Wrong Ways Jorge: Infallibly Wrong About Almost Everything, part two

False ecumenism is a cornerstone of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and it is the primary raison d’etre for the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, something that I explain at length in G.I.R.M. Warfare: The Conciliar Church's Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship.

The first in the current line of antipopes, Angelo Roncalli, was known as such an ecumenist that many Modernists who had despaired of “saving” their false ecumenism during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII believed that the election of Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, the Patriarch of Venice, would “save” ecumenism:

Pius XII was succeeded by John XXIII, Angelo Roncalli. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under a cloud. Here are a few facts:

As professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr. Duchesne's work, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, ended up on the Index.

While papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he wrote: The powerful fascination of his [Sagnier's] words, his spirit, had enchanted me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of his personality, his political and social activity."

Named as Patriarch of Venice, Msgr. Roncalli gave a public blessing to the socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.

John XXIII's attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement, was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII, Beauduin remarked: "If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism..."'  (Liturgical Revolution.)

The inter-denominationlism of The Sillon in political and social matters, a sort of "political ecumenism," if you will, would lead all too logically to the sort of theological "ecumenism" that was condenmned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. As noted in the late Father Father Didier Bonneterre's The Liturgical Movement: Roots, Radicals, Results, the corpulent Rosicrucian Mason Roncalli was a firm supporter of the false ecumenism being practiced by the "Taize Ecumenical Community" in France that was near and dear to hearts of his successors, particularly Montini/Paul VI, Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

After the death of John XXIII, his brother, Giuseppe Roncalli, visit Taize. During his visit, Roncalli remarked to his grandson, "It was my brother the Pope who began what will come out of Taize." (Father Didier Bonneterre, The Liturgical Movement: Roots, Radicals, Results. Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2002. p 101.)

More to the point, however, was that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was a firm believer in the "new ecclesiology," that heresy that considers Protestant sects as part of the "Church of Christ," a view he outlined to Schutz himself shortly before he, Roncalli/John XXIII, had to answer to God for his multiple apostasies at the moment of his Particular Judgment on June 3, 1963:

Q. Did Brother Roger himself testify explicitly to that development?

A. Father Alois (Roger Schutz's successor of Taize): "He understood very early in his life that in order to pass on the Gospel to young people a reconciliation of Christians was necessary. After John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, he considered that the time for reconciliation had come. He often told how, during his last meeting with John XXIII, in 1963, he was eager to hear a spiritual testament from the pope and he asked him about the place of Taizé in the Church. John XXIII replied, making circular gestures with his hands, 'The Catholic Church is made of concentric circles that are always bigger and bigger.' The pope did not specify in which circle he saw Taizé but Brother Roger understood that the pope wanted to say to him: you are already within, continue simply on this path. And that is what he did. (RORATE CÆLI)

Although the conciliar “popes” have had different styles and areas of emphasis, they have been absolutely united as one in their embrace and promotion of false ecumenism and the “new ecclesiology. Roncalli laid down the path that was then blazed by his successor, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, who was the prototypical model of a disciple of conciliarism’s penchant for being subservient to every falsehood imaginable. Montini/Paul VI gave insipid speeches to Protestant and Orthodox leaders and so did Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. In this regard, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is nothing other than a boilerplate conciliar ecumenist who is ever ready to mock Catholicism, including the sacrifices made by countless numbers of martyrs, in order to curry favor with other heresiarchs and schismatics.

Not only have the conciliar “popes” issued countless numbers of vapid “joint declarations” with Anglican archlaymen and Orthodox bishops, but they have also apologized for the work of the Catholic Church to condemn the errors of non-Catholics and/or to seek their conversion back to the true Faith, and a relatively little-known fact is that Wojytla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Bergoglio has prised the heretic Father Jan Hus. “Saint John Paul II” did so in 1999, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did so in 2009, and Bergoglio has done so, if only by implication, in 2015, when news was announced that he was sending a personal representative to commemorate the six hundredth anniversary of the “tragedy” of the burning of the heretic Hus at the stake following the condemnation issued against him by the Council of Constance:

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has appointed Cardinal Miloslav Vlk, Archbishop Emeritus of Prague, to be his special envoy to the July 5-6 events in Prague, marking the 600th anniversary of the death of John Hus (1369-1415).

In an address to the International Symposium on John Hus in 1999, St John Paul II said the Bohemian church reformer, who was condemned of heresy and burnt at the stake, was a "memorable figure," particularly for "his moral courage in the face of adversity and death."

"On the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel obliged to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus and the resulting wound, a source of conflict and division which was thus opened in the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people,” said St John Paul II.

Hus was born in the Kingdom of Bohemia (now Czech Republic). He was ordained a priest in 1400, and preached reformation in the Church. He was a supporter of some of John Wycliffe’s teachings and was eventually excommunicated, condemned of heresy and killed. His followers came to be known as Hussites. 

St John Paul II said "the effort that students can develop to reach a deeper and full understanding of historical truth” was of “crucial importance.”

“Faith has nothing to fear from the commitment of historical research, since the research is also, ultimately, reaching out to the truth that has its source in God," he continued.

"A figure like John Hus, who was a major point of contention in the past, can now become a subject of dialogue, discussion and common study" in the hope that decisive steps can "be made on the path of reconciliation and true unity in Christ," the late pope said.

Cardinal Vlk was the architect of a commission, established in 1993, to study the life, work and person of John Hus. (Pope appoints envoy for 600th anniversary of John Hus' Justified Execution for Remaining Obstinate in Heresy.)

A “new relationship.”

“Cruel death.”

With great “regret.”

Regret for what?

Regret for the condemnation of heretic?

Our true popes of the era of Christendom understood that heretics were far more dangerous to the civil order than those who committed crimes against property and persons. Without for a moment minimizing the gravity of crimes against property and persons, crimes against Christ the King and His Divine Revelation, which has been entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication, are more grave in the hierarchical evils as to mislead a single soul about the tenets of the Holy Faith is to place that soul, no less others, into peril of eternal loss and as social order, which is premised upon the right ordering of souls, into imminent peril of decay and collapse.

A manifest heretic such as the late “Saint John Paul II” had great sympathy for others condemned as heretics. Like his three immediate predecessors in the conciliar “Petrine Ministry” (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick and Albino Luciani/John Paul I, who was consecrated a bishop by Roncalli/John XXIII himself less than two months after his own “election” on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude), Wojtyla/John Paul II did not believe himself bound by the work of those general councils of the Catholic Church that could not be reconciled with his Modernist precepts. Thus it is that doctrines associated with the “past” that are not deemed “relevant” to the needs of the mythical entity called “modern man” must be said to have been but the products of the historical circumstances in which they were formulated, making a “reevaluation” of them in light of alleged “changed circumstances” a necessity.

Ratzinger/Benedict himself mentioned Jan Hus, however briefly (some would argue even gratuitously, although I do not), when he addressed an “ecumenical” meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, on September 26, 2009, in the presence of none other than Miloslav Vlk, three years after he had denounced Michael Semin, a layman associated with the Society of Saint Pius X, for a conference he was holding that featured allegedly "anti-Semitic" speakers (see Czech Out That Wolf Yet Again, which was written in September of 2006 as I was nearing a firm conclusion about the true state of the Church Militant on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal), who was less than a year away from entering into retirement at age seventy-eight:

Dear Cardinals,
Your Excellencies,
Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I am grateful to Almighty God for the opportunity to meet with you who are here representing the various Christian communities of this land. I thank Doctor Černý, President of the Ecumenical Council of Churches in the Czech Republic, for the kind words of welcome which he has addressed to me on your behalf.

