Merciful and humble? Far from it!

The Dictator Pope:
Explosive New Book takes Inside Look at Francis

An explosive new book concerning the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio has appeared in English: The Dictator Pope, which promises “[t]he inside story of the most tyrannical and unprincipled papacy of modern times.”

The official book description summarizes the contents thus [updated 19-MAR-2018 for second edition]:

Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina was elected pope in 2013 as a liberal and a reformer. In fact, he was neither—except by coincidence. Though he was not well-known within the College of Cardinals that elected him, close observers in his native land already recognized him to be a manipulative politician, skilled at self-promotion, and a disciple of the populist dictator Juan Perón.

Behind the mask of a genial man of the people is a pope who cares shockingly little about theology or the liturgy but is obsessed with his own power. Allying himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican, Francis rules by fear. He has obstructed or reversed the very reforms that were expected of him and attempted to alter Catholic teaching by subterfuge. In The Dictator Pope you will learn:

Why the head of Francis’s own religious order thought he should not be made a bishop

Why Francis may have diverted Church funds to support Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign

How true Church reformers have been punished by the Pope and his allies

How Francis himself has mused that he might be the cause of a schism in the Church

Why clerics in the Vatican have gone from dismissing Francis as a “clown” to fearing him as a dictator


The book’s author is the pseudonymous Marcantonio Colonna. Although his identity is not known [UPDATE 19-MAR-2018: The author has revealed his identity now – CLICK HERE], the author says of himself that he is…

…a graduate of Oxford University and has extensive experience of historical and other research. He has been living in Rome since the beginning of Pope Francis’s pontificate, and his book is the fruit of close contacts with many of those working in the Vatican, including the leading Cardinals and other figures mentioned in the narrative.

The following is the table of contents (some excerpts further below) [Note: This refers to the first edition]:

1. The St Gallen Mafia
2. The Cardinal from Argentina
3. Reform? What Reform?
4. Beating a New (Crooked) Path
5. Mercy! Mercy!
6. Kremlin Santa Marta

The book had been published in Italian in November under the title Il Papa Dittatore, and on Dec. 4 the English translation was released. At this time, it is available only in electronic Kindle format from Amazon [UPDATE: Hardcover version now available here]. You can get it here:

The Dictator Pope
by Marcantonio Colonna


Please note: You do not need to have a Kindle device to be able to read this book. If you do not have a Kindle, you can either read it online in your web browser at Amazon, or you can download the free Amazon Kindle reading software to your computer, tablet, or smartphone (Mac version download / PC version download).

At only 141 pages, The Dictator Pope is a fairly fast read. To whet your appetite for more, we are reproducing here the book’s brief Introduction:

If you speak to the Catholics of Buenos Aires, they will tell you of the miraculous change that has taken over Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Their dour, unsmiling archbishop was turned overnight into the smiling, jolly Pope Francis, the idol of the people with whom he so fully identifies. If you speak to anyone working in the Vatican, they will tell you about the miracle in reverse. When the publicity cameras are off him, Pope Francis turns into a different figure: arrogant, dismissive of people, prodigal of bad language and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which are known to everyone from the cardinals to the chauffeurs.

As Pope Francis said himself on the evening of his election, the cardinals in the Conclave of March 2013 seemed to have decided to go “to the ends of the Earth” to choose their Pope, but the realisation is now dawning that they had not troubled to check their merchandise. At first, he seemed a breath of fresh air, his rejections of convention being the signs of a man who was going to bring bold, radical reform into the Church. In the fifth year of his pontificate it is becoming increasingly clear that the reform is not being delivered. Instead, what we have is a revolution in personal style, but a revolution which is not a happy one for what Catholics consider the most sacred office on Earth. Conservative Catholics are worried at the changes in moral teaching that Francis seems to be introducing, while liberals are dissatisfied because those changes are vaguely expressed and do not go far enough. Over and above such fears, however, are faults that ought to move all Catholics concerned for the integrity of the Church and the papal office. After nearly five years of his pontificate, Francis is showing that he is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2103, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries. Shocking as the accusation may be, it is backed up by incontrovertible evidence. This book traces the failed reforms which have falsified the hopes that were placed in Francis, and describes in detail the reign of fear in the Vatican which the Pope from Argentina has introduced.

(Marcantonio Colonna, The Dictator Pope [Kindle ed.], loc. 22-38.)

One of the most important parts of the book is that which concerns the explosive “Kolvenbach Report” on Jorge Bergoglio. Fr. Peter Hans Kolvenbach was the Superior General of the Jesuits from 1983 to 2008, thus also Bergoglio’s superior during that time. In 1991, he compiled a dossier on Bergoglio, hoping to dissuade “Cardinal” Antonio Quarracino, then the “Archbishop” of Buenos Aires, from requesting that “Pope” John Paul II appoint him bishop — obviously to no avail. Although the Kolvenbach Report mysteriously disappeared from the Jesuit archives in Rome after Bergoglio’s election as “Pope Francis” in 2013, Colonna’s work has been able to glean some of its contents:

