True Catholic Faith: Clarion Call of the Church’s Timeless Teaching

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

This past week, Bergoglio said that all religions are paths to God. This has never been taught by the Catholic church, and in fact, the church has always taught that only one religion is a path to God, the Catholic religion. Indeed, if what Bergoglio said is true, then the entire Catholic religion itself is a carnival of lies and absurdities that no one should take seriously.

Why did our Lord go to die on the cross if one can go to God through any religion? Why did our Lord bother with teaching the crowds if the teachings of the scribes and pharisees and sadducees were paths to God? Why would any of the martyrs have gone to their deaths if they could have gone to God by embracing any religion? Why did the Catholic church condemn Arianism and Protestantism as false and cursed if these religions were paths to God. Sacred scripture also explicitly rejects what Bergoglio said.

Saint John wrote, whoever continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. This means that if anyone teaches doctrines contrary to what our Lord taught, he cannot be leading anyone to God. Saint John in the Apocalypse further lists all those who are seduced by false religion among them who will be cast into the everlasting pool of fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Obviously, this means that not all religions go to God. Saint Peter said that apart from Jesus, there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we may be saved.

But if we can go to God under the name of Buddha or Luther, then what Saint Peter taught here would be false. The whole reason Saint Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians was because they were sinking back into their old paganism. But if that old paganism were a path to God, as Bergoglio said, then Saint Paul would have sinned in writing his first epistle to the Corinthians. The Athanasian creed says, whoever willeth to be saved, it is necessary before all else that he hold the Catholic faith, which faith, except everyone do keep whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish eternally. Pope Boniface the eighth solemnly taught that outside the Catholic church, there is no salvation or remission of sins, and that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontum.

This means that any religion which is not the Catholic religion cannot possibly lead to God. With regard to this idea that one can go to God in any religion, Pope Gregory the sixteenth said that it is a perverse fraud of wicked men, a deadly error which all Catholic priests ought to drive far away from the flocks entrusted to them. Pope Pius the ninth said that outside the Catholic church there is not found either faith or salvation. He further said that no one is saved who opposes the authority and statements of the Catholic Church and are stubbornly separated from the see of Saint Peter. Pope Pius the eleventh taught that if anyone departs from the Catholic Church, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.

So we see there is no way to reconcile what Bergoglio said with sacred scripture, with Catholic doctrine, or even with human reason. But lest anyone think that Bergoglio invented this error himself, let us put this notion to rest here and now, for this error was explicitly taught by Paul VI and promulgated to the world in 1965 at Vatican II. He taught, and I quote, separated churches and the communities joined to them, this means, religious organizations which are not Catholic, even though we believe them to suffer defect, he says, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation, for the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation. This is just a more sophisticated sounding way of saying you can go to God in any religion. No sooner was John Paul II elected then he also taught this exact same error and in an even more official manner than Bergoglio.

For he taught it in an encyclical and also scandalously mandated that it also be taught to children in schools. Anyone who was educated in a Novus Ordo environment will testify that at some point they heard that one can get to heaven by any religion. This was also repeated by Ratzinger in 02/2007. In an official statement, when he was formally questioned specifically on this subject by bishops. Not only did he teach the same thing, but he even had the gall to refer to it as a traditional teaching.

Would that there were a single bishop today somewhere in the Novus Ordo who rejects this teaching. But alas, all of them embrace it, even the ones who celebrate the traditional Latin Mass. So Bergoglio is not saying anything new. He is not saying anything that we have not heard before from his predecessors and from Novus Ordo bishops going all the way back to 1965. What he said is merely the repetition of a teaching which is solidly enshrined in Vatican II, and which is part and parcel of the essential doctrine of the Novus Ordo religion.

Bergoglio is only a parrot repeating what he has heard, what his predecessors have been saying and teaching for the last sixty years. For any Catholic, this presents a big problem. Is it possible for a pope to go against what the church has always taught in a matter pertaining to the salvation of souls such as this one? Some say, yes, it is. This group is led by Internet lay theologians, whose only authority comes from their own self promotion.

They claim on their websites and blogs that the pope is merely supposed to guard the faith, but could and sometimes does fail in this respect. If this happens, if the pope fails to preserve the faith, they say, then the faithful are supposed to preserve the faith on their own, paying the pope lip service, but neglecting his leadership until a better pope appears who can fix the situation. Notice that all of the theologians who say this are laypeople. No priests in the Noah Sordo would ever dare say, from the pulpit at least, that the pope is wrong and that it is alright for everyone to ignore him. If they did say this, they would find themselves called into their bishop's office for questioning, and shortly thereafter, they would find themselves out of a job.

So they say nothing, changing the subject if someone mentions it, or retreating into a word salad of gibberish in a cowardly attempt to evade the question. Yes, they might criticize Bergoglio privately in a phone call or a text message, but never publicly. This sets a bad example for their people. It tells their people that it is all right to rebel against the authority of the church, provided that you keep that rebellion to yourself, while pretending to be obedient in public. What then is to prevent their own parishioners from behaving in the same way toward them?

