Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Recant! Responding to the Lutheran Heresy of Pope Francis

Editor’s note: The following comes from Paolo Pasqualucci, a retired professor of philosophy of the law at the University of Perugia, Italy.

It is impossible to forget the stunning high praise Martin Luther’s personality and doctrine won from no less than a Roman pontiff – that is, from the reigning Pope Francis, during one of his customary impromptu speeches. Conversing in Italian and Spanish with the accredited journalists while flying back from Armenia, he answered a question on the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran world in the following way:

I think that Martin Luther’s intentions were not mistaken; he was a reformer. Perhaps some of his methods were not right, although at that time, if you read Pastor’s history, for example – Pastor was a German Lutheran who experienced a conversion when he studied the facts of that period; he became a Catholic – we see that the Church was not exactly a model to emulate. There was corruption and worldliness in the Church; there was attachment to money and power. That was the basis of his protest. He was also intelligent, and he went ahead, justifying his reasons for it.

Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken. He offered a “remedy” for the Church, and then this remedy rigidified in a state of affairs, a discipline, a way of believing, a way of acting, a mode of liturgy. But there was not only Luther: there was Zwingli, there was Calvin[.] … And behind them? The princes, “cuius regio eius religio”. We have to place ourselves in the context of the times. It is a history that is not easy to understand, not easy[.] …

Then things moved on. Today, the dialogue is very good and I believe that the document on justification is one of the richest ecumenical documents, one of the richest and most profound. Right? There are divisions but they also depend on the churches[.] [1].

This sort of scandal – a pope expressing praise and even admiration for a condemned heretic – was bound to happen after the official agreement reached (after many years of mutual “dialog”) between Catholics and Lutherans on the doctrine of justification. An agreement on this delicate matter, or Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, was indeed signed on Oct. 31, 1999.

The existence of such an agreement implies that Luther had made no mistakes in his doctrine of justification – Martin Luther, the great heretic, one of the fiercest enemies of the Catholic Church who ever appeared on Earth! But now, after 500 years, we understand that his doctrine “on the very important point of the justification” appears to be so good as to be de facto adopted in the Joint Declaration itself!

The disgraceful Joint Declaration is an unbelievable document, something undoubtedly unique in the whole history of the Catholic Church, the only and true Church of Christ. We are now being told that there are articles of faith that we share with the Lutheran heretics, on the same matters the Lutherans have been misinterpreting and distorting for 500 years.  Of course, there remain some mutual differences, the Declaration tells us, but they are obviously minimized. Since they squarely contradict the contents of the various “joint declarations” scattered in the document, they are left rotting in the cellar, so to say, while the ancient condemnations are devalued to mere “salutary warnings to which we must attend in our teaching and practice” [2]!

Let’s look at some of the Lutheran tenets shared by this Declaration.

In §3, The Common Understanding of Justification, we read, no. 15: “Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works” [3].

Same paragraph, no. 17: it is jointly declared that “God’s saving action in Christ tells us that as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way” [4].

Finally, there is §4.1, Human Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification, no. 19, where it is jointly stated, as if it were absolutely obvious to us Catholics, that “[j]ustification takes place solely by God’s grace” [5].

As far as good works are concerned, the Declaration proclaims, in §4.7, The Good Works of the Justified, no. 37: “We confess together that good works – a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love – follow justification and are its fruits.”[6] This last sentence appears to contradict the truths defined by the Council of Trent, which has solemnly reaffirmed the meritorious character of the good works for eternal life, given the fact that, according to Holy Scripture, they necessarily concur in obtaining it.

All this considered, we cannot be amazed at Pope Francis’s devastating proclamation that “on this very important point Luther was not mistaken.” Indeed, if he was not mistaken, his doctrine of the justification was correct. If it was theologically correct, then Luther was in the right – so much in the right that this doctrine of his is nowadays clearly purported by the Joint Declaration.

