Christ Or Chaos .com And Dr. Thomas Droleskey Exposed Heresies, Beliefs and Practices

This article contains content used from authors: Brother Peter Dimond and Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery / mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Thomas Droleskey, also known as Dr. Tom Droleskey, or Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey, is a self-professed traditional Catholic, doctor and sedevacantist and former publisher-editor of Christ or Chaos monthly journal (from 1996-2003) and similar named website (from 2003 onwards).

A few of our readers are probably familiar with Dr. Tom Droleskey. It is therefore necessary to warn any readers who are familiar with him that he is, unfortunately, an obstinate and bad willed heretic.

Seeing that Mr. Droleskey persisted in publicly endorsing bishops and priests who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, on July 9, 2007, someone we know wrote him an e-mail attempting to charitably inform him of the serious problem with the priests and bishops he was promoting. The personal letter was sent, to make sure that he was cognizant of the problem. Tragically, however, Droleskey responded with a letter demonstrating his commitment to heresy and to the promotion of heretics. He is a complete phony and I was dismayed to discover how heretical he actually is. One could think that he would at least reject the heresy of Fr. Denis Fahey, that Jews who reject Jesus Christ can be in the state of grace; but he didn’t (see in his own words shown further below).

This person asked Tom if he considered it heretical for Fr. Fahey to teach that Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace. Tom wrote back and indicated that he did not consider it heretical, but rather that he considered it to be Catholic teaching. Thus, Tom is a clear heretic. He holds that Jews who reject Jesus Christ can be saved. (Tom was too cowardly to debate them, by the way, because his heretical position would be exposed and refuted.). Not only does Tom obstinately deny the dogma, but he attacks those who hold the true position. In short, Tom D. belongs to the crowd of baptism of desire heretics who not only believe that souls can be saved in false religions, but who detest and wish to extirpate faith in Jesus’ dogma that “unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5). In other words, he’s among the very worst of the false traditionalist heretics.

That crowd is accurately described as the scum of the Earth. They are abominable.…

Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey's Beliefs, Heresies and Practices Exposed

PEOPLE MUST TAKE SIDES!

vs.

The Catholic Church, Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Jesus Christ, St. John and St. Peter

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.” (Denz. 714)

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, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. 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.” (Denz. 712)

1 John 5:11-12: “And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life.

“For God so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” (John 3:16)

“He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)

To assert that one can attain salvation while rejecting Jesus Christ is to disbelieve in the Gospel and to fail to understand its core message.

“Now this is life everlasting, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

“And he said to them [the Jews]: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore, I said to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.” (John 8:23-24)

“Amen, Amen, I say to you: he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber… I am the door.” (John 10:1, 9)

“Jesus saith to them: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

“… the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ… Nor is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name, under heaven, given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12).

Fr. Fahey, Bishops Dolan, McKenna, Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, Tom Droleskey and countless others

Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953), p. 52: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”

Bishop Robert McKenna, to Bro. Peter Dimond, Nov. 25, 2004: “2. I answer your ‘one simple question’ regarding Fr. Denis Fahey’s saying, ‘The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.’ Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of DesireI could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says…”

Bishop Donald Sanborn, Sacerdotium V, p. 24: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ. The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error.”

Tom Droleskey, to Bro. Peter Dimond, July 10, 2007: “It is, therefore, a little presumptuous to conclude that men who were never once censured during their lives are in error [on the salvation issue] while the man who was called to the Holy Office of the Inquistion (and refused to go after repeated requests) is considered to have had the sole and correct interpretation of the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus [referring to Fr. Feeney]. Bishops Dolan, Sanborn, Pivarunas, Kelly, and McKenna, each of whom is teaching the Catholic doctrine that was taught by Fathers McNabb and Fahey without being censured, are great champions of the Faith in this era of conciliar apostasy and betrayal.”

