In The Shoes of The Antichrist, part three

With all of the commotion over Jorge Mario Bergoglio's serial acts of apostasy in Turkey between November 28, 2014, and Sunday, November 30, 2014, the First Sunday of Advent, it is relatively easy to lose sight of the fact that Saturday, November 29, 2014, was the forty-fifth anniversary of the debut of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and that yesterday, November 30, 2014, was the fiftieth anniversary of the debut of the Ordo Missae of Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul The Sick that served as the "transition" from Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to its revolutionary successor five years later.

It is thus important, I believe, to review some of the facts associated with these two revolutionary events as it was by means of the ceaseless changes in the 1950s and 1960s that Catholics became conditioned to accept change as a normal part of Catholic life. This gradual acceptance of change led Catholics to look each successive "innovation" or "novelty" as a legitimate "development" stemming from "traditions" invented by the doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral revolutionaries of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is why Bergoglio's serial acts of apostasy during the past twenty and one-half months are accepted by most Catholics who are attached to the conciliar structures. Indeed, many of those Catholics have been born after the dawning of the age of conciliarism and the eclipse of the Catholic Church, meaning that they associated Catholicism as synonymous with the doctrines, the liturgies and the pastoral practices of the conciliar church.

The conciliar revolutionaries of fifty years ago were very clever. They knew that the liturgy could serve as the most effective means to overwhelem the sensus Catholicus of most Catholics as they, revolutionaries deconstructed the true history of the past in order to create an "artificial memory" of a "bad" "preconciliar" era that had stifled legitimate doctrinal development and genuine liturgical growth.

Indeed, the conciliar revolutionaries were well aware of the fact that the only contact that most Catholics had with the Faith was by means of the liturgy. The revolutionaries knew that most Catholics would not read the conciliar documents or the allocutions of Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul The Sick, making it imperative for them to break down a Catholic's supernatural defenses against novelty and to come the very traditions that they had known throughout their lives, traditions that their parents and grandparents and greatparents had known as well. As a "Father X" put it in Latin Mass magazine twenty years ago now, "They have burned what they once adored," and it is the case today, twenty years later, that most Catholics hate and view as schismatics what their grandparents once adored.

Using the liturgy to effect a revolutionary change in the believing and acting of ordinary Catholics was a perversion of how Pope Pius XI had explained the Sacred Liturgy to speak to the hearts of the faithful to maintain the integrity of the Holy Faith:

For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year -- in fact, forever. The church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

Catholics, for example, got accustomed to all manner of revolutionary changes in the Sacred Liturgy in the 1950s that were designed by the likes of Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., to lead to the full-scale liturgy of ecumenism that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service that the revolutionaries who had hijacked the Liturgical Movement in the 1920s and thereafter were hoping would see the light of day under an "enlightened 'pope.'" (For a very early look at what the revolutionaries wanted, one can take a look at the text of The Mass of the Future, which was written by Father Gerald Ellard, S.J., and published in 1948, a full year after Pope Pius XII used Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, to warn against the very sort of developments favored by Father Ellard. Father Ellard wanted "Youth Masses," "Labor Masses," Mass facing the people, a simpler liturgy, etc.)

Liturgical changes in the 1960s increased at a more rapid pace, starting with "Saint John XXIII's" suppression of feast days and his later insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into the Canon of the Mass, changes that consituted what is called today the Mass of the "extraordinary form," albeit with adapations with the "ordinary form" that were incorporated by the now-retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in 2012 in the futherance of his "reform of the reform," which, of course, is a completely dead issue under a true son of the spirit of Father Ralph Ellard, S.J., the lay Jesuit revolutionary named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

What is called the "1962 Missal" was in effect for precisely three years prior to its being supplanted in various parts of the world, including here in the United States of America, with the Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick's Ordo Missae of 1965, which was implemented on Sunday, November 29, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent, This important bridge or stepping-stone to the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service permitted Holy Mass to be offered in the vernacular and facing people if the celebrant chose to do so. It also eliminated the Judica me (Psalm 42), meaning that every Mass began as do Masses in Passiontide and Masses offered for the dead even as late as in the 1962. This "simplification" meant that priest would go directly from Introibo ad altare Dei to Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini. The Last Gospel, whose reading had been mandated by Pope Saint Pius V when he issued the Missale Romanum in 1570 and had been a common practice throughout Christendom for the preceding four to five centuries depending upon local custom, and the Prayers after Low Mass, which had become merely optional in the 1962 Missal.