Pretending to be obedient in public and yet rebelling against them in private. This behavior, which is very common in the right wing of the nobisordo, is an absolute scandal. A house divided against itself cannot stay. Either submit, both publicly and privately, or reject, both publicly and privately. But do not commit this sin of bearing false witness in order to keep one's job.

This is the behavior of effeminate yes men. It is unbecoming of soldiers who have dedicated their lives to live and die under the banner of Catholic truth. Truly, the question about the pope and the preservation of doctrine cannot be evaded. For the pope is and always is by divine guarantee until the end of the age an unfailing rule of faith. It is incorrect to think that the pope, being a rule of faith, is merely an ideal that he ought to reach, but sometimes fails to reach.

The pope can never fail to reach this ideal because he is at all times protected by the Holy Ghost from phallic in this regard. Listen to the various titles that Saint Francis de Sales gives to the pope, and think to yourselves if these titles could possibly apply to Bergoglio. These are all titles that the holy doctor did not invent, but compiled from authoritative Catholic sources. He refers to the pope as the good and faithful servant in the house of the Lord, in whom the faith is always preserved and will never fail, who is directed by neither flesh nor blood, but by God, the heavenly father. Saint Francis calls the Pope the lieutenant and vicar general of the church, who perpetually administers the church in a matter suitable to the sweetness of divine providence.

The teaching emanating from the Pope to the Church, he says, is our refuge in all difficulties. It is the law and measure for our belief, the rock upon which our faith is steadied, the pillar and ground of the truth. Pope, he says, is the very mouth of Christ, the bond of unity, and the most safe harbor of Catholic communion. He says there is no safer law or safer rule of faith and morals than the pope. And he further says this is true not only for some popes, but will always remain true for all of them until the end of the age.

However unworthy they may be to succeed Saint Peter in their personal lives, he says, it is not possible that they teach anything that would lead the faithful into error by virtue of the divine providence which God has for his church. Can any of these titles be applied to Bergoglio? If the answer is no, then either Saint Francis de Sales and all the Catholic authorities he quotes are wildly mistaken on an essential element of Catholic doctrine, or Bergoglio is not the Pope of the Catholic Church. There is no other option. Either the entire Catholic Church has always erred on an essential teaching pertaining to faith and salvation, or Bergoglio is not the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Now the former of these things is not possible for a Catholic to affirm. It is so surprising that so many today would rather set themselves up against Saint Francis de Sales, the holy doctors, and authority of the church than even consider the possibility of synovicantism. They have already persuaded themselves that they are correct, and that no matter what they find in the doctors and all of the fathers and popes and councils and any other authorities, they must be wrong. To go down this path is to eventually deny not only papal infallibility, but also the infallibility of the church. And indeed, it is not surprising that we see now in these Internet theologians that very denial taking concrete shape.

Those today who accept Bergoglio as Pope Francis and yet criticize and attack everything he says, and who do even further, they tear down the entire Catholic doctrine of the papal primacy, ought to listen to Saint Francis de Sales. He says, quote, to fill heaven and earth with invectives, railings, outrages, to calumniate the pope, and not only in his person, which is bad enough, but in his office, to attack the sea, which all antiquity has honored, to go so far as to sit in judgment upon him, contrary to the sense of the whole church, to style his position itself anti Christian. Who shall call this right? We ask the same question today to those who constantly find fault with Bergoglio's teachings and yet simultaneously profess their submission to him as the Roman pontiff. No Catholic saint ever opposed the pope.

The story about Saint Athanasius opposing Pope Liberius, loves to be told by the SSPX, is a falsified history, which was used by the Protestants and refuted by Saint Robert Bellarmine. The story about Pope Honorius is used by many in our own day to justify their opposition to Bergoglio. Yet this argument also comes straight from Protestantism and is eloquently and resoundingly refuted by, say, Robert. People think that synavocantism is a resistance movement against the pope. It is not.

What we resist is not the pope, but the phony religion of Vatican two, which the one who appears to be the pope is promulgating. Remember what Saint John said, whoever continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. Bergoglio continues not in the doctrine of Christ. He is the promoter of a false and seductive anti Christian doctrine, a perverse doctrine of wicked men leading to hell and not to God. This is not my words, but the words of Pope Gregory the sixteenth.

We are obliged to reject him for the sake of our salvation. It is always a mark of a Catholic to speak of the Pope with reverence, and a mark of the Church's enemies to speak of the Pope with malice. It is time to put away once and for all this dead end strategy of publicly recognizing Bergoglio as a Pope and yet secretly working against him. Not only is this strategy against sacred scripture and the constant teaching of the church, but it is also against reason and the natural law. It makes no sense to submit to someone in theory only and oppose him in practice.

It is sinful and duplicitous and must be rejected. The mask is off now. The game is over. All the cards are facing up and on the table. No one is fooled anymore into thinking that Bergoglio's religion is the Catholic religion.

He is exactly the sort of person that Vatican II produces. No one should be surprised that he says these things or behaves the way he does. The Novosorto hierarchy is full of people just like him, who were put there by Ratzinger and JP Tir. There is no going to God by means of Bergoglio's religion. The spirit of that religion is the spirit of the devil.

It is time to depart from that structure of lies and immorality. Depart from it like Lot departed from Sodom, and do not look back.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.