Get the Popcorn ready…
How Long Until Schism?
The Vatican II Sect on the Brink of Chaos
The Synod on the Family had not even started yet, and already all hell was breaking loose: Francis’ endless tyranny against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate over their slight drift towards traditionalism; The Remnant’s much-hyped Petition to Stop the Synod’s embarrassing failure to get even 1,400 unverified signatures; Novus Ordo cardinals being at each other’s throats over what the Synod is and isn’t permitted to change; Francis’ invitation of Belgium’s scandal-ridden “Cardinal” Daneels to participate in the synod while showing conservative-minded “bishops” the door (he did once work as a bouncer, you know); and on top of all this, a respected Italian journalist’s well-timed release of a book making the case that Francis isn’t even a valid Pope!
And now, this: Dr. Kelly Bowring, an American Novus Ordo theology professor, has composed an ‘Open Letter to Pope Francis’, with an accompanying video, in which he threatens to break communion with the Argentine “Pope” should he attempt to change church teaching or practice substantially:
- Open Letter to Pope Francis: Are You Planning to Redefine Church Doctrine? (by Kelly Bowring)
The following video shows Bowring reading the Open Letter:
Dr. Kelly Bowring is a Catholic theologian and popular Catholic speaker, who received his doctorate from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Rome); his licentiate from the Dominican House and the John Paul II Institute (Washington DC) while working at the US Bishops Office; and his masters from Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio). He has the Church’s mandatum to teach theology.
Dr. Bowring has been a dean, chair, and professor of theology at the Graduate School of Theology at St. Charles Seminary, Southern Catholic College, and St. Mary’s College of Ave Maria University.
Bowring is also an author of sundry books published by Two Heart Press. He is an avid promoter of various alleged apparitions, revelations, and seers, some of them genuine (Quito, LaSalette, Lourdes, Fatima), others unapproved or definitely false (Medjugorje, Garabandal, Amsterdam, Luisa Piccarreta, Faustina Kowalska).
Before analyzing Bowring’s letter to Francis, let’s be very clear about one thing: Regardless of how good his intentions may be, Bowring is a Novus Ordo Modernist, not a true Catholic, not a real Catholic theologian, and not someone from whom anyone should seek instruction in matters of Faith or morals. The fact that he takes issue with and warns “Pope” Francis only shows what pathetic state the Vatican II Church finds itself in after one-and-a-half years of Jorge Bergoglio at the helm. So, please don’t be naive — not everyone who has good intentions and opposes Francis’ more egregious errors is also thereby a Catholic. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, at least not necessarily!
Ready for Schism: Dr. Bowring’s Open Letter to “Pope” Francis
Dr. Bowring begins by asking Francis a number of questions about things that have characterized his putative pontificate so far, specifically regarding liberalism and sexual morality. The author then asks: “Is there a single doctrine of the Faith that you refuse to believe in?” A bit of a puzzling question to be sure, not only because Bergoglio will hardly admit to being a heretic, but also because his statements and actions over the last 18 months have been permeated with heresies and other doctrinal errors so that Bowring’s inquiry regarding “a single doctrine” appears almost comical.
For example, Francis published unmistakable heresy in his Modernist “Apostolic Exhortation” Evangelii Gaudium, n. 247, when he taught:
We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.
(Francis, “Apostolic Exhortation” Evangelii Gaudium, n. 247; underlining added.)
In this official document, he simply echoes what he already said, a bit less formally, in his book co-authored with his Jewish rabbi friend Abraham Skorka, namely:
There is a phrase from the Second Vatican Council that is essential: it says that God showed Himself to all men and rescues, first of all, the Chosen People. Since God is faithful to His promises, He did not reject them. The Church officially recognizes that the People of Israel continue to be the Chosen People. Nowhere does it say: “You lost the game, now it is our turn.” It is a recognition of the People of Israel. That, I think, is the most courageous thing from Vatican II on the subject.