Since Father Bergoglio, as a Jesuit, would need a dispensation to be appointed [bishop], it was necessary to obtain a report from his order, for which Cardinal Quarracino applied in 1991. It was provided by the Jesuit General, and it represents the most damning character study of Jorge Bergoglio composed by anyone before his election as Pope. The text of the report has never been made public, but the following account is given by a priest who had access to it before it disappeared from the Jesuit archive: Father Kolvenbach accused Bergoglio of a series of defects, ranging from habitual use of vulgar language to deviousness, disobedience concealed under a mask of humility, and lack of psychological balance; with a view to his suitability as a future bishop, the report pointed out that he had been a divisive figure as Provincial of his own order. It is not surprising that, on being elected Pope, Francis made efforts to get his hands on the existing copies of the document, and the original filed in the official Jesuit archives in Rome has disappeared. As regards the fairness of the report, we ought to allow for the hostility of the Jesuits who were in control in Argentina at the time, but in reality Bergoglio had been exaggerating this so as to pose as a martyr to Cardinal Quarracino (the phenomenon that Father Kolvenbach may have had in mind when he referred to disobedience under a mask of humility). When due allowance is made, the Kolvenbach Report can hardly be read as the depiction of a model religious by his superior.

(Colonna, The Dictator Pope, loc. 450-460.)

Hopefully someone can get his hands on a copy of that Kolvenbach Report before long! There is a reason why Bergoglio ordered it removed, after all.

Lastly, a word ought to be said about the meaning behind the pseudonym chosen by the author: Marcantonio Colonna. Vaticanist Giuseppe Nardi gives some interesting background, of which the following is an abridged version:

This is a name that makes one sit up and take notice. In Rome it is familiar to all. It is worth taking a look at the history books to understand the meaning of this name.

The Colonna family belongs to the ancient Roman aristocracy.

The pseudonym is reminiscent of Marcantonio II Colonna (1535-1584), a direct ancestor of the present prince….

It was as a military commander, however, that he made a name for himself. In 1571 Pope [St.] Pius V made him supreme commander of the papal army against the Turks. In the Naval Battle of Lepanto he fought side-by-side with the Habsburg Don Juan de Austria, with whom he defeated the Turkish fleet. Thus, just like his forefather Alberich I of Spoleto in the Battle of Garigliano, he was able to stop the Islamic foray into Europe.

It is this hero of Lepanto and subsequent admiral of the famous Spanish Armada who speaks in this book now presented. The actual author is thought to be found in the English-speaking world.

(Giuseppe Nardi, “Papst und Diktator”, Katholisches, Nov. 30, 2017; our translation.)

In the current climate of near-schism, The Dictator Pope will surely add a few gallons of fuel to the fire.

Check your microwave. That next bag of popcorn should be ready.

Share this content now:

113 Responses to ““The Dictator Pope”: Explosive New Book takes Inside Look at Francis”

  1. Dominic Caggeso

    “Check your microwave. That next bag of popcorn should be ready.”…… I don’t think I have laughed all day, until I read the end of this article. I really appreciate your humor 🙂

  2. Lee

    An interesting thing about this book is how it reveals his bad habits such as language etc. because I always wondered how he knew of the words coprophilia and coprophagia, which I had never heard of until he used them to describe what he thought was fake news. It’s no wonder why he esteems Martin Luther so much because his habits are very similar. I guess evil minds think a like.

    For those R&R “catholics” who accuse sedevacantist bishops of being unstable and unfit for the priesthood and episcopacy, all I can say is, take a look at how you got your pope and see how stable your church is.

    • Paul Bays

      Lee, things are moving, the Catholic bear is waking up, for sure most Catholics have not realized what has been going on but now things are getting out of the control of the Anti Catholics who are in control…It’s just a matter of time before it all comes crashing down like a House Of Cards. Sincere Catholics should be careful not to become bitter, in fact be joyful that finally this disgraceful situation is finally coming to a head

      • BurningEagle

        There will be two Novus Ordo Churches. One of the Jorge faction, and one of Wojtyla faction (or the Wojtyla/Ratzinger faction, because they were real Catholics). C’mon, Paul!

        After 60 years folks are waking up? Paul, read the statistics, look at the polls. The vast majority of Novus Ordites do not believe the dogmas of the Catholic Church. They do not believe birth control is evil. They do not believe in the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and the indefectibility of the Church. They do not believe in transubstantiation, etc. You can get much of this information from Novus Ordo sources!

        You think that NOW things are getting bad, because Jorge is so bad. What about during “Blessed” Paul VI’s reign? He was outrageous! And folks could write a book on the outrageous antics of “Saint” John Paul II. It was John Paul II who solidified my somewhat doubtful sedevacantist position with his participation in a Lutheran service, at which he delivered a heretical sermon on December 11, 1983, the Second Sunday of Advent. I remember reading the account of it in L’Ossevatore Romano.

        No, the “conservatives” do not want to return to Catholicism. Rather, they want the New Religion, but with a more traditional veneer. They certainly do not want the traditional morality and disciplines of the Catholic Church (pre-1958 for you folks who may not understand), and unfortunately, they really do not care about Catholic dogmas and the unity of faith of the Catholic Church. Doctrines make no difference, because (they believe) we are all agnostics in that none of us can really know what the truth is concerning God, and no church has cornered the market on religious truth.

        ” now things are getting out of the control of the Anti Catholics who are in control.” And every Sunday you profess that you are in communion (one with, una cum) with those those Anti Catholics. I am sorry Paul, your optimism has no credibility.