Can we accept this? No. As Catholics, as milites Christi, it is our duty to proclaim that this joint profession of faith with the Lutherans openly contradicts the true doctrine of the justification solemnly defined by the dogmatic Council of Trent. At the end of its Decree on Justification, 13 January 1547, we find 33 canons that recapitulate the doctrine expounded and inflict the related anatemata.

Canon no. 9, condemning the heresy of justification sola fide:

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. [7]

Canon no. 11, condemning the related heresy of justification sola gratia:

If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. [8]

Canon no. 24, condemning the heresy according to which good works are merely the fruits or consequences of justification obtained sola fide et sola gratia, with absolute exclusion of any cooperation on our part by means of our good works:

If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema. [9]

The anonymous “one” whose heretical opinions are here condemned obviously includes Luther and all those who share and will share his opinions on these matters. Judging from the abstracts quoted above, doesn’t the Joint Declaration seem to be quite clear in its reasoning Lutherana mente?

On this appalling Declaration there is much more to say, but here I want only to make this last point: we cannot forget that this Joint Declaration is the final result of a “dialog” entertained with the Lutherans over the last decades, with the encouragement and approval of Pope John Paul II and cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, afterward Pope Benedict XVI. As far as I know, they have never found anything wrong with the joint declarations of the Joint Declaration! They have, on the other hand, repeatedly credited Martin Luther with a “profound religiosity” and a “Christ-centered spirituality” [10]!

Notwithstanding, let’s pose a humble and simple question: Is Pope Francis’s public praise of Luther’s doctrine on justification, formally condemned as heretical by the Church, to be considered heretical, too?

In fact, declaring to the whole world that Luther “was not mistaken” in his doctrine on justification sola fide et sola gratia, Pope Francis forces us to draw the only possible conclusion in accordance with elementary logic: Luther’s doctrine must be right, given the fact that in itself it is not wrong. But if the Lutheran doctrine is right, then heresy is falsely changed into right doctrine, and we must conclude that Pope Francis is subscribing to what the Church has condemned as heresy for 500 years on end.

But no pope whatsoever can approve of a heresy. By divine command (Lk. 22:32), the sovereign pontiff has the duty to maintain and defend the depositum fidei; he simply cannot modify or alter it, nor is he allowed to pretend it does not exist. Therefore, he simply cannot profess or share errores in fide or haereses, not even as a “private theologian.” If such a disgraceful event happens, the clergy and the faithful are morally obliged to ask him to recant publicly and to reaffirm the right and perennial doctrine of the Church – as it happened in the fourteenth century with reigning pope John XXII.

Against the prevailing belief, the aging John XXII suddenly began to preach in his sermons that the souls of the beati had to wait until the day of the Final Judgment to be admitted to the visio beatifica. After long, passionate, and even violent public discussions, initially promoted by the pope himself, he recanted his opinion in front of three cardinals shortly before his death. His successor, Pope Benedict XII, with the Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus, on 29 January 1336 defined the doctrine of the immediate vision as the sole and unique doctrine to be believed by all Christians [11].

John XXII recanted his personal unwise opinion on a matter that had not yet been formally defined as an article of faith by the supreme authority of the Church. He had proposed but not imposed a new doctrine that was in the end rejected as erroneous by the great majority of the Catholics. The famous and solitary example of John XXII – of a papal recantation – serves us as a true precedent, and especially in this sense: that a pope must recant his wrong interpretations of doctrine, even if propagated by him as a mere “private theologian.”

But John XXII never praised heresies already and formally condemned by the Church, as Pope Francis has done. It seems that his unwise and unacceptable praise of Luther’s heresy has no real precedent in the history of the Church.

