“Saint” Teresa of Calcutta…

The “Canonization” of the Apostate Mother Teresa — Another Impossibility for a True Pope


Mother Teresa worshipping Buddha — SOURCE/DETAILS HERE

Today (Sep. 4, 2016) was the big day: “Pope” Francis declared the Albanian nun Anjeze Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (1910-97), commonly known as Mother Teresa of Calcutta, a “saint”. Not that we needed any more proof, but this is yet another definitive piece of evidence that Jorge Bergoglio’s claim to being the Pope of the Catholic Church is false. He is not in fact a valid Pope, and this proves it because canonizations of saints are infallible acts, and it is not possible that Mother Teresa, who was a public apostate, could be a saint in the Catholic Church. This post will demonstrate exactly this.

First, let’s look at the news coverage:

News Links on the “Canonization”

Video: The Moment of “Canonization”

The full video of the entire 2.5-hour “canonization” ceremony can be found at this link.

The formula of canonization, if uttered by a true Pope, meets the criteria for infallibility, as is explained further below. To declare Mother Teresa a “saint”, Antipope Francis read the following in Latin:

For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed Teresa of Calcutta be [a] saint and we enroll her among the saints, decreeing that she is to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Holy Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.


Notice that not only is this a declaration that Teresa of Calcutta is a saint but also that “she is to be venerated as such by the whole Church”. This is a universal command — it is not merely a suggestion, or the expression of a desire, but a command, one that is directed to the entire Church.

This brings us to the next point: It is certain that the Catholic Church is infallible in her canonization of saints. Before we prove this, however, let us have a look at the evidence against Mother Teresa, the evidence that establishes that she was not a Catholic and not holy, and therefore could not possibly be a Catholic saint, i.e. a role model for and to be venerated by Catholics.

The Problems with Mother Teresa

A great many people reading this post will be shocked to hear that anyone could think that Mother Teresa is not a saint. Didn’t she do heroic humanitarian works for the better part of her life? Didn’t she live in extreme poverty and assist so many afflicted people to alleviate their sufferings? Didn’t she clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, etc.? Yes, she did all these things. There is no question that on a natural level, her works for the suffering were most admirable. The problem is the supernatural part: She did not preach but denied and contradicted the Gospel. Her works of charity had no supernatural value and were very often dangerous to souls. Our earthly human life is not an end in itself but the means to attain the eternal Beatific Vision in Heaven. Attending to the needs of the soul is much more important than attending to the needs of the body: “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed” (Jn 6:27; cf. Mt 10:28; Lk 12:31).

This is not to say that the needs of the body should be ignored or that we need not practice the corporal works of mercy. Holy Scripture is clear that we must help alleviate our neighbors’ sufferings, whether temporal or spiritual (see Job 19:21; Mt 25:31-46; Lk 10:30-37; Jas 1:27). How, then, did Mother Teresa deny and contradict the Gospel? She did so by by encouraging and confirming the Pagans she was assisting in their false religions, by not genuinely seeking their conversion to the true Faith, and by openly committing acts of idolatry and apostasy. She replaced the one true Catholic religion with a humanist-indifferentist “I love all religions” creed, making a mockery of the Great Commission given by our Blessed Lord, which He delivered also with a stern warning: “And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk 16:15-16).

The greatest acts of natural virtue are of no avail unto salvation for an idolater and indifferentist like Mother Teresa: “But without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6); “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law” (Rom 3:28).

But now let’s have a look at the evidence that Mother Teresa was indeed a public apostate, an idolater, and an indifferentist in religious matters:

The Evidence Against Mother Teresa



Catholicism vs. Mother Teresa

In contrast to what Mother Teresa believed and taught, especially her infamous declaration that she loves all religions, Catholic truth is quite different:

It is impious to say, “I respect every religion.” This is as much as to say: I respect the devil as much as God, vice as much as virtue, falsehood as much as truth, dishonesty as much as honesty, Hell as much as Heaven.

