Where were the Dubia Supporters when John Paul II allowed “Communion” for PROTESTANTS?

A very important reality check

Hey, Dubia Supporters! Where were you when John Paul II allowed Protestants to receive “Communion”?

John Paul II made it possible: Protestant Bro. Roger Schutz, wheelchair-bound, receives “Communion” from “Card.” Ratzinger (and no, he did NOT convert to Catholicism beforehand) / image credit: Getty Images (ullstein bild)

These days a good portion of the Novus Ordo world is up in arms about “Pope” Francis’ attempts to permit unrepentant public adulterers to receive the [Novus Ordo] sacraments, and rightly so. A veritable schism seems to be forming at this time, as countless clergy and laymen are rallying behind the four no-compromise “cardinals” who have made it clear that they will not stand for this attempt to dispense from the Sixth Commandment. Among the more recent developments have been the following:

• Rome in Eye of a Storm: Is there a “Reign Of Terror” Inside the Vatican?
• “Bishop” Schneider rocks Rome, accuses Francis of promoting “Joy of Adultery”
• “Bishop” Schneider on French TV: “Schism already exists in the Church”
• “Boiling with Rage”: Francis Reacts to Dubia on Amoris Laetitia
• “Cardinal” Burke threatens Francis with “Formal Act of Correction”
• Vatican Theologians reportedly studying what to do about a Heretical Pope

But there is a problem: For the most part, the very individuals who are now oh-so upset about this obvious attack on the sanctity and indissolubility of holy matrimony and a sacrilegious administration of “Holy Communion”, appeal to none other than “Pope-Saint” John Paul II as the Catholic hero who fearlessly defended the sacraments from being given to the “divorced and remarried”, as unrepentant public adulterers are called in the Vatican II Church.

For example, in the official dubia submitted to Francis by “Carinals” Burke, Brandmuller, Caffarra, and Meisner, the novel teaching of Amoris Laetitia was continually contrasted with that of John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, and John Paul’s exhortation Familiaris Consortio was referenced several times as well. When 45 Novus Ordo academics and prelates condemned Amoris Laetitia as heretical, John Paul II again featured prominently as a supposed defender of orthodoxy and spotless sacramental practice.

In this post, we won’t even get into all the attacks on the holy Catholic Faith that were perpetrated by John Paul II throughout his 26-year reign as “Pope”, from his nauseating “Theology of the Body” to the pan-religious indifferentism promoted at Assisi. All these things are laid out and summarized on our special topical page on Karol Wojtyla:

• What you need to know about Karol Wojtyla, “Pope John Paul II”

In this post we will only focus on one very specific thing, one that is unknown to a lot of people out there: Almost 34 years ago, John Paul II enshrined in official Novus Ordo church law a permission for public Protestants and Eastern Orthodox to receive “Holy Communion” and other Novus Ordo sacraments as long as they fulfilled certain conditions (note well: renouncing their heresies and converting to Catholicism was not one of them).

Let’s briefly review the facts on this.

On January 25, 1983, John Paul II published the official Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, which replaced the original Code compiled under Pope St. Pius X and solemnly promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917. The reason for the introduction of a new Code of Canon Law was the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Church law simply needed to be adapted to the new teachings of the council, so a revision of canon law was necessary. As a result, the new Code is a direct application of the ecumenism and false ecclesiology taught by Vatican II, and it comes with the full putative “authority” of “Pope” John Paul II.

One of the new laws in the 1983 Code gives permission to some non-Catholics to receive the “sacraments” under certain conditions. This is by no means an “abuse” of Vatican II but actually rooted in the council itself. In its decree on ecumenism, the fateful Modernist synod said:

…[W]orship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops’ Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.

(Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 8; underlining added.)

Of course the council here is not very specific, but that’s just the point: It is vague enough to open the door to shared sacraments between “Catholics” and Protestants, and John Paul II was only too happy to oblige early on in his lengthy reign of error.

So, remember this next time someone tells you that Vatican II taught nothing new — oh yes, it did! This idea that non-Catholics can participate in the reception of (what are thought to be) Catholic sacraments, is a direct result of the false ecclesiology of the council, its false new teaching that heretics (i.e. non-Catholics who retain the name of Christian) are in “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church merely in virtue of a valid baptism, the profession of heresy notwithstanding (this false teaching has been nicknamed “Frankenchurch” or “Patchwork Ecclesiology” and is exposed and refuted here and also here and also in this lively debate).

