Skip to content


New from RTV: Michael Matt Interviews Father Clovis (London)



Vatican II & Pope Francis: Fr. Clovis Interviewed by Michael Matt

RTV in LONDON: Michael Matt interviews Father Linus Clovis. The conversation covers the question of refusing Communion to pro-abort politicians, the necessity of the TLM, Pope Francis, and Amoris Laetitia, which Father calls a “Trojan Horse.”

Plus, is Pope Francis an anomaly, or did Vatican II make Francis inevitable?

Subscribe to The Remnant YouTube Channel, as this week we’ll be in France doing RTV work for the Chartres Pilgrimage.

Please Share This Video








Michael Matt has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000.  Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.



Latest from Michael Matt | Editor





The Post-Vatican II Church of Materialism



The shift began with the Second Vatican Council, which produced “Gaudium et spes,” a pastoral document concerning economics and politics in the modern world, particularly regarding the poor. In the preface, the council, “proclaiming the noble destiny of man and championing the Godlike seed which has been sown in him, offers to mankind the honest assistance of the Church in fostering that brotherhood of all men.”

Statements from other sections reinforce that emphasis.

“Never has the human race enjoyed such an abundance of wealth, resources and economic power, and yet a huge proportion of the world’s citizens are still tormented by hunger and poverty, while countless numbers suffer from total illiteracy,” from the introduction.

“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown. For by his innermost nature man is a social being, and unless he relates himself to others he can neither live nor develop his potential,” from Chapter I, “The Dignity Of The Human Person.”

“Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom even in matters religious. Hence, the social order and its development must invariably work to the benefit of the human person,” from Chapter II, “The Community of Mankind.”

Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, dean emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University’s theological faculty, sharply criticized “Gaudium et spes” for its fundamentally anthropocentric approach, ambiguity and sloppy theology in his 2012 work, Vatican II: At the Roots of an Equivoque, written in Italian. “The whole document is a sequel of shocking proclamations, whose sheer number makes exemplification a difficult choice,” wrote Gherardini, who worked at the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries during the council.

Gherardini concluded by warning about an excessively intimate relationship between Catholicism and the world: “The frontiers have come so close and to such an extent, that they have become welded. What the Church says and does, she says and does it for the world; and what the world is doing in its drive toward progress, is to the advantage of the Church.”

Pope Paul VI amplified “Gaudium et spes’ ” approach in his encyclical “Populorum Progresio,” which announced the formation of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and solidified the Vatican’s commitment to the material development of poorer nations through international cooperation. But the encyclical addressed more than immediate logistics.

“The ultimate goal is a full-bodied humanism,” it stated. “And does this not mean the fulfillment of the whole man and of every man? … True humanism points the way toward God and acknowledges the task to which we are called, the task which offers us the real meaning of human life. Man is not the ultimate measure of man. Man becomes truly man only by passing beyond himself.”

Achieving that goal would mean using existing international agencies — or creating new ones with overarching power — to manage the world’s economic and political development.

“Such international collaboration among the nations of the world certainly calls for institutions that will promote, coordinate and direct it, until a new juridical order is firmly established and fully ratified,” the encyclical said. “We give willing and wholehearted support to those public organizations that have already joined in promoting the development of nations, and We ardently hope that they will enjoy ever growing authority.”

Pope Benedict XVI took that concept to its logical conclusion in another encyclical, “Caritas in Veritate,” which advocated giving the United Nations power to direct both international and domestic economic policies:

“In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need … for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. … To manage the global economy … to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority…”

This authority, the encyclical stated, must “observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity,” “seek to establish the common good” and “have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums.”

What is this authority’s ultimate mission? A “directed” global economy designed to “open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale,” stated the encyclical — including “a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them.”

In promoting such an agency, “Caritas in Veritate” subtly redefines the Catholic Church’s primary role from proclaiming the Gospel to ensuring economic benefits for all — or, at least, redefining the Gospel in materialist terms. Benedict’s encyclical cites “Populorum Progresio” often and refers to Paul VI’s ideas in this statement:

“(T)he whole Church, in all her being and acting … is engaged in promoting integral human development. She has a public role over and above her charitable and educational activities: all the energy she brings to the advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity is manifested when she is able to operate in a climate of freedom.”

Benedict’s encyclical even presumes that global economic management through a “true world political authority” can achieve at least partial spiritual harmony:

“When animated by charity, commitment to the common good … has a place within the testimony of divine charity that paves the way for eternity through temporal action. Man’s earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family.”

Thus does “Caritas in Veritate” solidify the materialist transformation of Catholic identity. Independent Catholic journalist Lee Penn described the encyclical’s magnitude:

“Caritas in Veritate should be seen as what it is: a theological and political earthquake. The Roman Catholic Church, which was once a guardian of tradition worldwide, now wishes to use radical means (a ‘true world political authority’) for its own ends. It is as if Benedict wishes to mount and ride a wild beast, and imagines that he (and those who believe as he does) will be able to direct that fierce beast’s course. Ordinary prudence – even without reference to the dire symbolism of Revelation 17:3-18 – should have warned the Vatican against such folly. Europeans have already tried using radical means to support conservative goals; the results of that 20th century experiment in Italy, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and Vichy France are written in letters of blood and fire.

“Seeking a world government that is governed and limited by natural law and Christian tradition is akin to seeking dry water or square circles. Lord Acton, a Catholic historian in 19th Century England, made a warning that the Vatican ought to have heeded: ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.’ Humanly speaking, no power could be more absolute than that of ‘world ruler,’ and such is the post which (despite the fig-leaf invocation of ‘subsidiarity’) Benedict proposes to create (all parentheses in original).”

But how do the ideas expressed in “Gaudium et spes” and the two encyclicals work when practiced?


Latin America, with its long history of Catholicism and mass poverty, would seem to provide the ideal environment. In 2010, 39 percent of the world’s Catholics lived in Latin America. Yet even as a counterweight to Liberation Theology, Catholicism’s economic modernism not only fails to solve intractable social problems but contributes to massive conversions to conservative Protestant denominations, especially Pentecostal ones.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014 showed that 69 percent of Latin Americans considered themselves Catholic, compared to 92 percent in 1970. Meanwhile, the proportion of Protestants rose from four percent in 1970 to 19 percent in 2014. In 1970, Catholicism claimed at least 90 percent of the population in all but five of the 19 countries surveyed. Yet by 2014, the percentage of Catholics fell by double digits in all but one country, with 11 reporting declines larger than 20 percent.

Central America reported the most dramatic descents: 41 percent in Guatemala, 43 percent in both Nicaragua and El Salvador, and 47 percent in Honduras — by far the largest in Latin America.

Catholic author Leon Podles, after reading Jon Wolseth’s Jesus and the Gang: Youth Violence and Christianity in Urban Honduras, offered these reasons for the massive decline:

“Progressive Catholicism emphasizes community and solidarity with the poor and blames the problems of the poor on structural inequities, especially economic oppression.  Catholic youth groups in the barrio follow this analysis and try to identify with the poor. But they are fearful of identifying with the poor who are gang members. Catholic youth blame gangsterism on social inequities, but do not explain why they themselves have not followed the path of the gangsters.

“Pentecostals set up a harsh dichotomy between the world ruled by Satan and the church ruled by Christ.  Young men who want to give up the destructive and self-destructive life of the gangs can have a conversion experience and dedicate themselves to a new life, totally rejecting the old one and separating themselves from it. They have to change their lives to convince both the church and their old gangs that they are cristianos. If a man leaves a gang, he is killed by the gang, unless he becomes a cristiano. Gangs usually let Pentecostal former gang members alone if the former members demonstrate that their lives have really changed.

“Catholics, with their rhetoric of solidarity, do not offer gang members the opportunity for a clean break that Pentecostals offer. Catholics blame society for individual problems; Pentecostals stress individual responsibility.”

Not only gang members face the demand for personal accountability.

“As a Baptist who has traveled to Guatemala on four mission trips, I can tell you that one reason evangelical churches are growing there because they take alcoholism seriously (which is a huge problem in Mayan communities),” Ryan Booth wrote to Rod Dreher’s blog at The American Conservative in 2013. “While Baptist attitudes in the U.S. toward alcohol continue to relax, Baptists in Latin America don’t drink at all.”

A Brazilian named Alat explained the evangelicals’ appeal on Dreher’s blog:

“They are very, very morally strict, which is why they grow so fast in the poorest areas: they give order to the disordered lives of the very poor, who come from generations of poverty and broken homes and have never known anything better. They take a huge portion of the poor’s meagre income in tithes and ‘gifts’… and even then the poor are better off in these churches, because the order the church gives, much like a military boot camp, helps them to plan for the future, educate themselves, not fall into drugs, not have multiple children out of wedlock, etc.

“And this is not just inwards. The politicians elected by the Evangelicals are at the forefront of the resistance to homosexual ‘marriage,’ to abortion, and most of the left’s culture war agenda. In my own country, abortion would have been legalized a few years ago if not for the resistance organized by the Evangelical politician-preachers across almost all parties – a fight in which, by the way, the Catholic hierarchy was entirely silent. (emphasis added) If the Church retreats from these issues, the pull of the Evangelical Protestant churches will only INCREASE throughout Latin America (capitals in original).”

Alat concluded with a statement that represents, if not the epitaph for Latin American Catholicism, an indictment of Catholicism’s economic modernism.

“To sum up,” Alat wrote, “as we say here, when ‘the Church chose the poor, the poor chose the Protestants.’ ”



But don’t worry, the Church is learning from them! (Heinrich Bedford-Strohm and Reinhard Kardinal Marx)

More in this category: « I’m Afraid of Martyrdom

Synod on Young People: The Scandal (Vatican Manipulates Data Collected from World’s Youth, Ignores Call for TLM)



“Progress” along the path to utopia has left a whole generation of young people unsure of which bathroom to use.

Well played, Enlighted Ones!

Since this article appeared in The Remnant last month, a recent episode of EWTN’s The World Over has beautifully confirmed all the suspicions presented in this article. It also features a breath-of-fresh-air exception where the millennials are concerned. This articulate young man offers hope for his entire generation. Watch, then read.

Most people who are awake know this to be the case—most, except for the ageing gentlemen running the Vatican just now. In fact, Team Bergoglio has spent the better part of the past year polling millennials worldwide for their recommendations on where he should take the Church in the years to come. So crucial is the input of the millennials, in fact, that the Holy Father has agreed to let them dictate the direction of the next Synod of Bishops (Rome, October 2018).

Outside the Vatican, this is a giant, unfunny joke, since the only real contribution most of these kids could offer is ironclad proof that the Church of Vatican II has failed an entire generation, having dumbed them down so completely that they have no idea what the Church teaches, how to pray the Rosary, what the Mass is all about, etc. And if there was any doubt of this before, it has been officially removed, thanks to the Final Document from the Pre-Synodal Meeting, which was presented by the Youth of the World to Pope Francis at the Pre-Synodal Meeting on March 19-24 in Rome.

Pope Francis & Co. have reviewed the document and are currently preparing to place the entire Church at the mercy of the most ignorant Catholics on earth. In other words, the shepherd is going to follow his lost sheep all over the pasture…just like a madman.

So if anyone wants to know exactly where the Francis Revolution goes from here, just Google “Young People, The Faith and Vocational Discernment: Pre-Synodal Meeting Final Document.” Brace yourselves, though—it ain’t pretty.

The Pre-Synod meeting in Rome involved hundreds of young people as well as thousands from around the world who participated online—all selected by bishops’ conferences and other church groups. They gathered in Rome to, as one reporter put it, give “the older men who run the 1.2-billion-member church a piece of their collective mind.” They presented a list of grievances and demands to the Pope, which included, among other changes, a “more transparent and authentic church, where women play a greater leadership role and where obeying ‘unreachable’ moral standards isn’t the price of admission.”

Yes, “unreachable moral standards”—otherwise known as the daily duty and faithful practice of the Catholic Faith undertaken by millions and for millennium…before the Second Vatican Council. For progressive modern Catholics who can’t possibly be bothered to do as Mother Church asks for the salvation of their souls, that’s now quite “unreachable”…just fifty years after Vatican II.

Whereas at the last Synod—the Synod on the Family—gave us papal permission for public adulterers to return to the Sacraments, this next Synod—the Synod on Young People—will tackle the “big problem” of unequal roles of women in the church. READ: If you don’t want to see all the kids leave the Catholic Church, you’d better start ordaining women deacons, cardinals and eventually priests.

This next stage of the Francis Revolution will also take on what the young people allegedly called “excessive moralism”, which according to this new document is “driving the faithful away” because “out-of-touch church bureaucrats” refuse to “accompany their flock with humility and transparency.”

Take that, all you Savonarola priests out there in the Novus Ordo!

Quite the coincidence, by the way, that this is exactly what Pope Francis has been saying for five years. Enough of the rigorism and sitting in the chair of Moses throwing rocks at sinners. We need mercy. For the God of surprises, all we need is love! Well, wouldn’t you know it, that’s exactly what the world’s young people want, too.

Well played, Francis!

The young people—which, by the way, included Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Atheists—also told Pope Francis that “we, the young church, ask that our leaders speak in practical terms about subjects such as homosexuality and gender issues, about which young people are already freely discussing.” No surprise here. The Synod on Young People must —simply MUST! — tackle the Church’s “mean-spirited” prohibition on so-called “gay unions.” After all, it’s for the children!

Again, all of this is uncannily convenient for the Vatican, which now simply must address what they wanted to address anyway—making the Church more user-friendly for those “faithful Catholics” in sodomitical relationships.

The document also claims that at least some young people want the “church to change the Church’s teaching or better explain that teaching on contraception, homosexuality, abortion and cohabitation.” And there’s your Pandora’s Box. We’ll have to wait and see how much the Vatican can get away with from that grab bag.

And why must these moral questions be addressed, since they are already settled in the binding moral law and catechisms of the Catholic Church? Well because, overall— allegedly, according to the young people—the church often comes off as too severe, and its “excessive moralism” sends the faithful looking elsewhere for peace and spiritual fulfillment:


“We need a church that is welcoming and merciful, which appreciates its roots and patrimony and which loves everyone, even those who are not following the perceived standards.”

The young people presented their list of demands to Francis on Palm Sunday, by the way, and this is all on its way to becoming one of the working documents that will guide discussions during the October Synod of Bishops. Stay tuned.

This is so perfect, isn’t it? Millennials putting together a coherent position paper that’s perfectly in line with Pope Francis’s revolution to change the Church in a way that it can never be changed back. And of course the Vatican’s hands are tied. They simply “must” cooperate with this since children are the ones demanding it, and to do anything less would be to scandalize them and we all know what our Lord says about those who scandalize children…

See how it works? Pope Francis is taking a page right out of the books of any number of Masonic revolutionary movements of the 1960s, which first separated young people from their parents, then ginned them up on folk music and dance, and finally “listened” to the wisdom-free voice of youth, knowing exactly where that would lead—i.e., to social and moral revolution.

The hippie movement comes to mind as does the Sexual Revolution, spearheaded by the rock ‘n’ roll industry. Closer to home, the Sillon movement (condemned by St. Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique), and its little brothers and sisters called the Neocatechumenal Way and Focolare, which, by the way, still offers self-promotion material that is virtually indistinguishable from the Vatican propaganda for the Synod on Young People.