After all, there wasn't any need for to pray for the conversion of Russia or for the freedom of the Church in Russia in the "enlightened" 1960s, was there? And the last thing that the conciliar revolutionaries believed that what they thought was the Catholic Church needed was any kind of intercessory prayer made to Saint Michael the Archangel. (For a review of the text of the Ordo Missae of 1965, please see 1965 Missal, Part 1 and 1965 Missal, Part 2.)

Moreover, the Ordo Missae of 1965, which permited local adaptations to be made by the new entities called episcopal converences, instituted what is called the "Prayer of the Faithful" after the recitation of the Credo on Sundays and as an option after the Gospel (or the "homily") on weekdays. As a battle-scarred veteran of the "let's fight from within to stop liturgical abuses" in the counterfeit church of concilarism,  I can attest as how to this supposed "restoration" of an ancient practice opened the doors wide to Pentecostalism as members of the laity, particularly at weekday liturgies where they were asked by the presider, who introduced the prayers before sitting down until their completion, to state their petitions, some of which went on interminably and were nothing other than excercises in maudlin self-pity.

A review of the following excerpt from Inter Oecumenici, which was issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Rites, will reveal that many of the revolutionary elements of the Novus Ordo were in place at least five years before the implentation of this liturgical abomination on Sunday, November 30, 1969, the First Sunday of Advent:

48. Until reform of the entire Ordo Missae, the points that follow are to be observed:

a. The celebrant is not to say privately those parts of the Proper sung or recited by the choir or the congregation.
b. The celebrant may sing or recite the parts of the Ordinary together with the congregation or choir.
c. In the prayers at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Mass Psalm 42 is omitted. All the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted whenever there is another liturgical rite immediately preceding.
d. In solemn Mass the subdeacon does not hold the paten but leaves it on the altar.
e. In sung Masses the secret prayer or prayer over the gifts is sung and in other Masses recited aloud.
f. The doxology at the end of the canon, from Per ipsum through Per omnia saecula saeculorum. R. Amen, is to be sung or recited aloud. Throughout the whole doxology the celebrant slightly elevates the chalice with the host, omitting the signs of the cross, and genuflects at the end after the Amen response by the people.
g. In recited Masses the congregation may recite the Lord's Prayer in the vernacular along with the celebrant; in sung Masses the people may sing it in Latin along with the celebrant and, should the territorial ecclesiastical authority have so decreed, also in the vernacular, using melodies approved by the same authority.
h. The embolism after the Lord's Prayer shall be sung or recited aloud.
i. The formulary for distributing holy communion is to be, Corpus Christi. As he says these words, the celebrant holds the host slightly above the ciborium and shows it to the communicant, who responds: Amen, then receives communion from the celebrant, the sign of the cross with the host being omitted.
j. The last gospel is omitted; the Leonine Prayers are suppressed.
k. It is lawful to celebrate a sung Mass with only a deacon assisting.
l. It is lawful, when necessary, for bishops to celebrate a sung Mass following the form used by priests.


49. In Masses celebrated with a congregation, the lessons, epistle, and gospel are to be read or sung facing the people:

a. at the lectern or at the edge of the sanctuary in solemn Masses;
b. at the altar, lectern, or the edge of the sanctuary—whichever is more convenient—in sung or recited Masses if sung or read by the celebrant; at the lectern or at the edge of the sanctuary if sung or read by someone else.