My dear friends, Europe continues to undergo many changes. It is hard to believe that only two decades have passed since the collapse of former regimes gave way to a difficult but productive transition towards more participatory political structures. During this period, Christians joined together with others of good will in helping to rebuild a just political order, and they continue to engage in dialogue today in order to pave new ways towards mutual understanding, cooperation for peace and the advancement of the common good.

Nevertheless, attempts to marginalize the influence of Christianity upon public life – sometimes under the pretext that its teachings are detrimental to the well-being of society – are emerging in new forms. This phenomenon gives us pause to reflect. As I suggested in my Encyclical on Christian hope, the artificial separation of the Gospel from intellectual and public life should prompt us to engage in a mutual “self-critique of modernity” and “self-critique of modern Christianity,” specifically with regard to the hope each of them can offer mankind (cf. Spe Salvi, 22). We may ask ourselves, what does the Gospel have to say to the Czech Republic and indeed all of Europe today in a period marked by proliferating world views?

Christianity has much to offer on the practical and ethical level, for the Gospel never ceases to inspire men and women to place themselves at the service of their brothers and sisters. Few would dispute this. Yet those who fix their gaze upon Jesus of Nazareth with eyes of faith know that God offers a deeper reality which is nonetheless inseparable from the “economy” of charity at work in this world (cf. Caritas in Veritate, 2): He offers salvation.

The term is replete with connotations, yet it expresses something fundamental and universal about the human yearning for well-being and wholeness. It alludes to the ardent desire for reconciliation and communion that wells up spontaneously in the depths of the human spirit. It is the central truth of the Gospel and the goal to which every effort of evangelization and pastoral care is directed. And it is the criterion to which Christians constantly redirect their focus as they endeavour to heal the wounds of past divisions. To this end – as Doctor Černý has noted – the Holy See was pleased to host an International Symposium in 1999 on Jan Hus to facilitate a discussion of the complex and turbulent religious history in this country and in Europe more generally (cf. Pope John Paul II, Address to the International Symposium on John Hus, 1999). I pray that such ecumenical initiatives will yield fruit not only in the pursuit of Christian unity, but for the good of all European society.  (Ecumenical Meeting at the Throne Hall of the Archbishop's House of Prague (September 27, 2009)

Jan Hus’s justified execution was ordered by the Council of Constance itself for being an obstinate heretic for adhering the propositions contained in Appendix A below.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has issued all kinds of apologies in the past eight years, nine months, one day, including one he offered to the heretical Waldensians in 2015:

Pope Francis began his speech to representatives of the Italian Waldensian community with a brief personal remembrance of his previous meetings with the friends of the Waldensian Evangelical Church of Rio del Plata, when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The Pope spoke of his appreciation of the “spirituality and faith” of those meetings, from which he “learned many good things.”

The rediscovery of fraternity notwithstanding the differences: a communion on a journey

The Pope went on to speak about the fruits of the ecumenical movement in recent years. The principle fruit, he said, “is the rediscovery of the fraternity that unites all those who believe in Jesus Christ and are baptized in His Name.” This, he said, “allows us to grasp the profound ties that already unite us, despite our differences. It concerns a communion that is still on a journey, which, with prayer, with continual personal and communal conversion, and with the help of the theologians, we hope, trusting in the action of the Holy Spirit, can become full and visible communion in truth and charity.”

The Catholic Church seeks forgiveness for past sins against Waldensians

“But the unity that is the fruit of the Holy Spirit,” the Pope said, “does not mean uniformity. Brothers have in common the same origin, but they are not identical among themselves.” Unfortunately, he continued, historically this diversity was not accepted and was a cause of violence and disputes “committed in the name of the faith itself.” This history, the Pope said, can only grieve us, who pray for the grace “to recognize that we are all sinners and to know to forgive one another.” He then asked for forgiveness for “the non-Christian attitudes and behaviour” of the Catholic Church against Waldensians.

Relations between Waldensians and Catholics now founded on mutual respect and fraternal charity

Pope Francis noted with satisfaction that today relations between Catholics and Waldensians are founded “on mutual respect and on fraternal charity,” as witnessed, for example, by the interconfessional translation of the Bible, pastoral arrangements for the celebration of mixed marriages, and the recent drafting of a joint appeal against violence against women, as well as other common initiatives.

Differences should not be an obstacle to collaboration in evangelization and in works

These steps, the Pope said, are an encouragement to continue this common journey. One of the primary areas that is open to the possibility of collaboration between Waldensians and Catholics, he said, is evangelization. Another is “that of service to humanity which suffers, to the poor, the sick, the migrants.” The differences that continue to exist between Catholics and Waldensians on important anthropological and ethical questions, the Pope said, should not prevent us from finding ways to collaborate in these and other fields: “If we journey together,” he said, “the Lord will help us to live that communion that precedes every contrast.”  (Jorge visits Waldensian temple in Turin.)

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio apologized for the work of God the Holy Ghost at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. He believes that heretics profess the same “basic” faith as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. They do not. Then again, birds of a heretical feather do flock together, do not they not?

The Fourth Lateran Council, which met in 1215, issued a condemnation of the Albigensians and Waldensians that reminded Catholics both of the omnipotence of the Most Blessed Trinity and of the condemnation of impetitent sinners:

We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end. The Father begetting, the Son begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal, the one principle of the universe, Creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal, who from the beginning of time and by His omnipotent power made from nothing creatures both spiritual and corporeal, angelic, namely, and mundane, and then human, as it were, common, composed of spirit and body. The devil and the other demons were indeed created by God good by nature but they became bad through themselves; man, however, sinned at the suggestion of the devil. This Holy Trinity in its common essence undivided and in personal properties divided, through Moses, the holy prophets, and other servants gave to the human race at the most opportune intervals of time the doctrine of salvation.

And finally, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God made flesh by the entire Trinity, conceived with the co-operation of the Holy Ghost of Mary ever Virgin, made true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, pointed out more clearly the way of life. Who according to His divinity is immortal and impassable, according to His humanity was made passable and mortal, suffered on the cross for the salvation of the human race, and being dead descended into hell, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. But He descended in soul, arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both; He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ. (Fourth Lateran Council, Against the Albigensians, Joachim, Waldensians, etc., 1215. A different translation is found at Denziger, pp. 168-169.

This doctrinal statement, issued by the Fourth Lateran Council, which was the twelfth general ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, that met under the infallible protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, condemns Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s false beliefs with great clarity, not that doctrine matters to a self-professed “apostle of communion” who believes in an “ecumenism of the heart” that has nothing to do with the work of God the Holy Ghost and everything to do with the work of the adversary.

Thus, the Argentine Apostate’s December 4, 2021, apology to Hieronymos II for the “bad things” that the Orthodox have “suffered” at the hands of Catholics was simply boilerplate conciliar ecumenism:

Tragically, in later times we grew apart. Worldly concerns poisoned us, weeds of suspicion increased our distance and we ceased to nurture communion. Saint Basil the Great says that true disciples of Christ are “modeled only on what they see in him” (Moralia, 80, 1). Shamefully – I acknowledge this for the Catholic Church – actions and decisions that had little or nothing to do with Jesus and the Gospel, but were instead marked by a thirst for advantage and power, gravely weakened our communion. In this way, we let fruitfulness be compromised by division. History makes its weight felt, and here, today, I feel the need to ask anew for the forgiveness of God and of our brothers and sisters for the mistakes committed by many Catholics. Yet we are comforted by the certainty that our roots are apostolic and that, notwithstanding the twists and turns of time, what God planted continues to grow and bear fruit in the same Spirit. It is a grace to recognize one another’s good fruits and to join in thanking the Lord for this. (Anti-Apostolic Journey to Cyprus and Greece: Meeting of Hieronymos II and Fellow Heresiarch Francis with their Respective Entourages, Athens, 4 December 2021.)

