Readers will recall the February 2019 Joint Declaration that Jorge Bergoglio co-signed with the Muslim Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb that reads in part:
Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.
The error was immediately obvious to even moderately well-formed Catholics: God most certainly does not will the diversity of religions; rather, He permits it. As for His will according to that which He ordains to be – that is, His will expressed via precept, operation, and counsel – this is clearly expressed with regard to religion in the First Commandment, to which we will return momentarily.
Readers may also recall the breathless headline that ran at LifeSite News in March:
EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Schneider wins clarification on “diversity of religions” from Pope Francis
As those who took the click bait quickly came to the realize, however, Bergoglio simply told Bishop Schneider and the other bishops present, “You can say that the phrase in question on the diversity of religions means the ‘permissive will’ of God.”
On April 3, though I am just now getting around to posting about it, “Francis” as he is known and adored by enemies of the Catholic Church worldwide, offered the following so-called catechesis:
Why are there so many religions, how come there are so many religions? With Muslims, we are descendants of the same Father, Abraham: why does God permit there to be so many religions? God wanted to permit this: the theologians of the Scholastica made reference to the volutas permissive [sic] of God. He wanted to allow this situation: there are many religions; some are born of culture, but they always look to heaven, they look to God.
This, my friends, is all the clarification anyone needs, and it contains more than one error. First and most obvious is the claim that all religions look to God. Clearly, they do not.
Less noticeable, perhaps, but even graver still was his spin on the voluntas permissiva of God, the meaning of which he perverted in order to accommodate his own heretical designs: “He wanted to allow this situation.”
There is none so linguistically deceptive as a modernist!
For the record, the original Italian text reads, Egli ha voluto permettere questa realità, which is accurately translated above. Had His Hereticalness wished to teach the truth, his catechesis could have consisted of the far simpler statement alone: Egli permette questa realità; that is, “He allows, or permits, this reality.”
The difference is as profound as it is subtle.
With regard to the voluntas permissiva of God, we must affirm that He wills to allow. This is eminently obvious inasmuch as God cannot at once not will to allow and yet allow. When He allows, therefore, He wills to do so. St. Thomas Aquinas explains God’s will further:
Or it may be said that permission and operation refer to present time, permission being with respect to evil, operation with regard to good. Whilst as to future time, prohibition is in respect to evil, precept to good… (STI, Prima Pars, Q.19, A.12)
With regard to religion, the Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka the Roman Catechism) teaches:
When it is said: Thou shalt not have strange gods before me, it is equivalent to saying: Thou shalt worship me the true God; thou shalt not worship strange gods.
In giving the First Commandment, God was very clear – He has given mankind the precept to worship Him alone, while prohibiting the worship of strange gods; that is, the practice of false religion.
With all of this in mind, it is clear that the Bergoglian treatment breaks down on the two fronts mentioned. First, he declares that the many false religions of the world, Islam included, do not worship strange gods, saying of them, “They always look to heaven, they look to God.”
Secondly, in saying “He wanted to allow” these false religions, he speaks of God’s permissive will in the past tense – something that Aquinas, notably, does not do; he speaks only of present time and future time with respect to God’s will (as in the citation above).
Bergoglio’s linguistic maneuver is a diabolically shrewd way of subtly suggesting that the permissive will of God vis-à-vis the “diversity of religions” is tantamount to a precept for future time, an expression of what “God wants” to be. In truth with regard to the “diversity of religions,” however, it is simply the case that God presently permits that which He prohibits for all time.
The first error – that all religions look to God – is how Bergoglio justifies the second error; namely, that God wants this.
Now you know why Bergoglio did not hesitate to tell Bishop Schneider, “You can say this means the ‘permissive will’ of God.” He was comfortable doing so because his twisted definition of the voluntas permissiva of God effectively keeps the heresy alive!