But let’s finally have a look at just what the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law says with regard to this. It legislates as follows:

Novus Ordo Canon 844:

3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

(Antipope John Paul II, Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law [1983], Canon 844.3-4)

In 2003, the same John Paul II reaffirmed this impious and sacrilegious law in an encyclical letter:

While it is never legitimate to concelebrate [the New Mass] in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

(Antipope John Paul II, “Encyclical” Ecclesia De Eucharistia, n. 45)

This goes for the Latin church as much as it does for the Eastern Novus Ordo churches, whose Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, published in 1990 by the same John Paul II, legislates the exact same thing (see Canon 671 §§ 3-4).

But wait, there is more!

In 1993, the Modernist Unholy See published a lengthy documented entitled Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, which is a veritable manual for implementing the ecumenism and ecclesiology of Vatican II. It was approved, confirmed, and ordered to be published by Antipope John Paul II on March 25, 1993. This impious document states:

129. …[I]n certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments [Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick] may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.

130. In case of danger of death, Catholic ministers may administer these sacraments when the conditions given below (n. 131) are present. In other cases, it is strongly recommended that the diocesan Bishop, taking into account any norms which may have been established for this matter by the Episcopal Conference or by the Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches, establish general norms for judging situations of grave and pressing need and for verifying the conditions mentioned below (n. 131). In accord with Canon Law, these general norms are to be established only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the other interested Church or ecclesial Community. Catholic ministers will judge individual cases and administer these sacraments only in accord with these established norms, where they exist. Otherwise they will judge according to the norms of this Directory.

131. The conditions under which a Catholic minister may administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, of penance and of the anointing of the sick to a baptized person who may be found in the circumstances given above (n. 130) are that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed.

(Antipope John Paul II via Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism [1993], nn. 129-131; underlining added.)

So, let’s get this straight: As long as they’re baptized, non-Catholic Christians can legitimately, according to Novus Ordo law, ask to be given “Holy Communion”, “absolution”, and “Anointing of the Sick” — and then just as legitimately receive the same — without converting to Catholicism, as long as they have a “grave and pressing need”, even outside the danger of death (as in, “I have no intention of becoming a Catholic, but I just need Catholic sacraments”), which is verified and/or judged in part by the “competent authority” of the non-Catholic’s false religion, as long as the non-Catholic is “unable to have recourse” to a false minister of his own heretical sect!

This is unbelievable! How in the world could anyone, especially the semi-traditionalists of the Society of St. Pius X and similar groups, possibly believe such sacrilegious and blasphemous junk can come from the Catholic Church of our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? That this disgusting mockery of the sacraments could come from a true Catholc Pope?! Absurd!

However, it is official Novus Ordo church law, put in place by the great “conservative” John Paul II, the man who “ordained” the Rev. John Zuhlsdorf in 1991. Perhaps Mr. Zuhlsdorf cares to comment on this? Does he give “Catholic sacraments” to non-Catholics? Does he think it is a permissible, even commendable, thing to do?

Let’s consider a scenario that illustrates how the application of this impious Novus Ordo law would look in practice:

Mildred is an Anglican, and she’s currently in the hospital. She’s not dying but she needs serious medical attention. She calls on her heretical minister to come to her and assist her spiritually, but he’s out of town. Instead, “Fr. Fred” from the local Novus Ordo passes by her room and visits her. So, she “spontaneously” asks “Fr.” Fred to give her the “Anointing of the Sick” (the Novus Ordo version of the sacrament of Extreme Unction), and she does so “of her own initiative.” In fact, she tells Fred that, though she is an Anglican, she is “conservative”, and so she really does believe in the Novus Ordo understanding of the Anointing, and in order to be “properly disposed” for the reception of this “sacrament,” she’s willing to make a confession. But that confession does not, of course, in any way include a rejection of her Anglican religion; it is, so to speak, not a Catholic confession but an Anglican confession (remember, she really wanted her own presbyter to come and assist her and is only turning to Fred because her own “priest” is out of town).

According to Novus Ordo law, Mildred’s course of action is not only legitimate but commendable, and “Fr.” Fred is supposed to give her “absolution” and “anointing” — all of this without her renouncing any of her deeply-held errors. Remember, she is officially the member of a false religion, a non-Catholic sect, and with that religion, which persecuted and killed St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, she professes a host of heresies. Yet, the Modernist Vatican II Sect says she can be absolved and anointed, even given “Holy Communion” if she believes in the dogma of the Real Presence.