(Jorge M. Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka, On Heaven and Earth [New York: Image, 2013], p. 188; underlining added.)
This heretical nonsense is powerfully refuted, with copious traditional Catholic documentation, in our blog post here.
A second example of clear heresy on Bergoglio’s part can be found in the sermon he gave on February 21, 2014, in which he claimed that faith without works is not true faith. This is heresy against the Council of Trent, as we explain in our blog post here.
Other Bergoglian heresies and errors can be found aplenty on our special Francis Page here:
Remember that part of the Modernist strategy is to remain vague and appear confused, rather than deny dogma clearly and verbatim, so as to inject their poison more subtly and therefore more successfully into the veins of the unsuspecting faithful. Hence Pope St. Pius X warned us that we must look for Modernism not only in a suspect’s stated beliefs but also in his manner of speaking and his actions (see Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 3; cf. Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei).
In other words, Modernists tend to diffuse their heresies by how they speak (what they emphasize vs. what they leave unsaid) and how they act (for example, nothing preaches the denial of Transubstantiation more effectively than treating the Blessed Sacrament like popcorn). They speak in such a way that, even though perhaps technically no heresy is actually stated, everyone who listens to them takes heresy from what they say. Hence Pope Pius VI condemned even an entirely orthodox restatement of the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation, merely on the grounds that it failed to use the word “Transubstantiation”, “since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question” — calling the omission of this term “dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics” (Bull Auctorem Fidei, error no. 29; Denz. 1529). Pope Clement XIII had likewise warned against “diabolical error,” which, “when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions” (Encyclical In Dominico Agro, n. 2). Apply that standard to Vatican II sometime and see what you get….
So, it is puzzling to see how Dr. Bowring is at this point still asking whether Francis is a heretic. Has he not been reading what Francis writes? Should he not, as a Novus Ordo theologian, be reading the official “papal” documents? Is he not following what Francis says and does — and if he is, has he still not figured out that the man is obviously not a Roman Catholic?
Bowring agrees: A Heretic cannot be Pope
Bowring concedes that a heretic cannot be a valid Pope, and he states in his Open Letter that any heresy on Francis’ part would invalidate his claim the papacy. In this context he refers people by means of a link to the following page on his web site, which discusses issues surrounding heretical papal claimants:
In a nutshell, he says that if a Pope were to become a heretic in office, he would cease to be Pope, “without any declaration, by operation of law.” Yet, Bowring then states: “However, ecclesiastical law requires that the faithful must presume we have a valid Pope, unless the Church’s highest authority formally declares otherwise.”
So which is it now? Is a declaration necessary or not? He just affirmed that the fall from office would happen “without any declaration” but then says we must accept a heretical Pope until “the Church’s highest authority formally declaresotherwise.” Besides, there’s another pesky little problem: Isn’t the Church’s highest authority precisely the Pope? Hello?
Perhaps Bowring is here adopting John Salza’s position of “the heretical Pope ceases to be Pope immediately but we can’t know this until there is a declaration by the cardinals”. While this may seem like a convenient solution to some, it cannot escape the dilemma, as we show in our definitive and exhaustive refutation of Salza’s position here:
In this essay responding to Salza, you will also find a response to the popular claim that as St. Paul rebuked St. Peter in Galatians 2:11-14, Catholics can “resist” a heretical “Pope”, a prooftext Bowring also uses for a similar argument.