All of that aside, let us not forget that, according to Bergoglio, God wills false religions in the same way that He wills “color, sex, and race.” This is heresy, plain and simple, and the captains of the conciliar church-of-man are utterly ill equipped to confront it.
Now, for the really bad news: Jorge isn’t breaking new ground here; he is simply taking the church-of-man further along the course that was set by his predecessors, one that was mapped out for all of them by the Almighty Council.
It is for this reason that the call to enter the Church ceased in the 1960s, the same reason why John Paul the Great Ecumenist had no problem communing with heathens, and why Benedict XVI denounced proselytism well before Francis ever hit the scene.
Each one of them held firm in the belief that all religions look to God; it’s just that Jorge Bergoglio is willing to proclaim as much far more plainly.
Bottom line: The institution that is pleased to present itself to the world as the Catholic Church in our day, going all the way back to the time of the Council, is just what Archbishop Lefebvre said it is, little more than a counterfeit church.
Great article Louie. This is the classic “I will not serve” example for the Modernist Babble.
It’s all they can say to ‘justify’ their revolt. Dancing with Animists throwing flour in the forest. Kissing the Koran and other indigenous dancing…like the latest Pantheist adventure in South America prove for my money…they have a One World church already…its that counterfeit Church of the devil.
Will He find faith when he comes?
Satanic. That’s what the Judas Council regime is. Nothing less.
Satan’s Communist Counter-Church
He is bringing us another Gospel and so how are we taught to treat such a man?
Excellent Post, Mr. V
God’s permissive will allows this counterfeit, perverse, corrupt “church”. Why? Is it humanly possible to understand or know the mind of God? Hold on to the faith as it was taught by Christ and pray for deliverance.
We can all see the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. Blessed Anna Katherine Emmerich said so, Archbishop Lefebvre said so, Christopher Ferrara said so, just to name a few. Yet, some commentators on this blog imply that alone is proof that all the conciliar and post conciliar popes, were not popes. They would have more credibility if they stopped implying that which they have not proven to be the case. They have intelligent minds capable of knowing and distinguishing different theological positions and making arguments that make their case, rather then diminishing their own credibility, by implying that which does not hold water.
Because it makes much more sense that a true Vicar of Christ heads both Christ’s Church AND a false diabolic church. /s
Since I decided to take sede claims seriously and have thus been studying sites like NovusOrdoWatch and books like the new Vatican II Exposed As Counterfeit Catholicism by the Radecki brothers, I’m increasingly convinced that they have in fact proven their case.
Related, here’s a fascinating video I recently watched:
Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist
“We can all see the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.”
If what you say, Ratio, is true, then reason dictates that the leader of the conciliar church cannot be the leader of the Catholic Church. There is no other conclusion.
Thanks Louie for an excellent post. The next eye opener for all of us is an article that appeared in Christian Order, Volume 60, Number 4 (April 2019), by James Larsen, on “The Antichrist and The Papacy of Pope Francis”. Let those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, discern the signs of these terrible end times!
And to boot follow with dismay the upcoming Amazon Synod, that will transform the Conciliar Church to the Jungle and to full fledged Paganism!
God have mercy on Your Remnant Church!
I just now scanned that essay. My eyes fastened on this line:
“The seduction of this spirit of Antichrist which we now face would seem the most poisonous and insidious in all of Christian history, and therefore presents an enormous temptation not only to despair, but to profound bitterness, loss of charity, schism, and sedevacantism.”
Apparently he sees sedevacantism as false. But if the sedevacantist position is simply an acknowledgment of the truth, how then is it a temptation?
@AlphonsusJr – Just because the SSPX-Resistance are tragically wrong on the matter of Bergoglio being a valid pope, doesn’t mean that Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t correct in adhering to the non-sedevacantist position.