In fact, thanks to his impromptu remarks, Pope Francis has heavily damaged the authority of the whole Magisterium of the Church in the eyes of world public opinion. If Luther was not in the wrong, who was? Someone must surely have been in the wrong during that great and tragic chaos known as the Lutheran schism. To declare that the heresiarch was not in the wrong implies that all those who condemned him as a formal heretic were – i.e., the three popes that excommunicated him as well as the dogmatic Council of Trent. To say Luther “was not wrong,” then, simply means to contradict five hundred years of Church Magisterium, sapping the authority of this same Magisterium, guilty (we now understand) of condemning for five centuries the righteous, very religious, Christ-centered person Luther was supposed to be.

At this point, someone might perhaps ask the following question: Is it legitimate to say that he who openly shares a known heresy proves to be a heretic himself?

Yes, absolutely. He who approves in his mind of the errors professed by a known heretic becomes his accomplice, morally and spiritually speaking. When we approve something – action or notion – being fully aware of what we are doing, it becomes ours. The alien opinion I freely share becomes my own, first in my mind and then in the eyes of the world, if I inform the public of this approval of mine.

One further objection could be the following: Pope Francis’s peculiar statements were issued while conversing as a “private theologian.” Therefore, they possess no magisterial value. Why don’t we just ignore them?

It is true that Pope Francis’s so far multifarious declarations as a “private theologian” have no magisterial value. However, since they almost always deal with relevant aspects of our faith and morals, it is not possible to ignore them. The heterodox slant they often show has a profoundly negative effect on the faithful. The fact is that a pope, even when he is releasing an interview as a private individual, can never be considered a mere private person. Even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, a pope is always the pope, in the sense that every sentence of his is always studied and weighed as if pronounced ex cathedra. The pope always embodies a superior authority: he is the authority par excellence, his being the authority of an institution (the pontificate) that represents in this world no less than the divine authority and supernatural powers of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is in no way acceptable, therefore, for Pope Francis, even as a “private theologian,” privately or publicly, to praise and extol well known heresies, formally damned by the Magisterium of the Church.

For the salvation of his own soul and our own, to avert the legitimate wrath of God on all of us, to repair the offense inflicted against the honor of Our Lord, Pope Francis should publicly recant his imprudent utterances as soon as possible and repeat and confirm the solemn condemnation of Lutheranism in all its aspects.


[1] In-flight Press Conference of His Holiness Pope Francis from Armenia to Rome, papal flight, Sunday, 26 June 2016,, pg. 8/12. Emphasis added. The pope was speaking in Italian. The present article is my own non-literal translation into English of a longer article, originally posted by me in Italian on the blog on 23 September 2017 and subsequently by Maria Guarini on her blog on 26 September 2017. The English text has been checked by 1Peter5 staff.

[2] Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,, §5, The Significance and Scope of the Consensus Reached, no. 42, pg. 10/20. Emphasis added.

[3] Ibidem, pg 4/20. Emphasis added.

[4] Ibidem, pg 5/20. Emphasis added.

[5] Ibidem, pg 5/20. Emphasis added.

[6] Ibidem, pg 9/20. Emphasis added. The notion of “good works” hinted at here seems vague.

[7] The Catholic Encyclopedia,, pg. 10/16. See also: DS 819/1559.

[8] Ibidem. See also: DS 821/1561.

[9] Op. cit., pg 11/18. See also: DS 834/1574.

[10] See John Paul II, letter of 31 Oct. 1983 (, letters of John Paul II, 1983); speech on 22 June 1996 (, speeches of John Paul II, 1996). And also Benedict XVI, speech in the Convent of Erfurt (, speeches of Benedict XVI, 2011).

[11] On this specific argument see Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, FSSPX, in a collection of six short articles entitled En cas de doute…, ‘Courrier de Rome,’ Jan 2017, LII, no. 595, pg. 9-11. These articles deal with the doctrinal issue of the “heretical pope” (si deprehendatur a fide devius). See also Giovanni XXII, entry of Enciclopedia Treccani, by Charles Trottman, It. transl. by Maria Paola Arena, pg 25/45, available online. For the magisterial documentation: DS 529-531/990-991; 1000-1002. Benedict XII also confirmed the traditional belief according to which the souls of the damned are precipitated into Hell by Our Lord immediately after their death (mox post mortem suam ad inferna descendunt).