Tom Droleskey reveals the dark compromise at the heart at the time of the acceptance of Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican II sect

In a 2004 issue of The Remnant, “traditionalist” Tom Droleskey (who was not yet a sedevacantist at the time) made the following revealing admission (bolding and underlining are my own):

Dr. Thomas Droleskey, The Remnant, Nov. 30, 2004, p. 5: “One of the worst things I have ever done is to have written an editorial for The Wanderer in 1993 criticizing an article written by Edwin Faust in The Remnant about the state of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II at the fifteen year mark. I did not really disagree with Mr. Faust’s article. Truth be told, I agreed with it. I wrote my weak and indefensible rebuttal to ‘keep my place’ on the pages of The Wanderer and to maintain my ‘access’ to the Holy See. Hey, I had interviewed the Pope’s spokesman, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, just a few months before. Then Monsignor Stanislaw Dziwisz tapped me on the shoulder to serve as the lector for the Holy Father’s private Mass in his chapel on Wednesday, May 27, 1993. I was hot stuff, folks, or so I had convinced myself in vainglorious pride and stupidity. I was thus predisposed to violate my conscience and to write an article I knew I should not have written.”

What a dishonest man and what a horrible sin. He agreed with the article criticizing John Paul II, but wrote against it anyway and attempted to refute it simply because of human respect. This is disgusting. If Tom Droleskey were not still a heretic who is still misleading people, we would praise him for the acknowledgement of his past dishonesty and sin. But because he is still a heretic and because he still attacks the truth and leads people to Hell, this quote and other scandalous actions of his must be pointed out to show the impure motives at the heart of the compromise.

The Hypocrisy of the Apostates Dr. Thomas Droleskey and “Fr.” Patrick Perez

In his 2004 article, Droleskey chastises an independent priest named Fr. Fama because Fr. Fama got ordained and consecrated by an independent Bishop who had Old Catholic roots. When Fr. Fama was ordained and consecrated by this independent Bishop, the Bishop professed to be Roman Catholic, not Old Catholic. (I’m not asserting that Fr. Fama or the Bishop who consecrated him are true Catholics, that is beside the point).

Thomas Droleskey, The Remnant, August 31, 2004, p. 15: “One who commits such a schismatic act can be absolved of his excommunicable offense only by the Holy See. 7) The mere fact that one does not intend to commit a schismatic act does not take away the fact of such an act… One can no sooner absolve oneself of the effects of a schismatic act than one can presume to be ‘saved’ by making a profession of faith in his heart and on his lips in the Lord Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior.”

So, we see that Droleskey is playing hardball with Fr. Fama. Fr. Fama has committed a schismatic act, according to him. However, I do not say that this act of Fr. Fama was licit – for it is not – for, as we will see, one may only be ordained a priest through another lawful Catholic priest or bishop that has jurisdiction to do this (consecration), and all who go to priests or bishops lacking this lawful jurisdiction, or to any heretical or schismatical priests or bishops in order to be ordained by them, such as by the Old Catholics, are committing an act that is illicit and/or schismatic, and they have no right to act as a catholic priest as they are, and have to receive a dispensation from the proper Church authorities before they can do this – as we will see below. I merely point this out in order to show the hypocrisy and despicable false judgment that Droleskey exhibits below.

Now, the apostate Droleskey continued his diatribe against Fr. Fama, by quoting a letter written by Perez to Fama:

“Fr.” Patrick Perez, quoted by Droleskey, in The Remnant, August 31, 2004, p. 15: “…the spurious and probably invalid but certainly illicit and unwarranted consecrations allegedly done by Archbishop Thuc of Vietnam in his dotage. As far as I can tell no condition exists in the Church, in spite of all the problems and confusion caused by Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae, which could possibly justify such an act.”

Here we see Perez and Droleskey (by endorsement) now vehemently denouncing the Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Thuc as probably invalid and certainly illicit. And here is where the snakes rear their ugly, lying heads:

“Fr.” Patrick Perez, quoted by Thomas Droleskey, The Remnant, August 31, 2004, p. 15: “Certainly no comparison can be made to the consecrations of the bishops done by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, which conferred no jurisdiction and were done solely out of necessity after due deliberation and negotiation with Rome, to provide for the continuation of the traditional episcopate in a state of emergency in a church gone mad.”

This, ladies and gentlemen, is an abomination. All of a sudden, hardball is out the window. Illicit, independent, definitely “schismatic” acts now become justified, when it comes to the Society of St. Pius X! Perez and Droleskey justify the independent Episcopal Consecrations of Bishop Lefebvre, while they condemn Fr. Fama as having committed a schismatic act, and they condemn Thuc’s consecrations as certainly illicit. This is total intellectual dishonesty, totally inconsistent, and it demonstrates why the apostate Droleskey was blinded for so long (and still is so blinded).

