Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini


Giovanni Battista Montini sealed the fate for the Church in Rome. He took the name of Paul VI. As his predecessor, he had a very suspicious election.

He, like his predecessor John XXIII, was a modernist. Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies (Pope St. Pius X), which would make him a modernist, the synthesis of all heretics.

-His mother was a convert from Judaism. Her funeral monument has Masonic symbols engraved all over it. They are so blatant, that a wall was built in front of it to hide them. The Montini family is listed in the Golden Book of Noble Italian Heritage (1962-1964, p. 994): “A branch of the… noble family from Brescia… wherefrom their noble blazon comes and which avows as its sure trunk and founder, a Bartholomew (Bartolino) de Benedictis, said Montini was of Hebrew origin.” (Fr. Joaquin Saenz Y Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, p. 391. Jesuit Father Joaquin Saenz Y Arriaga was a doctor of Theology, Church History, and Canon Law. He was one of the first sedevacantists recognizing it in the mid to late 1960’s, perhaps earlier.)

-There is no record of Baptism for Giovanni Montini (Paul VI).

-Was known in his seminary days as a notorious homosexual.

-In 1944, he worked with the Soviets through a childhood friend Togliatti, who was head of the communist Party in Italy. The Archbishop Primate of the Protestant Church in Sweden, who was state official, informed Pope Pius XII of the situation. It came as shock to Pius XII who exiled Montini to Milan without the traditional red hat. He was so angry that he refused the cardinal’s beretta from Pius XII. Investigations into Montini’s Soviet affair resulted in finding that his private secretary, the Jesuit Tondi, was a KGB agent who was once the Professor of Atheism at the University of Marxism-Leninism. Tondi gave the Soviets the names of all the clergy sent to Russia who were immediately caught and executed. Tondi was imprisoned and later married his mistress, the militant communist Carmen Zanti in a civil service. After Montini’s election to the papacy, Tondi returned to Rome to work in the Vatican’s Civil Service as a cover for his KGB activities. Paul VI was greeted on the balcony after his “election” with cries of “il Papa Montinovsky.”

-Paul VI was a communist sympathizer. The Pact of Metz held in 1962, guaranteed that the Vatican would not condemn communism at the Second Vatican Council. However, earlier, in 1942, talks already were in the works with communist Moscow. “It was in that year, that Vatican Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, who himself later succeeded to the Papacy as Paul VI, talked directly with Joseph Stalin’s representative. Those talks were aimed at dimming Pius XII’s constant fulminations against the Soviet dictator and Marxism. Stato himself had been privy to those talks. He had also been privy to the conversations between Montini and the Italian Communist Party leader, Palmiro Togliatti, in 1944… “Stato offered to supply reports from the Allied Office of Strategic Services about the matter, beginning, as he recalled, with OSS Report JR-1022 of August 28, 1944.” (Malachi Martin, The Jesuits – The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987; pp. 91-92)

-Mark Winckler, interpreter working at the Vatican, tells of a meeting he had with Cardinal Pignedoli (then Msgr.) Pignedoli told him in 1944 that the failed Freemasonic plan to have Cardinal Rampolla elected pope in 1903 would be corrected when they elect Montini.  (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy  p. 145)

-Montini stated, “Our times, can they also not have an Epiphany which corresponds to its spirit, to its capacities? The marvelous scientific evolution of our days, can it not become this star, this sign that thrusts modern humanity towards a new quest for God, towards a new discovery of Christ?” (Milan, 1956, Le Pape de  l’Epiphanie)

-Montini stated, “Modern man, will he not gradually come to the point where he will discover, as a result of scientific progress, the laws and hidden realities behind the mute face of matter and give ear to the marvelous voice of the spirit that vibrates in it? Will this not be the religion of our day? Einstein himself glimpsed this vision of a universal religion produced spontaneously [i.e., without revelation]. Is this not perhaps today my own religion?” (Conference in Turin, Mar. 27, 1960)

-Montini stated, “We…Catholics…must…first of all, love the world…our times…our civilization…our technical achievements…and above all…love the world.” (Bodart’s La biologie et l’avenir de l’homme)

“At his coronation as Pope Paul VI, several American newspapers accused him of being a member of the Lodge B’nai B’rith – a photograph served as proof.” (The Hidden, But Victorious Way Of The Free-Masonry, Rev. Fr. Henri Mouraux)

-30 Days magazine reported the Chair of Peter for Paul VI was engineered by a large group of Masonic and Modernist cardinals meeting in the home of a leading freemason named Umberto Ortolani just prior to the conclave. (November 3, 1993)

