A real Pope speaks…

Pope Pius XII destroys Amoris Laetitia and Francis’ False-Mercy Gospel

What a breath of fresh air it is to hear a true Pope speak, a genuine Vicar of Christ, through whom is heard the voice of St. Peter. Clarity reigns, confusion and doubt are put aside, and orthodoxy is affirmed. And it is no wonder, for every true Pope is a true shepherd of the flock of Christ: “…the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers” (Jn 10:4-5).

The “voice of strangers”, by contrast, is heard in the insufferable drivel put out by the Vatican II antipopes — all six of them, by the way, not just Francis –, and this is becoming more and more evident with every day that passes.

On May 15, the semi-traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli published five magnificent magisterial contributions of Pope Pius XII (1939-58) condemning the then-emerging “new morality”, more commonly known today as “situation ethics”, which is essentially a morality that “is not based in effect on universal moral laws … but on the real and concrete conditions or circumstances in which men must act, and according to which the conscience of the individual must judge and choose” (Pius XII, Address Soyez Les Bienvenues).

These five documents consist of four papal speeches and one instruction of the Holy Office, and we are happy to reproduce them on this web site. They are of tremendous value and provide a direct refutation of the doctrine of the impostor “Pope” Francis (Mr. Jorge Bergoglio), whose false-mercy gospel, especially as expressed in his controversial exhortation Amoris Laetitia, puts forth a de facto situation ethics, any protestations to the contrary notwithstanding (cf. his Address to Jesuits of Oct. 24, 2016, in which he speciously warns of “falling into situationalism”).

The five documents in question are the following:

You can read each document in full by clicking on its link.

There is nothing left of the Bergoglian drivel about “accompaniment”, “discernment”, or (his distorted concept of) “mercy” after Pius XII is done with him.

Let’s go ahead now and examine some very specific examples of where Francis’ false teaching is clearly condemned by Pope Pius XII.

ANTIPOPE FRANCIS: “And so they were imprisoned in this rationalistic mentality, which did not end with them. Because in the history of the Church – although often the Church Herself has condemned rationalism, illuminism – later it often happened that it fell into a theology of ‘yes, you can, no you can’t; up to this point, thus far.’ And it forgot the strength, the liberty of the Spirit, this rebirth of the Spirit that gives you liberty, the frankness of preaching, the proclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord.” (Homily of Apr. 24, 2017)

POPE PIUS XII: “The ‘new morality’ affirms that the Church, instead of fostering the law of human liberty and of love, and of demanding of you that dynamics which is worthy of the moral life, instead bases itself almost exclusively and with excessive rigidity, on the firmness and the intransigence of Christian moral laws, frequently resorting to the terms ‘you are obliged’, ‘it is not licit’, which has too much of an air of a degrading pedantry.” (Radio Message La Famiglia of Mar. 23, 1952)

ANTIPOPE FRANCIS: “There also exists a constant tension between ideas and realities…. So a third principle comes into play: realities are greater than ideas. This calls for rejecting the various means of masking reality: angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, empty rhetoric, objectives more ideal than real, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems bereft of kindness, intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom” (Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, n. 231). / “Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal” (Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, n. 303).

POPE PIUS XII: “The distinctive mark of this morality is that it is not based in effect on universal moral laws, such as, for example, the Ten Commandments, but on the real and concrete conditions or circumstances in which men must act, and according to which the conscience of the individual must judge and choose. Such a state of things is unique, and is applicable only once for every human action. That is why the decision of conscience, as the advocates of this ethic assert, cannot be commanded by ideas, principles and universal laws…. Such judgments of conscience, howsoever contrary they may seem at first sight to divine precepts, would be valid before God, because, they say, in the eyes of God a seriously formed conscience takes precedence over ‘precept’ and ‘law.'” (Address Soyez les Bienvenues of Apr. 18, 1952)

ANTIPOPE FRANCIS: “This way of living attached to the laws, distanced them [=the Pharisees] from love and from justice. They followed the laws and they neglected justice. They followed the laws and they neglected love. They were the models. And for these people Jesus had only one word (to describe them): hypocrites.” (Homily of Oct. 31, 2014)