“Post-1986 quotes of the Archbishop against Sedevacantism” https://cor-mariae.com/threads/post-1986-quotes-of-the-archbishop-against-sedevacantism.137/
Instead of allowing Fr. Cekada to tackle the errors of Salza and Siscoe, perhaps a better recommendation is to get Fr. Kramer’s new book. Here’s a taste: “Exclusive: New Introduction to Fr. Paul Kramer’s Renamed Book, “To Deceive the Elect” Presents the Most Explicit Argument I have Seen on the Question of the Legitimacy of Francis. Presents First-Hand Account of Fr. Nicholas Gruner’s Rejection of the Legitimacy of Francis’ Papacy.”
“We warn all against Novus Ordo Watch, a sect of dishonest men who intentionally attempt to suborn Catholics into hatred of the Church by means of misquotation, rash judgment, incitement to anger, hatred, use of falsehood and deception, continual insult and scandal-mongering.
There is much evidence about them to show that in method and organization they are a Masonic organization intended to destroy adhesion of Catholics to the Church and any true Catholic opposition to the Masonic agenda in the Church.
For true Catholicism requires that we remain in the Church, seek canonical solutions to problems in the Church, when applicable, and live lives of virtue, faith, charity and hope, encouraging to the good, not inciting hatred of the Church.”
Ah. I now see why “Vericatholici” uses “falsehood and deception” (to coin a phrase) regarding Novus Ordo Watch:
He didn’t like when NOW used Catholic teaching to refute his claims.
Charmaine, great link to Abp Lefebrve’s post 1986 quotes against sedevacantism. I urge all to go read it for themselves and see how foolish the Abp sounded trying to defend the modernists.
Touch a nerve there, 2Vermont? “Catholic teaching” is subjective when used in the same sentence as the NOW site, but if that is where you choose to get ‘authentically’ fed, by all means… you don’t answer to me. I am allowed to express my informed opinion through enough experience with their tactics, though.
Btw, whatever ‘scuffle’ took place between NOW and Veri Catholici last year (not necessarily wanting to take the time to figure it all out, especially that it appears From Rome made clarifications in their article, of which I then have no way to compare what NOW was initially responding to — and Veri Catholici had strong words in the combox, I see), is pretty much moot, now that Veri Catholici has reached the conclusion of the truth regarding the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation, which therefore means Bergoglio is an antipope.
@TomA – Interesting how Fr. Cekada wanted to avoid those post-1986 quotes. Hmm… 😉
Charmaine, I just don’t like when others choose to quote lies as if it were truth.
I also find it interesting that you now consider the “scuffle” between the two sites as “moot”, but only hours ago you were the one who chose to use VeriCatholici’s quote to warn others to stay away from NOW. Do you even care if NOW was correct and teaching using CATHOLIC teaching (and therefore not using “falsehood and deception” as VeriCatholici asserts)?
In addition, if you agree with the accusation that NOW is a Masonic organization …. my request for proof still stands. If you can’t provide the proof, then you should admit it was a lie and retract the quote.
Charmaine, everything I’ve seen at NOW has been rigorous in its argumentation. I’ve yet to see any wild-eyed analyses, but only material in accord with today’s horrific reality.
As for Fr. Cekada, please point out where he’s wrong.
Here’s a conference against sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer.
@2Vermont – My “scuffle” remark was in reference to the two articles (From Rome and the rebuttal to it by NOW — the link you provided), and Veri Catholici’s brief rebuke to them in the combox. The discussion likely being moot at this point, given that Br. Bugnolo (the writer of the From Rome article on deposing a pope) now believes Bergoglio to NOT be a valid pope — his article was written *before* he reached this conclusion.
I see Veri Catholici’s warning via Twitter just as it was intended… a warning due to the particular methods employed by NOW, which, by whatever evidence Veri Catholici is aware of (and I mentioned my own negative views), has the ‘nature’ of a Masonic organization. I don’t read it as a de facto judgment that they are one, nor do I believe VC definitively states it as proof. It’s a tweet, not a trial. Nevertheless, NOW’s *public* actions and writings are fair game, and there is just cause to speculate what exactly their mission is truly about. Buyer beware, and more importantly, souls beware.