– “The sense of universalism that is rampant in Rome these days is very close to our purpose for existence. Thus we are unable to ignore the Second Vatican Council and its consequences… With all our hearts we support the Revolution of John XXIII… This courageous concept of the Freedom of Thought that lies at the core of our Freemasonic lodges, has spread in a truly magnificent manner right under the Dome of St. Peter’s.” (L’oecumenisme vu par un Franc Macon de Tradition, Yves Marsaudon, 1964, Paris)

-Yves Marsaudon wrote, “Born in our Masonic Lodges, freedom of expression has now spread beautifully over the Dome of St. Peter’s… This is the Revolution of Paul VI. It is clear that Paul VI, not content merely to follow the policy of his predecessor, does in fact intend to go much further…” (Freemasonry and Vatican Two, Y.L. Dupont, Britons: London, 1968)

-Carlos Vazquez Rangel, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the Masons of Mexico, in a 1993 interview with the political weekly Processo stated: “On the same day, in Paris the profane Angelo Roncalli and the profane Giovanni Montini were initiated into the august mysteries of the Brotherhood. Thus it was that much that was achieved at the Council was based on Masonic principles.”

-Paul VI promised to pray for the success of Mrs. Hollister and her “Temple of Understanding” (which Cardinal Bagnozzi told him was “an occult enterprise of the Illuminati whose aim is the founding of ‘the World Religion of Human Brotherhood’).

-The Masonic plans were, of course, to infiltrate the Church until one of their own became pope, knowing full well that obedience will be given to him. Thus, the Masonic doctrines will be held as Catholic Orthodoxy. Paul VI stated, “All men must obey him [the pope] in whatever he orders if they wish to be associated with the new economy of the Gospel.” (Allocution, June 29, 1970)

-Paul VI, Message, Sept. 8, 1977: “Stress is legitimately laid nowadays on the necessity of constructing a new world order…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 22, 1977, p. 11)

-Following Vatican II, Paul VI changed all seven of the sacraments.

-Paul VI approved the help of six Protestants to concoct the ‘novus ordo missae’ (the new mass).

Exorcist Fr. Malachi Martin reported that on June 29, 1963, the night before Paul VI’s coronation, a black mass was celebrated and Satan was enthroned in the Vatican! (Windswept House) Fr. Malachi has confirmed several times in interviews that this is a fact from his book, and has believed the Vatican has been possessed by Satan ever since.

-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…” (L’Osservatore Romano, July 17, 1969, p. 1)

-Paul VI, Letter, July 25, 1975: “…the Holy See rejoices to see specifically emphasized the right of religious liberty.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 14, 1975, p. 3)

These statements stem from Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration of religious freedom) of Vatican 2. However, the Council of Vienne declared by implication that man does not have the right of religious freedom expressed publicly.

-Paul VI, Telegram after the election of a new Patriarch of Constantinople, July, 1972: “At the moment when you assume a heavy charge in the service of the Church of Christ…” (L’Osservatore Romano, July 27, 1972, p. 12)

Notice that Paul VI is recognizing a schismatic patriarch and church as part of the Church of Christ.

-Paul VI, Joint Declaration with the [schismatic/heretic] 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…” (L’Osservatore Romano, May 24, 1973, p. 6)

-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.” (L’Osservatore Romano, May 5, 1977, p. 1)

All these statements stem from the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican 2 that implies that the Church of Christ exists outside the Catholic Church, as Paul VI actually states about the Church of Constantinople.

-Paul VI invited Anglicans to use Catholic altars in the Vatican for their services (a sacrilegious act), and place his papal ring on the Anglican “archbishop” and invited him to bless the faithful in St. Peter’s Square.  (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy  p. 152)

-For the sake of ecumenism he did not hesitate to even desecrate the Sacred Body of Our Lord, as for example when he personally authorized giving communion to Barbara Olson, a Presbyterian, at her Nuptial Mass (Sept. 21, 1966) without her abjuring her Presbyterian views or her going to Confession.. Not an isolated act by any means, for he also gave Communion under the same circumstances to the Lutherans (Forts dans la foi, No. 47). As the Abbe of Nantes said, “No one in the world, bishop or cardinal, Angel or even the Pope himself, has any right whatever to give the Sacrament of the Living to those who are spiritually dead.” (Liber Accusationis) quoted in (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy  p. 152)

-He joined Cardinal Willebrands in “the common prayer of the World Council of Churches” (Doc. Cath. Jan 17, 1971)

-Paul VI, Message to United Nations, May 24, 1978: “…we are aware that the path which must lead to the coming of a new international order… cannot in any case be as short as we would like it to be… Disarmament, a new world order and development are three obligations that are inseparably bound together…” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 15, 1978, p. 3)

-On November 13, 1964, Paul VI gave away the triple-crowned papal tiara. Paul VI had the tiara auctioned at the New York World’s Fair. (Fr. Joaquin Saenz Y Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, pp. 394-395)

The Papal Tiara is a sign of a true Pope’s authority – the three crowns representing the dogmatic, liturgical and disciplinary authority of a pope. In giving it away, Paul VI was symbolically giving away the authority of the Papacy. “Cardinal” Ottaviani is by the side of Paul VI as he does this atrocious deed.