In truth, all those consecrated by Arcbishop Lefebvre or Thuc or by others of their line, or by any other unlawful source, whether they be heretic, schismatic, lack the canonical mission which the Council of Trent dogmatically teaches to be necessary for a bishop to be a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments: “If anyone say… that those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power [jurisdiction] and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical, schismatical and unlawful source], are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XXIII; Denzinger 967). Plainly no necessity, no claim of epikeia can override, even in an extreme need, an obligation derived, not from human law, but from Divine law infallibly proposed as such by the Church (such as the Divine Law that forbids Catholics to communicate in the sacraments with non-Catholics).

Lefebvre’s consecrations were made in direct violation of the Vatican’s order, to service a growing apostolate operating completely independently of John Paul II’s hierarchy, and which even discouraged (and still discourages) people from attending the “Indult Masses” in communion with John Paul II’s hierarchy. Lefebvre and his Bishops were excommunicated by the Vatican within 72 hours of the consecrations, and with the full approval of John Paul II, Droleskey’s former “Pope.” If Bishop Thuc’s consecrations were “certainly illicit,” then so were Lefebvre’s. Moreover, most of the Bishops consecrated by Thuc made the same claims as Lefebvre with regard to jurisdiction (they claimed no territory), the state of necessity, and preservation of the Latin Mass. And, of course, neither Droleskey nor Perez mentioned the SSPX’s rejection of John Paul II’s Canonizations (a clearly schismatic act if John Paul II had been a true Pope).

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Clement VIII in his Instruction Sanctissimus of August 31, 1595, stated that those who had received ordination at the hands of schismatic bishops who apart from their schismatic status were properly consecrated—the necessary form having been observed—did indeed receive orders, but not the right to exercise them. In this he repeated the doctrine of the glossators. Benedict XIV in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis of May 26, 1742, confirmed this doctrine of Clement VIII. …Not only was the recognized validity of schismatic orders established, but further points were clarified. Schismatic bishops were not to be admitted for the conferring of orders or for the administration of any of the other sacraments. Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. An appropriate penance was to be imposed on them. If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed. Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had incurred. … [p. 105] On this same matter there was still another response of the Holy Office on November 21, 1709. No Armenian Catholic bishops were available for ordaining priests who were needed in Ispahan, and so it was asked whether sacred Orders could be received from schismatical or heretical bishops. The Holy Office replied that in no way could that be allowed, and that those who had been ordained by such bishops were irregular and suspended from the exercise of their Orders. …The prohibition to receive holy Orders at the hands of a schismatic bishop is contained in the general prohibition against active religious communication as expressed in canon 1258.1. There is also an implicit prohibition contained in canon 2372, wherein it is stated that those who presume to receive Orders from a notorious schismatic automatically incur a suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See.” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., Imprimatur +D Cardinal Dougherty, Phil., April 2, 1948, Catholic University of America Canon Law Series #264, The Catholic University of America Press, pp. 103-105)

By decreeing “in no way could that be allowed,” the Holy Office confirmed that it is a matter of faith that a Catholic may never knowingly be ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop by a heretic or schismatic. The Holy Office condemns the same excuse that some Thucites and Lefebvreists use for going to the notorious apostates and heretics Bishops Thuc/Lefebvre to be consecrated bishops or ordained priests. The Thucites and Lefebvreists say, there are no Catholic bishops; therefore, we can go before a non-Catholic-schismatic bishop to be consecrated or ordained. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2372, also condemns them by reaffirming the Holy Office’s 1709 decree.

1917 Code of Canon Law: “Canon 2372. Reception of Orders from Unworthy Prelates: All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, automatically incur suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such a man, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received until he obtains a dispensation from the prohibition.”

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. … Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had incurred.”

Further, John Paul II’s Vatican has rejected the conversion of the Schismatics – a blatantly schismatical and heretical act. Yet, these schismatics and apostates at The Remnant denounced those people who are not in union with this blatant schismatic (John Paul II), who says that we should not convert schismatics! These heretics are spiritually as blind as bats.