“Worldly concerns”?

The Primacy of the See of Saint Peter?

The Filioque?

Divorce and remarriage?

The primacy of the civil state over the Church?

Let us start with the Primacy of the See of Saint Peter in the first millennium that was placed into question by one Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger in his misnamed book, Principles of Catholic Theology, nearly forty years ago:

How, then are the maximum demands to be decided in advance? Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor it is possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. . . .

After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and the people of Constantinople as "very Christian and orthodox", although their concept of the Roman primary was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199)

Ratzinger, using the stage name of “Pope Benedict XVI,” authorized the equally misnamed “Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church” to issue the “Ravenna Document” on May 13, 2007, that put a “papal” imprimatur on what he had written in Principles of Catholic Theology a quarter of a century earlier:

It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document.)

The doctrine of Papal Primacy and its exercise is an "open issue" subject to debate and discussion. Go tell that to the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council.

Pope Leo XIII's recitation of true history demonstrates the abject falsity of Ratzinger's beliefs that the "form" of Papal Primacy in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries has differed from that which was accepted by the Greeks in the First Millennium:

The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs.  Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood.  The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known.  Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.

And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began.  Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.

We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling.  To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.

Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified?  What will our defense be in the  eyes of posterity?  Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren." (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1896.)

Worldly concerns, Wrong Ways Jorge?

Moreover, I would like to know what specific acts committed by Catholics did Jorge Mario Bergoglio ask for forgiveness.

The work of Saint Hyacinth, O.P., to convert the Orthodox?

The work of Saint Josaphat Kuncewicz to do so?

Josaphat Kuncewitz was born of noble Catholic parents at Vladimir in Volhynia. Once as a child, as he listed to his mother tell the story of the Passion, a dart came forth from the side of Christ on the crucifix and wounded the boy in the heart. Set on fire with love of God, he devoted himself to prayer and works of charity with such zeal that he became the admiration and the model for youths far older than he. When Josaphat was twenty years old he was professed among the cloistered followers of the monastic rule of Saint Basil. Almost at once he made remarkable progress in evangelical perfection. He went barefoot, even in the severe winters of that country. He never ate meat, and drank wine only when obliged to do so under obedience. He disciplined his body by wearing rough hair-shirts until the day of his death. He kept unspotted the flower of chastity which in his youth he had dedicated to the Virgin Mother of God. He became so celebrated for virtue and learning that despite his youth he was made superior of the monastery at Byten, and the Archimandrite of Vilnius. Finally much against his will, but to the very great joy of the Catholic people, he was made Archbishop of Polotsk.

In this dignity he relaxed nothing of his former manner of life; and had nothing so much at heart as the divine service and the salvation of the sheep entrusted to him. He energetically defended Catholic faith and unity, and laboured to the utmost of his power to bring back schismatics and heretics to communion with the See of Peter. The Sovereign Pontiff and the plenitude of his power he never ceased to defend, both by preaching and by writings full of piety and learning, against the most shameless calumnies and errors of the wicked. He vindicated episcopal rights, and restored ecclesiastical possessions which had been seized by laymen. Incredible was the number of heretics he won back to the bosom of mother Church; and the words of the pope bear witness how greatly he promoted the union of the Greek and Latin churches. His revenues were entirely expended in restoring the beauty of God's house, in building of dwellings for consecrated virgins, and in other pious works. So bountiful was he to the poor, that on one occasion, having nothing wherewith to supply the needs of a certain widow, he ordered his Omnophorion, or episcopal pallium, to be pawned.

The great progress made by the Catholic faith so stirred up the hatred of wicked men against the soldier of Christ, that they determined to put him to death. He knew what was threatening him; and foretold it when preaching to the people. As he was making his visitation at Vitebsk, the murderers broke into his house, striking and wounding all whom they found. Josaphat meekly went to meet them, and accosted them kindly, saying : "My little children, why do you strike my servants? If you have any complaint against me, here I am." Hereupon they rushed on him, overwhelmed him with blows, pierced him with their spears, and at length dispatched him with an axe and threw his body into the river. This took place on the twelfth of November, 1623, in the forty-third year of his age. His body, surrounded with a miraculous light, was rescued from the waters. The martyr's blood won a blessing first of all for his murderers; for, being condemned to death, they nearly all abjured their schism and repented of their crime. (As found in The Liturgical Year.) 

The authentically incorrupt body of this great martyr, Saint Josaphat, was on display under an altar on the right transept of the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome until the middle of the last decade. The incorrupt body of this great saint, who spent himself tirelessly for the conversion of the schismatic and heretical Orthodox, was moved to a different, less prominent location in order to make way for the artificially preserved body of the thoroughly corrupt Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who promised silence about Communism in order to purchase the presence of "observers" from the schismatic and heretical Russian Orthodox Church at his "Second" Vatican Council.

Thus is that all of the “joint declarations” issued by the conciliar "popes" and various patriarchs of the Orthodox churches spit in the face of the work done by the likes of Saint Hyacinth and Saint Josaphat, who was martyred by the Orthodox for the success he had in converting the son of a Russian prince.

The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church complement those of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. This is beyond question. Those in the Eastern Rites must, however, believe in everything taught by the Catholic Church or suffer from doctrinal emphysema in their lungs. The Eastern Rites and the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (as well as the little used Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite proper to parts of Spain) each must breathe the clear, unpolluted air of the totality of the Deposit of Faith exactly as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted It to Holy Mother Church without any shadow of alteration, change, ambiguity or contradiction whatsoever.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio could also care less that Saint Andrew Bobola, whose feast, which is not celebrated universally, is on May 16, laid down his very life on May 16, 1657, in defense of the truths of the Holy Faith as he sought to convert the Cossacks from the Orthodox heresy back to the true Faith from which the Orthodoxy’s adherents’ ancestors had separated themselves seven hundred three years before. No, he, like Ratzinger/Benedict before him, cares only about a “communion of the heart,” one which “difficult” differences can be glossed over by means of a “shared witness” to a generic Christianity in the world. Perhaps Wrong Ways Jorge had the work of Saint Andrew Bobola in mind when he apologized to his fellow heresiarch, Hieronymos II, on December 4, 2021, the Feast of Saint Chrysologus and the Commemorations of Saint Barbara and of the First Sunday of Advent.

Saint Andrew Bobola, the Missionary to Lithuania, did not care for such a “communion of hearts” as he sought refused to be intimidated into relenting in his efforts to bring souls into the Catholic Faith. Moreover, did not care about threats and he did not complain about the obstacles that faced him in his apostolic endeavors. He accepted calumnies with perfect equanimity, seeing in his detractors the loving hand of God to purify him for the sake of His greater honor and glory and the sanctification and salvation of souls.

Yes, the martyrdoms of Saint Josaphat in 1623 and that of Saint Andrew Bobola thirty-four years later are considered to be considered to be "out-of-date" for the conciliarists, part of the "past" about which there needs to be a "purification of memory." Everything about the “past” must be wiped down the Orwellian memory hole.