POPE PIUS XII: “This personal view of things spares man the necessity of having to ask himself, at every instant, whether the decision to be taken corresponds with the paragraphs of the law or to the canons of abstract standards and rules. It preserves man from the hypocrisy of pharisaical fidelity to laws; it preserves him both from pathological scruples as well at from the flippancy or lack of conscience, because it puts the responsibility before God on the Christian personally. Thus speak those who preach the ‘new morality.'” (Address Soyez les Bienvenues of Apr. 18, 1952)

ANTIPOPE FRANCIS: “The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity [!], generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins…. The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place ‘by adequately distinguishing’, with an approach which ‘carefully discerns situations’. We know that no ‘easy recipes’ exist” (Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, n. 298). / “Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us” (Homily of June 9, 2016).

POPE PIUS XII: “It will be objected, however, that such abstinence [for people in an adulterous union] is impossible, that heroism such as this is not feasible. At the present time, you can hear and read of this objection everywhere, even from those who, because of their duty and authority, should be of quite a different mind. The following argument is brought forward as proof: No one is obliged to do the impossible and no reasonable legislator is presumed to wish by his law to bind persons to do the impossible. But for married people to abstain for a long time is impossible. Therefore they are not bound to abstain: divine law cannot mean that. In such manner of argument, a false conclusion is reached from premises which are only partially true. To be convinced of this, one has simply to reverse the terms of the argument: God does not oblige us to do the impossible. But God obliges married people to abstain if their union cannot be accomplished according to the rules of nature. Therefore, in such cases, abstinence is possible.” (Address Vegliare con Sollecitudine of Oct. 29, 1951; cf. Denz. 804)

ANTIPOPE FRANCIS: “In education we are used to dealing with black and white formulas, but not with the grey areas of life. And what matters is life, not formulas. We must grow in discernment. The logic of black and white can lead to abstract casuistry. Discernment, meanwhile, means moving forward through the grey of life according to the will of God. And the will of God is to be sought according to the true doctrine of the Gospel and not in the rigidity of an abstract doctrine.” (Q&A with Male Religious on Nov. 25, 2016)

POPE PIUS XII: “This personal view of things spares man the necessity of having to ask himself, at every instant, whether the decision to be taken corresponds with the paragraphs of the law or to the canons of abstract standards and rules. It preserves man from the hypocrisy of pharisaical fidelity to laws; it preserves him both from pathological scruples as well at from the flippancy or lack of conscience, because it puts the responsibility before God on the Christian personally. Thus speak those who preach the ‘new morality'” (Address Soyez les Bienvenues of Apr. 18, 1952). / “The authors who follow this system [of situation ethics] hold that the decisive and ultimate norm of conduct is not the objective right order, determined by the law of nature and known with certainty from that law, but a certain intimate judgment and light of the mind of each individual, by means of which, in the concrete situation in which he is placed, he learns what he ought to do” (Holy Office Instruction Contra Doctrinam of Feb. 2, 1956).

These examples should suffice to make our point, although they could be multiplied pretty much ad infinitum. While Francis may try, now and again, to give plausible deniability to his false ethics by “warning of situationalism” or by saying that our consciences must be formed “in light of the Gospel”, these are just instances of empty rhetoric meant to help the people swallow his spiritual poison. They allow Francis to “confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed”, as Pope Pius VI once described a favorite tactic of heretics (see Bull Auctorem Fidei, introd.).

It is amply clear that the Gospel most certainly does not back up Francis’ false morality. “He whom thou now hast, is not thy husband”, our Blessed Lord told the adulterous Samaritan woman (Jn 4:18) without much “tenderness”. It was simply the blunt truth about the “concrete situation” she found herself in, and she needed to hear it for the sake of her own soul. There was nothing to “discern”.

Similarly, the words spoken by St. John the Baptist as he “accompanied” the adulterous King Herod were: “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (Mk 6:18). He did not state that it was “less than ideal” for the king to be in adultery with his sister-in-law, because it was not less than ideal. It was wrong.

For a more in-depth critique of Francis’ (im)moral theology as found in Amoris Laetitia, we suggest you listen to our special-edition TRADCAST 013. You can access it here, free of charge.

We very much commend the people at Rorate Caeli for disseminating these five beautiful and very timely documents of His Holiness, Pope Pius XII. We do wonder, however, how it is that Rorate Caeli and their fellow semi-traditionalists do not realize the conundrum this puts them in.