(Fr. Michael Müller, C.Ss.R., The Church and Her Enemies)

This is really not difficult to grasp, although it certainly is unpopular and politically incorrect. While we must respect people who are unfortunately caught up in false religions, we can never respect those false religions themselves. This is ancient Christian teaching, as shown in Michael O’Halloran’s informative survey of Tradition on this question:

Thus, all the natural good Mother Teresa did could not avail her unto salvation, because of her rejection of the True Faith in favor of indifferentism, idolatry, naturalism, and syncretism. As we already saw, the Christian truth is simply that the True Faith is essential for salvation, and all works of charity can only be spiritually fruitful and merit Heaven if they are performed inside the Roman Catholic Church, either as a member or (in the case of the invincibly ignorant) as someone joined to her through faith, hope, and charity (perfect contrition), because outside this Church, no one can attain eternal salvation.

Here are some more examples of Catholic teaching that underscore these points:

  • “[This council] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence, Decree Cantate DominoDenz. 714)
  • “…merely naturally good acts are only a counterfeit of virtue since they are neither permanent nor sufficient for salvation.” (Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Editae Saepe, n. 28)
  • “…since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith.” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 9)
  • ”Let no Christian therefore … embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 30)
  • “It must not be forgotten that the works of mercy demand more than a humanitarian basis if they are to serve as instruments in bringing about our eternal salvation. The proper motive is indispensable and this must be one drawn from the supernatural order.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Mercy, Corporal and Spiritual Works of”)
  • “And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” (1 Cor 13:3)
  • “But without faith it is impossible to please God.” (Heb 11:6)
  • “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.” (2 John 1:9-10)
  • “And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him.” (Luke 12:4-5)

Thus, the facts speak for themselves. Tragically, Mother Teresa of Calcutta was not only not a Catholic saint, she was not a Catholic at all but instead an apostate from the Faith.

Not surprisingly, Antipopes Benedict XVI and Francis have nonetheless referred to Mother Teresa as a “saint” and “woman of faith”, respectively, even in their official documents:

  • Benedict XVI, Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, n. 40: “The figures of saints such as Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, John of God, Camillus of Lellis, Vincent de Paul, Louise de Marillac, Giuseppe B. Cottolengo, John Bosco, Luigi Orione, Teresa of Calcutta to name but a few — stand out as lasting models of social charity for all people of good will.”
  • Francis, Encyclical Lumen Fidei, n. 57: “How many men and women of faith have found mediators of light in those who suffer! So it was with Saint Francis of Assisi and the leper, or with Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta and her poor.”

Now that she is officially “canonized”, there is a “Saint Teresa of Calcutta” in the Novus Ordo Sect. This proves that the Novus Ordo Sect is not the Catholic Church, for in declaring people saints, the Catholic Church is infallible, and thus no true Pope would have been able to declare Mother Teresa a saint.

The Infallibility of Canonizations in the Catholic Church

Almighty God protected His true Church from the possibility of erring in the canonization of saints, because to be in error about who is and isn’t a model of the Faith, deserving of veneration, and able to intercede for us in Heaven would be disastrous to souls and undermine the very purpose for which the Church was established, which is to lead people to Heaven.

The pre-Vatican II Jesuit theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri explains the Church’s teaching on the infallibility of canonizations as follows:

…the end of the infallible Magisterium demands those things that are necessary in order to direct the faithful without error to salvation through the correct worship [=veneration] and imitation of the examples of Christian virtues. But for such a purpose infallibility concerning decrees on the Canonization of Saints is necessary.

[This] is certain, because by the solemn decrees of the Canonization of Saints the Church not only tolerates and permits, but also commends and instructs the whole flock of the faithful that certain definite Saints whom it canonizes are to be honored, and it proposes them as examples of virtue who are worthy of imitation. But the mere possibility of error in such a solemn declaration would take away all confidence from the faithful and fundamentally would destroy the whole cult of the Saints; because [then] it could happen that the Church would solemnly propose to all and mandate that condemned and evil men perpetually should be honored. Therefore, in order to direct the faithful without error to salvation through correct worship and imitation of the examples of Christian virtues, infallibility is necessary concerning the solemn decrees of the Canonization of Saints.

(Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker [original Latin published by BAC, 1955; English published by Keep the Faith, 2015], n. 724; underlining added; italics removed.)