        • Paul Bays

          Burning Eagle, Internet has been the main instrument to expose what is going on. Before the internet people trusted what their priests told them. Now we can find out more than we could in the past. While I agree that most Novus Ordo Catholics don’t care about the Catholic Faith, there are still a few who have tried to follow the Faith to the best of their knowledge and followed the precepts of the church and its moral teaching. I think putting all Novus Ordo Catholics in the same boat as you do is not an accurate evaluation of the situation. There are many who see that something is wrong but have only started to find out just how rotten the situation is.

          • BurningEagle

            Paul: Vast majority.

            The very few who want to see a more traditional veneer, want to go back to the good ol’ days of Wojtyla, or at best, Roncalli. They certainly do not want the traditional rules for dealing with divorced and remarried, fasting and abstinence, ember days, avoidance of the occasion of sin, sins concerning chastity and the marriage act, cutting one’s self off from the world, as much as possible, etc. They do not want to act like religious liberty is a condemned doctrine.

            I hope that you are right, and that I am wrong. But alas, since most do not have the backbone (and/or the knowledge) to leave their parishes, and cut themselves off from the heretics, I am not optimistic.

          • anna mack

            All the evidence suggests that you’re not wrong (quite apart from the fact that Scripture predicted it).

          • Paul Bays

            Burning Eagle, this is the best article I have found yet to refute sedevacantism.


            Here are a few quotes from the article which I think are hard to ignore, You cannot simply ignore such clear statements.

            “Pope Pelagius I states that “to omit it (Una Cum Famulo) would be equivalent to declaring oneself outside the Church, while according to Ennodius of Pavia it would render the sacrifice mutilated and incomplete.””

            also St. Robert Bellarmine teaches:

            “Just as it as it is licit to resist the [Roman] Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.”

            and “It is our duty to pray for the Pope, as our Lord said of St Peter ” I prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:32). No matter how bad a pope is, one is bound to recognize him as Pope, though one is bound to resist the evils he wants to impose (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 104, Art 5). We do not communicate with his errors, but recognize him as successor of St Peter.”

            God bless and God guide us in our search for the Truth. Based only on these quotes I cannot see how you can claim to be in the one True Faith, it seems that you are being deliberately disobedient.

          • BurningEagle

            I have been away from my computer all day. Regarding the Pope Pelagius quote, it confirms what I teach. Namely: when someone is una cum Jorge, that person is united to Jorge and Jorge’s Church. Therefore when someone omits the “una cum famulo tuo” part of the canon, one is professing that one is not in communion with Jorge and Jorge’s church. What is wrong with any of that? Jorge is a heretic, and no pope, so naturally I am not una cum Jorge., and I am not one with Jorge’s Vatican II, “Cult of Man,” false Church.

            Regarding St. Robert Bellarmine, you need to do some more reading. Try this one:
            St. Robert Bellarmine is one of the best theologians explaining the sedevacante position.

            Regarding St. Thomas II IIae Ques 104, art 5, I would have to say that a Catholic has no obligation of obeying a heretic with regard to religious doctrines, morals, worship, and disciplines, because a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. A heretic has NO authority whatsoever over a Catholic with regard to these things. You folks seem to ignore the fact that the new church proposes what the Catholic Church condemns. You folks are ignoring the fact that the person you call the vicar of Christ believes and promotes heresies!

            Other interesting reading: II IIae Ques 11, art 3; and II IIae Ques 12, art 2

            It has been widely taught (pre vatican II catechisms) that Infidels, heretics, schismatics, excommunicates, and apostates do not belong to the church. Therefore they have no authority whatsoever over the faithful in things pertaining to religion.

          • BurningEagle

            Roncalli through Jorrge have decided that all on their own.
            What good is it for the popes and councils to have made all those condemnatory canons with the words like, “If anyone should say… Let him be anathema.” Why would the Church go through all that trouble, if we cannot act on Her teachings? Please pick up a pre-Vatican II Denzinger and start studying, Paul.

            Galatians 1:8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

          • BurningEagle

            The Catholic Church has four marks : One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
            The Vatican II church has NONE of these marks. But the easiest defect to spot is the absence of Holiness. And, now it is even easier to spot with the “magisterium of the church” in Amoris Laetitia. It is obvious to even the most simple of simpletons.

            I would gladly submit to a Pope who may be a terrible sinner, and on his way to hell. Because, despite his personal sins, he would not teach error or heresy to the church.
            That was the case of John XII, and other popes who may have been terrible sinners.

            But it is impossible to be a pope and a heretic at the same time. As a heretic, one is not even a member of the church. Therefore, how can a heretic be the head of the church? A sinner, yes; a heretic, no.

          • 2c3n1 .

            I agree that the absence of holiness is easy to spot, but I think the absence of all of the marks are as easy to spot, too.

            Oneness is clearly absent. You find that Jorge’s church is divided on every dogma and divine law within their own religion. Even with Amoris Laetitia, you have half rejecting it and half loving it. It’s as divided as Protestantism itself.

            Catholicity is absent because this mark according to the Trent’s catechism is the fact that the Catholic Church alone supplies the means of salvation and Jorge’s church doesn’t make that claim.

            Lastly, apostolicity is missing because you can’t find the Vatican 2 religion before the 20th century much less from the first century to Jesus. As Trent’s Catechism adds: “And just as this one Church cannot err in faith and morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost; so, on the contrary, all other societies [such as the Vatican 2 church] arrogating to themselves the name of church, must necessarily, because guided by the spirit of the devil, be sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral.”