Writing on the tricentennial of Saint Andrew Bobola’s martyrdom, Pope Pius XII explained in Invicti Athletae, May 16, 1957, that Saint Andrew Bobola, who had to do battle with his own pride and impatience, was motived by a true love of his neighbor, a love that seeks the eternal good of all, especially by seeking the return of hardened sinners to the practice of the Holy Faith and of seeking with urgency the conversion of non-Catholics to the bosom of Holy Mother Church:

7. But since he was by temperament proud, impatient, and sometimes obstinate, Bobola had to wage a very sharp contest against himself, and ascend his Calvary, as it were, laden with the cross, in order to reach the height of this virtue. There, at length, impelled and assisted by the grace he had obtained by constant and fervent prayers, he might be able to reach Christian perfection, for as St. Bernard wisely said, “the spiritual edifice cannot possibly stand except on the firm foundation of humility.”[4]

8. Above all, Bobola was on fire with a great love of God and of his neighbors. As a result, he found nothing sweeter than to spend long hours, whenever possible, before the sacred tabernacle, and to assist the unfortunate in every way according to his means. He loved God above all, and far more than himself. He sought exclusively God’s glory, according to the Rule of his Father, St. Ignatius. To this Saint, then, the words of the same holy Doctor [St. Bernard] can be applied, “He alone should be desired, Who alone fulfills desire.”[5]

9. It is not surprising, then, that this athlete of Jesus Christ, adorned with these gifts of grace, should have achieved such notable progress in the apostolic field, and been able to gather rich fruits in the saving of souls. He was on fire to preserve, extend, and defend the Catholic faith. Thus, when serving as a teacher at Vilna, and later when living in other cities, he diligently taught the elements of Christian doctrine, and encouraged devotion to the Eucharist, and an ardent and filial-love of the Virgin Mother of God.

10. But afterwards, when he was raised to the dignity of the priesthood — in the same year and on the same day that Ignatius and Francis Xavier were inscribed at Rome in the calendar of the Saints — he chose before all else to spare no labor, in ministerial journeys and by sermons on holy things, in order that he might spread everywhere a Catholic faith which would not be ineffective, but productive of good works.

11. But the Catholic Church, particularly in the countries to the East, was facing an extremely grave crisis owing to the efforts of the schismatics, who were striving by every device to draw the faithful away from the unity of the Church into their own errors. Andrew went, therefore, into those regions on the instruction and command of his Superiors, and by public sermons and private instruction through their cities, towns, and villages, and most of all by the fervor of his exceptional holiness and the burning zeal of his apostolate, he freed the wavering faith of a multitude of Christians from beguiling falsehood, brought them back to sound principles, and joyfully invited all he could to return to the one fold of Jesus Christ. (Pope Pius XI, Invicti Athletae, May 16, 1957.)

Quick Interjection:

How can anyone not grasp the clear contrast between the life and zeal for souls of Saint Andrew Bobola with the dismissal of Catholic doctrine by the conciliar “popes,” up to and including their lovingly warm embrace of the leaders of the Protestant sects and the Orthodox churches, embraces that mock the martyrdom of such Catholic heroes as Saints Josaphat Kuncewicz and Andrew Bobola without a thought of their every existence.

Pope Pius XII, however, sought to bring the memory of Saint Andrew Bobola to the forefront of Catholic minds at the height of the Cold War, which was characterized, of course, by the close cooperation of Orthodox leaders with Communist authorities in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and elsewhere throughout Eastern and Central Europe:

12. He did not merely restore and strengthen the faith of the Christians, languishing and on the verge of collapse, but roused them also to weep for their own sins, to settle their disputes, to heal their divisions, to restore true morality. It seemed that, like his Divine Master, wherever he passed by doing good, a new spring blossomed forth, bright with heavenly flowers and fruits of salvation. Consequently, as tradition has it, he received from all, even from the schismatics, the significant title of “hunter of souls.”

13. This tireless apostle of Jesus Christ had lived by faith, had spread the faith, and had defended the faith; so too, he did not hesitate to die for the faith of his fathers.

14. Notable among almost countless others was the unforgettable and savage onslaught on the Catholic religion which flared up in the 17th century in the Eastern countries. The Cossack forces then invaded those lands, and directed their furious attack on Catholics and their pastors, and on the heralds of the truth of the Gospel. Temples dedicated to the divine worship were utterly destroyed; monasteries were consumed by fire; priests and their flocks were everywhere put to the sword; everything was laid waste; all that was sacred was scattered to the winds.

15. Andrew Bobola could apply to himself that saying, “Nothing that is known to belong to God, do I consider outside my interests.”[6] He feared death and sufferings not at all. On fire with love for God and his neighbor, he entered the fray with all his resources, in order to draw back as many as he could from a foreswearing of the Catholic faith, and from the snares and errors of those who were separated from the Church, and in order to provide a valiant and rousing encouragement for the preservation of Christian teaching in all its integrity. (Pope Pius XI, Invicti Athletae, May 16, 1957.)

Quick Interjection Number Two:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio would recoil at the title of “hunter of souls,” wouldn’t he?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio would rather die fighting for the rights of heretics and schismatics than even to consider doing so for the Faith of our Fathers. Indeed, the conciliar revolutionaries have delighted in doing the same thing as the Lutherans, the Calvinist and the Anglicans had done in the Sixteenth Century and that the Cossacks did a century later: to destroy temples dedicated to the divine worship and by laying waste to the liturgy and traditions of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, which extend now to even changing the words of the Pater Noster and of the Gloria in Excelsis Deo prayers at the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

We return now to the denouement of Pope Pius XII’s pithy summary of the life and martyrdom of Saint Andrew Bobola:

16. But on May 16, 1657, on the feast of our Lord’s Ascension into heaven, he was seized near Janovia by the enemies of the Catholics. We do not think this filled him with fear, but rather with a heavenly joy. For We know that he had always prayed for martyrdom and had often recalled the words of the Divine Redeemer, “Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute you, and speaking falsely say all manner of evil against you, for my sake. Rejoice and exult, because your reward is great in heaven; for so did they persecute the prophets who were before you.”[7]

17. The mind shudders as it recalls all the tortures which the athlete of Jesus Christ endured with unconquerable fortitude and a faith resolute and unbroken. For, “beaten with rods, struck with blows, dragged by a rope behind a horse on a painful and blood-stained path, he was brought to Janovia to be delivered to the final torture.

18. “In that contest, the Polish Martyr rose to the heights of the noblest triumphs which the Church commemorates. Andrew was asked if he were a priest of the Latin rite, and he replied, ‘I am a Catholic priest; I was born in the Catholic faith; in that faith I wish to die. My faith is true; it leads to salvation. Do you rather repent; give place to sorrow for sin, else you will be unable, in your errors, to win salvation. By embracing my faith, you will acknowledge the true God, and will save your souls’.”[8]

19. At these words, those wicked men, utterly devoid of humanity, were roused to a fiendish barbarity, and reached such a degree of cruelty that they inflicted still more horrible sufferings on the soldier of Christ. Once again, “he was scourged, a crown like that of Jesus Christ was bound about his head, he was struck heavy blows and lay wounded by a scimitar. Next, his right eye was gouged out, strips of skin were torn off, his wounds were savagely scorched and rubbed with prickly bundles of straw. Nor was that enough: his ears, nose and lips were cut off, his tongue torn out by the root, and finally, a weapon plunged into his heart. And, at long last, the valiant athlete, three hours after midday, displaying a truly marvelous example of fortitude, was pierced by a sword and achieved the glory of martyrdom.”[9]

20. The victorious martyr, crimsoned in his own blood, has been received through his triumph into heaven, and on earth, the Church, when she beheld his resplendent holiness attested and confirmed by God Himself through truly remarkable miracles, proposed him for the devotion and imitation of the whole community of Christians. For in 1853, Our Predecessor of venerable memory, Pius IX, enrolled him among the Blessed in heaven, and in 1938, Our immediate Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius XI, solemnly placed him in the ranks of the Saints.