All you need to know about Novus Ordo Watch is that it’s affiliated with the heretical CMRI sect, which was founded by the infamous Francis Schuckardt, aka Antipope Hadrian VII. The CMRI has far more in common with the heretical Old Catholic church, than the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, Francis Schuckardt, who is acknowledged as “the first sedevacantist bishop” was ordained to the priesthood AND received his episcopal consecration from a married “bishop” of the Old Catholic church – Daniel Quilter.
Quilter is another fallen away Catholic. He joined the Old Catholic church several years earlier and was quickly consecrated bishop (presuming it was valid, which is unlikely). A few years later, he ordained Schuckart to the priesthood, and then consecrated him a bishop the next – from layman to bishop in 24 hours.
But episcopal lineage is not the only bond that unites the Old Catholic church and the CMRI sect. They are also united in their belief that the Catholic Church defected, only disagreeing on when it happened. The Old Catholics say it happened at Vatican I, in 1870, while their modern offshoot claim it happened at Vatican II, in 1965.
Another bond that unites the two is their virulent hatred for the Church and the tactic the use to “prove” it defected. What is that tactic? They both misrepresent the teaching of Vatican I, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility specifically, by portraying the infallibility of the Pope, and of the Church, in a false and exaggerated sense, which can never hold up to historical scrutiny. The Old Catholics employed this tactic (with much success, I might add) to “prove” that the dogma of papal infallibility was false, while their modern offshoot, uses it to “prove” that the recent Popes – the subject of papal infallibility – have been false. This is a very effective way to deceive the average Catholic, since most already have an exaggerated understanding of the Papal Infallibility. These heretics know that if they can they convince Catholics that the DOGMA is false, or that the recent POPES have been false, they will quickly conclude that the Church herself is false: they will either believe it is “The False Vatican I sect”, or the “The False Vatican II sect” depending on which of the two error they fall for.
If you’re wondering what ever became of the first Sedevacantist bishop, Francis Schuckardt. Uunfortunately, things did not turn out well. The Antipope who founded of the CMRI skipped town one night after it was discovered that he had been molesting his young male associates. Further investigation into the affairs of “Pope Hadrian VII” revealed “financial irregularities” (surprise!), as well as evidence of serious drug abuse. After a messy legal battle with the CMRI, Schuckardt went on to found yet another heretical sect where he reigned as Antipope until he died in 2006.
That’s a brief history of the heretical sect that Novus Ordo Watch is affiliated with.
The emotionalism and concomitant lack of any real argumentation, which is often substituted by ad hominem attacks, by anti-sedes is part of what caused me to start seriously looking into sedevacantism. All this is on copious display here in the comments, as it is in so many other fora. For example, in a recent sermon against sedevacantism uploaded on the increasingly cucky Sensus Fidelium Youtube channel, the speaker managed to avoid making a single argument; rather, he made a series of mere assertions, such as that sedes are just full of pride. Lame.
@AlphonsusJr In an earlier comment you said sedevacantists are simply acknowledging a fact. Can you explain what you meant by that? Also, I’m also curious which sedevacantist argument you consider to be the most persuasive.
Rather, I asked: “But if the sedevacantist position is simply an acknowledgment of the truth, how then is it a temptation?”
If it’s true that the post-conciliar apparent popes were/are heretics and indeed apostates, and if it’s true that such cannot be popes, and if embracing the truth isn’t a temptation but will instead set us free, then why not embrace sedevacantism? This is what I’m now fearlessly exploring, having realized that my previous failure to take sedevacantism seriously was partly rooted in fear! Fear of lost human respect, of being an outcast, of not being Catholic….
Related, I liked this video:
Why Do Traditionalists Fear Sedevacantism?
What a difference a year makes. Sad.
SEPTEMBER 3, 2018
“We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.”