-Paul VI gave his Shepherd’s Crook and Fisherman’s Ring to U Thant, head of the UN, who sold them to a Jewish businessman in the Midwest. (The Voice, Dec. 9, 1972 and documented in Hubert Monteilhet, Papa Paul VI – L’Amen-Dada)

-Paul VI abolished the oath against Modernism, at a time when Modernism was everywhere, and why not, for the new religion of Rome, it’s heretical to be against modernism.

-On Nov. 21, 1970, Paul VI also excluded all cardinals over 80 years of age from participating in papal elections. (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 3, 1970, p. 10)

This fixes the next conclave.

-Paul VI gave all the bishops a new gold ring in place of the traditional ones as a sign of the new church. He asked the bishops not to use their shepherd’s crooks.

-Paul VI abolished the rite of Tonsure, all four Minor Orders, and the rank of Subdiaconate. (The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 81, p. 17)

– “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.” (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, Niagara Falls, NY: Marmion Publications, 2003, p. 193)

-Under Paul VI, the Holy Office was reformed: its primary function now was research, not defending the Catholic Faith. (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 193)

-According to those who watched film of Paul VI’s visit to Fatima, he did not pray one Hail Mary.  (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 206)

-In 1969, Paul VI removed forty saints from the official liturgical calendar. (Nino Lo Bello, The Incredible Book of Vatican Facts and Papal Curiosities, Ligouri, MO: Liguori Pub., 1998, p. 195)

-Paul VI removed solemn exorcisms from the baptismal rite. In the place of the solemn exorcisms, he substituted an optional prayer that makes only a passing reference to fighting the Devil. (The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVIII, No. 90, p. 8)

-Paul VI granted more than 32,000 requests from priests to return to lay status. (Malachi Martin)

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

-Paul VI, Speech to Lombard Seminary, Dec. 7, 1968: “The Church finds herself in an hour of disquiet, of self-criticism, one might say even of self-destruction… The Church is wounding herself.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 19, 1968, p. 3)

-Paul VI, General Audience, Oct. 1, 1969: “On the other hand, She [the Church] is also trying to adapt herself and assimilate herself to the world’s ways; She is taking off her distinctive sacral garment, for She wants to feel more human and earthly. “She is tending to let herself be absorbed by the social and temporal milieu. She has almost been seized by human respect at the thought that She is different in some way and obliged to have a style of thought and life which is not that of the world. She is undergoing the world’s changes and degradations with conformist, almost avantegarde zeal.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 9, 1969, p. 1)

-Paul VI, Homily, June 29, 1972: “Satan’s smoke has made its way into the Temple of God through some crack…” (L’Osservatore Romano, July. 13, 1972, p. 6)

Pretty clever statements to keep the faithful aloof, as Paul VI was one opening up the crack created by John XXIII, to let the smoke of Satan in. Apocalypse 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…”

-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.’” (Jean Guitton, “Nel segno dei Dodici,” interview by Maurizio Blondet, Avvenire, Oct. 11, 1992)

-Paul VI said, “All honour to Man, king of the earth and now prince of the heavens!” (Documentation Catholique’ no.1580)

“Paul went so far once as to state that a pope – to be truly pope – must be acknowledged by the whole human race. One century before this, a French philosopher named Lamennais had been condemned as a heretic for saying just that. And every one of Paul’s predecessors, including Roncalli, would have unhesitatingly condemned Paul VI for saying so…Paul’s new view meant recognizing the autonomy of the individual person and therefore accommodating all possible views. It meant that anyone had a right to be wrong. It meant the Catholic Church was no longer “the one true church of Christ.” It meant embracing the concept of religious pluralism, and abstention from all “missionary activity.” It meant that the people would decide for themselves what to believe and how to behave. Meanwhile, the church was there to minister to their social and physical needs…Paul consented, further, to abandon the age-old Catholic belief that the Mass was a sacrifice. It was, he propounded in an official document, a sacred memorial meal presided over by a “priest”; and only threats by the powerful cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, saved Paul from proclaiming what would have been this formal heresy. …He gave moral support to terrorists in Spain and left-wing parties in Latin America. He allowed himself and his office to be used by the Communist government of North Vietnam in order to make the Tet offensive of 1968 possible. He favored Castro’s Cuba, and gave free rein to Marxist bishops and priests and nuns in his church of the Americas and Europe and Africa. But Paul never uttered one syllable to protest the crucifixion of Lithuanian Catholics by the Soviets, the persecution of all believers in Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, the tortured prisoners of Castro’s Cuba; no more than he did about the planned destruction of the faith he was elected to protect and spread.” (Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church, Putnam: N.Y. 1981, p. 275) Fr Malachi said in interviews that Paul VI was not an intellectual, and was a weak man.

