach that Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith are meaningless. Don’t be fooled if he reaches out in other ways to traditionally-minded groups to keep them under, or bring them back to, the Vatican II sect.

It won’t change the fact that he is a manifest heretic who presides over a non-Catholic sect.

This is all part of the deception of the last days which is predicted in Catholic prophecy.

Our Lady of La Salette, France, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”

This prophecy of La Salette coincides with the prophecies in Sacred Scripture (Apocalypse 17 and 18) that the city of seven hills (Rome) will become a harlot (a counterfeit Church), as we will cover later. The great harlot prophesied in the Bible is not the Catholic Church; it is the counterfeit Catholic Church (the Vatican II sect), the apostate, phony bride which arises in the last days to deceive Catholics and eclipse the true Church which has been reduced to a remnant.

We have shown that Our Lady’s message at La Salette has been fulfilled before our very eyes: Benedict XVI and the Vatican II sect teach that Jews are perfectly free not to believe in Jesus Christ. This is published in Benedict XVI’s and the Vatican’s own books; it proves that Rome has become the seat of antichrist. A series of antipopes reigning from Rome has made Rome the seat of the Antichrist.

Our Lord also indicates that in the last days there will be “the abomination of desolation” “in the holy place” (Mt. 24:15). He tells us that there will be a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24). He even asks if there would be any Faith left on the earth:

Luke 18:8 “But yet the Son of man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?”

This deception will happen in the very heart of the Church’s physical structures – in “the Temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4) and “the holy place” (Mt. 24:15) – and will arise because people receive not the love of the truth. God allows this as the supreme punishment for the world’s sins. We are currently living through this apostasy and deception. People need to completely reject Antipope Benedict XVI, the other Vatican II antipopes, and the new Vatican II religion.

Benedict XVI is one of the most wicked men in human history, for he alleges to wield the authority of the Church of Christ while teaching that one is free to deny Jesus Christ. He alleges to be the pope while he teaches that people are free to reject the Papacy. He alleges to be the leader of the Christian Faith, while teaching that Our Lord Jesus Christ doesn’t even have to be seen as the Messiah.

Endnotes for Section 20:

[1] Reuters.com, Fri, Dec. 1, 2006.

[2] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 39-40.

[3] Denzinger 712.

[4] http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

[5] http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

[6] Benedict XVI, God and the World, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000, p. 209.

[7] Benedict XVI, Milestones, Ignatius Press, 1998, pp. 53-54.

[8] Zenit.org, news story for Sept. 5, 2000.

[9] Benedict XVI, God and the World, p. 209.

[10] The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Regnery, Co: Chicago, IL, 1963, Vol. III, p. 223.

[11] Synagogue photos: European Jewish Press, http://www.ejpress.org

[12] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.

[13] America, October 3, 2005.

[14] L’Osservatore Romano (the Vatican’s Newspaper), Jan. 25, 2006, p. 2.

[15] L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 24, 2007, p. 11.

[16] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius Press, 1982, pp. 197-198.

[17] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 198.

[18] Denzinger 1826-1827.

[19] Denzinger 469.

[20] The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 315.

[21] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 216-217.

[22] Denzinger 1831.

[23] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199.

[24] Denzinger 1824.

[25] Adista, Feb. 26, 2001.

[26] L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.

[27] Adista, Feb. 26, 2001.

[28] L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.

[29] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.

[30] L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 7, 2005, p. 4.

[31] Fr. John Laux, Church History, Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1989, pp. 295-296.

[32] L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 20, 2006, p. 10.

[33] L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 20, 2006, p. 10.

[34] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.

[35] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6194224.stm

[36] www.zenit.org, Zenit news report, Nov. 30, 2006.

[37] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), pp. 400-401.

[38] L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 23, 2005, p. 9.

[39] L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 6, 2006, p. 6.

[40] L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 15, 2006, p. 5.

[41] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 202.

[42] L’Osservatore Romano, May 31, 2006, p. 3.

[43] L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 29, 2006, p. 6.

[44] Quoted in Catholic Family News, “Father Ratzinger’s Denial of Extra Ecclesia [sic] Nulla Salus,” July 2005, Editor’s Postscript, p. 11.

[45] http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word081205.htm#protestant

[46] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 263.

[47] L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 21/28, p. 5.

[48] http://www.taize.fr/en

[49] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 304.

[50] Catholic News Service, 2005

[51] L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 19; Zenit News Report, Aug. 17, 2005.

[52] L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 9.