Think we’re making this up? Think we’re misunderstanding something here or exaggerating? Oh no. See the video below, published by the hardcore “conservative” Novus Ordo bastion Catholic Answers, to verify for yourself that we are quite rightly understanding Novus Ordo law:

Video: Jimmy Akin explains on Catholic Answers Live that heretics can receive
“Holy Communion” in the Novus Ordo Church in certain circumstances

To give another example: The Novus Ordo diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, explains on its web site under what “special circumstances” it will administer “Holy Communion” to “other Christians”:

• Special Circumstances for the Admission of Other Christians to Communion at Catholic Celebrations of the Eucharist in the Diocese of Rockville Centre

Are you shocked? Well then, all we can say is: “Where have you been?” This particular mockery of the sacraments has been around for over 30 years!

But it gets better still… that is, worse. Specifically with regard to giving the Novus Ordo sacraments to the Eastern Orthodox (better called Eastern Schismatics or Eastern Heterodox), John Paul’s Directory of ecumenical principles enjoins upon Novus Ordo clergy the duty to avoid any suggestion of seeking the recipient’s conversion to Catholicism:

125. Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and the anointing of the sick to members of the Eastern Churches, who ask for these sacraments of their own free will and are properly disposed.

In these particular cases also, due consideration should be given to the discipline of the Eastern Churches for their own faithful and any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided.

(Antipope John Paul II, Directory on Ecumenism, n. 125; underlining added.)

Yes, “proselytism” rears its ugly head again! You can see that Francis’ condemnation of “sins against ecumenism” is firmly rooted in the tradition of Vatican II and his Novus Ordo predecessors; he’s merely “developed” it!

In a footnote that is supposed to provide cover for the sake of plausible deniability, the Directory indicates that it understands “proselytism” to mean that which was described by Vatican II’s heretical declaration Dignitatis Humanae as follows: “In spreading religious belief and in introducing religious practices everybody must at all times avoid any action which seems to suggest coercion or dishonest or unworthy persuasion especially when dealing with the uneducated or the poor” (n. 4; cf. Directory on Ecumenism, fn. 41).

We have blogged about the Vatican’s dishonest definition and use of the term “proselytism” elsewhere. For our purposes here, what matters is that the caveat that “any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided” is another definitive proof that any attempt to interpret the Novus Ordo permission for non-Catholics to receive the sacraments in such a way that it would require their conversion to Catholicism beforehand, is illegitimate. Because if that were the case, then “proselytism” wouldn’t be an issue, not even in theory, for we would then be talking about giving the sacraments to new converts, not to non-Catholics who must not be “proselytized”.

In short, John Paul’s Directory on ecumenical norms tells Novus Ordo clergy: Do not even think about making the administration of Novus Ordo sacraments to the Eastern Orthodox dependent on their prior conversion to Catholicism! That would be “coercive”, “dishonest” or “unworthy.”

Of course, the true practice, rooted in dogma, of the real Catholic Church has always been that Catholic sacraments can only be given to, well, Catholics, for the simple reason that only Catholics are members of the Church (by definition!). Therefore, the Novus Ordo law is a direct attack on the authentic Catholic practice of requiring non-Catholics’ conversion to the True Faith before giving them access to the sacraments — which only stands to reason! See for yourself:

Canon 731.2

It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.

(Pope Benedict XV, Code of Canon Law [1917], Canon 731.2; underlining added.)

This is the Roman Catholic law. What a stark contrast to that of the Vatican II Sect!

Clearly, the Novus Ordo law is wicked. It is antichrist. It is an abomination. And yet, it is the official law of the Vatican II Sect, anticipated by the council and instituted and applied by John Paul II. What Francis is doing now with opening the Novus Ordo sacraments to public adulterers, who are, however, “Catholics” officially, is actually less evil than what John Paul II did, as pointed out by Bp. Donald Sanborn in a recent episode of Francis Watch. Because although giving the sacraments to Catholics who are notoriously persisting in mortal sin, is a grave evil and a sacrilege, it is even worse to give the sacraments to those who publicly deny the Faith altogether and are therefore out of communion with the Catholic Church.