In Droleskey’s article, we also find the following passage from Perez’s letter to Fr. Fama (wherein Perez is chastising Fr. Fama and dismissing him from communion with him):

“Fr.” Patrick Perez to Fr. Fama, quoted by Droleskey in The Remnant, Aug. 31, 2004, p. 15: “I am truly sorry to have to do this, but I feel that I have no other choice. You know how I labor to keep Our Lady Help of Christians free from the excesses that plague the traditional movement. Daily do I battle with the Feeneyites and those afflicted with Jansenism, not to mention my constant preaching against the errors of the Sedevacantists and the uncharitable people who would question even St. Peter’s ordination if they could.”

So, the apostate “Fr.” Patrick Perez, whose letter is quoted by the apostate Droleskey, does daily battle with the Sedevacantists and the “Feeneyites” (those who believe that one must be a baptized Catholic to be saved).

I will close with this: In a May 8 article called “The Consecration Has Been Done?,” Thomas Droleskey discusses the recent statement by the Executive Secretary of the “Russian Conference of Catholic Bishops” Igor Kovalevsky. Kovalevsky stated that the “Holy See” has officially instructed that the Orthodox are not to be converted to Catholicism. Dr. Droleskey, who formerly wrote for Catholic Family News and The Remnant, admits that this is apostasy.

Dr. Droleskey, The Consecration Has Been Done, May 8, 2004: “Let’s be brutally frank: to assert that the Catholic Church is not interested in the conversion of souls from Orthodoxy to Catholicism is to assert a belief that is alien to Catholic truth and representative of the sort of syncretist, pan-Christianity specifically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos in 1928…. Please tell me how not seeking the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith is not apostasy… the statement of the executive secretary of the Catholic bishops' conference in Russia proves that the Vatican has no interest--and I mean no interest--in the conversion of Russia whatsoever.” (christorchaos.com)

But the blind apostate Droleskey failed to see that he was still in union with this apostasy and this schism. He was denouncing people as schismatics for not operating in union with this apostasy and this schism, while at the same time he justified the true schism of the SSPX.

These are the apostates shaping the minds of many of the traditionalists. Worst “Pope” in history, no problem, you are just honestly mistaken… “Neo-Catholic” who defends, supports and encourages the most ridiculous apostasy, you are not a heretic… but independent of the hierarchy of the blatant schismatic John Paul II, you are a schismatic on the road to Hell – unless you belong to the Society of St. Pius X, of course, who are our good friends and for whom schism is okay.

The following information about John Paul II’s amazing heresies is an extract from the full article: The Amazing Heresies of John Paul II Exposed

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

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.”

Yet John Paul II repeatedly praised, promoted and even prayed with the members and leaders of non- Christian religions, as we will see.

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'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

CONCERNING THOSE BAPTIZED VALIDLY AS INFANTS BY MEMBERS OF NON-CATHOLIC SECTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please consult the following sections to learn what things one can and cannot be ignorant about when it comes to the Catholic faith, its teachings and dogmas – and concerning whether such a person is to be considered a Catholic, an unbeliever or a heretic:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/dogma/#material-heresy

http://www.catholic-saints.net/dogma/#the-natural-law

And for those who still doubt that Francis is an Antipope, here is irrefutable evidence that Francis is an antipope and a complete apostate.

Anti Pope Francis’ Heresies, The Apocalypse & The End of the World (Jorge Bergoglio Exposed)

On March 13, 2013 Jorge Bergoglio from Argentina was elected Antipope Francis of the Vatican II sect.

This brief overview will prove, from Francis’ words and actions, that he is a complete heretic. We will be quoting from the Vatican’s official newspaper L’ Osservatore Romano, his public interviews and speeches, his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, and two of Francis’ books that document his beliefs on various topics – Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio and On Heaven and Earth.

Antipope Francis’ Heresies on Atheism and Atheists

Antipope Francis is dominating the headlines around the world with his assertion that people don’t need to believe in God to get to heaven.

Antipope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (# 254), Nov. 24, 2013: “Non-Christians [such as pagans and atheists], by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs.”

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

That means that anyone who denies God or His existence, such a an atheist, is specifically anathematized.

Francis’ statement rejects this dogmatic definitions, in addition to all the others that will be mentioned. People need to recognize the significance of this heresy.