50. In nonsolemn Masses celebrated with the faithful participating a qualified reader or the server reads the lessons and epistles with the intervening chants; the celebrant sits and listens. A deacon or a second priest may read the gospel and he says the Munda cor meum, asks for the blessing, and, at the end, presents the Book of the Gospels for the celebrant to kiss.

51. In sung Masses, the lessons, epistle, and gospel, if in the vernacular, may simply be read.

52. For the reading or singing of the lessons, epistle, intervening chants, and gospel, the following is the procedure.

a. In solemn Masses the celebrant sits and listens to the lessons, the epistle, and chants. After singing or reading the epistle, the subdeacon goes to the celebrant for the blessing. At this point the celebrant, remaining seated, puts incense into the thurible and blesses it. During the singing of the Alleluia and verse or toward the end of other chants after the epistle, the celebrant rises to bless the deacon. From his place he listens to the gospel, kisses the Book of the Gospels, and, after the homily, intones the Credo, when prescribed. At the end of the Credo he returns to the altar with the ministers, unless he is to lead the prayer of the faithful.
b. The celebrant follows the same procedures in sung or recited Masses in which the lessons, epistle, intervening chants, and the gospel are sung or recited by the minister mentioned in no. 50.
c. In sung or recited Masses in which the celebrant sings or recites the gospel, during the singing or saying of the Alleluia and verse or toward the end of other chants after the epistle, he goes to the foot of the altar and there, bowing profoundly, says the Munda cor meum. He then goes to the lectern or to the edge of the sanctuary to sing or recite the gospel.
d. But in a sung or recited Mass if the celebrant sings or reads all the lessons at the lectern or at the edge of the sanctuary, he also, if necessary, recites the chants after the lessons and the epistle standing in the same place; then he says the Munda cor meum, facing the altar.

III. HOMILY (SC art. 52)

53. There shall be a homily on Sundays and holydays of obligation at all Masses celebrated with a congregation, including conventual, sung, or pontifical Masses.
On days other than Sundays and holydays a homily is recommended, especially on some of the weekdays of Advent and Lent or on other occasions when the faithful come to church in large numbers.

54. A homily on the sacred text means an explanation, pertinent to the mystery celebrated and the special needs of the listeners, of some point in either the readings from sacred Scripture or in another text from the Ordinary or Proper of the day's Mass.

55. Because the homily is part of the liturgy for the day, any syllabus proposed for preaching within the Mass during certain periods must keep intact the intimate connection with at least the principal seasons and feasts of the liturgical year (see SC art. 102-104), that is, with the mystery of redemption.


56. In places where the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful is already the custom, it shall take place before the offertory, after the Oremus, and, for the time being, with formularies in use in individual regions. The celebrant is to lead the prayer at either his chair, the altar, the lectern, or the edge of the sanctuary.
A deacon, cantor, or other suitable minister may sing the intentions or intercessions. The celebrant takes the introductions and concluding prayer, this being ordinarily the Deus, refugium nostrum et virtus (MR, Orationes diversae no. 20) or another prayer more suited to particular needs.
In places where the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful is not the custom, the competent territorial authority may decree its use in the manner indicated above and with formularies approved by that authority for the time being.


57. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:

a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;
b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;
c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord's Prayer with its introduction and embolism.

Missals to be used in the liturgy, however, shall contain besides the vernacular version the Latin text as well.

58. The Holy See alone can grant permission for use of the vernacular in those parts of the Mass that the celebrant sings or recites alone.

59. Pastors shall carefully see to it that the Christian faithful, especially members of lay religious institutes, also know how to recite or sing together in Latin, mainly with simple melodies, the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass proper to them.


60. The faithful who receive communion at the Mass of the Easter Vigil or the Midnight Mass of Christmas may receive again at the second Mass of Easter and at one of the Day Masses of Christmas.