Interestingly, Humanae Vitae of Paul VI is the most noted document of his papacy. In it, he rejects artificial birth control, yet Pope Pius XI already solemnly condemned it in Casti Cannubi as did Pope Pius XII. Never do we hear how two popes had already solemnly condemned artificial birth control. Rather, all we hear is how Humanae Vitae proves Paul VI’s great orthodoxy as pope.


The Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., a Novus Ordo priest of the Society of the Oblates of Wisdom, is a retired Associate Professor of Theology of the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico in Ponce, P.R. He’s an author of several books and contributor to magazines such as the Latin Mass Magazine and This Rock of Catholic Answers.

On Sept. 15, I received an open email from Matt Haltom on the death penalty change to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The email was sent to many influential members of the Vatican 2 sect such as: Brian Harrison, Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid, Karl Keating; Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, E. Michael Jones, Mark Brumley, Dave Armstrong, Robert Sungenis; Professor Mike Sirilla, MItchell Pacwa, Al Kresta, and members of the Diocese of Lexington, KY such as Bishop Stowe and several of his priests.

Matt Haltom erroneously called the catechism change the universal and ordinary magisterium bound to the assent of faith by the church.

Rev. Brian Harrison responded the next day with:

This is theologically untenable, Mr. Haltom.  Putting a doctrinal assertion into the Catechism does not upgrade it to the status of “universal ordinary magisterium” that requires from all Catholics “the intellectual assent of faith”. (That’s something due only to infallible teachings.)

According to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, chief architect of the CCC, statements in the Catechism have no more or less doctrinal authority than they had previously:  in this case, that’s the authority  of one single papal speech (addressed to a limited audience, not the universal Church) in October 2017.  Papal speeches, as such, have quite low magisterial authority, and none at all if they contradict 2,000 years of previous teaching from the ordinary and universal magisterium.  In the event of such contradiction, this indisputably non-infallible papal assertion about capital punishment should be considered a papal error, not as authentic magisterium requiring the “religious assent of mind and will” of Catholics.  “Non-infallble” means by definition that it’s not guaranteed to be true. Therefore, logically, it could be false.

Scroll down to see the relevant excerpt from my recent LifeSiteNews posting on this subject. The full text can be accessed at:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/can-pope-francis-death-penalty-teaching-be-harmonized -with-scripture-and-tr. (It was republished in The Wanderer, August 30, 2018, p. 7B.)

Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S.

Not a few commentators have opined that adding a citation from Pope Francis’ 2017 speech to the Catechism gives the cited statement greater magisterial weight than it had previously. But according to the original chief architect of the CCC, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, this is not the case. In his little book Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), Ratzinger, who was then Prefect of the CDF, considered the question of the CCC’s doctrinal authority and pointed out that, as an essentially pastoral document � a compendium of already-existing Catholic doctrine  �  it does not have  the inherent authority to hand down new magisterial judgments: �The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess� (p. 26).

In that case, the present contentious amendment to the Catechism still has no more authority than that of the 2017 papal allocution which it cites as its one and only magisterial source. And allocutions are not high up in the �pecking order� of papal interventions; they fall well below the level of Encyclical Letters and Apostolic Exhortations, Epistles and Constitutions in which the popes express their major doctrinal judgments. If, as seems very likely, Pope Francis means to teach in the new version of CCC #2267 that capital punishment is �in itself contrary to the Gospel,� then with all due respect, Catholics cannot be expected to give their assent to a teaching so flagrantly contrary to the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture as interpreted  by all previous popes and their approved catechisms.

On the 18th, I responded to Harrison and the whole group with the following:

Dear Rev. Harrison,

You are right, of course, that the catechism is not universal ordinary magisterium. However, that doesn’t mean a Catholic catechism can provide, “a teaching so flagrantly contrary to the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture as interpreted  by all previous popes and their approved catechisms” because such a teaching would be heretical!

The Catholic Church can’t promulgate heresy in any form, whether by law, letter, or catechism. If it could it would be no different from any other Protestant religion. A religion that promulgates heresy is a false religion. Period!<

Even St. Robert Bellarmine taught in De Laicis that the unlawfulness of capital punishment was a “chief heretical belief” of the Anabaptists.