21. We have been pleased to sketch in brief outline, through this Encyclical Letter, the principal points in the life and holiness of Andrew Bobola, so that all sons of the Catholic Church throughout the world might not only admire, but also imitate with equal fidelity his sound religious teaching, his unwavering faith, his fortitude in defending the honor and glory of Christ even to martyrdom. Under your guidance and encouragement, Venerable Brothers, may all men contemplate his illustrious virtues, especially during these centenary celebrations. Let them understand that it is their duty to follow in his holy footsteps. (Pope Pius XII, Invicti Athletae, May 16, 1957.)

Saint Andrew Bobola’s holy martyrdom should inspire us anew to suffer whatever we must to remain firm in our conviction that we cannot maintain any ties at all to the counterfeit church of conciliarism, especially by repeating by repeating his stirring words prior to his martyrdom that Pope Pius XII had quoted in Invicti Athletae: “I was born in the Catholic faith; in that faith I wish to die. My faith is true; it leads to salvation. Do you rather repent; give place to sorrow for sin, else you will be unable, in your errors, to win salvation. By embracing my faith, you will acknowledge the true God, and will save your souls’”

This should bring tears to our Catholic eyes. I have some in mine now.

There it is, ladies and gentleman: a simple summary of what it is to be Catholic and to what happens to those outside the Ark of Saint Peter:

“I was born in the Catholic faith; in that faith I wish to die. My faith is true; it leads to salvation. Do you rather repent; give place to sorrow for sin, else you will be unable, in your errors, to win salvation. By embracing my faith, you will acknowledge the true God, and will save your souls’”

For the record, the Catholic Church forbids the kind of intercommunion in prayer services of the kind praised by Bergoglio during his in-flight press conference from Romania four days ago now:

(4) The same argument and command the apostle repeats in his epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive, "having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof;" then he immediately gives this command: "Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires"; and adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His holy Church — the only sure rule for knowing the truth — they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, "ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth"; because, as he adds, "they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith". (2 Tim. 3:5)

Here it is to be observed that, though the apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the epistle is directed particularly to him, and to him he says, as well as to all others, "Now these avoid", though he was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the apostle himself in all the truths of religion; because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who believes that he is a "pastor," stands particularly condemned for scoffing at what the Catholic Church has always condemend.

Then again, he is a "brother" with those who reject the Catholic Faith as he does, either oblivious or contemptuous of the fact that his beliefs, words and actions placed him outside of the pale of the true Church in his youth:

(5) Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. 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 your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)

Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like? (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

Bergolio, like Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II before him, enters freely into places of false worhip and further imperils the salvation of his immortal soul while earning the deepest place and the most horrible torments in Hell imaginable if he does not repent of his crimes against Christ the King and the Holy Faith before he dies. Bishop George Hay explained this crime in no uncertain terms:

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion“. (Can. 44)

Also, “If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion“. (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

Yes, Jorge, God the Holy Ghost teaches the same truth at all times because immutability is of His very Divine essence. This is why the conciliar "popes" have shown us that they really do not believe in the true God of Divine Revealtion as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church.

The actions, of the conciliar "popes," including the retired and very reclusive (at least in recent months) Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and the in-you-face Jorge Mario Bergoglio have been condemned by Our Blessed Lord and Saints Peter and Paul, Saint John the Evangelist and the very apostolical canons of Holy Mother Church. Pope Pius XI condemned such "brotherhood" get-togethers in no uncertain terms in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.” For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Wrong Ways Jorge Mario Bergoglio spits on the First Commandment daily: 

I am the LORD thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio also spits on the following passage from Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, which explains that agreement and union of minds is the necessary characteristic of the Catholic Church, not a false ecumenism of the "heart" that was the work of a direct disciple of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., Abbe Paul Couturier:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

There is no no need for "conjecture" as the truth of where unity resides and can never be lost is clear: the Catholic Church.

Is there one true religion?

Is Catholicism the one true religion?

Are Orthodoxy and Protestantism displeasing to the true God of Divine Revelation?

Do Orthodox churches and Protestant "sects,” termed "ecclesial communities" by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism prior to Bergoglio, who thinks that they are true churches, have a right from God to exist?

Do these Protestant sects possess true holy orders?

Do these Protestant sects possess liturgies that are pleasing to God and that sanctify and thus save souls?

Catholics, that is, believing Catholics, know how to answer each of these questions.

Catholicism is the one true religion.

Orthodoxy and Protestantism are displeasing to the true God of Divine Revelation.

Orthodox and Protestant "churches" do not have a right from God to exist.

Protestant sects do not possess true holy orders.

Here are some additional questions for you, if you care to consider them in your spare time, that is.

Would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ enter into an Orthodox church and thus acknowledge the legitimacy of those who dissent from His Sacred Deposit of Faith on numerous points of doctrine (see Appendix B for a list of the principal errors of the Orthodox)?

Would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ enter into an Protestant church building to sit as an equal with a non-ordained "clergyman" who dissented almost everything that is contained in the Deposit of Faith that He has revealed and entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication?

Would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ smile hug a “pastor” of one of these false sects of Protestantism?

Did any true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter enter into one of these Protestant church buildings while treating those present as having a mission from God to serve and save souls?

No, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would never enter into an Orthodox or a Protestant church building to sit as an equal with heretics and/or with non-ordained "clergyman" who dissented from many things contained in the Deposit of Faith that He has revealed and entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

No, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would not smile if he was greeted by a "pastor” by an Orthodox bishop or by a leader of one of these false sects of Protestantism.

No, no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter ever entered into one of these Orthodox or Protestant church buildings.

Indeed, Pope Pius XI noted the following about the Catholic Church's relationship with non-Catholic sects that claim to be teachers and sanctifiers of Christianity:

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God," and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

The Catholic Church cannot err. She does not have to engage in a “search for unity” as she is the sole repository all revealed truth and the sole means of uniting men, and she does not have to engage in “dialogue” with non-Catholics to “find” unity as she alone is one true Church, none other:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

Standing in contrast to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who masquerades around the world as “Pope Francis,” much to the utter delight of most Catholics, who have either accepted apostasy in increments over the decades or have known nothing other than apostasy as what they believe is Catholicism, and non-Catholics alike, is the example given by Pope Saint Pius X, who refused to meet with former President Theodore Roosevelt, a thirty-third degree Freemason, when he was in Rome because he, Roosevelt, had just spoken to an assembly of Methodists in the Eternal City:

Ever conscious of the Church’s exclusive mission to the world, the Pope refused to receive Theodore Roosevelt after the former American president had lectured to a Methodist congregation in Rome. (See St Pius X: the son of a village postman who urged modernists to beaten with fists.)

We must pray to Our Lady for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter, remembering that it was Our Lady who had prayed for our first pope while he was in chains. Her prayers secured the angel who rescued him miraculously from the clutches of Herod and the Jews. The event was so miraculous that the mother of Saint Mark the Evangelist, Saint Peter's trusted disciple, saw that our first pope stood before her. Those with her refused to believe her. They refused to believe that the first pope had been miraculously rescued. Saint Peter had to continue to knock to gain entry!

It is no accident that the wreteched Modernist, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, abolished the feast of Saint Peter's Chains in 1960. Roncalli's action could have been a subtle way for the devil to boast that the papacy at that time. The last thing in the world that the adversary wold want to do is have Catholics reminded of this true but nevertheless still prophetic event in the chapter of Holy Mother Church in her infancy. Additionally, Roncalli was very sensitive to the feelings of the Jews, and the account in the Acts of the Apostles in today's speaks to us of the fact that Saint Peter's captivity was done at the behest of the Jews, who very pleased to see the first pope imprisoned.