Chapter III. The Other Sacraments and Sacramentals


61. The competent territorial authority, on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular for:

a. the rites, including the essential sacramental forms, of baptism, confirmation, penance, anointing of the sick, marriage, and the distribution of holy communion;
b. the conferral of orders: the address preliminary to ordination or consecration, the examination of the bishop-elect at an episcopal consecration, and the admonitions;
c. sacramentals;
d. rite of funerals.

Whenever a more extensive use of the vernacular seems desirable, the prescription of the Constitution art. 40 is to be observed.

II. Elements to be Dropped in the Rite of Supplying Ceremonies for a Person Already Baptized (SC ART. 69)

62. In the rite of supplying ceremonies in the case of a baptized infant, Rituale Romanum tit. 11, cap. 6, the exorcisms in no. 6 (Exi ab eo), no. 10 (Exorcizo te, immunde spiritus - Ergo, maledicte diabole), and no. 15 (Exorcizo te, omnis spiritus) are to be dropped.

63. In the rite for supplying ceremonies in the case of a baptized adult, Rituale Romanum tit. 11, cap. 6, the exorcisms in no. 5 (Exi ab eo), no. 15 (Ergo, maledicte diabole), no. 17 (Audi, maledicte satana), no. 19 (Exorcizo te - Ergo, maledicte diabole), no. 21 (Ergo, maledicte diabole), no. 23 (Ergo, maledicte diabole), no. 25 (Exorcizo te - Ergo, maledicte diabole), no. 31 (Nec te latet), and no. 35 (Exi, immunde spiritus) are to be dropped. (INTER OECUMENICI, Sepember 26, 1964.)

One can see that all of this "innovation," which was more or less being conducted ad experimentum in various parts of the world, especially here in the United States of America, was incorporated directly into the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service itself, and it was accepted with barely a peep of protest by most Catholics. The only ones who did have the prophetic insight to recognize apostasy for what it was and remain were castigated by family members and shunned by friends as being "outside of the Church."

The nature and the extent of the changes were bound to--and did in fact--bewilder at least a few ordinary Catholics. This is why the following announcement was inserted into the parish bulletin of Saint Matthew's Church in Norwood, Ohio, a facility that is now Immaculate Conception Church, which operates under the auspices of the Society of Saint Pius V, on November 29, 1964,  to tell the sheep just to do what they were told as a revolution unfolded before their very eyes and with their own "full, active and conscious participation:"

Today is the First Sunday of Advent and the beginning of the Church's new liturgical year. Today we begin our "New Liturgy". Beginning today many parts of Holy Mass will be said in English. We ask each of you to do your very best to join the priest in the prayers of the Mass. Leaflets with the official text of these prayers were given most of your last Sunday. (For those of you who were unable to obtain your copies last Sunday, you may obtain one at the bulletin stands today.) For the Masses with singing (including the 9:45 a.m. High Mass), you are asked to use the cards found in the pews. Kindly stand, sit and kneel, according to the directions on your leaflet or the card. At the Masses today, seminarians will be on hand to help and guide you in this new participation. We wish to thank Msgr. Schneider, Rector of Mt. St. Mary's Seminary, for his kindness in sending us his students; and also the young men themselves for their generosity in helping us. We know that it will take a while (perhaps even months) before we have this new method of participating in Holy Mass perfected; we earnestly ask each one to cooperate loyally and faithfully to the best of his or her ability to make the public worship of God in St. Matthew Parish a true and worthy "sacrifice of praise." [Historical note: the Mount Saint Mary's Seminary referred to in the bulletin was known as Mount Saint Mary's Seminary of the West, located in Norwood, Ohio.]

Such unceasing changes in the liturgy in the 1950s and 1960s conditioned Catholics to accept "changes" in Catholic doctrine, including rationalist "explanations" to eradicate belief in the miracles of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, including His very Bodily Resurrection on Easter Sunday, moral teaching and pastoral praxis. Most of the "changes" in these areas were accepted as the sheep went "baa, baa," coming to view the "changes" themselves as what constitutes authentic Catholic doctrine while viewing all that happened before the "Second" Vatican Council as "outdated" (see A New Sense for a New Faith, part one and A New Sense for a New Faith, part two.) As noted a little over five years ago now, most Catholics in the conciliar structures like the "changes." Yes, They Like It!.