-1 Cor. 13:12
Contrary to St. Paul, rabid sedevacantists—having rejected the mystery of iniquity in this fallen world—see all things very clearly. They’ve got it all figured out. They’re exactly the type who ran away scandalized in John ch. 6. Sad.
“Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.”
I’m glad you found this. Many thanks. Notice that I offered no real argumentation there, but just rhetoric. This is because I had yet to seriously look into sede arguments. Yes, I know what it’s like to be mired in the muliebral, lazy emotionalism of the R&R world. Thanks again.
@Alphonsus JR Nothing wrong with investigating it, but be sure to investigate their arguments thoroughly because they riddled with errors, serious omissions, misinterpretations and false definitions to the terms they uses – all of which go into justifying their false conclusion.
You asked, ”If it’s true that the post-conciliar apparent popes were/are heretics and indeed apostates, and  if it’s true that such cannot be popes, and  if embracing the truth isn’t a temptation but will instead set us free, then why not embrace sedevacantism?”
There are three “ifs” in that rhetorical question, and they all must be true, and must to known with certainty to be true, in order for the conclusion to hold. The only “if” that is known with certainty to be true is number three.
Regarding the first “if”: none of the recent popes have been PUBLIC heretics or apostates before or after their election. Being a secret heretics or apostates would not prevent them from being elected or retaining their office. What is a public heretic or apostate?
A public apostate is one who publicly renounces the Christian faith. Since all the recent popes publicly professed to being Catholic, none have met the definition of a public apostate.
Were any of them public heretics? That’s the real question. Now, it should be evident that one of the key factors in determining this is to find out what the Church means by “public heretic”. Isn’t it curious that the sedevacantists never provide an authoritative definition? What they do instead is give the definition for “heresy,” and the definition of “public,” and then merge the two together to justify what they say the phrase means. But why go to all that trouble when all they have to do is quote the actual definition from an approved source? Doesn’t that seem like the simplest approach?
The reason they go to all the extra trouble is because they know full well that none of the Popes meet the real definition, as found in the pre-Vatican II books that they themselves love to cite. Here’s the definition given by Salaverri. It is taken from Sacrae Theologia Summa 1B,, which the Novus Ordo Watch boasted of having last year. You can probably still find all the pictures of the book that they posted on their website to impress their readers. Here’s the definition of a public heretic, found in the book:
“A public heretic is someone who openly adheres to some heretical sect.” (Salaverri, S. J, Sacrae Theologia Summa 1B,, 1955, lib III, cap 2, a 3.)
A public heretic is a member of a heretical sect. It’s not a Catholic who says something heretical. When the canonists say a public heretic cannot be elected Pope, that’s what they are referring to – a member of a heretical sect. For a Catholic bishops to be ineligible to be elected to office, he must have been legally declared a heretic by the Church.
So, in answer to your first “if” none of the recent popes have been PUBLIC heretics or public apostates, either before or after their election.
In reply to your second “if”: if a pope commits the sin of heresy and loses the faith after his election, that alone will not cause him to lose his office. No bishop loses his office for committing the sin of heresy, even if they “manifest their heresy.” When Bellarmine said “all the fathers taught that manifest heretics are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction,” what he meant by “manifest heretic” is one who publicly separated from the Church of his own accord. If you doubt that, all you have to do is look up the quotations that Bellarmine references to support his position. They all referring to bishops who openly left the Church, or were public members of known heretical sects. Any bishop who is in peaceful possession of his see has retained his office. In fact, Bellarmine himself uses this very point to refute a heretic of his day, who claimed that all the bishops of the Church of Rome defected from the faith and lost their office. Sound familiar? Bellarmine refuted him by saying no bishop automatically loses his office while he remains in peaceful possession of his see.
The point being, even if the recent popes had fallen into personal heresy and lost the faith after their election, they remained in peaceful possession of their see and therefore retained their office. The same is true for every other bishop of “the Church of Rome” that the sedevacantist say lost their office.