          • BurningEagle

            I agree on all points. I think the holiness mark is the one that is so blatantly obvious to even the most ignorant simpletons (yes, the ignorance is often their own fault, i.e. culpable) which we are unfortunately having to educate – sometimes against their will. Besides, I am too long winded, and I did not want to go through each mark.
            There are many examples to demonstrate the absence of these marks in the “Cult of Man,” as you have just shown.
            Strangely, even Novus Ordites, who want to stay Novus Ordites, and who like the New Mass, and the new disciplines, cannot abide Amoris Laetitia. It is a curious thing.
            The Novus Ordo Missae, the new code, Dignitatis Humanae, Pacem in Terris, the various heretical sermons in various non-catholic “places of worship,” the Assisi World Day of Prayer for Peace, the concordats signed with the Lutherans, etc. – none of these have gotten 1/100th the reaction that the Scarlet Letter, Amoris Laetitia has gotten. Let’s use this visceral reaction (goodness knows it is not much of an intellectual reaction) of the novus ordites to Amoris Laetitia to lead a few souls out of that cesspool of error and blasphemy.

          • Paul Bays

            But you don’t get it, you are not in a position to declare if the man is Pope or not. You are a foot soldier, not the leader, I hate the situation as much as you, but stepping out is running from the fight,

          • BurningEagle

            What is there to hate about the Immaculate Bride of Christ, and her infallible and indefectible nature? What is there to hate about the ordinary magisterium of the the Church?
            What is there to hate about the consistent teaching of the Post Vatican II “popes”?
            They have all taught Religious Liberty, they have all taught Ecumenism, They have all taught Liberation Theology, they have all promulgated and defended the New “Mass.” They have all defended the new sacraments (with the exception of John XXIII, due to his death. They are all Modernists (synthesis of all heresies).

            What is your beef, Paul??? These things are all promulgated and supported officially by two saint popes, one blessed pope, one venerable pope, one expert from the Vatican II Council, and one pope who is so humble that words cannot describe him. It sounds like you are the schismatic.

          • Sede for Christ

            I’d just like to point out that ignorance is not a good thing, vincible or not. The only way it truly excuses is if the person does not only NOT have the knowledge of the truth, but has the moral impossibility of finding it out. Most people forget the latter. And the unwillingness to find out or to learn more about the truth is already the sin that will send them to hell. Now, the traditional movement ( here I mean pro-trad mass, regardless of position) is not a secret society. It is quite visible and is even approved by the NO Church, e.g. motu/indult. Although we cannot exclude theoretically the possibility that some in the NO church are in fact guiltless in regard to truly mistaking their Church for Catholic, there is no rational reason for actually assuming that this is so in practice. And most of these people live immoral lives, or approve of those who live such. Just because they want the old mass, doesn’t make them moral. For example, what person on the planet today does NOT know someone in a bad marriage. I’d say no one, and in fact, I’d say many people are very close to those in their family who are in said relationship. DO they approve? Of course, but that’s already a sin, cooperation in another’s sin by tacit approval. So because there are different degrees of ignorance in practice, or theoretically some who are guiltless, it does not follow that they are to be given the benefit of the doubt. Just some thoughts…..

          • Paul Bays

            Dear Sede for Christ Please read the following quotes from a Pope and a Saint

            “Pope Pelagius I states that “to omit it (Una Cum Famulo) would be equivalent to declaring oneself outside the Church, while according to Ennodius of Pavia it would render the sacrifice mutilated and incomplete.””

            also St. Robert Bellarmine teaches:

            “Just as it as it is licit to resist the [Roman] Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.”

            So now you are not ignorant to what a Pope and saint have said of Sedevacantism, will you return to the Church or choose to remain outside of it?

          • Sede for Christ

            I deny Francis is pope. Therefore, you cannot assume as a conclusion or premise, the very issue under discussion. If Francis is pope, yes that applies to him. If he is not it doesn’t. But that is the issue.
            St. Robert is talking about commands, not laws. The pope can command evil as a private individual and we would be obliged to disobey, he cannot promulgate heresy or evil laws as pope to the whole Church as Francis has. Fr. Cekada explains here:

          • anna mack

            Poor St Robert. He always gets trotted out by ignorant NOites who have no idea what he was talking about…

          • Paul Bays

            Dear Sede for Christ, you are not allowed to judge if a Pope is Pope or not, see that as a Grace from God.

          • Paul Bays

            “the only issue to be considered is that none of the Pope’s subjects has the right to pass judgment on the Pope with respect to his office (Canon 1556), since he cannot be authoritatively admonished (Canon 1558), and thus deprived by a superior (since he has none) nor by any Law since “the Pope is Superior to Canon Law and because of this no Bishop Exists who is not his inferior” (Pope Benedict XLV. Constitution Magnae Nobis. 1748).”

          • Sede for Christ

            We can continue this discussion elsewhere if you wish. The “grace of god” (e.g. past experience) tells me to respect NOW’s wishes to make like a tree and leave, if convo is not relevant to post.