To wit, apostasy of teaching had become so rife in the Department of Theology at Saint John's University, Jamaica, Queens, New York, in the 1970s that the university's president at the time, Father Joseph Cahill, S.J., asked the founder of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, Monsignor George A. Kelly, to found and to run the Institute for Advance Studies in Catholic Doctrine to do an end-run around the theology department whose direction Father Cahill has lost control of as a result of a faculty strike that lasted from January 4, 1966, to June of 1967. The Vincentian who succeeded Father Cahill in 1989, Father Donald Harrington, C.M., had no use for the Institute of Advance Studies in Catholic Doctrine, which was being run at the time by a protege of Kelly's, Monsigor Eugene V. Clark, Ph.D.

Two of the theology professors I had during my time as an undergaduate at Saint John's University were complete revolutionaries. The first was a lay woman, who taught in the Spring of 1970 that which had become very conventional conciliar doctrine by that time, namely, that the account of Special Creation in the Book of Genesis was merely allegorical. The second revolutionary was a priest of the Congregation of the Passion who really believed that Our Lord Himself was an allegorical figure, a belief that just might have cost him a wee little bit when he met Christ the King in the very face at the moment of his Particular Judgment. The priest was a complete supporter of the work of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., and was enamored as well with the work of the likes of Fathers Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, O.P., Karl Rahner, S.J., Edward Schilebeeckx, O.P., and a certain Joseph Ratzinger, who said as "Pope Benedict XVI" that the devil himself was nothing other than an allegorical figure (see Preparing To Spend All Eternity With His Allegorical Figure). In other words, everything was open for "reexamination" in order to be given a "new meaning" for "modern man" in light of supposedly "changed circumstances.

As has been noted in many articles on this site, including my long two-part series on the sensus fidei five months ago now, false ecumenism has been one of those areas that has the most ready appeal to Catholics and non-Catholics alike as it makes quick work of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church by eschewing "conversion," which is categorized as coercive proselytizing, and reaffirming "believers" in the essential goodness of their false religions and how they can contribute as "belivers" to the building of the "better world" and the realization of the "civilization of love." This is a point that has been made repeatedly on this site and is emphasized in volume one of Conversion in Reverse and will be discussed in volumes two and three as well.

In Jorge Mario Bergoglio's economy of salvation, you see, everyone is "saved" except for those Catholics he disparages as "Pelagians" and "Pharisees" who desire to "cage the Holy Spirit." According to Jorge, who believes in complete conformity with conciliar "doctrine," such as it is:

Protestants are in the "Church of Christ," which is larger than the Catholic Church. There is no need to seek the conversion of any of them as they are "in."

Talmudists are saved as the Old Covenant was never revoked, something that is completely heretical and is ignored by Catholics as being such only upon the peril of the loss of their own souls.

Mohammedans are saved as theirs is a "noble" religion, a veritable religion of "peace," of course.

The Orthdox have "sister churches" even though they defect from the Catholic Faith on numerous points of Faith and Morals.

The way for Jorge Mario Bergoglio's serial acts of apostasy in the past twenty and one-half months that were in such bountiful supply over the course of the past three days, had been paved by a steady dose of the sights and sounds of conciliarism. Indeed, images such as those below show that they has been a "hermeneutic of continuity" in how the conciliar "popes" have given "joint blessings" with the "Ecumenical Patriarch" of the heretical and schismatic Greek Orthodox church, treating each (Athenagoras, Dimitrios and Barthlomew) with fawning respect as a "brother" in the Faith:

"Saint John Paul II" with Dimitrios, November 30, 1979, Istanbul, Turkey

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI with Bartholomew, November 30, 2006

(These photographs were found at: Meetings of "Popes and Ecumenical Patriarchs.")