Seems like madness to me. I can’t see how any of these wolves are/were actual popes. I’m not yet definitely saying they aren’t/weren’t. But I don’t see how they could be. I’ll continue to grapple with this.
“If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.”
“And my sheep were scattered, because there was no shepherd: and they became the prey of all the beasts of the field, and were scattered.”
How much more “public” can you get by issuing the heretical texts of Vatican 2? How much more “public” can one get than putting forth the heretical Code of Canon Law of 1983? If these heretical documents were issued on the authority of Christ by his Vicar, then we have a defected church, which is an heresy in of itself.
And then there’s Van Noort:
Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ’s Church, Van Noort, p. 239
“A public (notorious) heretic is one whose heresy is known to a large number of people, even if he has not formally joined the ranks of an heretical church”
All this is discussed extensively in the Tradcast 18, I believe, by the excellent Novus Ordo Watch site.
Spiritual Warfare: Pope Francis vs Matteo Salvini?
JULY 17, 2018
The monomania of sedes is truly, truly pitiful to behold.
JULY 17, 2018
In truth, comments should have been shut down long ago. As they’ve repeatedly proven, rabid sedes simply can’t control themselves. Sad!
Charmaine, there are many people who follow this blog that do remember that Al Jr once held firm to the R&R position. Heck, I even briefly held it until presented with the clear teaching on Church dogmas and doctrines prior to 1958. Maybe one day soon, you too will realize the contradiction inherent in the R&R position. On the day you realize this, no one will gloat, but some other R&Rer may pull up your past comments in an effort to discredit you.
So much for sedevacantists never providing authoritative documentation, eh? 😉
Infinite thanks once again, Charmaine, for these further examples of me using mere rhetoric instead of actual argumentation. Please continue to cite such examples. They’re excellent spurs for me to abandon mere rhetoric.
@Angelico: Thank you for this link.
@VeniSSancto: Thank you for reference to the article by James Larson. Can it be found at this link? http://waragainstbeing.com/partxxiii/
Yeah “great link.” All assertions, none of which are backed up by authoritative Papal teachings.
AlphonsusJr, Tom, et al. – R&R policy officially ended February 28, 2013; so another moot point. You’re talking to the wrong person.
Ratzinger (aka Benedict XVI) is a man of the Second Vatican Council. In fact, he literally had his hands in it as a periti. Vatican II is his religion. Do you recognize him as the pope of the Catholic Church, but also resist Vatican II? If so, then you are most certainly of the R&R persuasion.
I posted this on April 12:
Not sure why Ann Barnhardt wouldn’t have just made a separate blog post for this update instead of including it at the end of one of the nastier pieces she has ever written against Pope Benedict, but maybe it means SHE is actually coming around by not discounting the grace of repentance and conversion in his own life. Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!
After reading and re-reading Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Letter, I must add this postscript, and do so happily. Pope Benedict said,
“What must be done? Perhaps we should create another Church for things to work out? Well, that experiment has already been undertaken and has already failed.”
I dare say that this could be the first step in Joseph Aloysius Ratzinger coming to grips with Vatican II and His culpability therein. If so, it is a glorious leap forward for the Pope and the Church, Ratzinger himself being so deeply tied to the Council, to admit its failure. Some will say, “He is talking about Protestantism.” Don’t be so sure. I don’t think he would refer to the Lutheran revolt and schism as an “experiment”. The Holy Ghost is afoot. Stay hopeful! Pray for Pope Benedict! He has so few people left that don’t hate him, or are aggressively indifferent to him.”
Also, Veri Catholici tweeted on April 12: “Pope Benedict’s new Apostolic Letter is the Magisterial preparation for the renunciation of Vatican II for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear.”
And until he publicly renounces Vatican II (which I highly doubt will ever happen), you resist him and therefore are an R&R adherent.
Ratzinger = Mr Subsist Est. He is an heretic. A modernist heretic and no more a Catholic Pope than Donald Duck.