That being said, the new catechism teaching implies:

  1. The Church in the past was wrong for thinking the dignity of the person is lost for serious crimes.
  2. The Church was wrong for thinking it was an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes.
  3. The Church was ignorant of the fact that the dignity is still present after serious crimes.
  4. The Church immorally attacked the inviolability and dignity of the person when such an attack is inadmissible because of the inviolability and dignity of the person.

I’ve read the numerous so-called experts explain that Francis was not saying the death penalty is intrinsically evil. However, the footnote points to Francis’ address in 2017 where he stated that the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel” and “is an inhuman measure.” That means the death penalty is intrinsically evil according to “Pope” Francis, not to mention, the change blasphemes the Catholic Church by implication.

That Catholic Church can’t promulgate what Francis teaches. It’s that simple!

Steven Speray

Less than an hour later, Harrison replied:

The sedevacantist Mr. Speray says, “The Catholic Church can’t promulgate heresy in any form, whether by law, letter, or catechism”.

In other words, he is saying all papal letters and papally approved catechisms are infallible in the sense of enjoying an absolute guarantee of freedom from heresy.

That is not, and never has been, Catholic teaching. There is (at least, thus far in church history and the development of doctrine up till now) no absolute doctrinal guarantee that any individual statement of the Church’s teaching office other than an ex cathedra definition of a pope, or a similar definition of an ecumenical council, will not be heretical.

This is my last contribution to this exchange.

Fr. Harrison

An hour and a half later, I submitted my final reply:

You say the Catholic Church can be heretical.

Thank you for proving that you’re not Catholic, Mr. Harrison, because that is a heresy!

I did not imply that papal letters and catechisms are infallible. When infallibility is not applied, that doesn’t mean such Church teachings can be contrary to dogmas proposed by the same Church. That would make the Catholic Church contradictory. People who teach heresy are heretics and religions that teach heresy are heretical and false religions.

You won’t find the Catholic Church ever teaching heresy!

To address your last paragraph, the Catholic Church has numerous teachings on the issue. Take a look at Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. He just preached heresy and Pope St. Celestine I declared that Nestorius defected from the faith and Pope Pius VI called him an imposter. Yet, you claim the Pope and the Catholic Church could do what Nestorius did for he just preached where infallibility is absent.

Now I know why you’re in your heretical Vatican 2 religion where heresy abounds and blasphemy is commonplace from your pope downward.

Steven Speray

The most astounding aspect of this exchange is the fact that a theologian doesn’t understand infallibility and how and why it works. There’s this false understanding held by so many people, including some sedevacantists, that when infalliblity is absent, the pope and Catholic Church can promulgate heresy.

Mr. Hutton Gibson has been most gracious to me over the years. He helped me with my grammar and edited out a hundred typos from my book, “Papal Anomalies and their Implications.”

Happy 100th Birthday, Mr. Gibson!

Godspeed to you!

Picture of The Three Stooges taken from Pinterest


Senior apologist Jimmy Akin over at “Catholic Answers” has attempted to explain away “Pope” Francis’ new catechism change on the death penalty. [1] Akin argues that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. The reason, he gives, is that today’s penal sanctions can protect society without the need for the death penalty, whereas in the past, the Church understood the death penalty as a necessary requirement to protect society.

Akin takes it further and states, “the death penalty could still be justified as a means of protecting society” and “one could understand the death penalty as something that involves ‘an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’ but an attack that could be tolerated or even required in situations where there is no other way to effectively protect society.”

The whole problem here is that the catechism implies the precise opposite to Akin’s argument.

The revision denotes that in the past the dignity of the person was considered lost due to serious crimes which justified the use of capital punishment. However, now “an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes” and “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’, [1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

The footnote points to Francis’ address in 2017 where he stated that the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel” and “is an inhuman measure.” That means the death penalty is intrinsically evil.

In case you missed it, the catechism is saying the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person, but Akin argues that the same quote admits that such an attack is admissible. It can be justified, tolerated, or even required.

Apologist Patrick Madrid (formally of “Catholic Answers”) admits that Francis’ new teaching is contrary to past Church teaching and the death penalty is not an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. Madrid asserts the change is Francis’ “personal pastoral approach” and “pastoral opinion” but no change in doctrine. [2]

If we pay close attention, we can see that the Francis’ catechism revision is implying four things:

  1. The Church in the past was wrong for thinking the dignity of the person is lost for serious crimes.
  2. The Church was wrong for thinking it was an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes.
  3. The Church was ignorant of the fact that the dignity is still present after serious crimes.
  4. The Church immorally attacked the inviolability and dignity of the person when such an attack is inadmissible because of the inviolability and dignity of the person.