At, for example, we read:


Young people were always present and actively involved in the Focolare Movement ever since its beginnings. But their specific place in the Movement began to emerge in 1967 when Chiara Lubich launched her motto: “Youths of the world, unite!” that laid the groundwork for the youth movements of the Focolare: the Gen Movement in 1968 and Youth for a United World in 1985.

Young people between the ages of 17 and 30, scattered across five continents, of different ethnicities, nationalities and cultures have been responding to her call up to the present day. They belong to various Christian denominations, different religions, or do not profess a religious belief, but they all are united by the desire to build a more united world: to make humankind more and more into a single family, where the personal identity of every individual is honored.

They strive in many ways to build universal brotherhood


So under the guise of making the Church a safe space for millennials, Pope Francis is engaging in revolution against what is left of the old Catholic order.

And the silver lining? Well, it’s apparently never dawned on our friends inside the Vatican that all this is a tacit admission of the colossal failure of the Second Vatican Council, which has now left the Catholic Church incapable of even keeping her own young people engaged and frequenting the Sacraments.

But wasn’t the whole point and purpose of Vatican II to “update” the Church, to make it sufficiently “groovy” to keep the young people engaged? Wasn’t that what all the hip music and hippie liturgy was about—the young people? Wasn’t a generation of World Youth Days guaranteed to keep all the kids Catholic?

So what happened?

When even the Vatican admits that millions of young people have simply left the Church since the close of the Second Vatican Council, isn’t it time for the rest of us to admit that Vatican II was colossal failure? If not, why not? And if not, why do we need an entire Synod of Bishops to try to find out why the young people are leaving the Church in droves?

And what about the priests…the pastors to all these young people? If everything is so hunky-dory in the Church of Vatican II, wouldn’t the hip young priests be able to keep the kids coming to Mass? Wouldn’t they at least have a pretty good idea of what’s missing from the lives of the youth that stray? They baptized these young people. They watched them grow up. They heard their confessions…presumably.


If Vatican II was such a smashing success, shouldn’t the Vatican just be polling pastors to see what adjustments the Church should make in order to be more relevant to young people? No?

Could that be because the Spirit of Vatican II has driven half the priests out of the Church and left the others struggling with their own sexuality?

Could it be because the Spirit of Vatican II has blown families apart, destroyed the traditions that held parent and their children together, and driven whole generations of young people out of the Church?

And, finally, aren’t we forgetting something? This is the modern Vatican we’re talking about here—the overseers and cover-up agents of one of the largest child abuse scandals in history. These guys have suddenly figured out how to reach out to the kids? Are they kidding?

As my friend the late John Vennari once observed: “I wouldn’t trust Pope Francis to teach my kids their catechism lessons.”


No thank you, Holiness. As a practicing Catholic who’s never missed Sunday Mass in his life and who’s obliged to home-school his seven kids because diocesan schools have become dens of theological iniquity, I think I’ll pass on the Vatican’s Synod on Young People.

In fact, if anyone wants to know my opinion on the Synod on Young People, I’d say that Francis and Company need to stay away from the kids and to stop polluting them with their Modernist rot. They have no solutions. They have no answers. They are the very last people on earth who should deem themselves qualified to address the needs of young people.

But, what do I know…. I’m just another a self-absorbed promethean neopelagian trying to keep the Faith despite the current occupant of Peter’s chair.

From the Synod on Young People, libera nos, Domine (that’s Latin, Millennial friends–not Elvish)


  • Avatar

    Mr. Matt, I just want you to know….that as unfunny as all of this is. In fact, through the horror of what we are seeing and learning about in the Vatican… make me laugh. You make me chuckle in your articles and in the Remnant Underground. I have three millennial children….20, 19 and soon to be 18. They were well formed in the Catholic Faith. I homeschooled them through 8th grade…..but the internet has “dummied” them down. What an Awesome God we have! For I know that somehow, someway He WILL resurrect their sleeping souls to bring Him Glory…..You and I, Mr. Matt will be His witnesses!

  • Avatar

    Great article.

    There is this satanic thing about Bergoglio, though:

    If satan had the whole world following him except just one person, he would not be happy that he had billions. He would be consumed in anger and resentment at the ‘slight’ of one soul resisting him.

    Likewise, the whole world, catholic and the rest, is modernist, hates truth and loves lechery, so one should think Bergoglio would be pleased at how the world chimes with his ideas.

    But no, oh no – no, he is bitter at those few Pelagians who hold out.
    They must be crushed with more synods.
    Synods employing collectivist preparation methods to stifle resistance.

    Bergoglio is hate-filled like his master.

  • Avatar

    One word has summed up the whole Francis Effect for me – cringeworthy.

  • Avatar

    “Francis and Company need to stay away from the kids.” If put in place 6 decades ago, you would have saved the faithful $4,000,000,000,.00 in the USA alone.By the way, did I miss the Capital Campaign To Pay For Pederast & Pedophile Bishops & Priests Engaging In Homosexual Sex With Minors? I sure didn’t miss the unending campaigns for social justice. Guy McClung, Texas TBFC
    Truth Blogger For Christ

  • Avatar

    Speaking of money, I’ve given up contributing to the “second collections” at Mass because I can’t figure out anymore where the money’s going. On Mother’s Day there was a 2nd collection “for Mother’s Day”. Huh? There was no Mother’s Day event held, no money spent on mothers for flowers or anything so where the heck did the money go? Don’t ask, right? Last week they didn’t even give a reason – just said there was going to be a 2nd collection. The reason we had them way back in the 1950’s was for the poor of the parish and coins were put in that one instead of the envelopes that went in the first collection. Now it’s for causes with mystifying titles or for holidays – would someone explain why we need to give money for secular holidays? – or just because they want money for “whatever” and think we’ll be dumb enough to keep handing it over without any accountability. Peter’s Pence was the last straw for me. Second Collections are given now to those who further the legitimate aims of the Catholic Church (like the Dominican Sisters of Mary).

  • Avatar

    Speaking of educating children in the faith, at a First Holy Communion Mass last weekend the priest told the kids formal prayers are mostly a waste of time. Instead they should talk to God and it’s okay to curse at God if they feel like it. Take a moment to ponder that. Cursing at God is okay. All wasn’t lost, though. The priest told them they probably shouldn’t curse at their parents because the parents might get mad at them. This was their First Communion homily.

  • Avatar

    You would have at least thought the parents listening to that priest giving homilized advice to these childrens First Holy Communion about prayer life, would have criticized the priest later. Effectively what the priest was saying that the formal prayers of the Our Father, Holy Mary and the Rosary had no value. Obviously; a New Age Novus Ordo priest with extremely poor seminary formation. So sad. It might be difficult to ascertain where this priest Faith in the Holy Eucharist remains, when reciting formal prayers from the Sacramentary during the Mass. We all need the humility of reciting formal prayers no matter what our age.

  • Avatar

    Run away as fast as you can.

  • Avatar

    As a completely irrelevant aside, as I looked at that “lets all hold hands, smile at one another knowingly, as we march forward together” hokey staged 70’s kodak moment, I thought the only thing that was missing is Mark Zuckerberg’s face superimposed over one of them like I’ve been seeing in those ads which I find amusing. There are a bunch of other faces that would be a hoot in there as well for someone with the skills. Luther? Henry VIII in “honor” of AL? Not to be unserious about the dangers of this bogus synod (again). But some things absolutely beg to be mocked.

  • Avatar

    What was Vatican II, except a Three Year Convention of Modernists, Freemasons & other Assorted Heretics? It was a time to write a Man Centred Liturgy with a Protestant Orientation, Revision of The Forms of The Sacraments, Revision of Religious Life unto the point of Children never encountering them from Grades K through 12, the Malpractice of teaching children to think of Holy Communion as a Meal instead of as a Sacrament, & utter chaos all around, including Collegiality.

    Since Team Bergoglio looks upon Traditional Catholic Practice with Sheer Contempt, changing the data to fit the Modernist Narrative, is not surprising.

    It is any wonder WHY I prefer both the TLM & The Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil The Great(Both Doctors of The Church BTW) & the twice offering of the Divine Liturgy of St. James The Apostle. These Liturgies are offered to The Blessed Trinity, as a Propitiary Sacrifice, re-presenting the Sacrifice on The Cross by Christ, for the Forgiveness of Sin & for Praise & Thanksgiving.

    Many Young People of Roman Rite do go to these Liturgies. The crowd at so called “Folk Masses” with putrid Man Centred Music tends to have Grey Hair. And the crowd at the Modernistic Contemporary Mass is rather small.

    The Young seek to experience Traditional Liturgies. Yet, the “Woodstock Generation”, represented by the Ageing Hipsters of the V2 1960s Generation will have no truck with the New Generation.
    It took Coca Cola about 79 Days to get rid of New Coke. Do these ageing V2 Types understand this?

  • Avatar

    Gosh Mr Matt… That’s pretty mean on the millennials! I personally don’t think the millenials are anywhere near the most dumbed down, stupid bunch of humanity that ever existed. That title goes to that generation now represented by the red and white hats in the Vatican.
    If Young Conner in the video is anything to go by, the Church would be in far better shape if we cleaned out the Vatican and replaced everyone with Conner and his mates!

  • Avatar

    MadMC, they eat Tide Pods… Well, one thing’s for sure–their phones are smart! And the Millennials spend nearly four hours per day on those. So…there’s that? But, yes, they certainly couldn’t do any worse than les enfants terribles currently running the show in Rome. 😉

  • Avatar

    Hilarious. Anytime I hear about the concerns of millennials, I’m going to ask, “Yeah, but how does a Tide pod taste?”

  • Avatar

    Vatican 2 a colossal failure? Maybe the results we see are exactly what those that took over the council intended. It would take 50 years but they knew one day they would have a decatholicized church and mindlessness. Like devout communists (which many of them are) they have been patient knowing victory would not come instantly, but they knew one day their Francis would take the helm and begin dealing the final death blows.

  • Avatar

    The idea of using rhetorical stunts like this is to convince those who are as yet unconvinced. Of course the Modernists had an agenda and were wildly successful in what they wanted to achieve. But we’re not trying to convince them to admit they were wrong. We’re trying to convince those who still believe V2 was good for the Church that it was decidedly not. We’re trying to score points in the court of public opinion, in other words. See the difference?

  • Avatar

    “we, the young church, ask that our leaders speak in practical terms about subjects such as homosexuality and gender issues, about which young people are already freely discussing.”
    – The Young Church of Utopia

    “This vice (sodomy), which surpasses the savagery of all vices, is to be compared to no other. For this vice is the death of bodies, the destruction of souls, pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the intellect, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, introduces the diabolical inciter of lust, throws into confusion, and removes the truth completely from the deceived mind…

    “For it is this which violates sobriety, kills modesty, slays chastity. It butchers virginity with the sword of a most filthy contagion. It befouls everything, it stains everything, it pollutes everything, and for itself it permits nothing pure, nothing foreign to filth, nothing clean.”
    – St. Peter Damian, Doctor of the Church (The Book of Gomorrah)

    St. Joseph the Worker, pray for us!

    St. Peter Damian, pray for us!

  • Avatar

    It’s not a surprise the results may have been manipulated. The purpose of the Synod is to further transform the Catholic Church. Francis and the hierarchy are probably surprised the changes introduced by AL have been mostly accepted with little pushback. While the going is good as they say.
    The purpose of this Synod it seems is to set the stage for the ordination of female deacons (there is already a commission studying it) and the appointment of a female cardinal. The latter will be a first step as I could see Francis or his successor opening up the cardinalate to laypeople. Female priestly ordination is a pontificate or two away but this is the necessary first step. Some “orthodox” apostolates are attempting already to find a theological way in which this would be possible.
    Beyond that a further opening to the LGBT community is likely with gay blessings talked about if not formally endorsed during the Synod.
    This could be transformational in a way that the Church can’t go back from. Francis said something to that effect.
    The guest on Arroyo’s program was articulate and to be admired but, to be honest, most Catholics in their 20s that I know are quite progressive. Just like their parents.
    For the Art Bell types who are into conspiracies, it is plausible that one world Soros type globalists put Francis on the Throne of Peter (much as Obama came out of nowhere to be put into the Oval Office) to completely co-opt the Catholic Church and transform it into the “approved of” world religion. Promoting secularism under the banner of the cross.

  • Avatar

    Not so fast.

    The term “lay cardinal” is not accurate, because prior to Vatican II, many men were in tonsured and minor orders but were not deacons, priests, or bishops. These men were canonically “clerics” and not layman. So there is some confusion on this matter since today we are not familiar with “clerics” that are not deacons, priests, or bishops.
    In years past there were both lay cardinals and true cardinal deacons (men who were deacons and not priests or bishops). Giacomo Antonelli, Pope Pius IX’s Secretary of State, was not truly a “lay cardinal” because he was a deacon at the time of his elevation. The last true lay cardinal that I know of was Teodolfo Cardinal Mertel. He was appointed and elevated as a cardinal on March 15, 1858. He was ordained deacon the very next day on March 16, 1858. So he was only a “lay cardinal” for less than one day. Yet, he was likely a cleric (tonsured) even before this. And so we bump into the problem of defining “lay” in this context.

    The current Code of Canon Law stipulates that all cardinals also be bishops (canon 351§1).

    Pope John Paul II of blessed memory dispensed Cardinal Dulles from being elevated to the episcopate. He is still a priest and not a bishop, i.e a Cardinal priest. Nevertheless, I believe he is allowed to pontificate like a bishop even though he is not a bishop. Moreover, I believe he is a member of the magisterium, even though he is not a bishop.…

  • Avatar

    That’s what they said about communion in the hand and vernacular liturgy, etc.

    Calls for people who are Bishops to be made Cardinals in this day and age will mean female Cardinals almost immediately. The way to get around the heresy or ordaining women as priests and still have females run the Church rather directly is with female Cardinals.

  • Avatar

    Those who consider themselves faithful Novus Ordo Catholics will never revolt, no matter how unrecognizable Francis or anyone else may make this new religion look. They’re quite comfortable believing they are doing what they should, stumbling into the nearest church, semi-dozing for 30-45 minutes, reaching into their wallet when asked to and lather rinse repeat next week.
    Francis and his cabal know this, and see no reason not to go as fast and as far as possible with the changes they have in mind. Questioning the pope is heresy, after all.

  • Avatar

    You may be right for the baby boomer generation, but you can exclude most .”Catholics” born after 1970. They may turn up for baptisms and Christmas , but that’s about it. The church is dying.Who is going to be putting money in the plate in twenty years time ? Very few.

    You would think even those modernist destroyers of faith in charge would face this fact and start trying to evangelize the next generation in the one true faith, but really it is too far gone now. We really do need divine intervention.

  • Avatar

    Given Colin McLaughlin testimony to Raymond Arroyo in the EWTN World Over Report is a big eye opener. I think its terrible that the (“Vatican is Manipulating Data Collected from World’s Youth”) for the upcoming Youth Synod. For what its worth it surely looks as though there a Ravenous Wolves in Sheeps clothing who want to change Church moral practices and teachings while putting on this false cloak of misrepresenting the Young in the Church.
    Why is Pope Bergoglio inviting Non-Catholic Young People from various religions as being part of this Young Synod when they don’t have any iota of reason for being there?
    Gotta shake my head a few times.