Well, the Talmudists of today are just as happy to have played the role in holding the papacy itself captive and in attacking those who seek to defend the truths of the Holy Faith, including the truth that Judaism is a false religion and that those who adhere to its false tenets and who observe its abolished liturgical rites need to be exhorted to convert unconditionally to the true Faith before they die. No, it is no accident at all that this feast was abolished in 1960 at the very dawning of the age of conciliarism under the Judaizer Roncalli.

The papacy is held in chains today. Our Lady will rescue the papacy just as miraculously as she rescued our first pope by means of her prayers. We must believe that she will do so as the Church Militant undergoes her Mystical Passion, Death and Burial in these our days. She is indeed our life, our sweetness and our hope. Saint Peter relied upon her. So must we!

We can plant the change for true change, that is, of a conversion of all men and their nations to the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, by relying upon Our Lady just as Saint Peter did. She has given us the Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel as our shield and her Most Holy Rosary as our spiritual weapon. Let us use them wear as we fulfill the pledges associated with the Brown Scapular and pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

What are we waiting for?

Our Lady is waiting to help us.

Why do we tarry to trust in her loving care?

Why do refuse to believe that the path out of this mess runs through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Appendix A

The Propositions of John Hus Condemned by the Council of Constance

1. One and only is the holy universal Church which is the aggregate of the predestined.

2. Paul never was a member of the devil, although he did certain acts similar to the acts of those who malign the Church.

3. The foreknown are not parts of the Church, since no part of it finally will fall away from it, because the charity of predestination which binds it will not fall away.

4. Two natures, divinity and humanity, are one Christ.

5. The foreknown, although at one time he is in grace according to the present justice, yet is never a part of the holy Church; and the predestined always remains a member of the Church, although at times he may fall away from additional grace, but not from the grace of predestination.

6. Assuming the Church as the convocation of the predestinated, whether they were in grace or not according to the present justice, in that way the Church is an article of faith.

7. Peter is not nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church.

8. Priests living criminally in any manner whatsoever, defile the power of the priesthood, and as unfaithful sons they think unfaithfully regarding the seven sacraments of the Church, the keys, the duties, the censures, customs, ceremonies, and sacred affairs of the Church, its veneration of relics, indulgences, and orders.

9. The papal dignity has sprung up from Caesar, and the perfection and institution of the pope have emanated from the power of Caesar.

10. No one without revelation would have asserted reasonably regarding himself or anyone else that he was the head of a particular church, nor is the Roman Pontiff the head of a particular Roman Church.

11. It is not necessary to believe that the one whosoever is the Roman Pontiff, is the head of any particular holy church, unless God has predestined him.

12. No one takes the place of Christ or of Peter unless he follows him in character, since no other succession is more important, and not otherwise does he receive from God the procuratorial power, because for that office of vicar are required both conformity in character and the authority of Him who institutes it.

13. The pope is not the true and manifest successor of Peter, the first of the apostles, if he lives in a manner contrary to Peter; and if he be avaricious, then he is the vicar of Judas Iscariot. And with like evidence the cardinals are not the true and manifest successors of the college of the other apostles of Christ, unless they live in the manner of the apostles, keeping the commandments and counsels of our Lord Jesus Christ.

14. Doctors holding that anyone to be emended by ecclesiastical censure, if he is unwilling to be corrected, must be handed over to secular judgment, certainly are following in this the priests, scribes, and pharisees, who saying that "it is not permissible for us to kill anyone" (John 18:31), handed over to secular judgment Christ Himself, who did not wish to be obedient to them in all things, and such are homicides worse than Pilate.

15. Ecclesiastical obedience is obedience according to the invention of the priest of the Church, without the expressed authority of scripture.

16. The immediate division of human works is: that they are either virtuous or vicious, because, if a man is vicious and does anything, then he acts viciously; and if he is virtuous and does anything, then he acts virtuously; because as vice, which is called a crime or mortal sin, renders the acts of man universally vicious, so virtue vivifies all the acts of the virtuous man.

17. Priests of Christ, living according to His law and having a knowledge of Scripture and a desire to instruct the people, ought to preach without the impediment of a pretended excommunication. But if the pope or some other prelate orders a priest so disposed not to preach, the subject is not obliged to obey.

18. Anyone who approaches the priesthood receives the duty of a preacher by command, and that command he must execute, without the impediment of a pretended excommunication.

19. By ecclesiastical censures of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, the clergy for its own exaltation supplies for itself the lay populace, it multiplies avarice, protects wickedness, and prepares the way for the Antichrist. Moreover, the sign is evident that from the Antichrist such censures proceed, which in their processes they call fulminations, by which the clergy principally proceed against those who uncover the wickedness of the Antichrist, who will make use of the clergy especially for himself.

20. If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it.

21. The grace of predestination is a chain by which the body of the Church and any member of it are joined insolubly to Christ the Head.

22. The pope or prelate, wicked and foreknown, is equivocally pastor and truly a thief and robber.

23. The pope should not be called "most holy" even according to his office, because otherwise the king ought also to be called "most holy" according to his office, and torturers and heralds should be called holy, indeed even the devil ought to be called holy, since he is an official of God.

24. If the pope lives in a manner contrary to Christ, even if he should ascend through legal and legitimate election according to the common human constitution, yet he would ascend from another place than through Christ, even though it be granted that he entered by an election made principally by God; for Judas Iscariot rightly and legitimately was elected by God, Jesus Christ, to the episcopacy, and yet he ascended from another place to the sheepfold of the sheep.

25. The condemnation of the forty-five articles of John Wycliffe made by the doctors is irrational and wicked and badly made; the cause alleged by them has been feigned, namely, for the reason that "no one of them is a Catholic but anyone of them is either heretical, erroneous, or scandalous."

26. Not for this reason, that the electors, or a greater par of them, agreed by acclamation according to the observance of men upon some person, is that person legitimately elected; nor for this reason is he the true and manifest successor or vicar of the Apostle Peter, or in the ecclesiastical office of another apostle. Therefore, whether electors have chosen well or badly, we ought to believe in the works of the one elected; for, by the very reason that anyone who operates for the advancement of the Church in a manner more fully meritorious, has from God more fully the faculty for this.

27. For there is not a spark of evidence that there should be one head ruling the Church in spiritual affairs, which head always lives and is preserved with the Church militant herself.

28. Christ through His true disciples scattered through the world would rule His Church better without such monstrous heads.

29. The apostles and faithful priests of the Lord strenuously in necessities ruled the Church unto salvation, before the office of the pope was introduced; thus they would be doing even to the day of judgment, were the pope utterly lacking.

30. No one is a civil master, no one is a prelate, no one is a bishop while he is in mortal sin. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, no. 148, pp. 212-215.)

It should go without saying that many of these propositions, especially the ones concerning the nature of the “universal church” and the denial of the temporal authority of the Catholic Church. Modernism is as Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, “the synthesis of all heresies,” owing much to a wide variety of heresies that have plagued Holy Mother Church from the First Century A.D. to the present.

Appendix B

Various Ways in Which the Orthodox Defect From the Deposit of Faith Entrusted to the Catholic Church

1. Papal Primacy.

2. Papal Infallibility.

3. The doctrine of Original Sin as defined dogmatically by the Catholic Church. The ambiguous doctrine of the Orthodox was noted by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, when discussing the Greek rejection of Limbo that is, of course, shared by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his protege, William "Cardinal" Levada, whose "International Theological Commission" issued The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized on April 19, 2007:

Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act. (International Theological Commission, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, April 19, 2007.)