Our Blessed Lord warned: “Give not that which is holy to dogs: neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, tear you” (Mt 7:6). No, we are not saying that non-Catholics are animals — we are only pointing out what our Lord meant to convey using this metaphor, which is explained in a popular traditional Catholic Scripture commentary as follows:

Give not that which is holy, or holy things, (as in the Greek) to dogs; i.e. to scandalous libertines, or infidels, who are not worthy to partake of divine mysteries and sacraments, who sacrilegiously abuse them, and trample them under their feet, as hogs do pearls. (Witham) — The sacred mysteries should not be given to those that are not properly instructed in the sublime nature of them; nor should we hold any communication of religion with those that are enemies to the truths of Christ, which they tread under their feet and treat contemptuously, and will be so far from having any more friendship for you on account of such a criminal complaisance, that it is more probable they will betray you and turn against you. (Haydock)

(Haydock Bible Commentary on Matthew 7:6; underlining added.)

While it can be permissible to give absolution and Extreme Unction conditionally to some dying non-Catholics under certain circumstances (but never Holy Communion, which by its nature can only be administered absolutely or not at all), this is never permissible in any other scenario:

In the case of those [non-Catholics] who are in good health, the prohibition [to receive the sacraments] is absolute; no dispute on this point is possible in view of the repeated explicit declarations of the Holy Office [e.g. decree of Aug. 28, 1669].

(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith, Vol. I [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952], n. 625)

In his dissertation Communication of Non-Catholics in Catholic Religious Rites, Fr. John Prah confirms this as well: “…there is no doubt this prohibition is absolute in the case of those non-Catholics who are not in the danger of death” (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press [1956], p. 64).

When it comes to danger of death, things are a bit different. The danger of death need not concern us much here, since the Novus Ordo law does not apply merely in danger of death but explicitly also in other situations. Nevertheless, we wish to mention this for the sake of giving you a more comprehensive understanding of the matter:

Moral theology is more fundamental than Canon Law. In the last moments of a dying person, particular circumstances and the state of the individual conscience are of such a nature that a general absolutely binding disciplinary law cannot be laid down. The Church can lay down general laws and statutes as guiding principles, but as Pope Leo XIII pointed out: “The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it.”

The Code [of Canon Law] itself fully recognizes this fact, and consequently has left the determination of the probability under which in the last resort conditional baptism, and entirely in the case of conditional absolution when there is a question of dying Protestants, to the priest as directed by Moral Theology. God alone can see and fully interpret such a conscience, and the priest must strive to carry out His will in the matter, guided rather by canon law as interpreted by moral theology, and not moral theology chained down by a rigorous and narrowed, strict canonical interpretation. In acting thus, he may feel perfectly safe in conscience, as the canon [731] left full room for moral theology, which goes deeper into the recesses of the individual conscience.

(Rev. James King, “What Can a Priest Do for a Dying Protestant?”, The Ecclesiastical Review LXVII [Nov. 1922], pp. 452-453)

In all cases, however, any such administration of the sacraments (i.e. Baptism, Penance [absolution] and Extreme Unction only) may only be administered conditionally, meaning that the priest puts as a condition of the valid administration of the sacrament that the penitent in question be sufficiently disposed to receive it validly and licitly in the eyes of God. Thus it is the all-knowing God Himself who ultimately judges whether the dying penitent does in fact receive a valid sacrament or not.

This beautifully demonstrates the maternal solicitude the Catholic Church has for the salvation of souls, how she goes out of her way to bend over backwards to bring souls into the true fold as they are about to come before their Judge, without, however, sacrificing the least bit of the divine law entrusted to her care.

In contrast to this, the Novus Ordo Sect sells out the divine law for the sake of its heretical Ecumenism, thus proving once more that it is not the Church established by Jesus Christ, for the Catholic Church’s universal ecclesiastical law is infallibly guaranteed to be free from all blemish:

…as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism, — [this is] false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, no. 78; Denz. 1578)

 

Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.

(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, n. 9)

 

The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . . If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.

(Rev. Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1 [4th ed., Rome, 1908], p. 258; quoted here.)

What does this mean for the Novus Ordo Sect? It means that its claim to being the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ is definitively disproven.