  • Avatar

    “Why is Pope Bergoglio inviting Non-Catholic Young People from various religions…?” One important thing to realize about the aging Vatican 2 generation of hierarchy — Catholicism basically bores them. If was true from their first day in seminary when they felt no connection with the Church and refused to attend daily mass because “they didn’t get anything out of it.” They get much more of a thrill from going to Sweden to meet with homosexual Lutheran groups, or inviting Aborigine animists to spice things up at a Youth Synod. (Of course I speak in generalities, and hope it’s less true than I think.)

  • Avatar

    Perhaps; but its looking more and more as though there’s an evil intent with a number ranking clergy under Pope Bergoglio’s camp where upon the Youth Synod is just a directed false facade to make World Catholics look on as though this papacy is doing something positive to move the New Age Catholic Church into some evolving spiritual moral direction. The Synod on Family did nothing to improve the moral cornerstone of society in the Christian roots within family.
    I won’t hold my breath expecting a great outcome when the Youth Synod comes to a close. I could be wrong in all this, but we all have to wait and fervantly pray on this

  • Avatar

    Revolution is never satisfied. It must keep moving forward, because stopping means it could be reversed.

    By their fruits you shall know them.

    Vatican II obviously meant change. The changes that have come have been disastrous. Not merely a bit off, but disastrous. But faith in Vatican II is like opioid addiction in that it is a vicious hamster wheel of downward spiral that if allowed to roll to its end will leave only death and destruction.

    Most junkies must crash hard before they are broken and scared enough to seek treatment; they must know deep in their guts that if they do not make total change, nearly 180 degree change in life they will die – and they must repent and want to live.

    Perhaps the same is true of the Vatican II addicts. They have not totally crashed the Church. It is a partial wreck but not a true train wreck with cars smashed and their cargo ruined and the rails ripped from the ground. Perhaps the Vatican II faithful – the ‘conservative’ Novus Ordoists and JPII devotees as well as the overt Leftists – will keep the foot on the gas pedal until the total wreck occurs, until the entire structure is smashed, assuming that eventually they will be saved by the thing that is necessary to the crash. Addicts are that crazy. The heroin addict comes to feel heroin is necessary to life and so cannot allow himself to hear and see that heroin is killing him.

    The entire Modern world is that way in regard to secular democracy, which necessarily must promote cultural and moral Liberalism. France, for example, has been on a spiritual death march since its revolution, which it essentially sacralized. And France will die a suicide before too long if it does not repent and re-embrace the historic Faith, striving to become once again the Eldest Daughter of the Church. England will die a suicide before too long if it does not repent of the Tudor and Puritan Revolutions and strive to become once again the Dowry of Mary.

    The Catholic Church will suffer much more if it does not repent of the bleeding heart liberalism and Modernism responsible for parts of each Vatican II document and, even more so, central to the implementation of Vatican II. The hierarchy, priests, and laypersons clinging to faith in Vatican II and successful in forcing us to go along will crash the train and leave destruction that will make what the Church suffered in, for example, the British Isles from the 16th through the 18th centuries seem like a bumpy ride.

    This synod could be the crossing of the Rubicon into near total auto-demolition.

    And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away.

  • Avatar

    It’s like if you were fighting a war and polling your enemy to see how you can do a better job with the war and taking their advice. I’m one of the so-called millennial generation, and they surely didn’t poll me. Instead, let’s poll people who probably haven’t stepped foot in a church in years (or maybe just on Easter & Christmas), lean left both politically and socially, and probably have very little interest in what the Church has to say anyway. Those who respond do so either through evil intentions or who just want validation of their sinful inclinations, which they probably only care because they feel a tinge of shame since they were raised in the Church, even if just barely.

  • Avatar

    EWTN should hire this young man. He’s a very articulate spokesman for Catholic youth. If the Synod won’t give young people like him a voice, then give him another platform. I’ll be checking out his YouTube channel for sure!

  • Avatar

    Such a nice alternative to that ubiquitous and immensely irritating guy from Florida…

  • Avatar

    Although I may have a suspicious mind, I rather thing that as before the “results” of this so called synod are already prepared. This is a community organizing ploy where it seems that people are being listened to but in reality it is just the few with the agenda who impose a certain agenda. How stupid is this to ask atheists what the Church should do!!! And no surprise that they would want to reverse moral teachings. Only the truths of the Church are the antidote to the evils rampant in the world today. And when the “Church” (many of those in power) fail to faithfully transmit the age old truths and teachings, the whole world suffers as it is now. We await God’s intervention.

  • Avatar

    Well , the closer we get to this modernist gab fest,the more suspicious I am that our Holy Father really has a big surprise for us. After all after AL surely there are just so many rigid church doctrines that should also be up for youthful pastoral discernment. Take your pick. Humane Vitae, homosexual unions,cohabitation, holy communion to one and all ,women priests, or what ever else Kasper and Marx and co may have on their wish list.

    But of course Michael,there can be no discussion of this illogical wish of a disturbingly high number of our youth who wish to return to the TLM, or those who may even just have an uncool attachment to doctrines and dogmas composed by non hipsters centuries ago. He has already told us that we can never go back. Only foward, forward .

    Can’t wait for the post synodal papal exhortation. I wonder if it has already been written?

  • Avatar

    The Chastisement is not far off, I suspect. In this Marian Month let’s keep praying all the rosaries we can! Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison!

  • Avatar

    I can’t recall at this moment the exact Saint who said the Great Chastisment would begin on a Solemnity Feast Day beginning on a Thursday at sundown and end on a Sunday morning at sunrise. That feast day is called Corpus Christi echoing in some resemblance to the Sacred Holy Triduum. Like rain that falls on the good and bad only a remnant will survive in God’s Holy Justice.

  • Avatar

    Those aging Vatican 2 hipsters that populate the upper levels of the hierarchy are way too rigid and fanatical in their thinking. They need to loosen up a bit and let some fresh air in. A little Aggiornamento maybe.



Michael Matt   has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000.  Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.



Hail Victory! (Alfie Evans, RIP)


Written by 


Alfie Evans, 48 hours before his passing


AUTHOR’S NOTE:  In the hours since I completed this article, the world has learned the heartbreaking news that little Alfie Evans has died.  May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. May God also console his parents and, by bringing them into union with Him through the Catholic Church in this life, reunite them with their beloved Alfie in the next.

Like the whimpering “rabbit” of Eglfing-Haar, Alfie took a few extra days before complying with the wishes of his “caretakers.”  For those of us who are concerned not only about Alfie himself but also about what his case means, news of his passing does not permit us to comply with those wishes ourselves, by “going back to our everyday lives” as the Death Panel of Alder Hey Hospital (by means of the prepared statement read under duress by Tom Evans) commands.  Rather, we must commit ourselves all the more profoundly to the cause of life, which means–as Father Maximilian demonstrated at Auschwitz–to give ourselves ever more entirely to the Mother of the Alpha and Omega of All Life.  Only She has been given by God the promise of victory over Satan.  Only She can crush all heresy in the whole world.  And make no mistake about it; Alfie died of heresy in the end. He died specifically of the heresy which holds that mercy may be untethered from justice; love from truth; and pastoral practice from doctrine.  That heresy is what we who are alive to see him die must commit ourselves to fighting, through the Immaculata, at all costs. HW



Because of our history in Germany, we have learned that there are some things you just don’t do with severely handicapped children. A society must be prepared to look after (them). 

–Professor Nikolaus Haas, testifying in the case of Alfie Evans[1]


According to the Approved Judgment handed down by Justice Anthony Hayden on February 20, 2018, it is in the “best interest”[2] of impaired British toddler Alfie Evans to have his ventilator removed. Contrary to certain expectations, however, following this removal–which took place with the world watching on Monday, April 23–little Alfie did not die on demand. The fact that the child has since been deprived of sufficient oxygen and nutrition, not to mention being refused transport out of the country or release from Alder Hey Hospital at all, handily demonstrates that the verbiage best interest denotes imposed death–nothing else, and nothing less.[3]

As of this writing, little Alfie is still alive, probably because of his heroic father’s decision to do a complete about-face based upon brutal arm-twisting.[4] Asking assembled protesters to “return to (their) everyday lives,”[5] Tom Evans also issued a plea for privacy which should be respected by each and all. Still, there are a number of compelling reasons why we cannot entirely oblige him, where “standing down” on this situation is concerned.

After all, as Mr. Evans himself has pointed out,[6] there is more at stake here than only the life of his innocent and vulnerable son–as non-negotiable as Alfie is. There is the precedent that Alfie’s case will set (or arguably, solidify), should he be forced to die. There is the undermining of objective morality inherent in Amoris Laetitia Chapter 8, which will continue marching like Sherman to the sea unless it is confronted and overturned. And there is our civilizational commitment to preventing the atrocities of Nazi Germany from ever being tolerated again.

Professor Nikolaus Haas is identified in the Approved Judgment as the “Medical Director of the Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Intensive Care at the University Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilians (U)niversity (LMU), Munich” (p. 7). Considerable prestige, in other words, attaches to his opinion that Alfie’s prognosis is very poor. With clinical bluntness, Professor Haas has stated that (pp. 8-9):

I do agree with the medical teams involved that there are no useful tests that may be performed to improve Alfie’s condition. The genetic testing (i.e., whole genome sequencing) is performed by blood sampling and without any risks for Alfie. These tests may in certain cases be beneficial to delineate a rare new disease as pointed out by the doctors of Bambino Gesù Hospital. To the best of my knowledge these tests have–even if a new disease is found–never been able to cure a patient with a disease pattern like Alfie’s.

The doctors from Bambino Gesù, like Pope Francis himself, have rested their case not on Alfie’s inviolable right to life, but on the temporal hope that transporting the child to Italy might open up the possibility of a new therapeutic approach and ultimately bring about significant improvement, or even recovery.

Professor Haas refuses to don these particular rose-colored glasses. While he concurs with Alder Hey about Alfie’s condition, he refuses to countenance the removal of life support or the denial of life-sustaining care due to that condition alone. Alluding to the horrors of the Holocaust, Professor Haas instead demands that Alfie be cared for not because there is a chance he may get better, but precisely because “a society must be prepared to look after these severely handicapped children and not decide that life support has to be withdrawn against the will of the parents” (pp. 16-7), as heinous eugenic experience has already proven.

Justice Hayden did not, for his part, take kindly to the reminder. “Notwithstanding that Professor Haas has assessed Alfie’s medical circumstances in terms which are identical to those at Alder Hey,” Hayden writes, rarely in higher dudgeon (p. 16):

(Professor Haas) has different views as to what he terms ‘withdrawal of therapy,’ and which I shall call end of life plans. It is no part of his function, however, to utilize the case as a platform for his own personal beliefs. I found the . . . paragraph (about child euthanasia in Nazi Germany) to be inflammatory and inappropriate, not least because the views expressed bear no relationship to and do not engage with the facts of this case.

According to the individual who has attempted to seal Alfie’s fate at the judicial level, in other words, it is a matter of mere private opinion whether Aktion T4 is even to be deplored or not. At the same time, we are expected to swallow the implication that Justice Hayden himself, bastion of impregnable objectivity that he is, bring no agenda to the table at all–even though he is just as committed to extinguishing the life of little Alfie Evans as Professor Haas is to sustaining it. “But surely, with all this,” noted the Irish Bishops regarding the euthanasia movement as long ago as 1975, “we are in the world of Nazi Germany, not that of Western liberal democracy. Liberal reformers are outraged at the comparison. But it is difficult to see how it can be avoided.”[7]

Picture, if you would, a visit to a state hospital in Germany in the autumn of 1939. As reported by an actual observer, in the children’s ward:

were some twenty-five half-starved children ranging in age from one to five years. The director of the institution, Dr. Pfannmueller, explained the routine. We don’t do it, he said, with poisons or injections. “Our method is much simpler and more natural.” With these words, the fat and smiling doctor lifted an emaciated, whimpering child from his little bed, holding him up like a dead rabbit. He went on to explain that food is not withdrawn at once, but the rations are gradually decreased. “With this child,” he added, “it will take another two or three days.”[8]

This revolting vignette, so eerily comparable to what Alfie Evans is going through right now, was far from a singular occurrence. “Thousands of children were disposed of,” Fredric Wertham, author of A Sign for Cain, goes on to explain (pp. 159-60):

A special agency existed for them, consisting of a commission of three experts: one a psychiatrist and director of a state hospital, the other two prominent pediatricians. The children came from psychiatric hospitals, institutions for mental defectives, children’s homes, university pediatric clinics, children’s hospitals, pediatricians, et al.

And in actual practice, “the indications (for killing) became wider and wider” (Wertham, p. 159), not more carefully scrutinized and circumscribed. The process itself was simplistic as well: questionnaires were submitted to “experts” who would mark people with a plus sign (+) if–in their considered, professional, and unemotional judgment–that patient should still live; or with a minus sign (-) if not. To save time, the “experts” typically submitted these determinations concerning patients they had never even examined (Wertham, pp. 169-70).

These facts are superabundantly documented to the point of being uncontested, for the Nazis were scrupulous record keepers. There is no excuse, in other words, for Pope Francis–who refers to situations like Alfie’s as “delicate,” “painful,” and “complex,”[9] along with the members of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales which affirms its collective “conviction that all those who are and have been taking the agonising (sic) decisions regarding the care of Alfie Evans” are acting “with integrity and for Alfie’s good as they see it,”[10]–to remain so culpably obtuse regarding the practical dynamics of the Culture of Death. As Wertham specifies, we can learn from the commission of child euthanasia in mid-twentieth-century Germany that (p. 155):

there (is) nothing individual about it; it was a systematic, planned, massive killing operation. . . . What a physician does or should do with a special individual patient under special circumstances had absolutely nothing to do with those mass exterminations. The greatest mistake we can make is to assume or believe that there was a morally, medically, or socially legitimate program and that all that was wrong was merely the excesses. There were no excesses.

But where did it all begin? Surely, this was all Hitler’s fault–and, since Hitler is dead and gone, we no longer have to consider ourselves as being in that kind of danger any more. Right?

Wrong. Wertham debunks this myth as well, arguing that (pp. 164-5):

(i)t has been stated that the psychiatrists were merely following a law or were being forced to obey an order.   . . . According to that view, everything was fine until that order was given and became fine again when the order was revoked. The reality was very different. There was no law and no such order. The tragedy is that the psychiatrists did not have to have an order. They acted on their own.

Is this not what the medical personnel at Alder Hey Hospital, not to mention their collaborators in the judiciary, are doing this during this exact historical moment? The questions currently circulating at the popular level, regarding Alfie’s case–“But why are they doing this? Why don’t they let him go to Italy, or at least let him go home? It wouldn’t cost the British anything, so their stubbornness doesn’t even make financial sense!”–have no other answer than the recognition that this is the way practical eugenics always works.

From “one note, not on official stationery but on Hitler’s own private paper,” it was a quick descent into killing helpless people with “both curable and incurable conditions, psychopathic personalities, epileptics, encephalitics, neurological cases, mental defectives of both severe and mild degree, arteriosclerotics, deaf-mutes, patients with all kinds of nervous diseases, handicapped patients who had lost a limb in the First World War . . . et al.” (Wertham, p. 159).   Furthermore, the note signed by Hitler only says that doctors are to be named (Wertham, pp. 165-6):

so that a mercy death may be granted to patients who according to human judgment are incurably ill according to the most critical evaluation of the state of their disease.