          • Paul Bays

            Of course I assume he is the Pope because you cannot price 100% that he isn’t the Pope. I agree that these Popes are sowing confusion, personally I can’t stand these weak Popes who stopped professing the Faith clearly, the modernists in the church are the scum of the earth , they need to be kicked out. BUT we don’t get to call the Pope a false Pope, that’s not our job, it is licit to refuse to follow any false teachings. But presently with Sedevecantism, I believe the Devil has cleverly fooled you, I sm not saying that what you say about these Popes is not true, BUT the bottom line is we the foot soldiers don’t get to decide if the General is the General or not.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            In any rational discussion, if one party assumes as true the very point that’s being disagreed about, then he will necessarily engage in fallacious reasoning. You cannot assume the truth of that which you must prove. I mean, you can — but then your argument is worthless. Example: If you and I are having a disagreement about whether Porsches are better than Mitsubishis, then you cannot assume in one of your premises that they are (or aren’t). Then you are simply engaging in circular reasoning. So, if you and I are disagreeing about whether Jorge is Pope, then neither of us can assume that he is or isn’t. Rather, we must acknowledge in our premises only what we both agree on, namely, that Jorge *claims* to be Pope.

            You are equivocating on the word “declare”. We can or cannot declare that Francis isn’t Pope, depending on what is meant by the term. If you mean an authoritative, legal declaration that would be per se binding on everyone else’s conscience, conceded (but irrelevant). If you mean that we cannot arrive at this *certain* conclusion and enunciate it, denied.

            The arguments you are making have been continually addressed and refuted on this web site. All you need to do is read what’s already published.

          • BurningEagle

            Paul: Are you not judging the “Pope” every time one of you complain about him uttering a heresy? Are you not judging the “Pope” when YOU say that Anti-Catholics are in control of the Vatican? Are you not judging the “Pope when you folks say Jorge’s magisterium is erroneous or heretical (as in the Scarlet Letter, Amoris Laetitia)? Are you not judging the “pope” when you criticize his use of a giant dental implement as a crosier? Are you not judging the “pope” when he canonizes evil people as saints (Roncalli, Wojtyla, Mother Theresa)?. Are you not judging the “pope” when you condemn his praises of Martin Luther, in front of a giant chocolate effigy of Luther, while wearing a Lutheran stole? Are you not judging the “pope” when he holds hands with homos, promotes homos to curial positions, makes homo-loving priests into bishops, and received a homo couple (as a couple) at the Vatican?

            If you are going to be consistent, shut your pie hole, embrace Jorge and his religion in its entirety, stop with the fighting for a more traditional coating to the turd of novus ordoism, and be pious, devoted, loving sons of the person whom you say is the “vicar of Christ,” to whom obedience is owed, at the very peril of your souls.

          • Paul Bays

            Seed for Christ, you are not superior to the Pope, even arguing if this or that person is Pope , you are acting like you are superior to the Pope, that’s where your arguments fall apart. You are assuming you get to judge if a person is Pope or not

          • BurningEagle

            I guess my answers to your post a day before you sent this one were not good enough.

          • Paul Bays

            I watched your videos, they were not convincing at all. If a Pope teaches falsely it is licit to refuse to follow what he says if it does not respect the traditional teaching of the church. Also I provided you with the quotes from Pope Pelagius . It’s clear, we are foot soldiers. We don’t get to decide who is the commander in chief, we can/must refuse to follow his orders and directives that go against the perennial teaching of the church , but we don’t get to decide if he is the boss. This is not difficult to understand. You have been clearly told by a good Pope that what you are doing is wrong, I fear you have excommunicated yourself from the One True Faith. Sedevecantism is I fear another form of Protestantism. You need humility to put up with the rot we have in our church, but you need strength and courage to fight it from within, I fear Sedevecantism is running away from the problems and gloating on the sidelines, instead of joining faithful Catholics in the fight.

          • BurningEagle

            It is DE FIDE that a pope cannot teach error. But Roncalli through Jorge have taught error to the whole Catholic Church, therefore they are not popes.

            Or, you could say what they have taught is NOT error. In which case, shut your pie hole, and be a devout pious, uncomplaining faithful Novus Ordite, and stay off “heretical” sites like these. Enjoy your divorced and remarried fellow communicants, enjoy your homosexuals running rampant, enjoy your New Mass written by Protestants, enjoy your communicatio in sacris with all kinds of other churches, enjoy your fellowship with the Freemasons, but please don’t try to pull off that fake excuse for trolling N.O.W. that you are in search of the Truth. If Jorge is your pope, go to Jorge for the Truth; for it is impossible for him to give you anything else.

            “You need humility to put up with the rot we have in our church…”
            I would answer: you need the humility to study the nature of the Church, and the faith to believe what the Church has defined concerning the Herself, that there can be no “rot” in the Church. She cannot teach rotten doctrine, She cannot have rotten morals and disciplines, She cannot have rotten worship. It is impossible. That is DE FIDE. What would have been the purpose of Christ founding a Church which could lead the faithful into error, heresy, and sin?
            If we cannot agree on this, it is pointless to argue.

          • BurningEagle

            Am I superior to Jorge Bergoglio? Yes. By virtue of the Catholic Faith, yes. As a Catholic, I am superior to a heretic.

            Am I superior to any pope? No. May I live to see the day when the Church is restored, and a pope reigns.

      • Lee

        I am joyful because I know which Church is the Catholic Church and the Novus Ordo isn’t it. Sedevacantist who are faithful to the teachings of the Church before Vatican II and who are doing the best they can are the ones. In fact I’m happy that evil is being exposed for what it is, instead of hidden.

          • 2c3n1 .

            Paul, I’ve read the article and it refutes nothing. It gets facts wrong, uses straw-man arguments, and even presents heresy itself. All the arguments they present have been answered many times especially on this website. Keep in mind the website also promotes feeneyism which is truly a sickness of the mind and spirit.