Before returning to the Open Letter, we must briefly respond to two more arguments the theologian uses to make his case that we can “resist” a Pope who appears to be a heretic until the Church’s “highest authority” — left conveniently undefined — declares he has lost his office:
How to Treat a Heretical Pope
The Popes themselves teach it is possible for a Pope to be a heretic. What to do if this happens? Ven. Pius IX answers: “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., even wrote as follows:
“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”
(Kelly Bowring, “Concerning Pope Francis and the False Prophet”, Two Hearts Press Blog, Oct. 1, 2013)
Now this is just rich. Bowring casually ascribes an absolutely outrageous quote to Pope Pius IX, without giving any reference whatsoever. Where is the quote from? In what authentic papal document does it appear? Nowhere. No doubt, the quote is made up. If you search the internet for it, you will see that it can allegedly be found in a letter Pius IX wrote to one “Bishop Brizen.” The problem is, there was no Bishop Brizen. You will search the Catholic Hierarchy web site in vain for such a bishop. He did not exist. Instead, however, there was a diocese of Brixen, whose bishop during the reign of Pius IX was Vincent Gasser, and it is quite possible that he had ongoing correspondence with the Pope. If anyone wishes to claim that such a stupid and erroneous statement regarding “not following” the Pope should have come from Pius IX in a letter to Bp. Gasser, then prove it, don’t just assert it.
It is extremely unscholarly and irresponsible of Dr. Bowring, who has such great academic credentials, to simply lift an unverified quote like that off the internet and use it as papal teaching. And those who claim that this quote is found in the 1904 book L’Infaillibilité du Pape et le Syllabus by Paul Viollet, should be made aware that this book was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in 1906 and put on the Index of Forbidden Books (see Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, April 5, 1906, in Acta Sanctae Sedis 39, pp. 96-97).
As to the quote of St. Robert Bellarmine about “resisting the Pope” that Dr. Bowring offers, it is a very popular quote that is used again and again by non-sedevacantists to justify their resistance to the Vatican II magisterium, but the original context in which it appears shows that St. Robert was not at all endorsing their “recognize-and-resist” position, as the following links show:
- Saint Robert Bellarmine’s Teaching on Resisting a Pope
- Playing Hopscotch with Bellarmine: Reply to Robert Siscoe
It is quite disturbing to see a Novus Ordo theologian with a doctorate from Rome and an official mandate to teach, recycle these old quotes so sloppily in his argumentation.
But let us return to Bowring’s Open Letter to Francis.
Changes in Doctrine? Welcome to the New Religion
After connecting heresy with the loss of papal office, Bowring proceeds to warn Francis that he “cannot change any doctrine in the Catechism”, which is amusing inasmuch as the 1992 Novus Ordo Catechism of the Catholic Church to which the theologian refers is already a manifesto of the changed faith and new religion of Vatican II. So, we would like to say to Dr. Bowring: “You’re a bit too late here. The doctrine has already been changed. If you don’t believe it, try using the Catechism of Trent and the pre-Vatican II papal encyclicals in a Novus Ordo parish catechism course and see how far you will get.”
Next, the author mentions that any substantial change to Catholic doctrine by Francis would by that very fact invalidate his claim to be Pope. This is exactly right, but we don’t know what world Bowring has been living in, because the religion of Vatican II, as we just said, already represents a substantial change of the Catholic religion as it was taught until that point. This is explained very well by Bp. Donald Sanborn in the following sermons, commentaries, and lectures:
- The Modernist Errors of Vatican II (Restoration Radio, 3-Hour Special Edition, Audio)
- The Doctrinal Errors of the Second Vatican Council (Sermon Series, Audio)
- Did Vatican II Teach Heresy on the Church? (Debate with Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Video)
- The False Ecclesiology of Vatican II (Follow-Up Lecture, Video)
Bowring proceeds to tell Francis that “[t]he Church cannot be made to suit the modern world, nor can her doctrine be changed to become inclusive, in order to suit other denominations and religions and fashions”. Yet, this is exactly what the Vatican II Church is: a Modernistic perversion of the Catholic Church, adjusted to the modern world, changed to suit other denominations, religions, and fashions. That’s what John XXIII’s “aggiornamento” (updating) was all about, the opening of the windows to let in
the smoke of Satan “some fresh air”, and why Vatican II published a document “on the Church in the modern world” — Gaudium Et Spes. Yet the true Popes before Vatican II had warned of “unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind” (Leo XIII, Instruction of the S.C. of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, Jan. 27, 1902; qtd. in St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 55).