So the watershed turns out to be affording legal and moral approbation for the elimination of the patients who aren’t likely to get any better.

This is why it is so disconcerting that Pope Francis is being showered with fawning kudos for a recent of Tweet of his which–far from contradicting the Culture of Death–implicitly affirms it. The news outlets congratulating His Holiness on his “support” of Alfie are too numerous to mention, with pro-life and conservative commentators appearing especially anxious to take advantage of a rare opportunity to sound supportive of the left-leaning religious leader themselves, for a change. Even EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo, during his World Over Live broadcast of Thursday, April 26, put the misunderstood message from @Pontifex on screen, accompanied by lively praise. None of this, however, may be even remotely derived from what the Tweet-Even-Justice-Hayden-Could-Love actually says.

On Monday, April 23, 2018–the day Alfie was finally extubated–the world was looking to the Vatican for guidance and hope. Many people erroneously believed they had found these things in these words of Pope Francis, who gushed via Twitter:

Moved by the prayers and the broad solidarity in favor of little Alfie Evans, I renew my appeal so that the suffering of his parents may be heard and their desire to try new possibilities of treatment is fulfilled.

Then the pontiff went back to his regularly-scheduled activity for that day, which is how he ended up serving gelato to the homeless while Alfie’s food and air were being “rationed” away.



As slick as the “social media” Pope can sometimes sound, however, there is an ineluctable flipside to the papal point of view regarding Alfie which turns out to be more than blood-chilling. Pope Francis, whose most solemn duty it is to proclaim the truth of Christ, clearly failed in the most critical of moments to identify the child as the possessor of the inviolable right to life bestowed upon him by his Creator; a right which no doctor nor government may infringe upon at all. In this Tweet, the Fifth Commandment is nowhere alluded to, and neither is the CDF’s Declaration on Euthanasia with its detailed exposition of how the Catholic Church understands situations like the one currently unfolding in Liverpool. Instead, declaring himself moved by “prayers” (as if those particular exercises are meant to address . . . Jorge Bergoglio himself), and by “solidarity” (as if such temporal considerations couldn’t just as easily break the other way–an unnerving possibility which Professor Haas staunchly pointed out), Pope Francis begs only for Alfie to be given a chance to try additional treatments. And even that watered-down plea is based not on concern for the handicapped youngster himself, but for the “suffering” of Alfie’s parents, whose “desire” is alleged to merit singular indulgence.

Pope Francis therefore demonstrates fundamental agreement with the note at the root of the T4 Euthanasia Program, because of his logical implication that “treatability” alone makes Alfie worth keeping alive.   By framing the issue in this way, the Holy Father casts the vulnerable little boy as the untermensch of the scenario, valuable to the extent that he happens to matter to the “real people” involved. This is not Catholicism. It is not even the celebrated merely-human “closeness” which the Holy Father is so fond of extending. It is nothing but Nietzschean predation, at just about its most naked.

There will be those who wish to cite (in refutation of this conclusion) other pronouncements of the Holy Father as well–pronouncements which, in isolation and rank self-contradiction, do make him sound like he embraces the sanctity-of-life position of which the Catholic Church is the irrevocable champion. But the fact that he has said those things doesn’t mean that he didn’t Tweet this. It is wildly unacceptable for the Vicar of Christ on earth to mouth the verbiage of the Culture of Death even once, not to mention his countless slights to the cause of life, and the uncontradicted outrages which have been stated by his surrogates about Alfie to boot.

Is one Tweet, however, really worth all this hoopla? If its contents represent even a subtle crossing of the Fifth Commandment watershed, it surely is. Concepts count. Read over, for example, the note from Hitler one more time, looking for the term which the Führer diabolically twisted beyond recognition, and which then became the basis for innumerable atrocities to follow. If this one National Socialist instance of semantic abuse had been detected and opposed effectively, who knows what reprehensible sights this Vale of Tears might ultimately have been spared?

Curiously enough, the word in question–in case it hasn’t jumped off the page at you already–is mercy.


[1] Alder Hey NHS Children’s Foundation Trust v. Mr. Thomas Evans et al. (Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 308 (Fam); Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL; 20 February, 2018), p. 16. This document is linked to by Michael Hichborn in “Judge Cites Pope Francis to Justify Ending Baby’s Life Against Parents’ Wishes” (; February 23, 2018; accessed April 24, 2018.

[2] “The continued provision of ventilation, in circumstances which I am persuaded is futile, now compromises Alfie’s future dignity and fails to respect his autonomy. I am satisfied that continued ventilatory support is no longer in Alfie’s best interest” (Alder Hey v. Evans, p. 22).

[3] Ertelt, Steven. “Alfie Evans’ Parents Head to Court to Restore Life Support After He Lives for Hours Without Food, Water, or Oxygen” (; April 24, 2018; accessed April 26, 2018.

[4] “Did Alder Hey Force Alfie Evans’ Dad to Read a ‘Hostage’ Letter to Save His Son?” (; April 26, 2018; accessed April 26, 2018.

[5] Quoted in Freiburger, Calvin, “Alfie Evans’ Parents to ‘Form a Relationship’ with the Hospital,’ Asking Supporters to Return Home” (; April 26, 2018; accessed April 26, 2018.

 [6] “Alfie’s father also asked the Pope to consider granting his son asylum and told him: ‘Please help us save our innocent child and give us the grace of asylum to keep our family safe and to stop all of this. If (Y)our (H)oliness helps our child you will be potentially saving the future for our children in the UK, especially the disabled.” Quoted in Apen-Sadler, Diane and Martin Robinson, “Pope Francis ‘Looked Me in the Eye and Told Me I was Doing the Right Thing,’ Says Alfie Evans’ Father after He Returns from Rome and Continues Fight for His Brain-Damaged Son” (; April 19, 2018; accessed April 26, 2018. Mr. Evans also expressed the expectation that involving Pope Francis would cause diplomatic troubles for Great Britain, if Alfie wasn’t allowed to depart for Italy. It is unfortunate, if not unexpected, that the same Holy Father who prides himself on “making a mess” in other contexts did not see fit to do anything of the kind when Alfie’s ventilator was removed.

[7] “Human Life is Sacred,” Pastoral Letter of the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland to the Clergy, Religious, and Faithful (Dublin: Veritas, 1975; reprinted by the Daughters of St. Paul, 1977), no. 53; p. 32.

[8] Wertham, Fredric, M.D. A Sign for Cain: An Exploration of Human Violence (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 180.

[9] “Pope Francis Prays for Alfie Evans in Sunday Regina Coeli Address,” by Staff Reporters (; April 16, 2018; accessed April 26, 2018.

 [10] Quoted by Dorothy Cummings McLean in “UK Bishops Say Hospital Acting with ‘Integrity’ in Alfie Evans Case” (; April 18, 2018; accessed April 26, 2018.


    Alfie has taught us all to pray like there’s no tomorrow during those last few days of his short life. Let’s not lose that impetus. Keep hammering away at our rosaries.

    I don’t expect Tom Evans would read this, but if he did, thank you for sharing Alfie with us. We’ve come to love him so much. It seems as if the whole world is mourning with you and Kate.


    To the British National Health Service: Doctor Mengele salutes you once again.


    Actually Pope Francis has cholces, always. He could simply say nothing which would be perfectly acceptable – he is never obliged to speak after meeting with anyone in private. Our dear popes in the past did not make statements on every and all topics that came and went.

    The other choice is to make a firm, clear, Catholic statement about the LIFE of the child – Who gave that life and Who takes it away, the RIGHTS of the parents over the rights of anyone else (barring any abuse of the parents).

    When any politician’s picture could be placed over Francis’ statement and have it sound perfectly correct and reasonable we know we’re in big trouble. Isn’t he supposed to say something DIFFERENT from all those blabbermouths in the world?

    As for the so-controversial references to the Nazis – if it walks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi, and kills innocent people like a Nazi – it’s a Nazi.



    Syriac Catholic Bishop: “The French Revolution Marginalized God”









    One of the reasons why Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election is because many Americans instinctively agree with the sentiments expressed here by Bishop Battah, many of which dovetail with Trump’s campaign promises to bring the troops home and stop playing Policeman of the World. Regardless of which mask it hides behind, Neocon nation-building really doesn’t sit well with red-blooded, patriotic Americans.

    This is why the war hawks must always conjure up a “bad guy” for us to fear and hate before dragging our country into yet another unjust (and unjustifiable) war.

    But what never ceases to amaze me here in this global valley of the shadow of death called the modern world, is that we’re still expected to slog through the sophist revisionism of TV’s talking heads, pony-tailed college professors, Facebook “historians” and the rest– all about how terrible the Catholic Church of the past was, what with her “quintessential” intolerance, trumped-up antisemitism, Crusaders, and all those brutal “wars of religion”.

    Just look at that Spanish Inquisition, for example. I mean that alone may have wiped out HUNDREDS of innocent people! Oh, the carnage! The inhumanity!  

    Yes, thank goodness those barbaric Ages of Faith are behind us now, so that we can all merrily tiptoe through the tulips and lollipops (and No-Go Zones) of the New World Order.

    I realize most moderns haven’t cracked a non-fiction book since high school, but I’m genuinely mystified by how so many can get it so wrong and with such consistency. How, for example, can any moderately literate human being close a blind eye to the string of genocides committed against innocent millions over the past few hundred years by post-Christian nations, while getting all irate over the Crusades some thousand years ago?

    How can anyone decry with a straight face comparative nothing-burgers such as the Inquisition and the Crusades just fifty years after the atheist Joseph Stalin wiped out 50,000,000 people from his own thoroughly Christophobic Empire? Where is the wayward Christian king in history whose alleged crimes are even remotely akin to that?

    Millions upon millions of corpses have been piled in open graves all over the world since the Enlightenment’s very first act of genocide—ordered in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, mind you—that claimed the lives of half a million French Catholics slaughtered in the Vendee by their own “enlightened” countrymen. Those pioneer “champions of liberty” hadn’t even finished mopping up the blood from their ‘reign of terror’ (which included regicide) before they’d moved south to wipe out men, women and children by the hundreds of thousands with whom they disagreed.

    The blood started flowing in Paris, and then it moved down into Brittany and western France, and eventually into the killing fields of Europe manned by Hitler’s Nazis and Stalin’s Communists where the “tree of liberty” still needed to be “refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  Finally, even China got into the genocide business at the hands of a supremely anti-Catholic madman called Chairman Mao.

    And now all the countries of former Christendom, as well as the New World–once reclaimed from the serpent and dedicated to Our Lady of Guadalupe by “evil” Catholic explorers–are being overrun by the ancient enemies of Christianity, and there’s no secular power on earth that can stand up to them.

    The Enlightenment’s non serviam to Christ the King finally succeeded in plunging the modern world into the chaos of terrorism and unending war, with the anti-Catholic confessional states fixated on developing better war machines and dreaming up horrifically efficient techniques for exterminating millions with the push of a button.  They’re promoting formerly-unthinkable (to the kings and queens of Christendom) concepts such as total war, the bombing of cities, and the chemical extermination of children born and unborn.

    Tell me, how is this the Age of Enlightenment while glorious Christendom must always and forever be the Age of Darkness…the so-called Dark Ages?

    And now with everybody’s favorite whipping boy, the Catholic Church—architect of Western Civilization—assuming the fetal position beneath the jackboots of Lady Liberty, the sons of the Enlightenment rule the world. Their bombs and their guns “make the world safe for democracy”. Their weapons of mass destruction threaten countries hemispheres away who refuse to adopt Enlightenment values which include abortion on demand, gay ‘marriage’, contraception, ubiquitous porn, crappy fast food and the total annihilation of sovereignty, family and God.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, but the Crusaders sacked Constantinople! Sacked it, I tell you…sacked it! 

    Well, you know what?  I’ll take my chances with those guys any day.

    From the tyranny of an enlightened New World Order,  spare us O Lord!





    Pope Francis: A Pelagian Lutheran



    Editor’s Note: Another issue of The Remnant brings you yet another diagnosis of what Pope Bergoglio has done this week to undermine the Faith. To readers who may wonder why we ought to continue this exercise we would answer: We have no choice in the matter. The current occupant of the Chair of Peter is mounting a determined assault an every aspect of Catholic teaching and practice he finds disagreeable, including the teaching of his own immediate predecessors on fundamental moral questions. In short, we have a Pope who is literally attacking the Church.

    It would be a dereliction of duty not to express our continuing opposition to the radically Modernist program of “a dictator Pope” Catholics the world over now recognize “is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches,” a veritable “lost shepherd” who “is misleading his flock.” To ignore Pope Bergoglio when one is in a position to offer any form of effective opposition, even if it be only a salutary warning about his errors, is to ignore the common good of the Church in favor of personal tranquility. This we cannot do.

    Even from a purely journalistic perspective, to ignore the story of the rise of Bergoglianism would be even more absurd than ignoring the story of World II while it was in progress. And the spiritual consequences of what Sister Lucia of Fatima called “the final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan,” now plainly underway, are infinitely weightier than the consequences of merely earthly warfare.

    And so our coverage of this continuing disaster must continue. Until it is over.  MJM

    Pope Francis, Pelagian Lutheran

    Pope Bergoglio has spent the past five years condemning neo-Pelagianism, which he falsely describes in Evangelii Gaudium (EG) as “observ[ing] certain rules or remain[ing] intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” or, in Gaudete et Exsultate, as “a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy, doctrine and prestige.” In other words, to the Modernist mind of Bergoglio, a strong attachment to Catholic doctrine and liturgy—indeed, a strong attachment to Catholicism as such—is Pelagianism.

    Like so much of what Bergoglio says in matters theological, this is the opposite of the truth. The Pelagian, unlike the orthodox Catholic, denies the existence of original sin and holds that human effort alone (assisted by whatever divine grace is inherent in created nature) is capable of attaining final beatitude. The “quintessence of Pelagianism,” as the Catholic Encyclopedia observes, can be summarized in these propositions:

    1) Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.

    2) Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race.

    3) Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.

    4) The whole human race neither dies through Adam’s sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.

    5) The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.

    6) Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

    Considering these marks of Pelagianism, it should be obvious that it is actually Pope Bergoglio who has a Pelagian view of salvation and that, like so many of the accusations he hurls at others, this one applies first and foremost to him. The proofs of this have been abundant over the past five years of his pronouncements to the effect that being Catholic and having the grace of the sacraments makes no crucial difference for salvation because all “good people,” even atheists,  are saved no matter what they believe.

    Three recent examples, however, suffice to reinforce the point.

    First, in Gaudium et Exsultate, we read the following remarkable propositions, for which the only cited authority in 2,000 years of Church history is Bergoglio’s own opinions:

    Those who yield to this pelagian or semi-pelagian mindset, even though they speak warmly of God’s grace, “ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style [from the past].” [citing EG]. When some of them tell the weak that all things can be accomplished with God’s grace, deep down they tend to give the idea that all things are possible by the human will, as if it were something pure, perfect, all-powerful, to which grace is then added. They fail to realize that “not everyone can do everything”, and that in this life human weaknesses are not healed completely and once for all by grace….