          • Lee

            It’s been a while since I read it, so for your sake I went back to re-read it and I saw many problems. What from that article do you think is eye opening and a reason not to be sedevacatist or do you think it has problems too?

          • Paul Bays

            The one point that struck me from that article above was that Christ himself did not tell the high priest Caihpas that he was not the high priest, he accepted that even this man who would have him killed was the high priest. But I continue to read and research a convincing document that I have found concerning sedevacantism and why it is the wrong position is this one. Have you read this article;


            “Pope Pelagius I states that “to omit it (Una Cum Famulo) would be equivalent to declaring oneself outside the Church, while according to Ennodius of Pavia it would render the sacrifice mutilated and incomplete.””

            also St. Robert Bellarmine teaches:

            “Just as it as it is licit to resist the [Roman] Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.”

            Lee how can you accept such clear statements from saints of the past and also good Popes of the past and still in good conscience remain a sedevacantist? I wish you all the best in your search for the Truth God bless.

          • jay

            I would be interested to know at what point would you abandon Bergoglio. Or will you follow him to the end no matter what anti catholic path he travels. You remind me of a Democrat who believes in abortion on demand and homosexual unions but considers themselves a Christian . Will a NO priestess have to slaughter a sow on the altar before you get it or will you believe that in doing so you are “feeding the hungry’.

          • Paul Bays

            Jay, bad comparisons Democrats and abortion. read what I wrote. Good Popes and saints have declared have declared what you can and can’t do with regard to a Pope, this I think is relevant “it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior” Jay, remember Jesus himself accepted that the High Priest was Caiphas, he didn’t tell him he wasn’t the high Priest. Its not our job to declare if a Pope is Pope or not, its that simple.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            Not so fast, Paul. St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church and patron of Bible scholars, commented as follows on Matthew 26:65: “And by this rending [of] his garments, [Caiaphas] shews that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest’s throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him.” This quote is contained in the “Catena Aurea” Gospel commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas, Universal Doctor of the Church (Vol. I, Part III [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1842], p. 926). You can read it for yourself here:

          • Paul Bays

            Dear Friends at Novus Ordo watch My point was that Jesus did not declare that the High priest was not the High Priest and according to good Popes and good saints we should not do this of our present Popes. One thing I like about you guys is you are watching carefully and point out when the Novus Ordo leadership do not respect tradition and appear to have made great error. The reason why people are not listening to you is because you have taken a stance on Sedevecantism which apparently can be refuted by the quotes of one Pope and one saint. See my comments to Lee below. We need men and women with your great knowledge back in the church, taking back parishes and bringing the Traditional Mass back. As long as you remain outside I fear the Devil knows he has some of the best people who can do great work for the church fooled.

          • Sede for Christ

            Yes, and the High priest lost his authority in that act, as NOW mentioned. So your point is false. Actually try to discuss the ? of whether Francis is pope before assuming the point under contention, it makes no sense.

          • Paul Bays

            Dear Sede for Christ, No my comment is its not false, NOW are addressing a different issue, my point was that Jesus did not declare the hight priest to be fake,
            Its is very simple we Catholics do not get to declare whether a Pope is the Pope or not the Pope, we don’t get to judge that, we are not in a position of superiority to decide that. If a Pope tells us something which we know is wrong it is licit to resist, thats all, it is not licit to declare he is not Pope. Don’t you see that this is Grace from God? We should concentrate on our salvation let the Popes superior, ( he only has one) decide who is the Pope or not. God bless you and may God help us in our search for the Truth. Please read this it contains very useful information to reflect on

          • jay

            It is very telling when someone is defending the high priest who was under the control of the evil one. It was only a short time ago that Bergoglio was defending Judas .

          • BurningEagle

            “Novus Ordo leadership do not respect tradition and appear to have made great error.” A curious and careful choice of words, Paul. Quite telling.

          • BurningEagle

            “…the Novus Ordo leadership do not respect tradition and appear to have made great error.” A curious and careful choice of words. Quite telling.
            Just who is the “leadership” Paul?
            Do they only “appear” to be in error?

          • Paul Bays

            In my opinion they leadership are sowing confusion and that is error, but I recognize that I am not allowed to declare if a person is Pope or not, that’s the difference, I can respect those rules can you?

          • BurningEagle

            So the Pope can sow confusion and error?
            Paul, we will never agree. My faith is completely different from yours.

          • BurningEagle

            “I can respect those rules can you?”
            No, I cannot. Neither could the theologians and Saints of the past (St. Robert Bellarmine). That is not what is taught in Canon Law. So, no, I cannot accept those “rules.”

          • anna mack

            Ooh! You’ve found another quote to repeat incessantly. Well done!

          • BurningEagle

            Please look up the word “presumption” and then tell us why your comment is not an example.

          • BurningEagle

            Now there is another example of how Novus Ordites have cornered the market on charity an humility.

          • jay

            Canon 2200.2 1917 Code of Canon law: When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven” The Vat. II anti popes have made literally hundreds of statements contrary to revealed and defined dogma they have explicitly declared themselves to be in communion with ( in the same church as) most if not all schismatic and heretics. Like many members of the Vat. II cult. your are blinded by their Temples and pomp but those shiny mausoleum are filled with dead men’s bones and sadly the lost. Return to the true faith , the Bride of Christ, The Holy Roman Catholic Church the church that is still here but as it was done to Her in England by the adulterer and murderer Henry VIII has been robbed of her external possessions . His counterfeit church looked a lot like the true Church but Christ was not in it. WE have the Church given to us by our Lord and Savior. All the saints and Popes and the elect . The Vat II cult has it’s manmade saints and popes and it’s man made Masonic Protestant Anglican hybrid religion . For me I have to be a Catholic , I have no where else to go.