Concerning atheists, Francis wrote:

“First of all, you ask if the God of Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God’s mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.” (“Pope” Francisco writes to La Repubblica: “An open dialogue with non-believers”, 2013/09/11/)

Here Francis clearly indicates that people who don’t believe in God can be forgiven and saved if they obey their own conscience and follow what they perceive to be good; and later in his “Evangelii Gaudium” (254) he confirmed that this indeed was what he meant. So don’t allow any liar to claim that Francis’ statement has been misrepresented. It has not been misrepresented as Antipope Francis himself confirmed.

That’s an astounding heresy because it’s a basic dogma of Catholicism that faith is necessary for salvation. This is a fundamental issue. As Hebrews 11:6 says, “…without faith it is impossible to please God.”

Based on Romans 1:20, which teaches that all who deny the existence of God are inexcusable, Vatican I solemnly declared in Canon 1, On Revelation, “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”

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

Yet despite this dogmatic teaching based on Romans 1, in On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13 Francis says he respects atheists and doesn’t try to convert them. He also says that their “life is not condemned”.

I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect himnor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not. For that reason alone everyone has a series of virtues, qualities, and a greatness of his own.” (Francis, On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13)

An atheists interviewed Francis for the Italian newspaper The Republic. The interview was published on October 1, 2013. Francis directly told the atheist that he has no intention of trying to convert him. Francis rejects proselytism four different times in this interview. Francis declared: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.”

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

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

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

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

As we will see, Francis says he respects those who favor the abomination of same sex “marriage”, and says he never was disrespectful to sodomites and perverts. Francis also says he does not “judge” homosexuals and that a person who is gay can have “good will”.

Discussing homosexuals (people in general and clergy), Francis said in July 2013:

If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?

Francis claims to be the first Judge in the Catholic Church, a pope, and yet says “who am I to judge” homosexuals. It is shocking and a total inversion of Catholic morals… It is not surprising that Francis believes such horrible things when he idolizes man.

Also notice the following interesting statements Francis makes about gay “marriage” and homosexuals.

Francis, On Heaven and Earth, p. 117: “When the head of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, did not appeal the judge’s opinion right away authorizing a [same-sex] wedding, I felt that I had something to say, to inform; I saw myself with an obligation to state my opinion. It was the first time in eighteen years as bishop that I criticized a government official. If you analyze the two declarations that I formulated, at no time did I speak about homosexuals nor did I make any derogatory reference toward them… Macri told me that these were his convictions; I respected him for that, but the head of the Government does not have to transfer his personal convictions to law. In no moment did I speak disrespectfully about homosexuals…”

Here we see that Francis says he respects those who favor the abomination of same sex “marriage”, and that he never was disrespectful to sodomites and perverts.

Francis also mentions how he allowed the pro-gay “marriage” supporting president of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, to preside over a “Catholic” memorial service to honor deceased “Catholic priests” and seminarians:

Francis, Conversations, p. 145: “I even asked him to preside over the ceremony when he arrived at the church…”

Later when the apostate president died, Francis immediately offered a public “requiem mass” for him.

Francis also allowed politicians who are vocal pro-abortion and gay “marriage” supporters to receive “communion” at his installation “mass”.

LifeNews, Mars 20, 2013: “Pro-abortion Biden and Pelosi Received Communion at Mass for Antipope Francis - The communion issue was exacerbated when, despite their pro-abortion views, Vice President Joe Biden and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi both received communion at the Mass to celebrate Pope Francis’ inauguration. Biden’s office confirmed to the Washington Times that he had received communion and reporters in the White House presidential reporting pool confirmed in an email to LifeNews that Pelosi had received it as well. … “At a Mass during which our new Pope emphasized the duty public officials – and all the rest of us – have to protect the weakest among us, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have the audacity to receive Communion while publicly renouncing their responsibility to protect the weakest among us.”

It has also been documented and confirmed that Francis favored homosexual civil unions when he was in Argentina. He just didn’t want a homosexual civil union to be called a marriage.

CNN, March 21, 2013: “Behind closed doors, pope supported civil unions in Argentina, activist says - Less than an hour after he fired off an angry letter to Catholic Church leaders about their handling of Argentina’s same-sex marriage debate, Marcelo Marquez says his phone rang. … "He [Francis, then the “archbishop” of Buenos Aires] told me. … ‘I’m in favor of gay rights and in any case, I also favor civil unions for homosexuals, but I believe that Argentina is not yet ready for a gay marriage law," said Marquez, a gay rights activist, a self-described devout Catholic and a former theology professor at a Catholic seminary.”