    Grace, precisely because it builds on nature, does not make us superhuman all at once.… Unless we can acknowledge our concrete and limited situation, we will not be able to see the real and possible steps that the Lord demands of us at every moment, once we are attracted and empowered by his gift. Grace acts in history; ordinarily it takes hold of us and transforms us progressively.

    Aside from his usual caricature of Catholic teaching—here reduced to the straw man that grace does not instantly make men into supermen—the cited passages are embedded with Pelagian thinking about the role of grace in the moral life. In order to explain this, I must first “unpack” Bergoglio’s treatment of moral weakness.  As we will see, what at first blush would appear to be an argument for the inadequacy of the human will alone to sustain moral virtue without grace, contra Pelagius, turns out to be, upon close examination, quite the opposite, although Bergoglio, given the incoherency of his theology, does not seem to realize that his views actually favor Pelagianism.

    First of all, by “the weak” Bergoglio means those who habitually commit sins of the flesh, which his entire pontificate has been an exercise in accommodating, particularly in the case of the divorced and “remarried” and others living in what he calls “irregular situations.” In fact, the very title of the infamous Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia is “Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness.” To quote Bergoglio in his book-length interview Politique et Société (pp. 249-250)(translation mine):

    The lightest sins are the sins of the flesh. The sins of the flesh are not necessarily the most serious. Because the flesh is weak. The most dangerous sins are those of the spirit. I spoke of angelism: pride, vanity are sins of angelism. I understood your question. The Church is the Church. Priests have had the temptation—not all, but many—to focus on the sins of sexuality. This is what I have already spoken to you about: what I call morality under the belt. The most serious sins are elsewhere.

    [Les péchés les plus légers sont les péchés de la chair. Les péchés de la chair ne sont pas forcément les plus graves. Parce que la chair est faible. Les péchés les plus dangereux sont ceux de l’esprit. J’ai parlé d’angélisme : l’orgueil, la vanité sont des péchés d’angélisme. J’ai compris votre question. L’Église est l’Église. Les prêtres ont eu la tentation – pas tous, mais beaucoup – de se focaliser sur les péchés de la sexualité. C’est ce dont je vous ai déjà parlé : ce que j’appelle la morale sous la ceinture. Les péchés les plus graves sont ailleurs.]

    Concerning what he views as “light” sins of flesh, Bergoglio fails to mention that habitual sins of  impurity darken the intellect, harden the heart, bury the voice of conscience, and lead ultimately to a loss of faith unless there is an amendment of life.

    Further, mangling yet another theological concept to suit his rhetorical needs, Bergoglio equates angelism, which denies or minimizes concupiscence as if men were angels, with pride and vanity (apparently confusing the pride of the Devil and his angels with angelism as a theological error). He thereby excises from the true meaning of angelism the role of concupiscence, and thus Original Sin, in lust and sins of the flesh, which he deems “the lightest sins.” Blessed Jacinta of Fatima, directly informed by the Mother of God, begs to differ with Bergoglio of Buenos Aires: “More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.… Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much. Woe to women lacking in modesty.”

    With these two points in view, we can see how the indulgence of “weakness” in Bergoglian theology actually favors a Pelagian view of morality. For if “the weak,” even with the assistance of God’s grace, cannot be expected to  refrain from adultery and fornication , whereas “the strong,” also assisted by grace, are able to avoid these sins—as do so many of the faithful and, for that matter, even many non-Catholics —then what Bergoglio is really saying is that it is not grace but the particular strength of the individual human will that is the decisive factor in avoiding sins of the flesh. That is at least a semi-Pelagian view of human nature, minimizing the role of grace and exaggerating the role of the unassisted will while removing Original Sin from the picture along with the action of divine grace in overcoming post-baptismal concupiscence.


    Bringing utter disgrace on the Petrine office, Bergoglio holds “weak” Catholics, who have access to the grace of the Sacraments, to a lower standard of sexual morality than that exhibited by evangelical Protestants who are serious about following the Gospel as they understand it and who implore God’s grace as best they can without the helps of the Church, knowing that they will fall without it. For Bergoglio, absurdly enough, to whom much is given less is expected in terms of  sexual morality.

    Second, in a clearly Pelagian manner, Bergoglio apparently denies the role of Baptism in translating fallen human nature, debilitated by Original Sin, into the state of sanctifying grace by which we are made children of God. He evidently believes that all men are already “children of God,” no matter what they believe or what they do, and that Baptism merely enhances the preexisting divine kinship in some vague manner. That is exactly what he has just told a group of impressionable children at a Roman parish during one of those events in which he uses staged questions posed by children to propagate Bergoglian theology, and then demands that the children express assent to his errors in the manner of a pep rally:

    Carlotta: Hi Pope Francis! When we receive baptism, we become children of God. And people who are not baptized are not God’s children?

    Pope Francis: Stay there. What’s your name?

    Carlotta: Carlotta.

    Pope Francis: Carlotta. Tell me Carlotta, asking back to you: what do you think? Are people who are not baptized, daughters of God or not daughters of God? What does your heart tell you?

    Carolotta: Yes.

    Pope Francis: Yes. Here, now she explains. She responded well, she has a Christian flair, this one! We are all children of God. Everyone, everyone. Even the unbaptized? Yes. Even those who believe in other religions, far away, who have idols? Yes, they are children of God. Are the mafia too God’s children? … You are not sure … Yes, even the mafiosi are children of God. They prefer to behave like children of the devil, but they are children of God. All, all are children of God, everyone.

    But what is the difference [with Baptism]? God created everyone, loved everyone and put conscience in the heart to recognize good and distinguish it from evil. All men have this. They know, they perceive what is good and what is healthy; even people who do not know Jesus, who do not know Christianity, all have this in the soul, because this has been sown by God. But when you were baptized, in that conscience the Holy Spirit entered and strengthened your belonging to God and in that sense you have become more a daughter of God, because you are daughter of God like everyone, but also with the power of the Holy Spirit that has entered inside.

    Pope Francis: Did you understand, Carlotta? I ask, everyone answer: All men are children of God?

    Children: Yes!

    Pope Francis: Good people, are daughters of God?

    Children: Yes!

    Pope Francis: Bad people, are daughters of God?

    Children: Yes!

    Pope Francis: Yes. Do people who do not know Jesus and have other distant religions, have idols, are daughters of God?

    Children: Yes!

    Pity the children who were cajoled into expressing their assent to this heretical nonsense. If all men, without exception, are children of God, then no one is under the dominion of Satan on account of Original Sin in which case the Redemption would be pointless. Nor can Bergoglio be defended on the ground that he was using the phrase “children of God” equivocally to mean “created by God” and that he was not denying the Church’s infallible teaching that Baptism confers the gift of divine adoption. On the contrary, he explicitly declares that all men are already adopted children of God and that Baptism merely makes one “more a daughter of God… but also with the power of the Holy Spirit”—whatever that means.

    The notion that Baptism, in some vague way, makes one “more” a child of God than the other “children of God,” meaning all of humanity, is an absurd theological invention peculiar to Bergoglianism. What is more, Bergoglio neglected to instruct the children on the Catholic doctrine that Baptism and the state of sanctifying grace involve more than some vague “power of the Holy Spirit,” but rather the indwelling of the Holy Trinity and the consequent divinizing of the baptized (unless they subsequently fall into mortal sin), which is anything but a universal state among men. As the late, great Father John Hardon explains:

    The Church commonly teaches distinguishing between God’s presence and his indwelling. The indwelling, unlike the omnipresence, is not natural but super – beyond natural. The indwelling is not universal but particular, very particular. The indwelling is not merely the presence of God in the world but it is the special way in which the Holy Trinity dwells in the souls of those who are in sanctifying grace. We see immediately how selective the indwelling is in contrast with the omnipresence….

    How does the Church explain this indwelling? The Church tells us that the indwelling is unique; it exists only in the souls of believers who are in the friendship of God. This indwelling, we are told, comes to us through baptism…. That in the final analysis is what makes a person holy, why a child, just baptized and having received at baptism the divine indwelling, is holy….

    The divine indwelling may be described as a special intimacy of God with the soul, producing an extraordinary knowledge and love of God. Only those who possess the divine indwelling are able to know God as God wants to be known; are able to love God as God wants to be loved.

    Nowhere in the Bergoglian explanation of the effects of Baptism is there any indication that it remits Original Sin, infuses the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity, makes the soul fit for the indwelling of Trinity, and is thereby the gateway to salvation. With Pelagius himself, Bergoglio would appear to deny that Baptism translates the soul from its fallen state into the state of divine adoption by which, if one “perseveres until the end (Matt 24:13)”, one is saved. Not for Bergoglio, apparently, is the teaching of Christ, whose Vicar he is supposed to be: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned…. Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

    It is reasonable to wonder whether Bergoglio even believes in the dogma of Original Sin or the Church’s infallible teaching on the nature and effects of Baptism. It does not seem so—at least not in the Catholic sense. But even if he does believe in what the Church teaches, he failed utterly in his duty to instruct those impressionable children about the divine privilege conferred upon the recipients of Baptism and only upon them as adopted children of God.

    Third, leaving no doubt of his position, Bergoglio employed another child on the same occasion in order to make the point that Baptism is not necessary for the salvation of “good people,” even atheists. When a lad of six or seven named Emanuele was brought up to the microphone to pose his staged question, he was so frightened he could not speak, whereupon Francis vulgarly prompted him to play his part: “Dai! Dai! Dai! Dai!” (come on! come on! come on! come on!), to which little Emanuele replied: “I can’t do it” (Non ce lo faccio!). Then the poor child, commanded by Bergoglio to come up and whisper in his ear, was practically dragged up to the papal chair where, now crying, he was induced to hug the Pope like a department store Santa Claus. We are expected to believe that this six- or seven-year-old then engaged in the following discussion with Bergoglio, all while whispering in his ear, which Bergoglio recounted immediately afterward:

    Maybe all of us, we could cry like Emanuele when we have a pain as he has in his heart. He cried for his father and had the courage to do it in front of us, because in his heart there is love for his father. [As the video shows, he was crying because he was mortified and terrified.]

    I asked Emanuele permission to say the question in public and he said yes. This is why I will tell you [i.e., Bergoglio extracted “permission” from a traumatized child to reveal his embarrassing secret to the whole world]:

    “A short time ago my father died. He was an atheist, but he had all four children baptized. He was a good man. Is Daddy in heaven?”

    How nice that a son says of his dad: “He was good.” Beautiful testimony that man gave his children, because his children will be able to say: “He was a good man.”

    It is a beautiful testimony of the son who inherited the strength of his father and, also, had the courage to cry in front of us all [in fact, they had reduced the child to tears by traumatizing him]. If that man was able to make children like that, it’s true, he was a good man. He was a good man.

    That man did not have the gift of faith, he was not a believer, but he had his children baptized. He had a good heart. And he [Emanuele] has doubt that his father, who was not a believer, is in Heaven.

    Next came Bergoglio’s demand for the children’s assent to his error:

    Who says who goes to Heaven is God. But how is the heart of God before a father like that? How is it? How does it look to you? … The heart of Daddy! God has a father’s heart. And before a non-believing father, who was able to baptize his children and do that great thing [bravura] for his children, do you think that God would be able to leave him far away from Himself?

    Do you think this? … [soliciting answer from the children, but only eliciting a faint “no” from some] Strong, with courage!

    Everyone: No!

    Pope Francis: Does God abandon his children?

    Everyone: No!

    Pope Francis: Does God abandon his children who are good?

    Everyone: No!

    Pope Francis: Here, Emanuele, this is the answer. God surely was proud of your father, because it is easier to be a believer, to baptize children, than to baptize them as unbelievers. Surely this is so pleasing to God. Talk to your dad [pointing upward to heaven], pray to your dad. Thanks Emanuele for your courage.

    Watch the encounter below:



    The notion that atheists who are “good people” can attain salvation without faith, baptism and the life of the Trinity within implicitly denies the necessity of supernatural virtue, not merely natural virtue, for salvation. Thus Our Lord Himself admonished those who called Him good in the natural sense: “And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.” (Mark 10:18) In fact, the hypothetical virtuous atheist is the rhetorical device by which the subversive polemic of Enlightenment propagandists attacked revealed religion in general and the necessity of the Catholic faith in particular. What need is there for the Catholic religion if one can be a “good person” and society can maintain a certain moral standard without it?  Bergoglio seems completely won over by this classic deception of modernity, which amounts to a practical elimination of the supernatural order.

    It would have been one thing had Bergoglio told Emanuele he could have hope for his father, despite his apparent lack of faith, because God reads every heart and no one but He can know the final disposition of a soul, which is able to convert even at the moment of death in response to God’s grace. But it was quite another to use the boy as a prop for the promotion of Bergoglio’s notion of the universal salvation of all “good people” even if, as was the case with Emanuele’s father, they “did not have the gift of faith” but were “good people” (as Bergoglio simply presumes, as if he could read a stranger’s soul for a little boy who lost his father).

    Also conspicuously absent from Bergoglio’s advice to the boy was even a hint that Purgatory might be involved in the eternal destiny of the boy’s father or indeed anyone else who has passed from this world into the next. I cannot think of single reference to the Catholic dogma on Purgatory in the many utterances of this Pope on the matter of salvation. It would seem that, for Francis, even atheists who are “good people” enter directly into beatitude—to adore a God in whom they never believed!

    So much for the contrary teaching of the Church, reaffirmed so forcefully by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos:

    Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.  Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. 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.”

    All in all, Bergoglio is a kind of hyper-Pelagian. For even Pelagius affirmed that Baptism confers divine adoption and thus is necessary for salvation and the remission of personal sins, although  he denied Original Sin. In refuting the errors of the Pelagians, Saint Augustine noted that they “do not deny that in that laver of regeneration they [the baptized] are adopted from the sons of men unto the sons of God,” although they had no sensible explanation of why the baptismal ceremony should confer the privilege of divine adoption if it did not remit  Original Sin, produce the state of sanctifying grace, infuse the supernatural virtues, and make possible the indwelling of the Trinity.

    Moreover, even as to infants, the Pelagians allowed that Baptism was necessary for entrance into the eternal “Kingdom of God” upon death, but not for “eternal life” as such (i.e., without the pains of Hell). To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia: “As to infant baptism he [Pelagius] granted that it ought to be administered in the same form as in the case of adults, not in order to cleanse the children from a real original guilt, but to secure to them entrance into the ‘kingdom of God.’ Unbaptized children, he thought, would after their death be excluded from the ‘kingdom of God,’ but not from ‘eternal life.’”

    Indeed, Pelagius essentially adapted for his system (such as it was) something like the Catholic doctrine on Limbo, which the heretical Synod of Pistoia later wrongly condemned as a “Pelagian fable” even though it was the common teaching of theologians. As Father Brian Harrison has noted on these pages, Pope Pius VI, reprobating the errors of the Synod, “rejected this Jansenist view of Limbo as a mere ‘Pelagian fable’ branding [that rejection] as ‘false, rash, and injurious to Catholic schools.’” Limbo, writes Father Harrison, “was traditional Catholic doctrine not a mere hypothesis. No, it was never dogmatically defined. But the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium, or merely ‘authentic.’”