This is the Catholic teaching, to deny which would be “temerarious, bringing scandal to the whole Church, … smacking of heresy … affirming an erroneous proposition”, in the words of Pope Benedict XIV (see Salaverri, n. 726; italics removed).

It is important to distinguish here the process of canonization that is used to ascertain and test whether a particular candidate is indeed a saint, from the actual declaration of canonization itself. What is infallible is the declaration, not the process. The process is merely a human tool used by the Pope and the Church to help bring clarity to a matter to be defined. But just as with dogmatic ex cathedra definitions, so too in canonizations it is not the process that enjoys infallibility but the declaration. Therefore, those have no leg to stand on who try to get around the infallibility of canonizations on the grounds that “they changed the process.” It simply doesn’t matter.

As of late, some have attempted to argue that canonizations are infallible only if the Pope believes that they are. Just in time for the disastrous Mother Teresa “canonization”, SSPX Superior Bp. Bernard Fellay recently made the stunning claim that a “cardinal” in the Vatican had told him that “Pope” Francis had stated privately that he did not believe his canonizations to be infallible. Like clockwork, the neo-traditionalist Remnant picked this up and, using an obscure assertion found in the Catholic Encyclopedia allegedly based on the theologian Christian Pesch, reasoned that this was their desperately-needed “way out” of the problematic “canonizations” of John Paul II, John XXIII, and now Mother Teresa by the same “Pope” Francis. Perfect timing, huh?

Unfortunately, however, there are a few problems with this: (1) It makes no sense; (2) it conflicts with Catholic teaching; (3) Francis doesn’t believe a whole lot of things that he ought to believe; (4) The Remnant doesn’t care what Francis says or believes at other times, so why now?

Let’s elaborate a bit.

First, it makes no sense. It makes no sense to say that God protects the Church from the great evil of bogus canonizations only whenever the Pope who canonizes happens to secretly believe that a particular canonization is infallible — and the only way you would even know that is if you subscribe to The Remnant, or if Bp. Fellay happens to tell you that he talked to a “cardinal” who said Francis told him that. No, something doesn’t make sense here.

Second, it conflicts with Catholic teaching. As we saw above, the Church is infallible whenever the Pope canonizes someone a saint. There is nothing in there about the infallibility being dependent on what the Pope himself may personally, secretly believe about this particular canonization on that particular day. True, The Remnant’s blogger Peter Crenshaw quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia, but let’s look at this a bit more. The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia is as follows: “…all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552)” (s.v. “Beatification and Canonization”; italics added). Notice that although Pesch’s Praelectiones Dogmaticae is referenced, it is not actually quoted. As this work is very hard to obtain, we have not been able to verify the citation — and neither has The Remnant, incidentally. True to their reckless pseudo-theological method, they simply throw stuff out there for the world to consume, right or wrong. As long as it is helpful to their recognize-and-resist position, they do not seem to care whether what they are publishing is actually consonant with sound Catholic doctrine or not. It is agenda-driven propaganda, not Catholic theology. Of course, for an issue of such importance, you would think that they would decide to do a bit more than just consult a single source, especially if that source is the Catholic Encyclopedia to boot. It’s not wrong to use the Catholic Encyclopedia, of course, but it should never be used as the sole source for any issue of great importance, because it is simply not sufficient and not sufficiently reliable.

In any case, Crenshaw’s interpretation of the quoted words “on such occasions the popes believe and assert” is by no means the only possible one. He is clearly assuming that if one of the two conditions — believe or assert — is lacking, then the canonization in question is not infallible. But this is only an assumption. Without being able to check the Pesch reference, it seems obvious, however, that the correct meaning is that it is precisely by pronouncing the papal declaration — the formula for canonization — that the Pope is asserting his belief in the infallibility of the canonization on that very occasion. After all, he invokes the authority of our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and his very own to establish a law for the entire Church, for “the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life”, and he is doing it specifically and only “on such occasions”. Does anyone really think that this can be neutralized by some bishop who talked to a cardinal who talked to the Pope privately who supposedly told him he doesn’t believe it’s infallible? What is this — the beta version of Gnosticism?