Droleskey interection: This is what the Orthodox still believe, which makes them fit "partners" for "ecumenical dialogue" with Bergoglio and Ratzinger/Benedict before him, who told us in his own murky way that he is of one mind with them on the matter of Original Sin, which he called in 1995 an "imprecise" term (!).]

Here is a statement on Original Sin from the Orthodox Church in America:

With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:

In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair."

In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.

One might look at all of this in a completely different light. Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found guilty ­ and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly. You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the consequences of his action -­ people may shy away from you or say, "Watch out for him -­ he comes from a family of mass murderers." Your name may be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally guilty of his or her sin.

There are some within Orthodoxy who approach a westernized view of sin, primarily after the 17th and 18th centuries due to a variety of westernizing influences particularly in Ukraine and Russia after the time of Peter Mohyla. These influences have from time to time colored explanations of the Orthodox Faith which are in many respects lacking. (Orthodox Church in America, Questions and Answers on Original Sin) 

Another interjection: This is not Catholic doctrine. This matter cannot be "bridged" by concerts of music composed by Russians.

4. The Filioque, that God the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

5. The doctrine of Purgatory as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.

6. The doctrine of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.

7. The doctrine of Our Lady's Assumption body and soul into Heaven as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.

8. The doctrine of the indissolubility of a sacramentally valid, ratified and consummated marriage; the Orthodox hold that a person can marry up to three times following two divorces. Here is the Orthodox "consensus" (as there is no ultimate ecclesiastical authority within Orthodoxy to decide doctrinal matters) on the issue:

Marriage is one of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians who marry must marry in the Church in order to be in sacramental communion with the Church. According to the Church canons, an Orthodox who marries outside the Church may not receive Holy Communion and may not serve as a sponsor, i.e. a Godparent at a Baptism, or as a sponsor at a Wedding. Certain marriages are prohibited by canon law, such as a marriage between first and second cousins, or between a Godparent and a Godchild. The first marriage of a man and a woman is honored by the Church with a richly symbolic service that eloquently speaks to everyone regarding the married state. The form of the service calls upon God to unite the couple through the prayer of the priest or bishop officiating.

The church will permit up to, but not more than, three marriages for any Orthodox Christian. If both partners are entering a second or third marriage, another form of the marriage ceremony is conducted, much more subdued and penitential in character. Marriages end either through the death of one of the partners or through ecclesiastical recognition of divorce. The Church grants "ecclesiastical divorces" on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry.

Those Orthodox jurisdictions which issue ecclesiastical divorces require a thorough evaluation of the situation, and the appearance of the civilly divorced couple before a local ecclesiastical court, where another investigation is made. Only after an ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an ecclesiastical license to remarry.

Though the Church would prefer that all Orthodox Christians would marry Orthodox Christians, it does not insist on it in practice. Out of its concern for the spiritual welfare of members who wish to marry a non-Orthodox Christian, the Church will conduct a "mixed marriage." For this purpose, a "non-Orthodox Christian" is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or one of the many Protestant Churches which believe in and baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. This means that such mixed marriages may be performed in the Orthodox Church. However, the Orthodox Church does not perform marriages between Orthodox Christians and persons belonging to other religions, such as Islam , Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any sectarian and cult group, such as Christian Science, Mormonism, or the followers of Rev. Moon. (The Stand of the Orthodox Church on Controversial Issues.)

9. The absolute prohibition against the use of any form of contraception whatsoever. This is from the website of the Greek Orthodox Church in America:

General agreement exists among Orthodox writers on the following two points:

1. Since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances;
2. contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery.

Less agreement exists among Eastern Orthodox authors on the issue of contraception within marriage for the spacing of children or for the limitation of the number of children. Some authors take a negative view and count any use of contraceptive methods within or outside of marriage as immoral (Papacostas, pp. 13-18; Gabriel Dionysiatou). These authors tend to emphasize as the primary and almost exclusive purpose of marriage the birth of children and their upbringing. They tend to consider any other exercise of the sexual function as the submission of this holy act to unworthy purposes, i.e., pleasure-seeking, passion, and bodily gratification, which are held to be inappropriate for the Christian growing in spiritual perfection. These teachers hold that the only alternative is sexual abstinence in marriage, which, though difficult, is both desirable and possible through the aid of the grace of God. It must be noted also that, for these writers, abortion and contraception are closely tied together, and often little or no distinction is made between the two. Further, it is hard to discern in their writings any difference in judgment between those who use contraceptive methods so as to have no children and those who use them to space and limit the number of children.

Other Orthodox writers have challenged this view by seriously questioning the Orthodoxy of the exclusive and all-controlling role of the procreative purpose of marriage (Zaphiris; Constantelos, 1975). Some note the inconsistency of the advocacy of sexual continence in marriage with the scriptural teaching that one of the purposes of marriage is to permit the ethical fulfillment of sexual drives, so as to avoid fornication and adultery (1 Cor. 7:1-7). Most authors, however, emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual love. (For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics.)

Droleskey Afterword to Appendix A:

Such heretical beliefs are not the foundation of any kind of true reconciliation between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, admitting that the counterfeit church of conciliarism can indeed "live" with these differences in the name of a false notion of "unity" and "love."

Appendix C

Several Example of Past "Joint Declarations" or "Common Statements" Made by Conciliar "Popes" and Greek Orthodox "Patriarchs"

Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I give thanks in the Holy Spirit to God, the author and finisher of all good works, for enabling them to meet once again in the holy city of Rome in order to pray together with the Bishops of the Synod of the Roman Catholic Church and with the faithful people of this city, to greet one another with a kiss of peace, and to converse together in a spirit of charity and brotherly frankness.

While recognizing that there is still a long way to go on the road toward the unity of all Christians and that between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church there still remain points to clarify and obstacles to surmount before attaining that unity in the profession of faith necessary for re-establishing full communion, they rejoice in the fact that their meeting was able to contribute to their Churches rediscovering themselves still more as sister Churches.

In the prayers they offered, in their public statements and in their private conversation, the Pope and the Patriarch wished to emphasize their conviction that an essential element in the restoration of full communion between the Roman Catholic Church on the one side and the Orthodox Church on the other, is to be found within the framework of the renewal of the Church and of Christians in fidelity to the traditions of the Fathers and to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit Who remains always with the Church.

They recognize that the true dialogue of charity, which should be at the basis of all relations between themselves and between their Churches, must be rooted in total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for each one’s traditions. Every element which can strengthen the bonds of charity, of communion, and of common action is a cause for spiritual rejoicing and should be promoted; anything which can harm this charity, communion and common action is to be eliminated with the grace of God and the creative strength of the Holy Spirit.

Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I are convinced that the dialogue of charity between their Churches must bear fruits of a cooperation which would not be self-seeking, in the field of common action at the pastoral, social and intellectual levels, with mutual respect for each one’s fidelity to his own Church. They desire that regular and profound contacts may be maintained between Catholic and Orthodox pastors for the good of their faithful. The Roman Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate are ready to study concrete ways of solving pastoral problems, especially those connected with marriages between Catholics and Orthodox. They hope for better cooperation in works of charity, in aid to refugees and those who are suffering and in the promotion of justice and peace in the world.

In order to prepare fruitful contacts between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the Pope and the Patriarch give their blessing and pastoral support to all efforts for cooperation between Catholic and Orthodox scholars in the fields of historical studies, of studies in the traditions of the Churches, of patristics, of liturgy and of a presentation of the Gospel which corresponds at one and the same time with the authentic message of the Lord and with the needs and hopes of today’s world. The spirit which should inspire these efforts is one of loyalty to truth and of mutual understanding, with an effective desire to avoid the bitterness of the past and every kind of spiritual or intellectual domination.