    Bergoglio, however, not only dispenses with Limbo (according to the novel thinking of the past fifty years) but also, going beyond even Pelagius, declares that all good people go to heaven with or without Baptism or the other Sacraments. He thus flirts with the anathema of the Council of Trent:

    CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification—though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual—let him be anathema.

    Worse, Bergoglio goes beyond both Pelagius and Luther in declaring that even without faith “good people,” including atheists, can be saved just because they are “good people.” Here we see that Bergoglio manages to incorporate both Pelagian and Lutheran elements into his own peculiar theological blend.

    As to Luther, in an exercise of his Airplane Magisterium Bergoglio has infamously declared that “today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he [Luther] did not err.” So, according to Bergoglio, Luther was correct in holding that a Christian is justified by faith alone. But, according to the same Bergoglio, the non-Christian, including the atheist, is justified by being a “good person” with “a good heart” even if, as he said of Emanuele’s deceased father, “that man did not have the gift of faith, he was not a believer.” Thus we have in Bergoglio the incredible spectacle of Pelagian-Lutheran thought, depending upon which audience he is addressing at the moment.

    Then again—who knows?—next week Bergoglio may utter something consistent with the doctrine and dogma he negated during his parish visit. But, whatever Bergoglio’s subjective intentions may be, his disordered and self-contradictory teaching exhibits precisely what St. Vincent de Paul condemned respecting Calvin and other innovators (courtesy of Antonio Socci, translation mine):

    Calvin, who twenty times denied that God is author of sin, elsewhere made every effort to demonstrate this detestable maxim. All innovators act in the same way: in their books they plant contradictions, so that, when attacked on one point, they have an escape ready, stating that elsewhere they have sustained the contrary.

    In sum, according to the theology of Bergoglianism: (1) the effects of Original Sin are of no account; (2) Baptism does not remit Original Sin and deliver a soul from the dominion of Satan into the state of divine adoption, but merely enhances an already existing universal divine adoption for anyone who happens to be baptized; (3) faith alone justifies the Christian, without need of the Church and her sacraments, but (4) being a “good person” suffices for the salvation of non-Christians and even atheists. In which case, what need does anyone, believer or non-believer, have for Pope Bergoglio or the religion he presents as authentic Catholicism?

    As was noted at the outset of this piece, we cannot refrain from documenting the course of this disastrous papacy, unlike any in the entire history of the Church, including the pontificates of Paul VI and John II. Nor can we ignore the obvious conclusion after five years of this insanity: that the Chair of Peter is currently occupied by a promoter of manifold heresy who has no respect for any teaching of the Church that contradicts his idiosyncratic mélange of populist piety and half-baked Modernism.

    God alone, or perhaps a future Pope or Council, may someday judge whether Bergoglio fell from office on account of heresy or whether his election was valid in the first place. Meanwhile, we are left to cope with the ruinous effects of this pontificate while praying for its merciful termination, failing the conversion of a Pope who has become the eye of a neo-Modernist hurricane now bearing down on the household of the Faith.

    This article appears in the next Print/E-edition of The Remnant. Subscribe today to get access to the rest!



    Another revealing example of Bergoglio’s treatment of young people: the famous mocking of the altar boy, whom he cavalierly lays his hands on to make his “humble” point:

    If I were his father I would have said: “What gives you the right to put your hands on my son and humiliate him before the whole world? He is not a prop for you to demonstrate your so-called humility.”

    Francis is Using the Communists, Not the Other Way Around



    children and washing the feet of the faithful, and much less about issuing encyclicals and wading into the debate arena with the secularist academics.

    But as time went on, a pattern emerged. Francis was not the smiling dunce that he appeared to be. He was, and remains, a coldly calculating man, who uses his so-called “slips of the tongue” to befuddle the conservative opposition within the Vatican and undermine any attempt to rein him in. Francis is no fool. He is Machiavellian, and he has been running circles around us for five years.

    And who is this “dictator pope,” what does he want? It should be clear by now that Bergoglio is an arch Modernist, that is to say, a heresiarch who seems to hold no Catholic dogma sacred. To Francis, everything is fair game. He upends everything, glibly remarking that “time is bigger than space”. (Translation: I will make the mess, but somebody else will have to clean it up.) But Francis is not a bull in a china shop; he is a sniper with a powerful scope. One by one, he is picking off his targets. Traditional marriage, blasted away with a tiny footnote in a poorly-written document. Unmistakable teaching against sodomy, laid low by five little words uttered seemingly absent-mindedly on an airplane. The Council of Trent, murdered by a postage stamp. Even Hell, it now seems, has been shot out of the dogmatic picture. The list goes on and on and on. Francis is not a buffoon pottering about breaking things in the chapel. He is systematically destroying whatever is left of the Church that Christ founded. He is, in a word, Modernism exemplified.


    This article appears in the last Print/E-edition of The Remnant. Subscribe today to see all you’re missing!


    Of all Bergoglio’s outrages against the Magisterium, none so neatly illustrates his plan to end Catholicism as his ongoing, slow-motion pas de deux with the Chinese Communist Party. How can Pope Francis be so naïve? we read time and again. Doesn’t he know what the Communists are capable of? Doesn’t he remember Cardinal Mindszenty, Fr. Walter Ciszek, Patriarch Tikhon, the Spanish Civil War, Vietnam? Of course he does. The deal being hammered out between Beijing and the Vatican is not a foolhardy attempt by an open-handed pontiff to save the Church in China—it is a move to end it.

    It is not hyperbole to say that, even including the early Christians, few have suffered for the Faith as have the faithful in China. My sources inside the People’s Republic tell me of disappeared bishops, arrested parishioners, confiscated church buildings, houndings by the police, surveillance, intimidation, and character assassination. But one hardly needs to resort to espionage to know what the Chinese government does to Catholics, or to anyone who dissents from the party line. Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese lawyer who was forced into exile for trying to get the Chinese government to stop performing brutal ninth-month forced abortions on women who had violated the “one-child policy,” says from his new home in the United States that Francis should never sign the deal that is on the table. Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun, the Hero of Hong Kong who has repeatedly taken to the public square to defy Beijing’s designs on one of the last outposts of relative freedom in continental Asia, has urged Francis to stop negotiating with the Communist authorities. Websites in the US and Europe are now thronged with articles and essays pleading with the Vatican to fight against Beijing, and not to capitulate to it. Steven Mosher, the China expert who runs the pro-life Population Research Institute, has been saying for decades that China is the worst offender against the Catholic Faith, and against basic human dignity, on the planet.

    But things look different to Bergoglio. He has no use for such sound council. What is precisely galling about the Chinese Catholics is that they are Catholic. The Catholics who stayed with the legitimate, underground Church—and did not go over to the sham church with “clergy” appointed by the Communist Party—have kept the Faith. They are true believers. They frequently meet martyrdom for their fidelity. Francis wants to cut this out root and branch.

    What does he want instead? What do all Modernists want? Francis wants to put a stop to revealed religion and make the Church an adjunct to the state. He is a garden-variety globalist who thinks One World Government will finally solve the problems of mankind. (Globalist Extraordinaire and high priest of the abortion lobby Jeffrey Sachs has been Francis’ frequent guest at the Vatican, often headlining events with the Holy Father and even hosting them from time to time.) When Francis’ lieutenant, Vatican bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, said that China was “best implementing the social doctrine of the Church,” he wasn’t kidding. And he wasn’t alone. Francis—who said nothing in public to rebuke or even to contradict Sorondo—agrees with him completely.


    The above picture was taken recently at a sham-Catholic, “official, government-approved” church in Nanjing. The sign in front of the church touts the patriotic activities going on there, including building “core socialist values” and inculcating “patriotism”. There is no mention of Jesus or the sacraments, but the stone pillar at the bottom center is a bangmu, in this case the huabiao totem standing in front of the Gate of Heavenly Peace in Beijing. (The same Gate of Heavenly Peace where the “People’s Liberation Army” opened fire with machine guns and tanks into a crowd of unarmed civilians in 1989.)

    It represents the power of the emperor, traditionally known in China as the “son of heaven,” and, by extension, the power of the state. The symbolism is perverse and entirely intentional. The Cross of Christ, where hopes of a political messiah (should have) died forever, is replaced with a cross-like totem to apotheosized statecraft. Just as Francis has turned the Vatican into an adjunct of the radically anti-human environmentalist fringe movement, and has reliably weighed in on the Marxist side of every political debate he enters, he wants to expand the Church-as-handmaiden-to-world-socialism franchise into China, which openly carries on that Leninist tradition in the twenty-first century.

    This time, the deal comes with direct insults and blasphemies against Our Lord. Socialist trampling of religion, but with Chinese characteristics.

    Just twenty years ago, it seemed that Communism was finally gasping its last. Now, a dozen winters after the death of the pope who dedicated his pontificate to fighting murderous collectivism, his successor once removed is prepared to give it his blessing.

    See Cardinal Joseph Zen COMMENT on this situation

    Jason Morgan (PhD, Japanese history) teaches history, politics, philosophy, and language at Reitaku University in Chiba, Japan. He studied Chinese language and history at the University of Hawaii, the University of Wisconsin, and Yunnan University in Kunming, PRC.

    • Avatar

      Outstanding article! I would suggest just one little change, in the headline. Francis is not “using” the Communists. Francis is a Communist. The author already said as much himself: “He is a garden-variety globalist who thinks One World Government will finally solve the problems of mankind.”

    • Avatar

      The Catholic Church is in a state of emergency. The pope is out of control, yet few bishops speak up, much less act.

    • Avatar

      “Francis wants to put a stop to revealed religion and make the Church an adjunct to the state. He is a garden-variety globalist who thinks One World Government will finally solve the problems of mankind.” Mr. Morgan, I think you have correctly identified the essence of who Francis is and what motivates him.

    • Avatar

      He wants to make Catholicism into Protestantism.

    • Avatar

      This pontiff is selling out Catholics around the globe.

    • Avatar

      I think your giving the man too much credit. I don’t think He’s smart enough to tie His own shoe, much less be leading the charge to destroy the faith. We already know He doesn’t write His “own” encyclicals so who the master wizards are behind the curtain are, that’s up for debate. But I’m sure He has a team working round the clock writing and implementing the nonsense that’s running through is head at any given moment.

    • Avatar

      Will there ever be enough evidence against Bergoglio for the collage of cardinals to remove him for his heresies and apostasy? What does he have to do for them to take off their blinder and SEE just what he IS doing?

    • Avatar

      The Cardinals are perfectly aware of what is happening. Many are quite happy with developments. Others are like deer in the headlights, frozen in place. Some probably don’t care.


    Pope Dissolves Another Thriving Order of Priests



    GloriaTV explains further: But in a time of mass-immigration, De Kesel claimed that the group needed to be dissolved because “too many” of them were French while in the national seminary in Namur out of 80 seminarians only 25 are from Belgium.

    On April 12 Marco Tosatti, writing on, broke the news that an appeal in front of the Apostolic Signature by laypeople against the killing of the community has been stopped by Pope Francis because the judges were in favour of accepting it.

    Remember the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate? Rich in vocations both in Europe and in Africa, inspired by St. Maximilian Kolbe and approved by John Paul II. But five years ago it was put under the authority of a Vatican commissioner, and one year ago it was dissolved by Pope Francis.

    There is the similar case of the Family of the Incarnate Word. This religious order, begun in Argentina in the 1980s, has more than one thousand members in twenty-six countries on five continents, including in regions where nobody else is willing to go. The Family has roughly 800 seminarians. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, then archbishop of Buenos Aires and president of the Argentine bishops’ conference, did not care for the Family. He made reference to it, while addressing the bishops: “In Latin America we happen to find in small groups, and in some of the new religious orders, an exaggerated drift to doctrinal or disciplinary security.” At one time, he blocked the ordination of the Family’s priests for three years. The founder, again, is more or less segregated from his order.

    COMMENT: We’re well aware of the fact that there are often “two sides to the story” when it comes to cases such as these. We do not pretend to have “inside dope” on this one, and I would imagine the various factions have differing accounts of what this is all about.

    We do, however, see a pattern here. The Pope, who promotes the likes of Father James Martin and even runs cover for predators such as Chilean Bishop Juan Barros, can be relied upon to spring into action against priests with an orthodox or traditionalist bent.

    Cardinal Burke and his allies have been waiting since September of 2016 for Pope Francis to answer their urgent request for clarification of Amoris Laetitia. But like the wartime refugees waiting for the plane to Lisbon in the old movie, Casablanca, they wait and wait and wait…

    Pope’s a busy man, I get it… but evidently not too busy to act with lightning speed on behalf of the Brussels’ cardinal who had a Church of Accompaniment crisis on his hands—entirely too many vocations in a Tradition-leaning order of priests.

    Then there’s the Society of Saint Pius X which feels confident that the “friendship” of the Argentinian pope—whose apparent goal is to rid the entire Church of Faith and Tradition—will somehow shield them from the proactive modus operandi of the Bergoglian steamroller.

    Let’s pray that God will somehow provide an invisible cloak or something similar for our friends in the SSPX, should they ever come under the fatherly benevolence of Pope Francis the Great.

    • Avatar

      The SSPX are already “under the fatherly benevolence of Pope Francis.” Their Masses have always fulfilled a Sunday or Holy Day obligation and they have always mentioned the Pope in the Canon. More recently excommunications against their Bishops have been declared null and void, they have formal jurisdiction for Confessions and have been provided an avenue for Marriages too. Any suggestions that the SSPX are “outside the Church” or “schismatic” needs to be opposed.

    • Avatar

      { Tosatti calls this an “ugly story” that certainly does not cast a good light on Pope Francis. }
      I can think of nothing that does cast a good light on Bergoglio.

    • Avatar

      Francis is dissolving the Catholic Church and all its Traditions. He is an Anti-Pope and a Heretic. He must be disposed and quickly. He is not a CATHOLIC!!.. Cardinal Burke HURRY!!

    • Avatar

      As quote above;”Pope Francis definitively dissolved the Fraternity for being hated by the anti-Catholic Cardinal of Brussels, Jozef De Kesel.; Unquote.
      If Francis sides with anti-Catholics then can someone kindly tell us just what that makes him!?!?!

    • Avatar

      Ah, anti-Catholic?

    • Avatar

      There’s an interesting pattern at work in this campaign against religious orders and societies: They all seem to orbit in what we might call the conservative, Novus Ordo, spectrum of the Church. Liberalized orders, as you say, remain untouched; but also unscathed (so far) are the Ecclesia Dei orders, too. Consider:

      * Fraternity of the Holy Apostles (Belgium) – ROTR Novus Ordo Masses, known for wearing cassocks
      * Immaculate Word (Argentina) – missionary (N.O.) priests and religious brothers of either apostolic or contemplative life, conservative in morals, mainstream in liturgy
      * Dioceses of Ciudad del Este, Albenga-Imperia, and Kansas City – diocesan bishops known for more traditional formation with many vocations, all removed on various pretenses
      * Franciscans of the Immaculate – Franciscan orders, men and women’s, which had begun as conservative, Wojtylian communities under Congregation for Religious, but which had shown growing signs of attachment to traditional (“crypto-Lefebvrian”) liturgy, practices
      * Heralds of the Gospel – Eclectic, traditional leaning (O.F.) South American Association of Pontifical Right with explosive growth

      To this, we could add the repeated slapdowns of Cardinal Sarah in his various calls for more traditional practices in the Ordinary Form, and the new instruction on translations for the O.F., giving more discretion to local conferences in preparing translations.