58 thoughts on “Recant! Responding to the Lutheran Heresy of Pope Francis”

  1. Since there is no way that the Pope doesn’t know that the Lutheran doctrine of justification was anathematized by the Council of Trent, is it safe to say that the Pope is an obstinate heretic? We have mountains of evidence that the Pope has obstinately persisted in this and many other heresies, and has been reproved by many different groups, all of whom have received no answer. At what point can we say, this guy is no longer the Pope, for a manifest formal heretic cannot also be Pope at the same time?

    • I agree with you entirely. If we were unable to understand the basics of the Faith and apply them to whatever we have before us in the day to day, then Our Lord would not have commissioned His Church to teach them.

      Bergoglio could not possibly be the Vicar of Christ, else the Papacy and it’s Divine guarantees are a sham.

  2. In recognizing the contributions of Martin Luther, Pope Francis is continuing the message of John Paul II, who issued much the same message in 1983, the 500th anniversary of Luther’s birth. In a letter to the Bishop of Utrecht, John Paul II–bless his soul– wrote in part:

    . . . the 500th anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther must be for us an occasion to meditate, in Christian
    truth and charity, on that event engraved in history that was the epoch
    of the Reformation. It is time that we distance ourselves from historic
    events and assure that they are often better understood and evoked.

    Noted personalities and institutions of Christian Lutherans have indicated the opportunity that the year dedicated to Luther be marked by a genuine ecumenical spirit and by discussion on
    Luther that favors unity of Christians.

    More information on Pope John Paul II’s letter is here:

    Now I do recognize that most of those who read this blog believe that Pope Francis is a heretic, but I submit that he is returning the Catholic Church–the one true Church as we all believe–closer to where our Lord and Savior intended it should stand among all Christians.

    My last post in support of Francis was not well-received here and I doubt this one will be received differently, so I will not again make the mistake of attempting to respond to critical or insulting comments, as I did before. Goodbye for now.

    PS I enjoy reading the articles on this site, even though I disagree with them. I think more of us should spend time with material we do not agree with, instead of inhabiting the echo chamber of fellow zealots.

  3. As an ex-Lutheran, I would like address a post that was removed.

    First, I feel attempts to bridge the gap between the Church and the Protestant sects is noble in charity, but very hazardous in practice. Modernist ecumenism is a very dangerous game.

    It would be wonderful if the Pope was reaching out to Lutherans for the purpose of drawing them back to Mother Church. But he has made clear his disdain for conversion and for seeking to convert. Indeed, the Anglican Archbishop Venables has gone on the record stating that the Pope as Cardinal Beroglio told him specifically NOT to convert to the Catholic faith.
    Most importantly, you must put the Pope’s actions and words about Lutheranism in context. He has called seeking conversion of Orthodox as a “sin against ecumenism” {as if such a sin existed…}.

    Now, for some things about “Lutheranism” of which many Catholics may not be aware. First, there is no such thing as “Lutheranism”. Lutherans are made of a multitude of fragmented factions with widely divergent beliefs and pracitices. Some of them affirm a moral code quite similar to that taught consistently and perennially by the Church {Missouri Synod for example}, differing only on a few {tho important} things. Others less so and then there are those who are at the utter extreme; those “Lutheran” sects which are supporters of sodomy, lesbianism, abortion, unrestricted use of contraception and accepting of denial of the most basic tenets of Christianity {Virgin Birth, etc}. In short, there are folks among the Lutherans that are extremist perverters of the faith and of morals that many Lutherans condemn for their debasement of religion and morality.