All four implications are blasphemies against the Church and outright heresies against the Holiness of the Church.

Madrid understands the error of Francis’ teaching but asserts that a pope has the right to make and apply a heretical and blasphemous opinion as a pastoral approach.

Over at the Remnant Newspaper, we have Christopher Ferrara rightly pointing out Francis’ nonsense but then calling his pope’s magisterium “fake.” Well, that’s interesting. We sede’s call Francis’ magisterium fake, too, because Francis isn’t pope. However, Ferrara calls it fake because it’s heretical. [3]


Jimmy Akin twists the very words of “Pope” Francis and his catechism revision to say precisely opposite of their clear meaning.

Patrick Madrid implies that a pope has the right to promulgate a heretical pastoral approach.

Christopher Ferrara thinks his pope’s magisterium is fake with no authority because in Ferrara’s crazy religion, popes can have fake magisteriums and promulgate heresy without losing their office or membership in the Church.

All I can say is, “Stupid, stupid, stupid!”



[1] http://jimmyakin.com/2018/08/understanding-the-catechisms-death-penalty-revision.html

[2] http://jimmyakin.com/2018/08/understanding-the-catechisms-death-penalty-revision.html

[3] https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4000-killing-capital-punishment-francis-vs-the-catholic-church#comment-4020553214

In a 1973 movie called The Conflict, a modernist priest played by Martin Sheen asks a traditional priest (played by Trevor Howard) how do we begin to define heresy today. The traditionalist gives the answer for the modernist by stating, “yesterday’s orthodoxy is today’s heresy.”

Never has this statement been truer than in today’s religion headed by “Pope” Francis.

In “Why Sedevacantism” I showed that if Vatican 2 is correct that “religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance” [DH 4] then Martin Luther would have been right when he declared “that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit” and Pope Leo X and his papal bull condemning Luther’s teaching would be heretical.

On Aug. 2, 2018, the Feast of St. Alphonsus Liguori, “Pope” Francis has now, once again, officially recognized Martin Luther’s teaching as orthodoxy by ordering the Catechism of the Catholic Church be changed on capital punishment. [1] (Catechism change and the Letter from the CDF.)

The key changes of the 1992 Catechism footnote an Oct. 11, 2017 address from “Pope” Francis to an audience of cardinals, bishops, priests, nuns, catechists, and ambassadors from many countries on the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the catechism. The Catechism now implies that the Catholic Church in the past was ignorant to the dignity of the person after very serious crimes and attacked that dignity out of its ignorance.

In the Oct. address, Francis declared the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel,” “is an inhuman measure,” “is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person” stressing that “here we are not in the presence of any contradiction with past teaching,” that this, “law of progress” he said, “appertains to the peculiar condition of the truth revealed in its being transmitted by the church, and does not at all signify a change of doctrine. One cannot conserve the doctrine without making it progress, nor can one bind it to a rigid and immutable reading without humiliating the Holy Spirit.” [2]

If only Luther could have lived to see this moment when Rome would say he was right all along. Why Luther would be considered a good Catholic today as even “Pope Saint” John Paul II paid homage to him and the Vatican said he was a “witness to the gospel.” In fact, if Luther lived today, he wouldn’t be so well-known. He’d fit right in with the Novus Ordo establishment.

It really is astounding how Protestant Rome is becoming. One of the doctrines held by the earliest Protestants (Anabaptists) was the unlawfulness of capital punishment. In De Laicis, Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine called this a “chief heretical belief” of the Protestant sects. [3]

Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori taught, “It is lawful to put a man to death by public authority: it is even a duty of princes and of judges to condemn to death criminals who deserve it; and it is the duty of the officers of justice to execute the sentence; God himself wishes malefactors to be punished.” [4]

The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent declared, “Execution Of Criminals: Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment¬ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” [5]

If this is not enough, I provide more information on how the Church ordered The Death Penalty for Sodomites.

Even when we see a clear reversal of Church teaching on morality, two well-known radio hosts on Relevant Radio, “Catholic” apologist Patrick Madrid and “Monsignor” Stuart Swetland insist that Francis is only making a pastoral change with no actual change in Church doctrine or is just applying a development of doctrine. You can hear the podcasts by clicking on the links provided at the footnote. [6] I haven’t listened to any other talk shows from Relevant Radio to see how they are dealing with this, but I can figure it’s probably all the same.

On July 3, 1907, Pope St. Pius X condemned as an error of the Modernist in Lamentabili, “53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable; but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution.” Is this not what “Pope” Francis is advocating with his statements? Is this not what Madrid and Swetland are defending when they say that we have to understand this in “Francis’ way” or imply that doctrines can develop in the reverse?