Excuse me, Dr. Bowring, but where were you all this time? Where were you during the reigns of John Paul II and Benedict XVI? This mess didn’t start with Francis; he’s just more blunt and more open about it all than any of his five predecessors of unhappy memory. What has changed since Benedict is emphasis, frankness (no pun intended), and perhaps the degree or speed of the revolution, but not the revolution itself.
The Open Letter continues, and now it gets really wild. Bowring asks Bergoglio point-blank:
Pope Francis, are you the wolf in shepherd’s clothing that Catholic prophecy has warned us about? Are you the prophesied false prophet of lies and deception who will lead the Church into schism? Are you the anti-John the Baptist and precursor of the antichrist who will rule over the world? Will you soon be at death’s door, as the Book of Revelation prophesizes, only then, just as if a miracle has taken place, seem to have risen from the dead?
(Kelly Bowring, “Open Letter to Pope Francis: Are You About to Redefine Church Doctrine?”, Two Hearts PressBlog, Oct. 1, 2014)
All right, here’s some advice from Novus Ordo Watch, free of charge: The False Prophet mentioned in Holy Scripture (Apoc 16:13), whoever he may be, is probably not going to tell you that he’s the False Prophet. So, it’s probably pointless to ask him. If you’re looking for an Anti-John-the-Baptist, you may want to take a closer look at John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli), the precursor of the Vatican II religion, who got everything prepared — he enabled the reign of his crown prince, Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini), by making him a “cardinal”, something Pope Pius XII had refused to do; he added St. Joseph’s name to the canon of the Mass, thus signaling that even the canon was not untouchable; he established the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, which was the starting point for Ecumenism; and he called and convened the Second Vatican Council, the ground zero of the New Religion, on which the False Church is based. Indeed, with his emphasis on aggiornamento and the New Theology for “modern man”, John XXIII can be said to have made straight paths crooked, in opposition to St. John the Baptist, who came to make crooked paths straight (see Mk 1:2-3). During the council, some even referred to John XXIII as the “Precursor of the Antichrist.”
Let’s not act like Francis is the beginning of Novus Ordo Modernism. He’s just No. 6 in the list of anti-Catholic usurpers of the Chair of St. Peter. John XXIII, long before Francis, was considered the “humble” one, the “Good Pope”, as he came to be known. He received the adulation of the masses, the respect of the world, the admiration of all. And if we consider that it was his election, more than that of Francis, that was riddled with irregularities and bizarre occurrences, as the following links show, it becomes clear that your focus, Dr. Bowring, ought to be on Angelo Roncalli much more than on Jorge Bergoglio — you are 55 years too late!
- Facts, Rumors, Coincidences: The Strange Conclave of 1958
- Explosive Book (PDF): Nikita Roncalli — Counterlife of a Pope by Franco Bellegrandi (1994)
It is also of some interest that, as Bergoglio himself revealed, if he had been elected in the conclave of 2005 rather than that of 2013, he would have chosen the name John XXIV. Indeed he resembles Roncalli in more ways than one.
Bowring then warns that “the false prophet will be masquerading as a friend to Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims”. That description definitely fits Francis, but by no means only Francis. Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI were deeply involved in “interreligious dialogue” and the rejection of proselytism. It was Benedict XVI who prayed at the Blue Mosque in Turkey and declared in a German synagogue that he who meets Christ meets Judaism; it was John Paul II who kissed the Koran in public and, like Benedict and Francis, prayed at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem; it was Paul VI who laid the groundwork for it all through the abominable conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate, Vatican II’s foundational document for interreligious dialogue.
The question of whether the usurpation of the Papal Throne began only with Francis or in fact much farther back, in 1958 with John XXIII, is extremely significant, because the answer to this question determines whether the Vatican II Church is the True Church or a false church. Under Bowring’s hypothesis, the Vatican II Sect is the True Church, from which Francis would be cutting himself off should he defect into heresy (remember, Bowring doesn’t believe Francis has committed any heresy yet). The “faithful” who oppose Francis, then, would still be part of the “True” Church, of which Bergoglio would then no longer be a member.