[53] Benedict XVI, General Audience, Aug. 16, 2006; L’Osservatore Romano, August 23, 2006, p. 11.

[54] Quoted by Pope Gregory XVI in Summo Iugiter Studio #5, May 27, 1832: The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 230.

[55] Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, Ignatius Press, 2002, p. 248.

[56] Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, p. 251.

[57] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 229.

[58] Benedict XVI, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, Ignatius Press, pp. 87-88.

[59] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 242.

[60] L’Osservatore Romano, August 30, 2006, pp. 6-7.

[61] L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 29, 2006, p. 2.

[62] Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, p. 232.

[63] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 377.

[64] Denzinger 695.

[65] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 43.

[66] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 401.

[67] Denzinger 1792.

[68] Benedict XVI, A New Song for the Lord, New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing, 1995, p. 86.

[69] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 335.

[70] Benedict XVI, God and the World, pp. 165-166, 168.

[71] Benedict XVI, God and the World, p. 153.

[72] Benedict XVI, God and the World, p. 76.

[73] Benedict XVI, God and the World, p. 139.

[74] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 479.

[75] Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1993, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), p. 571.

[76] L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 27, 2006, p. 11.

[77] L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 3, 2007, p. 7.

[78] Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, Ignatius Press, 1996, p. 244

[79] Benedict XVI, Truth and Tolerance (Christian Belief and World Religions), Ignatius Press, 2004, p. 204

[80] L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 9.

[81] L’Osservatore Romano, August 31, 2005, p. 11.

[82] L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 27, 2006, p. 2.

[83] L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 25, 2006, p. 1.

[84] L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 13, 2006, p. 11.

[85] L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 6, 2006, p. 2.

[86] Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, p. 273.

[87] http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html#_ftn3

[88] Reuters.com, Fri, Dec. 1, 2006.

[89] L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 13, 2006, p. 11.

[90] Zenit.org, Zenit news report, Feb. 21, 2002.

[91] L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 13, 2006, p. 3.

[92] Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 373

[93] The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier by Henry James Coleridge, S.J. (Originally published: London: Burns and Oates, 1874) Second Reprint, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 2004, Vol. 1, p. 154.

[94] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 113.

[95] Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, p. 23.

[96] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 307.

[97] L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 13, 2006, p. 7.

[98] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 304.

[99] L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 6, 2006, p. 4.

[100] L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 20, 2006, p. 11.

[101] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 76.

[102] Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, p. 24.

[103] Benedict XVI, Truth and Tolerance, 2004, p. 207.

[104] Denzinger 714.

[105] Benedict XVI, Co-Workers of the Truth, Ignatius Press, 1990, p. 217.

[106] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 201.

[107] Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, p. 29.

[108] Benedict XVI, Feast of Faith, Ignatius Press, 1981, p. 130.

[109] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 247-248.

[110] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 100.

[111] Denzinger 1792.

[112] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 378.

[113] Benedict XVI, In the Beginning (A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986, p. 72.

[114] See Session V of the Council of Trent (June 17, 1546), Denzinger 787.

[115] Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, Ignatius Press, 2004, p. 326.

[116] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 381.

[117] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 385.

[118] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391.

[119] Benedict XVI, God and the World, p. 436.

[120] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 229.

[121] Denzinger 705.

[122] Benedict XVI, Co-Workers of the Truth, p. 29.

[123] Denzinger 86.

[124] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 389.

[125] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 390.

[126] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 121.

[127] Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 148.

[128] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 315.

[129] L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 25, 2006, p. 11.

[130] St. Alphonsus Liguori, Preparation for Death, Tan Books, Abridged Version, p. 127.

[131] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 72.

[132] Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, pp. 95-96.

[133] L’Osservatore Romano, May 24, 2006, p. 5.

[134] L’Osservatore Romano, June 7, 2006, p. 4.

[135] Denzinger 1690, 1699.

[136] Denzinger 464.

[137] Denzinger 429.

[138] Denzinger 531.

[139] Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, p. 349.

[140] Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, p. 353.

[141] Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, pp. 357-358.

[142] Texe Marrs, Codex Magica, Austin, TX: Rivercrest Publishing, 2005, pp. 120, 134.

[143] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 294.

[144] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348456.stm

[145] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353774.stm

[146] EKD Bulletin.

Free Videos
www.Catholic-Saints.net
Free DVDs, Articles and Books
FREE DVDs & VIDEOS
WATCH & DOWNLOAD ALL OUR DVDs & VIDEOS FOR FREE!