      In some cases, scrutiny seems warranted to some degree – the Immaculate Word in particular stands out – and one thinks of the ominous precedent of the Legion of Christ, which so famously adopted traditional practices and airs and enjoyed explosive growth as a result but in fact proved to be dangerously cult-like, made toxic by a depraved founder. That said, none of these newer orders seems to be in the Legion’s realm, so far. The bishops of the three dioceses in question seem to have been a little sloppy in vocations screening, or in following proper procedures in handling abuse allegations (though if Robert Finn deserved removal for his offenses in the Ratigan case, one shudders to think what punishment Roger Mahoney, Godfried Daneels, and Rembert Weakland merit), and modest failures provided the excuse for pontifical obliteration. In other cases (the FFI and FHA), concerns seem meritless, and are pretty obviously motivated by theological animus.

      And yet, the Ecclesia Dei orders remain untouched so far. In fact, if anything, they’ve done pretty well over the last five years. Bishops not known for love of tradition (why, just last week, Chaput) have been inviting them in to erect apostolates; there’s even an indult now for the pre-1955 Holy Week, something unthinkable under Benedict or John Paul II. And as we all know, this papal benignity has even trickled down to the Society. Why is this? God knows there’s no love for these groups in SpadaroLand.

      Many peeps here assume the biggest trap is waiting to be sprung on them (and the SSPX). And at some point, that may indeed happen. But I think what is happening is a combination of two things: 1) Ecclesia Dei orders are not only canonically protected in their practice of tradition in a way other orders and communities (like the poor FFI) are not, they also tend to be much more vigilant in keeping their noses clean, not least because they know they can’t give the hierarchy any excuse to squash them; 2) groups and societies and prelates that function in the Novus Ordo are perceived as more of an immediate threat, because they can more easily affect how Catholics worship, live, and believe in a rite that governs 98%+ of Latin Rite Catholics. Trads, on the other hand, can be more readily tolerated (and sealed up) in their ghettos (the Diocese of Rockford over the past two years is a perfect case in point). It also does not hurt that the Ecclesia Dei groups have generally kept their heads down publicly in current controversies, as some who follow the Society like to remind us from time to time; but I think it’s also true that they know well that traditionalists would fight back like wildcats in a way these conservative groups have not. That’s a fight they may not be eager to take on just yet.

      None of this is meant to suggest that vigilance by traditionalists is not warranted. It is! But it’s quite interesting to see what the pattern of oppressive acts seems to say about what this pontificate views as most threatening to it – and most easily crushed – right now.

    • Avatar

      Interesting analysis. Thank you. But, then again, there are some longtime Vatican watchers who believe all of this is about the big prize—first gaining control of and then suppressing the single largest organization of priestly opposition to the revolution of Vatican II in the world: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X. He changed history. He is now and always was the arch nemesis of the Modernist Vatican. The seduction or expulsion (the Vatican didn’t care which) of his SSPX is what Summorum Pontificum was all about, they argue; this is what the Indult was all about, this is what Ecclesia Dei was all about. If these turn out to have been more than mere wild conspiracy theories, then it stands to reason that any Vatican strong-arming the FSSP would be the kiss of death to their main agenda: Controlling the opposition. After all, the main argument in favor of a Vatican/SSPX rapprochement is this: “Look at the FSSP! They’re doing fine. They’re growing, many vocations, parishes springing up all over the place. Why not the SSPX?” If this theory turns out to be based in reality, then traditional Catholics should prepare to say au revoir to the FSSP just as soon as the Vatican says bienvenue to the SSPX. Everybody loses…except the Vatican.

    • Avatar

      It’s almost getting to be like the time of the persecution in Ireland, when people were told the location of secret places to gather where mass would be celebrated. The good thing is that with the internet, it may be easy for stay in touch, communicate and share books and pdf missals. Even 3d-print statues. Back then we had to stay out of the way of the police, now we’re wise to stay quiet and out of the way of the official church.

    • Avatar

      Brussels is close to 40% Muslim and within a decade or so will be majority Muslim. Ironically, it is the seat of the EU. Once Muslims comprise 50% plus of the city’s population things will get interesting as their stance on family issues (gay and LGBT rights) is in sharp contrast to that of the EU.
      What can be done? The Western bishops have thrown in the towel so nothing will come from them. Could groups such as this change their affiliation within the Catholic Church from the Roman Rite to one of the Eastern Rites? That would protect them from Vatican/Roman/Francis interference. As the Catholic Church closes parishes throughout Europe, the Orthodox church is opening them. I assume there is a small but growing Eastern Rite presence in Europe and maybe in that lies a solution.

    • Avatar

      Sorry, but I don’t think that some groups’ affiliating with eastern Catholic rites, if that is even possible, would protect them from Vatican/Roman/Francis interference. The eastern rites are also under the thumb of the Vatican. For example, whether Roman rite Catholics like it or not, eastern Christians have always ordained some married men to the priesthood. Yes, there have always been married true Catholic priests. However, when eastern Catholics migrated to North America and eastern rite bishops sent married priests to minister to them according to their own traditions, one of the popes (I forget which) imposed mandatory celibacy on eastern priests in NA, despite their ancient traditions and practices. (I think that was only recently lifted.) So it shows that the popes are willing to impose even on the eastern Catholic rites. The easterners are not really free. I don’t think that re-affiliation would gain much except a little breathing time, until another pope crunched down on them.

    • Avatar

      I rather think that if Menzingen made positive moves towards a “normalisation” of relations with this pope, a new Mgr Lefebvre would emerge.

    • Avatar

      The SSPX will never come under the ‘fatherly’ (malign) influence of Bergoglio. Why fight all this time to give up now?



    Michael Matt   has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000.  Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.




    Who Will Be the Next Pope?

    Written by  Michael Matt | Editor

    ANAHEIM, California – For one weekend every year, the two great Magic Kingdoms of the world collide in Anaheim, California, when Disneyland’s neighborhood is taken over by the Catholic Church for the Religious Education Congress of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the largest annual gathering of Catholics in North America.
    For those 72 hours, Anaheim becomes Rome, in that it’s entirely possible that around every street corner, you’re going to bump into an old Catholic friend.
    This Sunday, Crux’s Christopher White and I bumped into one such old friend, and over breakfast we had one of those conversations that people absorbed by Church affairs often do. My friend posed the following question: If there were a St. Gallen group of center-right cardinals today trying to prepare for the next papal conclave, who would their candidate be?
    (The reference is to a group of progressive cardinals who met occasionally between 1995 and 2006 to talk about future popes, and who played a role in the election of Pope Francis. The existence of the group was confirmed in a biography of Cardinal Godfried Daneels of Belgium.)
    White and I kicked the question around, and here’s what we came up with: Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston.

    Comment: The most distressing thing about John Allen’s prediction is that should it turn out to be prophetic (which I doubt), O’Malley wouldn’t be the worst choice, the pool now swimming with papabile cardinals positively allergic to orthodoxy.

    While a Pope Raymond Burke would require a direct act of God, a Pope Christoph Schönborn, Oscar Rodriguzez Maradiaga or Luis Antonio Tagle would seem almost inevitable, given the anti-Catholic bent of the new & improved Church of Accompaniment.

    Believe it or nor, Cardinal O’Malley would be a step up from the rest, God help us all. 


    And here we have Cardinal Sean O’Malley at the Sudbury United Methodist Church back in 2014, receiving a special blessing from “Reverend” Anne Robertson (a United Methodist priestess), who described the moment on her blog,

    Cardinal O’Malley looked me in the eye and asked me to anoint him.  I did.  The divorced, Scottish Protestant clergywoman anointed the Irish Catholic Cardinal in front of a pew of Catholic clergy and a Catholic Bishop, any one of whom would probably have given their eye teeth to have the honor.  I choked back sobs all the way to the overflow room.
    At the root of the word “significance” is the word “sign,” and that is what occurred in that moment of anointing.  You don’t get to be a Cardinal by being unaware of the significance of your public acts.  In a completely spontaneous moment, Cardinal O’Malley seized the opportunity of signifying the truth of Galatians 3:28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”  Which is, of course, also the truth of baptism.

    And there you have it, Pope O’Malley would certainly have the ecumenical chops to succeed Pope Francis the Great. (How long, O Lord, how long.)

    Published in Headline News Around the World

    Join the discussion…

  • Avatar

    Marcel5 hours ago

    If Francis “is” the false prophet; as some say; who indeed will be the next pope???

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    Robert Dahl6 hours ago

    The question arises: who might be the next “Sitter-in-the-High Chair” in Vatican City? Well, we already have two claimants dressed-in-white on-board—one strangely listed as “resigned”, silenced in a papal apartment with shutters drawn closed (with phones to the outer world apparently disconnected?)—and then we are burdened with, the Francis-One, who seldom actually sits in “The Chair” but walks-&-talks like “The Pontiff”. A vacuum seems to exist; which naturally may tead toward actual schism?
    This fracas recalls the historic Great Western Schism (AD-1378-1415) with its three concurrent claimants to the Chair of Peter (problem finally fixed with the Council of Florence—activated by the Byzantine crisis, with Muslim invasion of Constantinople).
    So who are we to judge? Hello, anyone—without judgment, errors may persist?
    Many, if not most folks, might welcome Franciscan Cardinal O’Malley of Boston as the preferred successor to the present “Sitter-in-Peter’s Chair”—especially since the Cardinal-Archbishop of Boston has received the “special blessing” of the Methodist lady-heretic “Most-Reverend” Annie Robertson—a “blessing” with a supposed Methodist “Holy Oil”, of sorts, unknown in all of Protestant history. Apparently the “Holy Oil” in this instance is miraculously produced by “tongue-spit” (also unknown in any Methodist ritual). So, “reverend” Annie Robertson has gained the desired notoriety, and the Franciscan-humbled Cardinal has again made a fool of himself? Par for the course?
    Monitor, please pass this comment to Editor, The Remnant. God bless all.

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    eduardo6 hours ago

    In these times it is very hard not to hold the sedevacantism…

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    Chris Whittle6 hours ago

    Cardinal O’Malley is not a center-right bishop. He’s a shill for the Democratic Party, gives our RINO, pro-abortion et. al. (and Catholic school product) Lt. Gov. a free pass, and hates traditionalists, vets, patriots, etc. He’s undergoing an unfaithful interior restoration of the Cathedral of the Holy Cross (in violation of Federal Law because it’s on the National Register of Historic Places), and has Novus Ordo services in 19 languages other than Latin or English. The Catholic Appeal $$$ (which I don’t give to) now funds illegal immigrants, while parochial school scholarships favor affirmative action over the family’s orthodoxy.

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    Dick Prudlo6 hours ago

    I await Mary’s intervention on this one.

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    Pascalstriangle7 hours ago

    If Francis lasts 10 years, the church will be a much smaller body in the world.

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    Thomas J. Ryan8 hours ago

    Only Ranjith can save us now

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    Cradle Convert13 hours ago

    The next pope will be Peter Turkson.

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    Henry Ptak20 hours ago

    Wouldn’t it be a delightful bit of irony if Benedict outlived Francis?

  • 4

  • Reply

  • Share ›


      Henry Ptak MKDAWUSS8 hours ago

      They’d probably send him back to his room, but the whole thing would be comically awkward, to say the least. I don’t know – can you re-assign a used “munus” after it’s already been divided? Can a divided “munus” be re-negotiated? How many ways can you split up a used “munus” posthumously?
      One should never leave the Divine Comedian that much room.

    • Reply

    • Share ›


    Tracey Kelly20 hours ago

    How long, O Lord, how long.
    We’re all growing weary aren’t we?
    I want to read about what’s going on in Our Church…and then always regret it.

  • 2

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    SJ Greena day ago

    ‘the two great Magic Kingdoms of the world collide …’ I had to chuckle at this. Equally fantastical and not in a good way, IMO (Disneyland and the Religious Education Conference).

  • Reply

  • Share ›


      JTSC SJ Green21 hours ago

      🙂 This made me chuckle also! As did this:
      “For those 72 hours, Anaheim becomes Rome, in that it’s entirely possible that around every street corner, you’re going to bump into an old Catholic friend.”
      Or maybe Goofy, who may actually at this point be more Catholic than
      your old Catholic friend!

    • 1

    • Reply

    • Share ›


    Hawaii Davea day ago

    Speculation on the next pope elicits nothing but ennui, scandalous as this sounds.

    Is it possible in the affairs of men to effect renewed allegiance and filial devotion to the institutional Church, after Her theologians, university presidents, and major religious orders detached themselves from her authority a couple of years after hijacking a Council? After bishops’ conferences did likewise soon after that? After free-thinkers put in their monarch puppet to consolidate 60 years of humanistic adherence?

    No, prideful men have pushed to the brink of revolution, and only man’s method (ie war) or Our Lord’s method (beyond our ken) will be the agent of resolution.

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    Traditionalista day ago

    Cardinal Sarah would be the best choice of who we know of right now. Personally, I’d be surprised to see an American pope.

  • 2

  • Reply

  • Share ›


      William Murphy Traditionalista day ago

      The traditional argument against electing an American to the Papacy was that it would concentrate spiritual as well as economic and military power in US hands. As I bet no one wants another South American or a Jesuit, an African or Asian candidate looks the least bad gamble.

    • Reply

    • Share ›


    Ginta day ago

    I don’t see a good choice in any of them because, really, do you honestly believe any of them will return the Catholic Church to what it was/should again be?

  • Reply

  • Share ›


    James • a day ago

    How could anybody possibly be upset that a Cardinal received a special blessing from a chicklette Methodist (and therefore heretical in multiple ways) pastor? After all, it is a fact known to the whole world that Bishops, Patriarchs, and even Popes of the first 4 or 5 centuries received special blessings from Marcionites, Gnostics of a dozen different specific types, Arians, Rabbis, and pagans – even female and gay priests of fertility cults. It was one big happy family of tolerance of everyone and everything. They would get together, a big rainbow, and hold hands and sing ‘Kumbajah’ and follow it with “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony.’

    Only an evil person would oppose such a pretty picture.

    Jorge Bergoglio was chosen Pope to bring back that paradise of tolerance.

  • 3

  • Reply

  • Share ›


      JTSC James21 hours ago

      I have always disliked the group Pink Floyd but I have this lyric of
      theirs playing in my head over and over all the time.
      “Breathe deep the gathering gloom”
      But I’m not sure how much worse that actually is than:
      (Please paint a flower on your face now in preparation)

    • Reply

    • Share ›
      • Avatar

        Pascalstriangle JTSC7 hours ago

        I think your quotation comes from the Moody Blues,
        “Breath deep the gathering gloom,
        Watch lights fade from every room……”
        It’s a poem from the Album “Days of Future Passed”

      • 1

      • Reply

      • Share ›


        malleus_stultorum Pascalstrianglean hour ago

        Recall the last stanza:
        Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
        Removes the colours from our sight
        Red is grey and yellow, white
        But we decide which is right
        And which is an illusion

        We are living in the Age of Illusion

      • Reply

      • Share ›


      Remnant Moderator . Jamesa day ago

      Beautiful! I don’t how we missed this, but we’d like to apologize for our neo-pelagianism, then.