Bowring specifically says: “Those who separate themselves from the [Vatican II] Church in these times by compromising doctrine, even if following a pope, will no longer be united to the true Church” (ibid.; italics added). Now this is a mouthful. Let’s disentangle this for a moment. Bowring is saying that if Francis compromises doctrine, then…
- he cuts himself off from the Vatican II Church (“True Church” in his eyes)
- the [Novus Ordo] faithful will have to refuse to follow Francis in his compromise of doctrine
- and therefore not “follow the Pope”
- else they will not be part of the “True” Church any longer
This position is a theological disaster. It is impossible to not be part of the true Church by following a true Pope, because where Peter is, there is the Church. He is the bedrock and guarantor of orthodoxy. On the other hand, to refuse to follow the Pope makes one a schismatic. But schismatics are, by definition, not part of the true Church. What Bowring is proposing here is frightening — it is totally backwards. He’s essentially saying that should Francis deny the Faith, then, in order to remain a Catholic, you must become a schismatic, else you become a heretic. Got it? Don’t you just love it when Novus Ordo theologians offer to cut through all the confusion?!
Against this nonsense, let’s recall some refreshingly clear and authoritative teaching from Pope Pius IX:
Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair [of St. Peter]; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7)
If it appears to you that maybe this papal teaching doesn’t exactly fit into Dr. Bowring’s theology, that’s because it doesn’t. Novus Ordos and Neo-Traditionalists are notorious for making things up as they go along, especially when it comes to issues about papal authority, public heresy, loss of office, and sedevacantism.
Dr. Bowring ends his letter with another puzzling statement. He writes: “Pope Francis, if you should still yet decide to allow any change in doctrine, then the Church’s legitimate hierarchy will make the faithful aware of such matters clearly at that time and how we should best respond in good faith.” Okay, so if that’s the case, then what’s all the fuss about? If the Novus Ordo faithful will be made aware and then properly guided by their hierarchs when Francis defects, then what need is there to warn the faithful, and why even bother to write this Open Letter to Bergoglio? Bowring really seems to be undercutting the whole reason why he made his letter public in the first place.
However good and noble Dr. Bowring’s intentions may be, one would have expected a bit more from a man with a doctorate degree in the Novus Ordo version of Sacred Theology from a Pontifical University in Rome. This letter is a real head-scratcher: in terms of the poor understanding of the subject matter the author exhibits (essentially saying “Don’t follow the Pope if you want to remain in the Church!” and then using an unverified quote, attributed to Pope Pius IX, taken from an alleged letter to a non-existent bishop); in terms of the bizarre contrasting of the “bad” Francis with his “good” Novus Ordo predecessors, as though the Vatican II Church itself were not already heretical; and in terms of the failure to recognize that Francis himself has long ago crossed the line into heresy, in words and in actions.
Let’s see what sort of reaction Bowring’s Open Letter gets in Novus Ordo Land in the weeks ahead. Most of his fellow-theologians can’t be pleased.
It seems pretty clear from all that has been happening since the election of Jorge Bergoglio as “Pope Francis” on March 13, 2013, that the Novus Ordo Sect is on the verge of chaos. We have long been saying that there may eventually come a schism, and it seems that this time is approaching very quickly now indeed. Dr. Bowring has just given an informal theological justification for it. His Open Letter makes clear that he is ready to go into schism should Francis cross the line. (More on schism below.)
This is huge, ladies and gentlemen. Until now, a possible schism was only a conjecture on our part, based on the problems we were seeing Francis create. But now we have an accredited Novus Ordo theologian coming out and threatening it — and he already has a following, as you can see from the comments on his blog and on his Facebook page. Will other high-profile individuals join him?