    This is extremely important. It is on THAT specific extremist group that the Pope chose to lavish praise, seek “full communion” and stand with in solidarity in Lund. There is no way that Catholics can fully grasp what Pope Francis has done and said about Luther without understanding this. The gravity of this cannot be underestimated. It is

    As for Pope St John Paul II’s comments, I agree that there is some similarity. But you entirely miss the point that many Catholics miss but more and more desperately need to grasp. The Lutheran sects possess no charism of indefectibility. No Protestant sects do. This is why ecumenical statements even from Vatican 2 are outdated and obsolete and are now mostly meaningless. Not becuase they were “wrong” but because what the individual Protestant sects WERE they no longer ARE. Many, like the group Pope Francis supported in Lund, are arguably not even Christian unless the term “Christianity” has no meaning. Doctrines of Protestant sects change continuously and whoever were the recipients of Pope St John Paul II’s gracious words cannot be assumed to be the same as those hearing Pope Francis’. This is one of the great problems with modernist ecumenism. A “good deal” may be struck with a Protestant group today, but tomorrow, while the Church adheres to “Her end of the bargain” theologically, they do not.

    Thus we see the limitless wisdom of the method used up until Vatican 2; affirming truth and CONDEMNING heterodoxy. One is no longer caught in the trap of trying to catch theological smoke.

    Indeed, I submit that it is this very theological smoke of which Pope Paul VI spoke when he said “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God”.

    Sadly, I believe this Pope is mostly in step with liberal Lutheran teaching and practice.

    • The noble and charitable intention is neither noble nor charitable when it results in the condemnation of souls (Catholics). The claim that we’ve heard/read that ecumenism is a step toeard re-unification is definitively WRONG. That type of unification requires the watering doen and eventual elimination of ALL Catholic doctrine and magisterial teachings. The ONLY acceptable method of re-unification acceptable by God is for each non-believer to recant his/her errors and to formally enter the Catholic Church by being correctly baptised.

      • That is entirely correct, but we have to allow that there are some misguided ones who for noble intentions are drawn into the error of modernist ecumenism.

        I also believe that there are many who see ecumenism as a means to simply break down the teaching of Jesus and His Church.

        • Those misguided souls have succumbed to the erroneous post-V2 catechesis, which began immediately when the council ended and has continued ever since. As a result we are now in our third gseneration of adults and children who know only the false gispel of V2.

          And, yes, part of Satan’s plan is to dilute the Catholic faith by ecunenism until it is no more, the Church will then be one protestant denomination among 44,000 others, all of which he can easily demolish because they have already accepted many of the heresies and distorted what truth they have retained.

          • He doesn’t have to demolish any of the Protestant denominations.

            They are already doing his work for him.

            Since the adoption of modernist sexual mores among the Protestants {even the so-called “conservative ones”} they are already teaching evil as good. For example, we think of those extreme groups among the liberals that accept abortion, but essentially ALL Protestant groups now affirm the goodness and at times the necessity of wide-scale use of contraception. Even when I was a boy that was not a completely accepted practice.

            For the Church to have spoken of Protestants as “separated brethren” and other conciliatory terms during the V2 era is one thing, but those groups no longer affirm the doctrines nor moral teachings they once did.

          • Satan is the source behind the protestants’ “doing his work for him.” And with and since V2 the Catholic Church is naking tracks to catch up, especially under Francis. I at first thought he had chosen the name because of Francis of Assisi, but I quickly came to see he wanted to emulate the talking mule.

            “Separated brethren” is a contradiction. Heretics are not our brethren (at least not in the strictest sense of the word).

          • Some Protestant groups stand where they did: the Free Church of Scotland (the “Wee Frees”) is in moral matters stricter than the CC. I admire them greatly. They are not afraid to hold doctrines people laugh at. I wish they were Catholics, because they would be a great adornment to the Church.

        • Allowing for anything which softens this up is simply giving away ground to the enemies of Christ and the Church. These enemies are mainly the claimants to the Chair of St Peter since Vatican II.
          The ground we give away is not ours, but the truths revealed by God through the Church.
          The church of Vatican II is not the Catholic Church. It is a counterfeit. How else can the “elect be deceived” unless the entity that was attempting to lead them astray appeared to be the Church, but was not?