Paul VI and Athenagoras I remind government authorities and all the world’s peoples of the thirst for peace and justice which lies in the hearts of all men. In the name of the Lord, they implore them to seek out every means to promote this peace and this justice in all countries of the world. (Common Declaration of Paul the Sick and the Ecumenical Heretic of Constantinople, Athenagoras I.)

This year we thank God in particular for the meeting of the Joint Commission which took place in Ravenna, a city whose monuments speak eloquently of the ancient Byzantine heritage handed down to us from the undivided Church of the first millennium. May the splendour of those mosaics inspire all the members of the Joint Commission to pursue their important task with renewed determination, in fidelity to the Gospel and to Tradition, ever alert to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in the Church today.

While the meeting in Ravenna was not without its difficulties, I pray earnestly that these may soon be clarified and resolved, so that there may be full participation in the Eleventh Plenary Session and in subsequent initiatives aimed at continuing the theological dialogue in mutual charity and understanding. Indeed, our work towards unity is according to the will of Christ our Lord. In these early years of the third millennium, our efforts are all the more urgent because of the many challenges facing all Christians, to which we need to respond with a united voice and with conviction. (Letter to His Holiness Bartholomaios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch, on the occasion of the feast of St. Andrew, November 23, 2007.)

(So much for the “unofficial” nature of The Ravenna Document.)

1. Like our venerable predecessors Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras who met here in Jerusalem fifty years ago, we too, Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, were determined to meet in the Holy Land “where our common Redeemer, Christ our Lord, lived, taught, died, rose again, and ascended into Heaven, whence he sent the Holy Spirit on the infant Church” (Common communiqué of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, published after their meeting of 6 January 1964). Our meeting, another encounter of the Bishops of the Churches of Rome and Constantinople founded respectively by the two Brothers the Apostles Peter and Andrew, is a source of profound spiritual joy for us. It presents a providential occasion to reflect on the depth and the authenticity of our existing bonds, themselves the fruit of a grace-filled journey on which the Lord has guided us since that blessed day of fifty years ago.

2. Our fraternal encounter today is a new and necessary step on the journey towards the unity to which only the Holy Spirit can lead us, that of communion in legitimate diversity. We call to mind with profound gratitude the steps that the Lord has already enabled us to undertake. The embrace exchanged between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras here in Jerusalem, after many centuries of silence, paved the way for a momentous gesture, the removal from the memory and from the midst of the Church of the acts of mutual excommunication in 1054. This was followed by an exchange of visits between the respective Sees of Rome and Constantinople, by regular correspondence and, later, by the decision announced by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios, of blessed memory both, to initiate a theological dialogue of truth between Catholics and Orthodox. Over these years, God, the source of all peace and love, has taught us to regard one another as members of the same Christian family, under one Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and to love one another, so that we may confess our faith in the same Gospel of Christ, as received by the Apostles and expressed and transmitted to us by the Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers. While fully aware of not having reached the goal of full communion, today we confirm our commitment to continue walking together towards the unity for which Christ our Lord prayed to the Father so “that all may be one” (Jn 17:21).

3. Well aware that unity is manifested in love of God and love of neighbour, we look forward in eager anticipation to the day in which we will finally partake together in the Eucharistic banquet. As Christians, we are called to prepare to receive this gift of Eucharistic communion, according to the teaching of Saint Irenaeus of Lyon (Against Heresies, IV,18,5, PG 7,1028), through the confession of the one faith, persevering prayer, inner conversion, renewal of life and fraternal dialogue. By achieving this hoped for goal, we will manifest to the world the love of God by which we are recognized as true disciples of Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 13:35).

4. To this end, the theological dialogue undertaken by the Joint International Commission offers a fundamental contribution to the search for full communion among Catholics and Orthodox. Throughout the subsequent times of Popes John Paul II and Benedict the XVI, and Patriarch Dimitrios, the progress of our theological encounters has been substantial. Today we express heartfelt appreciation for the achievements to date, as well as for the current endeavours. This is no mere theoretical exercise, but an exercise in truth and love that demands an ever deeper knowledge of each other’s traditions in order to understand them and to learn from them. Thus we affirm once again that the theological dialogue does not seek a theological lowest common denominator on which to reach a compromise, but is rather about deepening one’s grasp of the whole truth that Christ has given to his Church, a truth that we never cease to understand better as we follow the Holy Spirit’s promptings. Hence, we affirm together that our faithfulness to the Lord demands fraternal encounter and true dialogue. Such a common pursuit does not lead us away from the truth; rather, through an exchange of gifts, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it will lead us into all truth (cf. Jn 16:13).

5. Yet even as we make this journey towards full communion we already have the duty to offer common witness to the love of God for all people by working together in the service of humanity, especially in defending the dignity of the human person at every stage of life and the sanctity of family based on marriage, in promoting peace and the common good, and in responding to the suffering that continues to afflict our world. We acknowledge that hunger, poverty, illiteracy, the inequitable distribution of resources must constantly be addressed. It is our duty to seek to build together a just and humane society in which no-one feels excluded or emarginated.

6. It is our profound conviction that the future of the human family depends also on how we safeguard – both prudently and compassionately, with justice and fairness – the gift of creation that our Creator has entrusted to us. Therefore, we acknowledge in repentance the wrongful mistreatment of our planet, which is tantamount to sin before the eyes of God. We reaffirm our responsibility and obligation to foster a sense of humility and moderation so that all may feel the need to respect creation and to safeguard it with care. Together, we pledge our commitment to raising awareness about the stewardship of creation; we appeal to all people of goodwill to consider ways of living less wastefully and more frugally, manifesting less greed and more generosity for the protection of God’s world and the benefit of His people.

7. There is likewise an urgent need for effective and committed cooperation of Christians in order to safeguard everywhere the right to express publicly one’s faith and to be treated fairly when promoting that which Christianity continues to offer to contemporary society and culture. In this regard, we invite all Christians to promote an authentic dialogue with Judaism, Islam and other religious traditions. Indifference and mutual ignorance can only lead to mistrust and unfortunately even conflict.

8. From this holy city of Jerusalem, we express our shared profound concern for the situation of Christians in the Middle East and for their right to remain full citizens of their homelands. In trust we turn to the almighty and merciful God in a prayer for peace in the Holy Land and in the Middle East in general. We especially pray for the Churches in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, which have suffered most grievously due to recent events. We encourage all parties regardless of their religious convictions to continue to work for reconciliation and for the just recognition of peoples’ rights. We are persuaded that it is not arms, but dialogue, pardon and reconciliation that are the only possible means to achieve peace.

9. In an historical context marked by violence, indifference and egoism, many men and women today feel that they have lost their bearings. It is precisely through our common witness to the good news of the Gospel that we may be able to help the people of our time to rediscover the way that leads to truth, justice and peace. United in our intentions, and recalling the example, fifty years ago here in Jerusalem, of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, we call upon all Christians, together with believers of every religious tradition and all people of good will, to recognize the urgency of the hour that compels us to seek the reconciliation and unity of the human family, while fully respecting legitimate differences, for the good of all humanity and of future generations.

10. In undertaking this shared pilgrimage to the site where our one same Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and rose again, we humbly commend to the intercession of the Most Holy and Ever Virgin Mary our future steps on the path towards the fullness of unity, entrusting to God’s infinite love the entire human family. “ May the Lord let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you! The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace!” (Num 6:25-26). (Jorge and Bartholomew‘s Joint Declaration, 25 May 2014.)