From our monitoring of various blogs and Twitter feeds and other sources, we know that the New Church is a powder keg at this point, waiting to explode. The Synod on the Family currently underway in Rome, together with Socci’s book disputing Francis’ validity, might just be the trigger. And then what?
Those who split from Francis may find a consoling alternative in the “Resignationist” position, which considers Benedict XVI’s resignation invalid and hence him to be Pope still. At the end of the day, Satan does not care which of the two antipopes people accept as the true Pope, because neither of them is. It would truly be a masterstroke of deception to offer people two false alternatives — this way, they would believe themselves to have a choice, and thus to have a way to escape the deception, when in fact either choice ensures that their soul will remain in the dark confines of the spiritual wasteland that is the Vatican II Church. Pick Francis or pick Benedict — either way, you’re choosing a Modernist! A devilishly clever plan!
While it is true that next to Jorge Bergoglio, Joseph Ratzinger doesn’t look so bad, we must recall the warning of Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, who in his 19th-century book against Liberalism, which was endorsed by the Vatican, warned that the most dangerous kind of Liberal is not the extreme but the moderate one, because the moderate seeks to cloak his Liberalism:
We are surrounded by Liberalism in all its shapes and varieties, and it behooves us to be on our guard against its subtle dangers. To lay down special rules by which we may detect it in its shadings and minutiae is neither practical nor necessary. But some general directions may be given. Their application must be left to each one’s proper discretion.
To facilitate the matter, we will divide Liberals, whether persons or writings, into three classes:
1) Extreme Liberals; 2) Moderate Liberals; 3) Quasi Liberals, or those only tainted with Liberalism.
We will essay a description of each of these types. The study of their physiognomy will not be without interest and profit, for in the types we shall find a rule for our guidance in distinguishing Liberalism in its practical details.
The Extreme Liberal is easily recognized; he does not attempt to deny or conceal his perversity. He is the declared enemy of the Pope, of priests, of everything ecclesiastical; a thing has only to be sacred to rouse his implacable wrath; “priestcraft” is his favorite shibboleth. He subscribes to all the most violent and incendiary journals, the more impious and blasphemous, the better to his liking. He is ready to go to the furthermost conclusions of his baneful system. His premise of destruction once laid down, his conclusion of nihilism is a mere matter of logic. He would put it into practical execution with pleasure and exultation if circumstances permitted. He is a revolutionist, socialist, anarchist. He glories in living a life devoid of all religion. He belongs to secret societies, dies in their embrace and is buried by their ritual. He has always defied religion and dies in his defiance.
The moderate Liberal is just as bad as his extreme confrere, but he takes good care not to appear so. Social conventionalities and good manners are everything to him; these points secured, the rest is of little importance. Provided his iniquity is kid-gloved, it finds ready extenuation in his own mind. The niceties of polite society preserved, his Liberalism knows no bounds. He would not burn a convent — that would appear too brutal, but the convent once burned, he has no scruple in seizing upon the outraged property. The cheap impiety of a penny paper grates on his well-bred nerves; the vulgar blasphemy of Ingersoll he deprecates; but let the same impiety and the same blasphemy appear in the columns of a so-called reputable journal, or be couched in the silken phraseology of a Huxley in the name of science, and he applauds the polished sin. It is with him a question of manner, not matter. At the mere mention of the name of a nihilistic or socialistic club, he is thrown into a cold sweat, for there, he declares, the masses are seduced into principles which lead to the destruction of the foundations of society; yet, according to him, there is no danger, no inconvenience in a free lyceum where the same principles are elegantly debated and sympathetically applauded; for who could dare to condemn the scientific discussion of social problems? The moderate Liberal does not detest the Pope; he may even express admiration for his sagacity; he only blames certain pretensions of the Roman Curia and certain exaggerations of Ultramontanism, which do not fall in with the trend of modern thought. He may even like priests, above all, those who are enlightened, that is, such as have caught the twang of modern progress; as for fanatics and reactionaries, he simply avoids or pities them. He may even go to Church and, stranger still, sometimes approach the Sacraments; but his maxim is, in the Church to live as a Christian, outside of the Church to live as the world lives, according to the times in which one is born and not obstinately to swim against the stream. He dies with the priest on one side, his infidel literature on the other and imagines that his Creator will applaud his breadth of mind.