    • Thank you for your excellent and thoughtful post. I never thought of it the way you explained it.
      God bless you in journey of faith inside the battered barque of Peter.

      • I don’t know what “G-plus” is but sure, go ahead and use it. Feel free. LOL.

        I just wish our bishops would read this and understand it.

        I sincerely wish Cardinal Burke, and others would see just how this development of history has so damaged the Church.

        Our leaders in engaging in ecumenical dialogue with Protestant denominations do so under the delusion that what they agree upon today bears authority and meaning tomorrow, BUT IT DOESN’T. One cannot even be sure doctrines like “justification” bear any resemblance to what they used to mean in the past, or whether such doctrines hold any importance to any given modern Protestant sect anymore.

        I am not naive. I do believe there are those who understand this and use it to advance heretical and progressive teaching in the Catholic Church by making agreements and then sticking to them with Protestant groups, thereby giving the impression that we affirm what they NOW affirm because we agreed with them some decades ago! For example, I think it is unreasonable to suggest that Pope Francis didn’t know how hideous are the tenets of “faith” held by the Lutherans of Lund. No, I think he knows exactly what he is doing. I respect his ability to make rational decisions.

        Modern ecumenism is not merely misguided, it is diabolical.

        • About misusing of the term ‘ecumenical dialogue’ speaking, let’s us see some other quotes from the real oecumenical Councils:
          “Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos ecclesiae catholicae
          ritus in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut
          contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novus
          alio per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.” -Session VII, Canon 13
          [If whosoever says that the received and approved rites of the
          Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the
          Sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by whatsoever pastor [a term that includes the Supreme Pastor, the Pope] of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.]

          or even VCI…

          “Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent. (Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi [Pastor Aeternus], cap. 4, “De Romani Pontificis Infallibili
          [For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.]

          • If the above is true, and it is, then Vatican II & the new mass – and their miserable proponents – cannot be Catholic.

    • This is precisely why the ARCIC “Agreed Statements” are not worth the paper they are written on: because large parts of the Anglican communion allow women to be ordained, have homosexual clergy, clergy who reject the Resurrection or other such truths, or allow other immoralities. A lesbian cannot be a bishop, any more than my cat could. In fact, my cat would probably make a better bishop than most bishops. Give her plenty of catfood, some water, and a comfy cathedra to sleep on, and she would be set up. The sides of the cathedt

    • Excellent rendition RodH! Thank you so much.
      As you only converted 4,5 years ago to the Catholic Church and still staying, which shows how firm the foundation of your faith is.
      And nowadays it is almost fair to say: Bless are those who have seen all these and still believe.
      God bless!

  4. So what are supposed to make of the Joint Declaration? It was signed by the Catholic Church with the approval of Pope St John Paul II. It is almost 20 years old and it has not been repudiated by the Church.

    • The answer can only be that it was not issued by the Catholic Church but by some kind of ape of the Church. This would mean that the men who promoted and approved this thing could not have been members of the Church. Don’t let this rattle you. The Church cannot teach heresy or error in any level. But God does permit counterfeit and fraudulent sects to test us, even those who claim to be what they are not. This is the only explanation one can accept and not lose the Faith.

  5. While Bergoglio alleges that Luther was correct about justification by faith alone, he also assures us through his favorite atheist Eugenio Scalfari that good works alone are fully sufficient to achieve Heaven.

    Bergoglio condemns and despises as a Pharisee any Catholic who strives to live a pious and virtuous life, while promising Heaven to abortionist Emma Bonino, “one of Italy’s greatest” for her good works, or while lovingly accompanying to heaven (surely, he does not think his judgment- and discernment-free accompaniment is on the way to hell) unrepentant sodomites and adulterers (including those who abandoned their children or took children from their other parent).

    How much longer will have to listen to this man’s ungodly, illogical, evil utterances?