          • jay

            I’m sorry it is not my intention. But I must stand with Christ’s Church I’ve never looked to be popular .

          • Paul Bays

            Jay, I repeat we don’t get to judge who is Pope, that is where it starts and stops, and that is a Grace from God

          • Paul Bays

            Dear Sede for Christ,

            As I said this I believe is a Grace from God,

            God bless

          • jay

            So explain to me how a non Catholic and a heretic can be Pope. Then explain to me why Hillary Clinton can’t be pope.

          • 2c3n1 .

            Paul Bays, The high priest is not the same as the pope. A pope can’t publicly reject the faith and remain pope because he can’t remain in the Church. That’s the law and teaching of the Church which I’ve already said to you. Do you understand the difference and how you’re comparing apples to oranges? Why do you not accept the law and teaching of the Church as you fall for the heretical positions by heretics?

            Pope Pelagius is referring to omitting a true pope, not a false one. See the difference?

            St. Robert Bellarmine also says in the very same writing: Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.

            Now, Paul, how can you read such a clear statement and in good conscience remain united to Francis?

            As you can see, not one of the things you say from the article condemns sedevacantism. Not one!

          • anna mack

            The law and teaching of the Church are very inconvenient things for R&Rers, so they think it best to ignore them.

          • Paul Bays

            2c3n1 your are mincing words Pope Pelagius I states that “to omit it (Una Cum Famulo) would be equivalent to declaring oneself outside the Church. Please show me exactly where he says he is referring to a true pope and not a false pope.

          • 2c3n1 .

            Paul, use your head. Add false pope to the sentence. “To omit a false pope” would be the equivalent to declaring oneself outside the Church. Do you really think Pope Pelagius I was saying that it doesn’t matter whether it’s a true or false pope? Really?

          • anna mack

            So, Paul Bays thinks that Pope Pelagius I thought that not being in communion with a false pope would put one outside the Church (“where [does] he [say] he is referring to a true pope and not a false pope”?)? True or false pope, it makes no difference?!!

            Really, guys, it’s time to stop feeding the troll – it’s just getting silly now :-/

          • Paul Bays

            2c3n1.What St Robert says is fine but that still doesn’t refute the fact that”it is not licit to judge a Pope” put simply we are not allowed to judge if a Pope is the Pope or not. We are not his superior, its not our problem its his superiors problem…we just have to resist a bad Pope. Don’t you see the wisdom of that?

            When you realise that you don’t get to judge, then you will see it is a Grace from God.

          • 2c3n1 .

            When a pope loses his office by himself, we’re not judging a pope now are we?

            We’re not talking about bad popes, but non-Catholic antipopes. See the difference?

            Yes, we have a duty to judge that a false pope is a false pope.

          • Lee


            I agree with these quotes, but they deal with a separate issue. Pope Pelagius I is declaring one outside the Church one who would omit a true pope. Francis isn’t a true pope because he is a manifest heretic and St. Robert Bellarmine also teaches, “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church…This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” St. Robert Bellarmine So immediately a pope loses his office the moment he teaches something against the Church and at that point its automatic.

            You seem to read a lot of anti sedevacantists websites most of which have many other problems besides being anti sedevacantist. Do you ever read the refutations made by sedevacantist against the anti-sedevacantist? I say this because Fr. Cekada has a video series which refutes Robert Siscoe and John ‘s book true or false pope, also Steven Speray has 33 objections to sedevacantism answered, even this website has all kinds of links and answers to refutations. You need to look at them closer. Just because one wants him to be pope doesn’t mean he is any more than I want him to be a Catholic, which he is not.

          • Paul Bays


            It does not get more clear than Pope Pelagius I states that “to omit it (Una Cum Famulo) would be equivalent to declaring oneself outside the Church.” and you have no authority to declare if they are a true Pope or not.

            Read about the point regarding “heretic pope” in the link I gave you, even if the Pope is a heretic it is not licit for you to judge. We are not in a position to judge whether a Pope is the Pope or not. We can only resist we cannot judge, don’t you see the difference, its all about mans pride and the sin of Adam all over again.

            Where it starts and stops is, you don’t get to judge, its very simple, it’s the story of the apple and Adam and Eve all over again.

            The catholic church has declared that we cannot judge the matter of whether a Pope is a valid Pope or not. St Bellarmine “it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.”

            We are not in a position of authority to declare if Pope Francis is a true Pope or not, but we are in a position to resist and reject bad doctrine or teaching. I feel it is pride that makes a lay person believe he can declare whether one man is Pope or not.

            Lee, think about this, once we decide who is the Pope and who is not the Pope based on what we read and what we think we know, what is to stop anyone claiming any of the Popes are valid based in what they think they know, didn’t Luther do a similar thing declaring he had the real understanding of the faith?

            I fear you are being fooled. Consider these words of Pope Pelagius when you pray your Rosary,

            “to omit Una Cum Famulo would be equivalent to declaring oneself outside the Church”

            The Catholic Faith needs knowledgeable men and women of the faith like yourselves in the church, not out of it.