After all, they believe that Francis is as true of a Pope as Pius XII was, yet they seem to take for granted that because Pius XII condemned the Bergoglian ethics, therefore Pius XII is right and Francis is wrong. On what, however, do they base this assumption? Why do they automatically conclude — and surely expect their readers to do the same — that Francis is refuted by Pius XII? Why could one not conclude, if one believes that Francis is a true Pope, that Francis is correcting Pius XII? If Francis can be wrong on such a serious matter, why couldn’t Pius XII have been?

Those who want to argue that Pius XII trumps Francis because Pius came earlier and, in any case, a future Pope will annul Francis’ teaching, should understand that Pope Leo XIII dismissed such argumentation as impermissible and as betraying a flawed understanding of the Papacy:

[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua)

Leo XIII went on to speak about the specific duties of Catholic journalists, which in our day could probably be extended also to bloggers, at least inasmuch as they do the work of journalists:

The task pertaining to them [=journalists] in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend.

(Leo XIII, Epistola Tua; underlining and italics added.)

We note with great interest that Rorate Caeli calls situation ethics a “heresy”, thus implicitly accusing “Pope” Francis of heresy. That a lack of pertinacity should keep Francis from being a genuine heretic can be ruled out, since he is on record stating that he remembers the controversy about situation ethics at the time he was a seminarian, scornfully shrugging off the threat as a “bogeyman” (see Address to Jesuits of Oct. 24, 2016, p. 3).

Another interesting point of note is that Rorate refers to the five documents of Pius XII they have made available, as “magisterial”. This is correct, of course, but we do wonder how many people in the semi-traditionalist recognize-and-resist camp would call three papal speeches and a radio message “magisterial” if the author were not Pius XII but Francis. Perhaps the folks at Rorate would, but most semi-trads bend over backwards to point out how Francis’ teaching, short of appearing in an encyclical, isn’t part of the Magisterium.

We recently produced a mini podcast on Pius XII’s condemnation of Francis’ false morality. You can listen to it here:

Lest there be any confusion about what we’re saying: Of course Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of situation ethics trumps Francis’ false ethics. But that’s because Pius XII was a true Pope and Francis is a fake one. Since Rorate and the other semi-trads continue to try to square the circle by insisting that Francis is nevertheless a true Pope, their position becomes a travesty of Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Image sources: composite with elements from photopin.com (Catholic Church of England and Wales) and Wikimedia Commons
Licenses: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 and public domain

Share this content now:

17 Responses to “Pope Pius XII destroys Amoris Laetitia and Francis’ False-Mercy Gospel”

  1. Sonia

    Private judgement…Protestantism pays lipservice to lawfulness, but gets ‘real’ when it comes to ‘situations’ where folks prefer to treat God as sand-like rather than rock-like. The operation of error/iniquity/lawlessness is the ‘way’ in a Novus Ordo anti-Catholic age. Catholic Truth is hated (or at the very least believed to be ‘sublated’) by the lies of the New Order. Novus Ordo/Protestantism revels in the scandal of the Nopes and cringes at the Reality of true Vicars of Christ.

  2. Novus Ordo Watch

    There are a few posts (some with audio/video) I would like to recommend to you that will help you understand things further:

    The Papacy and the Passion of the Church

    Have the Gates of Hell prevailed?

    The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope

    Now What?

  3. poapratensis

    It is important to realize the Pope is judged by no man, cannot be deposed by any number of men, but God, who is the true head of the Church can, and does, automatically, because the sins of heresy, schism, and apostasy sever one’s membership in the church. What is not a member cannot be the head.

  4. Alexander Krawczyk

    To add to what others have mentioned, one must have valid Holy Orders before assuming the papacy. Correct me if wrong NovusOrdoWatch, but Bergoglio has neither a true priesthood nor episcopal consecration.

    • Tom A.

      I think it is proper to say Bergolio’s Orders are doubtful vs invalid. I believe only a true Pope can pronounce them invalid. The past teaching of the Church cause grave doubt as to the invalidity of V2 sacraments but it is not for anyone but a true Pope to pronounce them invalid. Either way however, we should avoid them due to the doubt.