  6. It’s good to see that more people are using that strong word heresy. We can sin by omission and Francis refusing to answer questions or affirm the truth show the proof. A rotten tree cannot produce good fruit.

    • Don’t count on it. He has to remain “true to himself “. He would only become “Catholic ” if he could be converted to the Catholic Faith, ironic it might seem.

      • He needs to convert to Catholicism you say? Quite right. However, you are aware that a non Catholic cannot hold any jurisdiction over the Church by Divine Law, are you not?

        • Hallo Mike, to tell you the truth, inspite of Steve Skojec’s call to caution and Louie Verrecchio’s vehemence, I personally DO NOT acknowledge Bergoglio as an authority of the Catholic Church any more since around the time of the 2 Synods. That is why I refuse to address him or mention him in any way with the title of Pope. And I am convinced – whether the conclave was kosher or not – Bergoglio is not Catholic. I cannot tell when exactly he ceased to be catholic (maybe the book “The Political Pope” will throw some light on it), the result is, whatever comes out of his mouth is not representative of the Catholic Church and never infallible – including his “canonization” of JXXIII and JP II. He is the Devil’s Agent to destroy the Church from the inside. And when we take into account of Bella Dodd’s unvieling, it is very easy to see that numerous so-called Cardinals and Bishops are actually Communists and Atheists, which explains very well their Agenda and corresponding behaviour. I wonder frequently if this might not be the warning of Maria in Fatima about “Russia will spread its mistakes all over the world…”
          As to your other Point about the Joint Declaration on the subject of Justification. I have yet to read up on all the Details. Enough to say for now that I feel very uncomfortable about it: Was the Church behind it and then refuted it? Then the Church was contradicting herself! If that be true then that is a big mess.
          I used to be grateful about our not having two or even three popes to “choose from”. But now we are all in a new Situation. We need a lot of faith and graces to remain steadfast in our Faith because “the shepards are struck and the sheep are scattered…” And our enemies scoff at us: “Where is now your Gott and where is now your Church?”
          Sometimes I feel there is only one line to hold on to: “…and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against her.” Because I believe in Jesus Christ, Son of the living Gott, Joint to the Father by the Holy Ghost.
          If that were not true, then really life has absolutely no meaning.
          God bless then!

          • It was all looking very dodgy around the synods for me as well, and when Amoris come out I dropped Bergoglio completely. He couldn’t be the pope. Not so much about the dubious conclave and the Ratzinger resignation (who’s just another sly old heretic himself), but because he’s a maniffest public heretic. Not a Catholic and therefore not the Pope. I don’t think that any of them, from Paul VI onwards have been popes. But that’s just my opinion. It doesn’t bind anyone else, any more than the opinion that Paul VI and his successors have been.

  7. Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?

    Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?

    Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?

    When, O Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience?

    How long is that madness of yours still to mock us?

    When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now

    • Thank you so much, Mr Clark, for the link. I was worrying about this point as well. But who or which authority in the Catholic Church was behind the original Joint Declaration from the 31st October 1999?

          • Kasper was appointed a Novus bishop by JPII the Great in1989 and made a Cardinal, again by “The Great”, in 2001. He was not a key player.

            I believe that the unhappy job of putting this heretical document together in 1999 fell to Cardinal Edward Clancy from Australia.

          • Yes then, the Church promulgated it The Church refuted it. So the Church contradicted herself.
            On this Point I think it is much clearer to go back to the Council of Trent.
            Then of course we are rigid, encrusted, legalistic. Try telling that to the Angels on the last day who are sent to separate the wheat from the weeds and to throw the weeds into the fire. Tell them we are a heterogenenous mix of wheat and weed so they should not be so rigid…It’s a big laugh.

          • The fraudulent sect which issued this vile, heretical filth on justification with the Lutherans is not, could not be, and never was the Catholic Church.

            The Catholic Church doesn’t make mistakes on Faith of Morals.