            Lee you are not allowed to judge if he is Pope or not, see that as a grace from God.

            God bless, lets keep searching for the Truth.


          • Sede for Christ

            This is the rant of someone who sounds psychotic. Do you think anyone is moved by your bizarre thinking? No, because you assert and don’t prove. You don’t read what is given to you. You make us read your stuff, and then declare to have solved everything. Nothing is of substance in what you say. Actually use logic and stop assuming the conclusion in the premise. Show us and prove why Francis is pope, and don’t just repeat and rant after people have spent valuable time explaining why you are interpreting those quotes wrongly. You don’t have the moral highground if you refuse to do so.

          • Lee

            Paul you have no certainty that Francis is a Catholic because of all the evidence against him which you agree with and you cannot resist his authority as pope because once you do that, you start becoming the one who decides what you think is Catholic even if your pope teaches something different making you the one in authority. I don’t believe Francis was ever pope to begin with so it’s not that he has fallen but rather he never was what he claims to be.

  3. jay

    One of Bergoglio’s hero’s Hugo Chavez went to the Vatican to meet with others of his ilk but he came back disillusioned by what he encountered . He left the Vatican meetings early and commented to his security guards” I’m getting the hell out of here these people are all devil worshippers” . Even a low life Socialist can speak the truth every so often. It is so heartbreaking that even a godless thug can figure it out but millions in the Vatican II sect can’t see it.

  4. Dominic Caggeso

    I hesitate saying this on your web page, because I don’t want to use this wonderful page to promote my own material… but, this is COMPLETELY relevant to this article, and to your website in general. And, also, please excuse the long post… I will try to keep it short and succinct.

    It can be shown, very convincingly, that the rule of “Pope” Francis directly parallels the rule of the Romans over Judea starting around the time of the birth of Christ, up until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. That would include the Great Jewish Revolt of 66 AD. Here is a web page on my website that clearly shows these amazing parallels in detail.

    – For example, when the Romans took over Judea around the time of the birth of Christ, they instituted a census.

    – Very soon after Francis took control, in Oct 2013, the Vatican issued a worldwide survey. Just as the Jews had to report to their home town for the census, this survey was administered by the local diocese across the world.

    Also, Francis has been playing out the part of the Roman Emperors from Augustus to Vespasian (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Year of 4 Emperors, then finally, Vespasian). For instance, Augustus tried to sell himself as a frugal, humble, normal guy. He lived in a small house, slept on a low bed, ate simple food, etc…. This is just like Francis. These parallels continue between Francis and all the emperors. Currently, it seems that Francis is playing out the role of Nero!

    Right now, it seems we are in the time of the Great Jewish Revolt. The Jews would be the Neo-Cons and Semi-Trads who claim that the Novus Ordo sect is the Catholic Church. Just like the Jews who were defending Jerusalem, and thought it was God’s holy city, so to are the Semi-Trads and Novus Ordo conservatives fighting to preserve the Novus Ordo, thinking it is the Catholic Church!

    And, how can we not conclude that this all will end for them like it ended for the Jews? It will end with Francis (Peter the ROMAN) destroying the Novus Ordo.. which corresponds with the destruction of the Whore of Babylon at the end of the Book of the Apocalypse!

    There is so much more, and I tried to keep this post short. Please visit this webpage for more info, or you can email me! –

    And, one final note! I LOVE novus ordo watch! I am so grateful for your work.. .and I am sorry to shamelessly promote my own site. But, it’s in complete agreement with your material… and you are clearly more qualified and gifted in your ability to communicate the theology and ‘common sense’ of the Sedevacantist position. Thanks again for your great work!

  5. Danny

    The pseudonym of the author,according to the book review,was at the Battle Of Lepanto,,,,,,,and that he was a commander of the ” Famous”,Spanish Armada,,,,,,the review notes,,he lived from 1535-1584,,,,,,very interesting,,,,how did he manage to be in the “Famous”,Spanish Armada,,,when that occurred in 1588,,,,,just a small error,,,,,but how many more,substantial one’s,,,,,

  6. Sede for Christ

    I’d like to thank NOW for NOT having ads on their website. It’s hilarious, because every website I go to, my adblock feature is blocking multiple ads, all except on NOW where no ads are there to be blocked. Very nice and appreciated. And it makes the browser load faster.LOL

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      You’re welcome! I hate ads as much as anyone, and by the grace of God and the sponsorship of individual readers, this web site can exist without ads! Anyone who would like to help keep it this way, please head on over to THANK YOU!

  7. Al Schroeder

    I was looking foreword to buying this but when I went to order it is only available in Kindle. I don’t do Kindle. Does anyone know if it will be released in soft cover?

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      As explained in the post, you do not need a Kindle to be able to read this book. You can just read it in your browser online or through one of the free apps for your handheld device or computer. It does not appear that this book will be released in hardcopy in the future.

  8. jay

    The Vatican II sect is dung, it’s ALL pomp , Christ is not in it. I beseech all who yearned to be CATHOLIC TO EMBRACE THE FAITH THAT WAS BEFORER 1958

  9. jay

    It is so sad that so many live in darkness but it is what our Lord had envisioned I pray that those who come to this site are opened to the grace of out Lord.

  10. jay

    Catholics love and are overjoyed when those outside the Church are joined with us and Christ. Especially at Christmas time be with us now and our Lord.

Leave a Reply

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