It all comes down to the fact that all of them are modernists in the truest sense of the word, for they all hold that “Yesterday’s orthodoxy is today’s heresy.”




[1] The Death Penalty

“2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, [1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
[1] FRANCIS, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.”

Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty

1. The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times.[1] This development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”[2]
2. It is in the same light that one should understand the attitude towards the death penalty that is expressed ever more widely in the teaching of pastors and in the sensibility of the people of God. If, in fact, the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good, today the increasing understanding that the dignity of a person is not lost even after committing the most serious crimes, the deepened understanding of the significance of penal sanctions applied by the State, and the development of more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens have given rise to a new awareness that recognizes the inadmissibility of the death penalty and, therefore, calling for its abolition.
3. In this development, the teaching of the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitæ of John Paul II is of great importance. The Holy Father enumerated among the signs of hope for a new culture of life “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defense’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.”[3] The teaching of Evangelium vitæ was then included in the editio typica of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In it, the death penalty is not presented as a proportionate penalty for the gravity of the crime, but it can be justified if it is “the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor,” even if in reality “cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (n. 2267).
4. John Paul II also intervened on other occasions against the death penalty, appealing both to respect for the dignity of the person as well as to the means that today’s society possesses to defend itself from criminals. Thus, in the Christmas Message of 1998, he wished “the world the consensus concerning the need for urgent and adequate measures … to end the death penalty.”[4] The following month in the United States, he repeated, “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”[5]
5. The motivation to be committed to the abolition of the death penalty was continued with the subsequent Pontiffs. Benedict XVI recalled “the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty.”[6] He later wished a group of the faithful that “your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”[7]
6. In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that “today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been.”[8] The death penalty, regardless of the means of execution, “entails cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.”[9] Furthermore, it is to be rejected “due to the defective selectivity of the criminal justice system and in the face of the possibility of judicial error.”[10] It is in this light that Pope Francis has asked for a revision of the formulation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty in a manner that affirms that “no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”[11]
7. The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine.[12] The new text, following the footsteps of the teaching of John Paul II in Evangelium vitæ, affirms that ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people. Certainly, it remains the duty of public authorities to defend the life of citizens, as has always been taught by the Magisterium and is confirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church in numbers 2265 and 2266.
8. All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime.
9. The new revision affirms that the understanding of the inadmissibility of the death penalty grew “in the light of the Gospel.”[13] The Gospel, in fact, helps to understand better the order of creation that the Son of God assumed, purified, and brought to fulfillment. It also invites us to the mercy and patience of the Lord that gives to each person the time to convert oneself.
10. The new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church desires to give energy to a movement towards a decisive commitment to favor a mentality that recognizes the dignity of every human life and, in respectful dialogue with civil authorities, to encourage the creation of conditions that allow for the elimination of the death penalty where it is still in effect.
The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 28 June 2018, has approved the present Letter, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on 13 June 2018, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1 August 2018, Memorial of Saint Alphonsus Liguori.
Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I.
X Giacomo Morandi
Titular Archbishop of Cerveteri

[2] https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/10/11/pope-francis-death-penalty-contrary-gospel

[3] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis, “Among the chief heretical beliefs of the Anabaptists and Antitrinitarians of our time there is one that says that it is not lawful for Christians to hold magistracy and that among Christians there must not be power of capital punishment, etc., in any government, tribunal, or court.” (p. 5)

[4] St. Alphonsus Liguori (Instructions for the People on the Ten Commandments and on the Sacraments) https://archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks15liguuoft#page/n467/mode/1up

[5] http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm05.htm

[6] Listen to Patrick Madrid on the death penalty change here:

and Swetland can be heard here: https://relevantradio.com/2018/08/go-ask-your-father-for-august-7-2018/

Picture taken from The Catholic Sun/CNS photo/Joao Paul Trindade via EPA


I was given the news a few hours ago. Novus Ordo Watch has the story here.

Although many of us already believed this Lucia was an imposter by the pictures, I found it most curious that Our Lady asked that the 3rd Secret be revealed by 1960 or after Sister Lucia’s death, which ever happened first, because the world would better understand its contents in that time period. [1]

This seems to imply that Our Lady knew that Lucia would die around 1960 but the world wouldn’t know, which is why Our Lady gives a year. Why bring up her death at all if 1960 was the time the world would understand the Secret?

Now we know that an imposter most certainly played the role as the pictures post-1960 indicate.

Why the need for an imposter? To keep the 3rd Secret of an apostasy of Rome a secret as the imposter would confirm and help validate the Vatican 2 popes and the counterfeit religion of Rome.