The Catholic simply tainted with Liberalism is generally a good man and sincerely pious; he exhales nevertheless an odor of Liberalism in everything he says, writes, or takes up. Like Madame de Sevigne, he can say, “I am not the rose, but standing by it, I have caught some of its perfume” This courageous man reasons, speaks, and acts as a Liberal without knowing it. His strong point is charity; he is charity itself. What horror fills his soul at the exaggerations of the Ultramontane press! To treat as a liar the man who propagates false ideas is, in the eyes of this singular theologian, to sin against the Holy Spirit. To him the falsifier is simply misguided; it is not the poor fellow’s fault; he has, simple soul, been misled. We ought neither to resist nor combat him; we must strive to attract him by soft words and pretty compliments.
(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 16)
It would seem that Francis’ deception of the masses is painfully obvious to anyone who bothers to look and who doesn’t get paid not to see it. Surely one may be permitted to ask: Who benefits from this? Could the real deception here be two-pronged, like a one-two punch? Doesn’t a turn against Francis by “conservative” Novus Ordo Modernists like Kelly Bowring implicitly legitimize the Vatican II Sect at least up until Francis? Is this not exactly what Bowring argued — not that Francis was contradicting, for example, Pius XI and pre-conciliar teaching, but that he was contradicting John Paul II and Vatican II? Thus, either way, whether you go with Francis or with Bowring, the Vatican II Revolution is legitimized and perpetuated, whether the more moderate and hidden kind (that of Benedict XVI) or the more extreme and open kind (that of Francis). If Francis is too obvious for you, you can go to Benedict — and will still be in the False Church of Vatican II. Clever!
A few clarifying words about schism are still in order. When we say that there may occur a schism in the Novus Ordo Sect, or that Bowring is ready to go into schism, we simply mean a rift between Francis and his followers on the one hand, and Novus Ordos who reject Francis on the other (and possibly accept Benedict instead). It is a descriptive use of the term, much like “schism” is used in “The Great Western Schism” of the 14th/15th century. We are not here concerned with anyone’s culpability or lack thereof, nor with the distinction between the canonical crime of schism and the personal sin of schism. At the same time, we must point out that Bowring’s call to reject Francis by not “following the Pope”, i.e., even while believing him to be the Pope is definitely and clearly a condoning of the mortal sin of schism.
Pope Leo XIII wrote two Apostolic Letters on the subject of the required proper submission of each Catholic to his local bishop and to the Pope. These letters are not widely known, and we suspect that the “Recognize-and-Resist” traditionalists won’t have much of an interest in circulating them. Make sure you read them and ask yourself if you can accept Francis (or Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, or John XXIII) as Popes and yet reject their Modernist teachings, saints, liturgical norms, church laws, etc.:
In connection with this important evidence for the true Catholic position on submission to the Pope and the legitimate hierarchy, we should also remind our readers once more of the fact that whoever believes Paul VI to have been a true Pope of the Catholic Church, must accept as true and pleasing to God the teachings and decisions of the Second Vatican Council, as proved here:
Francis’ “pontificate” is truly threatening to tear the Novus Ordo Sect apart. No papal pretender has polarized his people as much as Jorge Bergoglio, at least not since Paul VI, and today things are quite a bit different from the way they were in the 1960’s and 70’s. It is comically ironic to see that at a point when even Novus Ordos are struggling and wrestling with their “Pope”, the Society of St. Pius X, who found itself unable to come to an agreement with the much more nuanced Modernist Ratzinger, is showing renewed interest in being fully reconciled to the Vatican II Sect and its blunt and open “genuine Modernist” (Bp. Fellay’s words!), Francis.