Third, we know that Francis doesn’t believe a number of things he has an obligation to believe if he claims to be a Catholic. In fact, he probably doesn’t believe ex cathedra definitions are infallible, either — and the fact that he has opened papal infallibility up for discussion again at Hans Kung’s request suggests as much. This Crenshaw himself brings up in his post. So, really, all this is even more evidence against the position of the Remnant, not for it.

Fourth, The Remnant doesn’t give a hoot about what Francis believes, says, or teaches at any other time, so why all of a sudden is it significant in this case? The answer it simple: Because it “floats their boat”. It works for them. It helps their position (or so they think). And this is exactly how recognize-and-resist theology works: You start with the desired conclusion and then try to find evidence to support it. Whatever support can be found is considered acceptable evidence; whatever contradicts it has to be dismissed. This is the exact opposite of the positive-scholastic Catholic theological method, where you start with theological data and principles and then reason to their necessary or possible conclusions.

Final Thoughts

We have seen that the bogus canonization of Mother Teresa exposes Francis as the charlatan that he is. The Catholic doctrine of the Papacy has consequences, and one of them is that a true Pope cannot proclaim someone like Mother Teresa of Calcutta to be a saint. Alas, we fear that this too will not matter to the pundits in the recognize-and-resist camp, for they have long determined that saying someone is Pope has no consequences, at least not whenever these consequences would refute their position.

For those who are still shocked that anyone could believe Mother Teresa is not a saint when “she was so good” on the outside, we would like to remind them of the words of Fr. Frederick Faber regarding the deception of the Antichrist:

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 [text here])

No doubt, “Saint” Mother Teresa is one of those “lying wonders” that the Vatican II Sect has been offering to its adherents. Blinded by her intense humanitarianism, people overlook or consider as unimportant the false gospel of indifferentism she preached and the public acts of apostasy she committed.

“Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light”, St. Paul cautioned us (2 Cor 11:14). Likewise, our Blessed Lord warned: “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect” (Mt 24:24). We must abandon the silly idea that the Antichrist and his forerunners will appear as evil people. No, they will not. If they did, no one would be deceived! The Antichrist himself, when he comes, will on the outside appear to be a wonderful man, one of great virtue and charity. He will seem kind and gentle, and he will ostensibly oppose abortion. And because practically the whole world by then (as even now, for the most part) will think that the Gospel is nothing but being pro-Life and running a soup kitchen, they will not notice or care that the true Gospel is being not just denied but attacked by him: “And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world” (1 Jn 4:3). Just from this description alone, we can see that Francis himself is definitely a forerunner of the Antichrist, for he most certainly dissolves the true Gospel, as we have shown on this blog again and again. In fact, as one astute (but non-sedevacantist!) blogger remarked: “If Pope Francis is not the Antichrist, he’ll do until one comes along”. Indeed.

Alas, we live in a world in which every silly purported “Eucharistic miracle” in the Novus Ordo makes people go nuts and question the sedevacantist position. Did our dear Lord not warn of precisely this when He said: “Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him” (Mt 24:23)? What did people think those false “signs and wonders” would consist of? The face of Rush Limbaugh on a piece of toast?

Antichrist, when he comes, will have it very easy. He will be able to spout one blasphemy and heresy after another — as long as he kisses babies and caresses people in wheelchairs, the world will love him. And The Remnant and Bishop Fellay will “recognize and resist”. It really is pathetic.

Wake up, people. See what God is showing you; listen to what He is telling you. Here is yet another proof that the Vatican II Sect is a fraud, that Francis is a charlatan. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Mt 11:15). What more proof will you demand of God? Do not be deceived — if you reject the graces He sends by disregarding what is clearly sufficient proof of the truth, do not assume that God will just continue to send more and greater graces indefinitely, until you finally condescend to accept them. As Abraham said to Dives in the parable of Dives and Lazarus: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead” (Lk 16:31).

Share this content now:

5 Responses to “The “Canonization” of the Apostate Mother Teresa”

  1. johnmoore4

    I downloaded the pdf of Mr. Zima’s book when you had it up. I want to buy the book and be fair to the author, but I hit the link only to find the book is not available. Mortal sin to go ahead and read the pdf? Or should I delete? Is there a way to pay Mr. Zima for the download? Not a prank question.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.