[1] Our Lady of Fatima, MacMillion, First Edition 1947, p. 211, by William Thomas Walsh, and Sermon, Third Secret of Fatima, Most Reverend Robert F. McKenna O.P.

The Antichrist at work…


I find the following video very interesting. The website: https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ has much more information. I’m putting this out there because it goes part and parcel with the final antichrist which is man placing himself in the place of God raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. Ii., 2).

Father Cekada has produced a new video on the reason for rejecting the 1955 Reform Missal for Holy Week of Pope Pius XII. See:

In the video, we get to see Fr. Cekada have a make-believe conversation with Pope Pius XII where Fr. Cekada gets to speak for the pope to justify his application of epieikeia to the 1955 Holy Week Missal. Cekada’s imaginary depiction of Pius XII is very convenient in support of his argument. I could depict the pope giving a very different response to Cekada but the whole thing is just too silly.

Cekada insists the 1955 missal “paved the way to the 1969 new order of mass of Paul VI and were the work from the same modernist cabal that concocted the post Vatican 2 reforms.” Because Bugnini said the Pius XII reforms were a “bridge between the old and the new” that “led to the new city” Cekada asks why walk halfway across the bridge if we’re never going to the new city.

Pope Pius XII promulgated Maxima Redemptionis claiming that the 1955 reform was a restoration. It’s not a bridge to the new mass but one more stage of reform of enhancing the liturgy that began with Pope St. Pius X. The 1955 missal didn’t pave the way to the new mass anymore than the Catholic Church paved the way to Protestantism.

Another problem is that Fr. Cekada says in his make-believe conversation with Pope Pius XII that there’s nothing evil with the 1955 missal, but he indicates in earlier writings that he may not really believe that.

In 2012, Fr. Cekada wrote, “the many parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms now render continued use of the latter harmful, because such a use promotes (at least implicitly) the dangerous error that Paul VI’s ‘reform’ was merely one more step in the organic development of the Catholic liturgy.” [1]

This is merely Cekada’s opinion. How many Catholics has fallen victim to the new mass because of the 1955 missal? It would seem that if you’re going to claim the liturgy has become harmful and you’re going to apply epieikeia, you’d provide examples of it actually doing the harming rather than making a claim of it doing so. I would like to see the numbers of those Catholics leaving CMRI (who use the 1955 missal) for the new mass on account of the Pius XII liturgical revisions. After all, theologians HcHugh and Callan taught thatA person should not use epieikeia except in necessity. [2] The burden of proof for its application should be provided not by claims but by its fruits.

Also, which parallels in principles and practices are Fr. Cekada referring?

The new mass also has parallels in principles and practices with the Roman Mass from the 4th century onward. If the supposedly evil principles and practices are found only in the new mass and the 1955 missal, how can they only be evil in the new mass and not in the 1955 reform.

In one of Fr. Cekada’s Quidlibet articles, he boasts,As always, a Bugnini-free zone!”  [3] His explanation really sounds like he’s looking for an excuse to get rid of the 1955 reform because Bugnini has his paws all over it. The application of epieikeia is not necessary, it’s just that Cekada really does think the 1955 Holy Week Missal is principally flawed from the beginning while saying it just became harmful only after the new mass.

I submit that the 1955 reform is not harmful at all. Pope Pius XII indicated in his document that the reform better clarifies the meaning of the liturgy by removing confusion between the Gospel accounts and the liturgical representations referring to them. It placed the Easter Vigil back to the evening hours so to clarify the sense of its words and symbols which also puts back the proper sorrowful character as the commemoration of the Lord’s burial.

The 1955 reform also provides an opportunity for an apology for legitimate reform against an illegitimate reform (new mass). Oh, and it provides an apology against those who think they should abandon it. So I’m glad we have it.





[1] Short Critique of Article “Regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week”


[2] McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology wrote: 415. The dangers of epieikeia also place limitations on its use.

(a) There is the danger that one may be wrong in judging that the lawgiver did not wish to include a case under his law. If this is not certain, one should investigate to the best of one’s ability, and have recourse, if possible, to the legislator or his representative for a declaration or dispensation. It is never lawful to use epieikeia without reasonable certainty that the legislator would not wish the law to apply here and now.

(b) There is the danger that one may be in bad faith in deciding that the common good or justice requires the use of epieikeia; the motive in reality may be self-interest or escape from obligation. Hence, a person should not use epieikeia except in necessity, when he is thrown on his own resources and must decide for himself; and, even then, he must be sure that he acts from sincerity and disinterestedness.

[3] http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/10/bugninis-51-easter-vigil-first-step-to-the-novus-ordo/