HuffingtonPost, March 20, 2013: “Pope Francis Advocated For Civil Unions For Gay Couples In 2010 As Argentina’s Cardinal Bergoglio - Pope Francis supported civil unions for gay couples as recently as 2010. … As Argentina’s legislature debated President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s bill to allow gay marriage, Francis -- then known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio -- suggested to his bishops that the Church support civil unions as a compromise of sorts. At the time, civil unions were already legal in parts of Argentina ABC noted. Civil unions were the “lesser of two evils,” said Sergio Rubin, authorized biographer for then-Cardinal Bergoglio, according to The New York Times. “He [Bergoglio] wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.”

It has also been reported that Francis still favors homosexual civil unions as “Pope”.

DailyMail, March 10, 2014: “Pope to stop condemning same-sex civil partnerships hints leading cardinal in move which could be step towards Catholic gay marriage - Pope Francis has suggested that the Vatican could support gay civil unions in the future, according to one of the church’s most senior cardinals. Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that the pontiff wants the Catholic Church to study same-sex unions, ‘rather than condemn them’. Cardinal Dolan told American television that Francis wants church leaders to ‘look into it and see the reasons that have driven them.’ … In an interview to mark his first year in the church’s top job, Pope Francis last week reaffirmed the Vatican’s opposition to gay marriage but indicated that some types of civil unions could be acceptable to the church. The Pope restated the church’s teaching that ‘marriage is between a man and a woman,’ but added ‘We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety.’ Some countries justify civil unions as a way to provide the same economic and legal rights to cohabitating couples as those who are married, the Pope said in the interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. … Francis’ comments are the first time that a Pope has indicated even tentative acceptance of civil unions, according to Vatican watchers. … In recognition for the perceived change in stance Francis appeared on the cover of gay magazine The Advocate as their person of the year.”

This is heresy. It means that Francis approved perverted and abominable sexual behavior that is condemned in Scripture and Catholic teaching. His stance is no different at all from endorsing abortion under the condition that the state does not give abortion special or privileged status by using state funds for it.

More on Francis’ Heresies on Homosexuals and Homosexuality

Antipope Francis recently gave a shocking interview to the editor of the so-called Jesuit journal, La Civilta Cattolica. He was interviewed by Antonio Spadaro on behalf of La Civilta Cattolica, Thinking Faith, America and several other major Jesuit journals around the world. The interview was conducted in Italian. After the Italian text was officially approved, a team of five independent experts were commissioned to produce the English translation, which is also published by America.

We will be quoting from the English translation found in the Jesuit journal Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013.

On p. 7 of the interview, Francis is talking about homosexuals. He says:

“In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexuals persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.” He goes on to say, “it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 7.

He then re-quotes something he said previously about homosexuals:

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: “‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 8.

This is wicked heresy! First he says, he’s “no one to judge” and that “the church does not want to do this [that is, condemn the homosexuals].” That’s interesting because the First Vatican Council declared that a Pope (a true Pope) is the supreme judge of the faithful. Francis doesn’t judge or condemn anyone because he’s not a Catholic and he’s not the Pope. Also, to say that the Church does not condemn homosexuals is equivalent to saying that God does not condemn homosexuals. There is no difference between the two.

Second, he’s discussing homosexuals. He says he’s no one to judge, and he teaches that God and the Church doesn’t condemn them or reject them. That indicates quite clearly, that homosexuals could be justified despite their wickedness and abominable behavior. And, we know Francis is including active homosexuals in his comments, because he makes no distinction between people who merely consider themselves to have a homosexual orientation, and those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Indeed, we know he’s talking about those who engage in homosexual acts because Francis refers to homosexuals who have claimed to him that they feel excluded. That obviously includes active homosexuals. In fact, in this very context Francis speaks of confession. “This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 8.

The Vatican II sect would only consider homosexual acts, not the homosexual orientation, matters for confession (both are equally wrong, however).

Read more: Anti Pope Francis’ Heresies, The Apocalypse & The End of the World (Jorge Bergoglio Exposed)

Related articles:

www.ProphecyFilm.com
Free DVDs, Articles and Books