      • Are you worried that certain high profile men often touted as conservative Catholics are nothing of the sort? Nothing gets them off the hook. Ratzinger and Wojtyla approved the thing. That’s just the way it is. Draw your own conclusions and double check them.

  8. “Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken”.

    Emphasis on “Nowadays”.


    “Nowadays” means something changed from “Yesterday”.

    What? Who?

    Well, the Lutherans haven’t changed, so that means Catholicism {in the mind of Bergoglio} has changed.

    Such change used to be called heresy.

    And another thing…just WHEN is “Nowadays”?

    Since 1950? 2000?

    Francis’ election as Pope?

    This is all getting ridiculous, absurd and just plain embarrassing.

  9. The Catholic Church is visible because of the outward profession of the same Faith by her members, whether clergy or laity.

    The 1999 Joint Declaration is not from the Catholic Church. She cannot approve what she has condemned. Those who produced or approved tha document simply manifest an outward profession of heresy.

    Since one cannot profess heresy and the true Faith at the same time, then those responsible are simply not members of the visible Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, the Congregation of the Faithful.

    Those responsible do not get a free pass on what it means to be a member of the visible Church, just because their names are Joseph Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla. These men are not Catholics; they are heretics, outside the Church and cut off from Christ the Head of the Mystical Body.

    Messy? Complicated? Difficult? Terrifying? You bet. But we are warned by St John in the Apocalypse that cowards will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Enough hand-wringing! Enough fretting in fear. It’s time for Catholics who are sure that the Church never makes a mistake in Faith or Morals apply this truth to the situation we are confronted with in our time and call out the frauds and impostors that are sending souls to hell for heresy.

  10. “Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary. A serious moral effort is the only thing that will bring you to the point where you throw in the sponge. Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and and out of that Faith in Him good actions must inevitably come.

    There are two parodies of the truth which different sets of Christians have, in the past, been accused by other Christians of believing: perhaps they make the truth clearer. One set were accused of saying, ‘Good actions are all that matters. The best good action is charity. The best kind of charity is giving money. The best thing to give money to is the Church. So hand us over 10,000 pounds and we will see you through.’ The answer to that nonsense, of course, would be that good actions done for that motive, done with the idea that Heaven can be bought. would not be good actions at all, but only commercial speculations.

    The other set were accused of saying, ‘Faith is all that matters. Consequently, if you have faith, it doesn’t matter what you do. Sin away, my lad, and have a good time and Christ will see that it makes no difference in the end.’ The answer to that nonsense is that, if what you call your ‘faith’ in Christ does not involve taking the slightest notice of what He says, then it is not Faith at all–not faith or trust in Him, but only intellectual acceptance of some theory about Him.

    The Bible really seems to clinch the matter when it puts the two things together into one amazing sentence [Philippians 2:12-13]. The first half is, ‘Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling’–which looks as if everything depended on us and our good actions: but the second half goes on, ‘For it is God who worketh in you’–which looks as if God did everything and we nothing. I am afraid that is the sort of thing we come up against in Christianity.”
    (C.S. Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY, Book 3, chapter 12)

    • “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)

  11. Confessional Lutherans are not all antinomians:
    “The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason comprehends by itself. It can to a certain extent render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can restrain the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft. Since there is left in human nature reason and judgment concerning objects subjected to the senses, choice between these things, and the liberty and power to render civil righteousness, are also left. For Scripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh which the carnal nature, i.e., reason, renders by itself, WITHOUT the Holy Ghost.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 18, section 70 [some editions, sec.4])
    “Now, we think concerning the righteousness of reason thus, namely, that GOD REQUIRES IT.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 4, section 22)
    ” ‘Bless the Lord, thy God, always, and desire of Him that thy ways be directed’ (Tobit 4:19). This belongs properly to that faith of which we speak, which believes that God is reconciled to it because of His mercy, and which WISHES to be justified, SANCTIFIED, AND GOVERNED BY GOD.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 4. section 158 [some editions, sec.279]


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...