So, let’s recap:

• Francis’ permission for public adulterers to receive the “sacraments” is evil
• However, 30 years before Francis ever came on the scence, John Paul II did something much worse by allowing public heretics and schismatics to receive the “sacraments” under certain conditions
• John Paul II established this practice the official law of the Modernist Church in 1983
• This law is the practical application of Vatican II’s “Frankenchurch” ecclesiology, in which the mere baptismal character creates a bond of ecclesiastical communion with all the baptized, regardless of what religion they profess
• This evil law goes for both the Latin and Eastern churches of the Modernist Sect
• This has been specifically authorized and confirmed by John Paul II, the Supreme Legislator of the Modernist Church
• John Paul II specifically forbade any “proselytism” in connection with this concession, at least in regard to the Eastern Schismatics

“But,” you say, “this isn’t binding” — you can just “resist” it, right? Ignoring for a moment that even if it weren’t binding, it would still be impossible for the Bride of Christ to even permit such grave sacrilege and heresy-in-action, and ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that her universal disciplinary laws are infallible, as we just saw, nevertheless if you believe the Vatican II Sect to be the Catholic Church and John Paul II to have been a valid Pope, then yes, it is definitely binding on your conscience. This isn’t Cafeteria Catholicism, you see, where you can pick and choose what you like. The fact is that if John Paul II was a true Pope, then the following words hold binding authority:

Trusting therefore in the help of divine grace, sustained by the authority of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, with certain knowledge, and in response to the wishes of the bishops of the whole world who have collaborated with me in a collegial spirit; with the supreme authority with which I am vested, by means of this Constitution, to be valid forever in the future, I promulgate the present Code as it has been set in order and revised. I command that for the future it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned, in order that it may be observed.

(Antipope John Paul II, “Apostolic Constitution” Sacrae Disciplinae Leges [1983]; underlining added.)

And the same goes for the Eastern Novus Ordo churches:

And thus, having invoked Divine Grace, supported by the authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, looking favorably on the certain knowledge and wishes of the patriarchs, archbishops and bishops of the Eastern Churches who have collaborated with me in a collegial spirit, and having used the fullness of the Apostolic authority with which I am endowed, by this, my Constitution, to be in force for the future, I promulgate the present Code as it has been arranged and revised, and I order and decree that it obtain the force of law for all of the Eastern Catholic Churches. I hand it over to the hierarchs of these same Churches to be observed with care and vigilance.

(Antipope John Paul II, “Apostolic Constitution” Sacri Canones [1990]; underlining added.)

Two words for all non-sedevacantist traditionalists: Game Over. The Novus Ordo goose is cooked. It is absolutely impossible for the Vatican II Sect to be the Catholic Church founded by Christ the Lord, and for its heads to be true Popes of the Catholic Church. In both bogus “apostolic constitutions”, John Paul II makes clear that nothing can contradict his decree: “Notwithstanding any contrary ordinances, constitutions, privileges … or customs” (1983); “Nothing whatever to the contrary withstanding…” (1990). Nothing. That includes articles by The Remnant, protests by Christopher Ferrara, Vortex episodes by Michael Voris, tweets by Tim Haines, videos by John Vennari, blog posts by Rorate Caeli, books by John Salza, and even pamphlets by the Grunerite Fatima Center.

So, all those of you who are currently foaming at the mouth over “Pope” Francis trying to permit the “divorced and remarried” to receive “Holy Communion” and other Novus Ordo sacraments without giving up their adulterous lifestyle, we ask you: Where were you when John Paul II permitted non-Catholics to receive the sacraments? Where was your outrage? Why is it that you are only ever outraged when something involves a sexual matter (e.g., divorce, abortion, contraception, unnatural vice, etc.)?

Thus, to point to John Paul II as the “anti-Francis” in the matter of who is allowed to receive the Novus Ordo version of Holy Communion, is simply grotesque. John Paul II was a trail blazer in this regard, and it was he who gave the world a “Bishop” and “Cardinal” Jorge Bergoglio to begin with.

Oh, and please don’t try to seek refuge in Benedict XVI. It was Benedict XVI who gave “Holy Communion” to the publicly adulterous minister-president of the German state of Bavaria, Horst Seehofer, in 2008, and it was the same Joseph Ratzinger — then “Cardinal” — who administered “Holy Communion” to the public Protestant Bro. Roger Schutz, the founder of the ecumenical Taizé Community, in 2005 (see photo above).

So, you can see that they are all peas in the same Modernist pod. It’s time to throw out the whole thing and recognize that, tragically, we have not had a Pope since Pius XII. The Vatican II Sect is a cruel farce.

If after reading this you are asking yourself, “Okay, so… now what?” — we have an answer for you here.

Image source: Getty Images
License: rights-managed