    • Reply

    • Share ›


      MKDAWUSSa day ago

      Isn’t this a bit of a moot point right now, as Pope Francis doesn’t show any imminent signs of entering the afterlife? If Francis is still Pope 10 years from now the entire scene of Papabile candidates will be mostly (of not entirely) different.

    • Reply

    • Share ›


      plc53a day ago

      The heretical left have no need to elect a “centre right” pope. In fact they have no need to elect even a middle of the road kind of pope. The college of cardinals is stacked, and continues to be stacked deeper, with the heretical left. And another heretical left pope will succeed this heretical left pope. May God please see to it that I’m wrong about that.

      Of course someone such as Cardinal Burke hasn’t a snowball’s chance….nor, would I think, does Cardinal Sarah. They are, as Frank puts it, waaaay out on the “periphery”. And they’ll be even further out after the next conclave. The great kiss-up and easily manipulated Tagle would seem a likely choice for a nice little puppet-pope.

    • Reply

    • Share ›


        Barbara plc53a day ago

        Oh, please let it not be Tagle! Even let it be someone we know nothing about so that we could have a few days, maybe a week, before we have to head for the cellar and our stacks of wood, toilet paper and canned goods.

        I remember Chris Ferrera and Michael Matt in Rome after Francis was elected. They were almost speechless because there was so little known about this man. So a cautious peace reigned – then the merde hit the air-blowing implement and their cautiously expectant faces turned to incredulity at the horror of it all.

      • Reply

      • Share ›


      Paul54a day ago

      O’Malley is also infamous for passing Eucharists through the Mexico – USA border fence to a mob of protesters.

    • Reply

    • Share ›


      Mary Daltona day ago

      Cardinal Robert Sarah would be my choice.

    • 3

    • Reply

    • Share ›


        Roman Lance Mary Dalton17 hours ago

        Yeah, he would be good because even if he turned liberal he would not be so blithely loaded down with opprobrium, like the current Holy Father is by the tough talking “trads” who think it’s cool to refer to the Pope by anything other than his proper title, for fear of being called racists.

      • Reply

      • Share ›


      accelerator Mary Dalton18 hours ago

      Which will happen when the the Modernist Non-existent Hell freezes over. Schonborn is a likely bet, and he would be heralded as conservative even as he normalizes same-sex couplings. He could place James Martin over the CDF, hooray!

    • Reply

    • Share ›


      Tom Byrne Mary Dalton18 hours ago

      We may hope. Remember: We didn’t expect Ratzinger.

    • Reply

    • Share ›


      jobina Tom Byrne3 hours ago

      …or Trump.

    • Reply

    • Share ›

    • Michael Matt | Editor

      Michael Matt

      has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000. 

      Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.

      Latest from Michael Matt | Editor

      More in this category: « Serving the Holy Mass of Padre Pio Cardinal advises bishops to closely follow canon law when closing churches »



      Hi Eric,

      I’m a published writer (Cf. The New Oxford Review Jan. 2007-The Fever of Vatican II) I’ve written a piece about Francis being an anti-pope; this could finally get me excommunicated. But I admire you for going after this silly charlatan “Pope”  Good work Sir!

      One might think I’m crazy for gunning for the head of the Catholic Church. I took psychology at the University of Michigan – you’re only crazy if you think you’re normal and everyone else else is crazy. I think I’m as crazy as everyone else lol!  But I do have a certified MENSA IQ – so when I say I’m going after the Bishop of a billion Catholics with my pen I’m doing it –  I’ve already done it.  This Francis is destroying our sensus fidei

      The Fever of Vatican II
      By Chris Conlee
      New Oxford Review
      January 2007

      Chris Conlee is an attorney in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and the proud father of four children.
      On October 11, 1962, the doors of the Vatican were swung open to the bishops, resplendent in formality and expectation, for they were embarking on a new endeavor. One of the goals of the Second Vatican Council was to bring the world into a more “enlightened era.” The Church’s “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” Gaudium et Spes, states, “history itself speeds along on so rapid a course that an individual person can scarcely keep abreast of it.

      The destiny of the human community has become all of a piece, where once the various groups of men had a kind of private history of their own. Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one. In consequence, there has arisen a new series of problems, a series as important as can be, calling for new efforts of analysis and synthesis” (article 5; emphasis added). The philosophy of the Jesuit evolutionary scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was involved in one the greatest and gravest scientific scandals of all time, the Piltdown Man “fossil,” is clearly evident here. If this is the “working of the Holy Spirit,” as many modern prelates pound into the heads of the faithful, then, one may argue, the Holy Spirit Himself is an evolutionary object subject to change. But don’t question this “enlightened” view of reality, or you’ll be labeled a “heretic.” Never mind that Vatican II proclaimed no new dogmas, and thus if a thoughtful person questions a non-dogmatic tenet of this Council, he cannot be termed a heretic, since to constitute heresy, one must deny a dogma of the Church.

      Nobody was more jubilant about Vatican II than the secular media. The December 17, 1965, issue of LIFE magazine was headlined “Catholicism’s Epic Venture.” You know there is something askew when a modern, liberal publication is ecstatic about a Catholic Council. John K. Jessup wrote:

      Coming at a time when so many human faiths, loyalties and grips on truth are unmoored or slipping, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council which ended last week must be called the most impressive religious event this century has yet seen…. The spirit of the new era was symbolized by one of the closing events of the council, when the Pope shared with Protestant and Orthodox clergymen the conduct of a prayer and gospel-reading service in the monastic church of St. Paul’s Outside the Walls. This service was not Roman, not Protestant and not Orthodox. It was simply Christian.

      “New era” is a term often heard. Supposedly, the “new era” envisioned in the 1960s did not include a wholesale exodus of priests, and many of the remaining priests engaged in pedophilia. The “new era” probably didn’t forecast a reduction in Mass attendance from 75 percent before Vatican II to roughly 30 percent afterward. Forty years ago it wasn’t acceptable to wear short skirts and tank tops to Mass; women wore chapel veils or hats. But most priests are too afraid — too emasculated — to speak out about those blasphemies these days. The sought-after “new era” of the 1960s probably didn’t contemplate that a majority of Catholics in 2006 would support abortion and contraception, priestesses, and other “progressive” trends. The “new era” probably didn’t anticipate that although roughly 70 percent of Catholics today don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they would be all too eager to line up to take the Eucharist in an unworthy manner from relaxed lay ministers passing out the Body of Christ, hand to hand.

      Largely gone are resplendent churches, with their images of the Holy Family and saints, burning candles and smells of incense, women in ornate shawls, men wearing their Sunday best, and the sound of Gregorian chant connecting the modern believer to nearly 1,500 years of believers and saints who worshiped in substantially the same manner. Gone is the solidarity with believers throughout the world that comes with worshiping in the same language, replaced by a Babel of tongues and diverse practices. Of course, for centuries the Church has allowed a variety of rites to exist alongside the Latin rite, such as the beautiful and ancient Ambrosian rite, and the argument is made that Catholicism may not have spread as quickly in places such as Africa if believers there were forced to worship in a “European” manner. Still, when the Tridentine Latin Mass was ascendant, there was never a problem garnering converts throughout the world.

      During the Second Vatican Council, the subject of the liturgy was the first and most heavily debated topic. Of course, then as now, there was a divide between “traditionalists” and “progressives.” The schema prepared before the debate began advocated a more general use of the vernacular. Many of the traditionalists, however, would have none of it. Even the papal Master of Ceremonies condemned the schema. Cardinal Spellman of New York, Cardinal McIntyre of Los Angeles, and many others believed the Mass should be retained as it was, in Latin. Cardinal Feltin of Paris believed, on the other hard, that if the people didn’t understand the Mass, it was failing in its primary objective, though he did acknowledge that if “by chance the poorly instructed Catholic or even non-Catholic layman should find himself at mass, it ought to be immediately obvious to him that he was witnessing something tremendously significant, holy and profound.” Cardinal Tisserant of the Vatican Library noted that Hebrew and Greek were used by the first Christians. Japanese Bishop Kobayashi said that the exclusive use of Latin would appear to his people as something “western and alien.” Yet, arguably, a majority of the Western prelates believed that Latin in the Mass should be largely retained in areas where the “Church was long established and people were used to it….”

      At the end of the day, the progressives won. The liturgy was the first subject debated, and it was the first subject of the first completed document from Vatican II, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” Sacrosanctum Concilium, promulgated on December 4, 1963. It didn’t contain a draft of the Novus Ordo Missae, or New Order Mass, which in its final form would not come out until 1970, nearly four years after the fourth and final session. What this “Constitution” did call for was a complete dismantling of the Tridentine Latin Mass, which in its present form had existed since the 16th century, and had remained substantially the same for a thousand years before that. The Mass was to be “revised,” its rites “simplified,” and other elements “discarded.”

      Article 54 states that “In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue.” It also states, “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” As if this is even contemplated anymore! Although a “more extended use of the mother tongue is needed,” article 40 states, “In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed….” In other words, it’s a liturgical free for all! To go along with this, bishops soon abandoned the devout practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays. Now we even have super-hip bishops who allow corned beef and cabbage when St. Patrick’s Day falls on Friday during Lent. Forget meatless Friday, baby, ’cause we’re groovin’ with the times!
      Gone are the incredibly moving, poetical words of the Latin Mass, forged during nearly two millennia of persecutions, triumphs, and history. Gone is the Mass of the majority of the saints, which was heard in solidarity with the average sinner for century upon century. Gone are the moving words, Introibo ad altare Dei, Ad Deum qui laetificat juentutem meam, replaced by, well, whatever! No doubt some priests can say the new Mass with profundity, but more often one is treated to the banal, with songs such as “When the Saints Come Marching In,” and priests wearing pink tennis shoes telling jokes about their Chihuahuas, and giving homilies about the evils of not washing one’s hands after one goes to the restroom. (The latter two examples really happened here in Santa Fe, New Mexico, whose full name translates to The Royal City of the Holy Father of St. Francis of Assisi.) Gone is any mention of “evil” or “Satan,” even as evil is increasing.

      Gone is the vertical orientation of the Mass, where the priest and faithful together orient themselves to Christ and His great sacrifice at Calvary. Now the Mass is a horizontal community gathering, or “meal,” with the priest facing the people, the people facing the priest, and the people holding hands, hand-grabbing, back-clapping, or otherwise making bodily contact whenever possible. Whatever they can do to distract each other from Christ! Recently I even had a deacon reach from two pews behind me and tap me on the back repeatedly until I would hold his hand during the Our Father.

      Writing about the great English writer and Catholic convert Evelyn Waugh, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote, “I somewhere opined that Evelyn Waugh’s death on Easter Sunday in 1966, the Sunday before the reformers promulgated the Kiss of Peace, was evidence that the Holy Spirit was in fact behind it all, but merciful in His afflictions: no imagination is so vivid as to visualize Mr. Waugh yanked from prayerful thought to clasp the hand of the pilgrim to his right, to his left, ahead, and behind him.”

      At the beginning of the Council, so sure was Evelyn Waugh that the Council wouldn’t dare abrogate the Latin Mass, that he wrote, in part, to William Buckley:
      The nature of the Mass is so profoundly mysterious that the most acute and holy men are continually discovering further nuances of significance. It is not a peculiarity of the Roman Church that much which happens at the altar is in varying degrees obscure to most of the worshipers. It is in fact the mark of all the historic, apostolic Churches. I think it highly doubtful whether the average churchgoer either needs or desires to have complete intellectual, verbal comprehension of all that is said. He has come to worship.

      It is doubtful that the string of 20th-century English literary converts such as Evelyn Waugh and G.K. Chesterton would have converted to Catholicism after having attended a protestantesque, watered-down New Order Mass. So much of the splendor and mystery is absent. One wonders how many potential converts we have lost since the Second Vatican Council. One goes to a New Order Mass to receive the Eucharist, since it is a valid rite, but one does not go for its beauty or splendor.

      In its “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,” Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council was in ecstasy about how beautiful every other religion is (not even praising itself as strongly). This document begins strangely by addressing Hinduism: “Thus, in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God” (emphasis added). Of Buddhism it says, “Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.” Wicca was not popular then, but it could have said of Wicca: “Wicca is a beautiful path whereby man, through nature, can realize the true modality of his commonality with foraging beasts, and flying creatures.”

      Although various religions do contain elements of beauty, and even great saints such as Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that Christians can attain good from them, Vatican II never mentions that the pagan’s flight toward his god(s) might lead to everlasting separation from God. God is a perfect and loving God, but He is not a swingin’ hipster God of relativism. If you choose to purposefully reject Christ, that’s it, baby. God is tolerant to a point, but believe it or not, there is an end point, at least according to Scripture and two thousand years of Catholic Tradition. Hell exists. It may or may not be the naked body upon naked body of the medieval painters, but it is an eternal separation from God, and that’s not a good thing. But there is no mention of Hell in Nostra Aetate, or Satan for that matter, and almost no mention of them elsewhere in the documents of Vatican II, which exemplifies the almost fanatical optimism that permeated the Council.

      One of the sillier and more ironic passages in the documents of Vatican II is the third article of “The Decree on the Up-to-Date Renewal of Religious Life,” Perfectae Caritatis: “The manner of living, praying, and working should be suitably adapted to the physical and psychological conditions of today’s religious…. The way in which communities are governed should also be re-examined…. For this reason constitutions, directories, custom books, books of prayers and ceremonies, and similar compilations are to be suitably revised and brought into harmony with the documents of this sacred Synod. This task will require the suppression of outmoded regulations.” Presumably, the Council Fathers had hoped that doing away with “outmoded regulations” and providing the monks with La-Z-Boy chairs would lead to an increase in vocations to the religious life. Just the opposite happened: It is well documented that there was an exodus of priests and monks after Vatican II, and the void was either not filled, or filled with huge numbers of pedophile priests and monks.
      Although there are beautiful passages in the documents of Vatican II, words emanating from men with a real love for Christ, one cannot help but be persuaded by the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: “Certainly the results [of Vatican II] seem to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored…. The net result therefore seems to be negative” (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 24, 1984). And, “When I came home after the Council’s first session, I had been filled with the joyful feeling…of an important new beginning…. Now I became troubled by the change in ecclesial climate that was becoming ever more evident…. I tried to sound a first warning signal, but few noticed it” (Milestones, Memories 1927-1977). Cardinal Ratzinger said, regarding the near abolishment of the Tridentine missal, “Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum [during the Council of Trent]…[a reworking done] as one phase in a long history of growth…. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic…the old building was demolished, and another was built…” (ibid.).

      Most of the previous 20 councils before Vatican II were convened to combat error and proclaim new dogma; Vatican II was established to embrace the world — a world full of error. The Church would do well, at this grave juncture in her mostly glorious history, to increase the availability of the Tridentine Latin Mass (it can only be celebrated with an indult), and allow the Society of St. Pius X to reconcile with Rome by acknowledging its right to object to certain documents of Vatican II, including the declarations on religious freedom, ecumenism, and the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions, which are policies, not doctrine.

      Fr Hesse: Vatican II in Two Minutes

      About Me

      My photo


      Eagle of the Fortress.
      Welcome to the New Crusade of the Immaculate and Sacred Hearts

      View my complete profile