      • poapratensis

        Tom A. it is my understanding that you are correct. In fact, the only way absloute certitude can be arrived at in the present time is when a true Pope teaches (and this would include through an ecumenical council), as it is the only post-revelatory teaching divinely protected. However, it is important to recognize that absolute certitude is not needed to act, only moral certitude is, which has a much lower, but still high, threshold.

        I think most traditionalists (sedeplenists who “resist” or “sift”) go awry demanding absolute certitude before they are willing to admit the sedevacantist hypothesis, and in so doing, they basically mangle Catholic teaching on the Papacy. Also, we are instructed by Our Lord to flee from false shepherds. If Bergoglio isn’t a false shepherd, who is? And I ask the sedeplensits, how is it that the Pope can be a false shepherd? This would make Christ a negligent liar, which is impossible.

        Yet I also think some sedevacatists go awry in demanding assent to some version of sedevacantist hypothesis (usually whatever their favorite is) when we all know that it is only a hypothesis that lacks a level of certitude sufficient to bind. It certainly is enough to act, and I do, but I would never say that a sedeplenist is not Catholic, should not take communion, etc.

        Likewise, I hold bishops consecrated in the New Rite to be doubtful as well as the priests ordained by them, but I would never say I know that they are not bishops/priests, or go about putting air quotes or deleting their honorifics as the editor of NOW does and some sedevacantists do. In the history of the church, the threshold for validity has been quite low at times. But, it’s better safe than sorry as I look at it, and it’s the reason why I seek out priests that are certainly valid weather they be sedeplenist or sedevacantist. A priest’s opinion on the hypothesis doesn’t affect the validity of his priesthood as far as I know.

        • Tom A.

          Well said, many good faithful traditonal minded Catholics refuse to even consider sedevacantism because they fail to make a distinction between moral and absolute certitude. Every day the NO church seems to reinforce my doubt and it has led me to act. I do have a question for you though, do you think its proper or disrespectful to put honorifics of modernists in quotation marks? This doesnt delete the honorific but it does draw attention to the matter.

          • poapratensis

            I don’t think it is disrespectful per se, since I think it is most likely true, but I do think it can be needlessly antagonistic and offensive. I feel the matter is best expressed with the necessary distinctions regarding certitude, too.

  5. Dum Spiro Spero

    Pius XII commits a serious omission in Humani Generis concerning the corporal evolution.
    The Council of Lateran (1215, also recorded in Vatican I) states dogmatically:
    “…creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal . . . by his own omnipotent power at once (simul) from the beginning of time created each (utramque) creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body”
    But Humani Generis states:
    “For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful…”
    This will lead to the rise of theistic evolution that destroyed faith in so many people.

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      We can rest assured that the Holy Father and his theological advisers understood the Fourth Lateran Council quite well and took its teaching into consideration when stating what the teaching authority of the Church does or does not forbid.

      • Dum Spiro Spero

        The same argument of authority use those who defend the CVII.
        Also Michael Davis when defending the validity of the Novus Ordo.

          • Dum Spiro Spero

            I do not point to an error, but omission that gave rise to the teaching of theistic evolution.
            Why not then accept the liturgical changes promoted by Bugnini in Pius XII’s time, but with his signature?

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            But I *do* accept the liturgical changes of Pope Pius XII. There are some sedevacantists who do not, although they too (must) agree that the changes were at least binding back in the late 1950s. The question is usually whether they are still binding today or whether they have become harmful by circumstance. And that’s a question we don’t get into here because this web site is for exposing the Novus Ordo Sect and not for discussing intra-sedevacantist controversies.

            All Pope Pius XII really did in Humani Generis was say, “Hey guys, you can discuss evolution both in theology and in natural science, but you must do it within the parameters established by the Church and it must be a sincere discussion.” You may say that this was imprudent but to my knowledge the Church wanted to avoid another Galileo-like controversy.

          • Dum Spiro Spero

            Galieleo was the first famous modernist. He interpreted Scripture differently than the Fathers. That is why Bellarmin’s correction in the trial. Galileo separated theology from science. There begins the claim of the autonomy of man before God. Then comes liberalism, modernism, progressism.
            But the scientific data (not flat land, but of geocentrism) confirm the thesis of Bellarmin (of the Church).
            Vatican I anathematises those who say: that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands (Faith and reason – canon 3).

Leave a Reply

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