Again, we have chaos, or are pretty close to it.
Holy Scripture warns us again and again about the deception of the last days, about false teachers, false prophets, and false signs and wonders. Beware of the big ones — like Francis and Benedict XVI — but also of the small ones, like Bowring himself, a very gifted man whose apparent sincerity and pleasant way of speaking, as seen in his video, will make him appeal to many, especially those disillusioned with Francis.
And therein lies the danger. Keep in mind that, as we said towards the beginning, the mere fact that a well-intentioned soul is opposing Francis and his more obvious errors doesn’t mean that this person is giving you the true Catholic Faith — it could simply be a false alternative, as is the case with Kelly Bowring’s proposal of the pre-Francis Vatican II religion as the “solution” to Bergoglio. Sorry, but you cannot save people from the devil by offering them Satan as an alternative.
The great Fr. Frederick Faber, in a sermon preached in 1861, explained in what the great deception of the Antichrist and his False Prophet will consist. Listen closely to these words of Fr. Faber:
We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.
(Fr. Frederick Faber, Sermon for Pentecost Sunday, 1861; qtd. in Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World; underlining added.)
Let this be a warning to all of us. Personal sincerity is simply not enough.
What’s also disturbing about Dr. Bowring is the fact that he puts so much emphasis on alleged apparitions and revelations — and releases them into the wild, into the vulnerable and already-confused public.
We cannot emphasize this enough: Stay away from unapproved “apparitions” and “revelations”! They are dangerous! Holy Mother Church has not approved them (true, she is currently in eclipse, but the fact remains she has not sanctioned them), and our position on Francis, Vatican II, etc., cannot be based upon a private revelation or an alleged apparition anyway, even if the apparition is authentic and approved by the Church.
Recently an unidentified woman calling herself “Maria Divine Mercy” has been spreading bogus “revelations” she allegedly receives from Our Lord. Many people find them credible because they point out that Francis is not a valid Pope. However, never forget that just because you find certain things in an alleged prophecy or apparition to be factually correct, doesn’t mean that the apparition is authentic, that it is from God. The most dangerous lies are those that contain a lot of truth, because that is what gives them credibility.
The bottom line is: Maria Divine Mercy has not been approved by the Church, so you have no business reading or spreading the “messages”. Seeking after these special “revelations” is a sure way to be misled! Remember these words of our Blessed Lord: “And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; lo, he is here: do not believe. For there will rise up false Christs and false prophets, and they shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect” (Mk 13:21-22). These deceptions will be so great and so appealing that even many goodsouls will be misled, not just the bad, as Fr. Faber warned.
Even the true and approved apparitions, like LaSalette and Fatima, those that have the Church’s full endorsement and approbation, cannot be the basis for our position on who the Pope is, what is happening to the Church, etc. — they merely provide helpful support, encouragement, and warnings. They may point us in a certain direction, emphasize a certain important aspect, etc., but they can never be the foundation, the decisive factor, in what we believe about the Catholic Church and the Modernist Sect.
In other words, do not reject Francis and the Vatican II Sect as illegitimate because of this or that apparition, authentic or not — instead, reject them because the Catholic Faith compels you to do so, because it is the only possible conclusion that does not do damage to the Faith or to the required submission Catholics owe to the Church and to the Pope. Again, our Blessed Lord warned us that many would be deceived by false “spiritual” messages and revelations: “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” (Mt 24:11-13).
Persevere then, always remaining faithful to the Deposit of Faith, which was taught by all true Popes faithfully and without any error, until the Church went into eclipse after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
On the topic of private revelations, can you help me understand the issue with Divine Mercy (from Faustina’s diary)? I heard yesterday that it is the fastest growing lay movement – I assume this means the embrace of the devotion – in the history of the “Church.” Given that the “Church” has sanctioned this, can you help explain why it is to be resisted?
Sure… Here you go: http://novusordowatch.org/2013/10/divine-mercy-condemned/