Although "ecumenical prayer" has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church, including by her true popes and by the Holy Office with their approval and authorization, it is now accepted as "normal" and as a "sign" that Catholics are on a "path" to "unity" with non-Catholic Christians. Never understimate the role of the liturgical revolution in helping to bring about such acceptance over the course of the last six decades now, especially in the last forty-five to fifty years. Most Catholics today applaud the images of a putative "pope" "praying" with non-Catholic Christians and Talmudists and Mohammedans, something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done, both privately and publicly, since becoming "Pope Francis" on March 13, 2013.

There is, however, very little "new" in anything that Bergoglio has said and done as he is simply the "end product" of the false religion whose beginnings were festering underground in the Catholic Church prior to the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (also known as "Saint John XXIII") on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude.

To wit, the remarks that the made who wears the Shoes of The Antichrist made yesterday after the Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy, conducted as it was without the Filioque, are almost identical to those that have been made by his predecessors who have worn the shoes that he has been wearing for one year, eight months, eighteen days. The full text of those remarks are included in Appendix A below as it is my purpose in the body of this commentary to focus only two passages from them.

Here is the first such passage:

When I was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, I often took part in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox communities there.  Today, the Lord has given me the singular grace to be present in this Patriarchal Church of Saint George for the celebration of the Feast of the holy Apostle Andrew, the first-called, the brother of Saint Peter, and the Patron Saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Meeting each other, seeing each other face to face, exchanging the embrace of peace, and praying for each other, are all essential aspects of our journey towards the restoration of full communion.  All of this precedes and always accompanies that other essential aspect of this journey, namely, theological dialogue.  An authentic dialogue is, in every case, an encounter between persons with a name, a face, a past, and not merely a meeting of ideas. (Divine Liturgy in the Patriarchal Church of St. George.)

As a true son of the conciliar revolution, the lay Jesuit from Argentina, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has participated in the Divine Litrugy of various Orthodox communities when he was the conciliar "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 1998 to 2013. This is simply normal for the man. It is part of what he believes, erroneously, of course, that the Catholic Church professes as the God the Holy Ghost has been "uncaged" to blow as He will to help Catholics and non-Catholics find a "path to unity," to "full communion."

An excellent article that appeared in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, twelve years ago now explained the many different condemnations of "ecumenical prayer" that been issued by the Holy Office from 1622 to 1939. The article concluded as follows:

To summarize, we may recall that the Holy Office said that it is not so much a matter of whether schismatic worship contains anything objectionable to the Faith; rather, the problem is the very participation in worship with schismatics.  By participating in schismatic and heretical worship, one is giving exterior signs of segregation and disapproval. Any participation in liturgical actions would constitute a sign of unity with those who are not in union with the Church.  By coming together with them in unity of prayer, in unity of cult, in unity of veneration and worship, Catholics would offer worship with perverse schismatic and heretical ministers.  In effect, the Holy Office said that it is by the very coming together with them and joining one's prayer and worship to theirs that one is participating in worship of those who reject the Catholic Church.  To participate with those who reject the Faith was therefore forbidden, since there is a danger of perversion and loss of the Catholic faith.  There is the very danger of participating in a heretical or schismatic rite, since the participation manifests a sign of disunity from the Church.  Participation in heretical or schismatic worship is an occasion of scandal and by participating in their worship, one confirms schismatics and heretics in their errors.  The Holy Office therefore observed that the Council of Carthage forbade praying and singing with heretics and that participation in schismatic and heretic worship is "universally prohibited by natural and divine law...[about which] no one has the power to dispense...[and with respect to this participation] nothing excuses." (The Holy Office on Worship with Non-Catholics from 1622 to 1939 by Craig Allan.)

Guess what?

The conciliar "popes" have been doing precisely what our true popes and the Holy Office have condemned, a condemnation that dates back to apostolical times, something that Bishop George Hay had noted at the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, and has its roots in Sacred Scripture itself. Although there may be "hermeneutic of continuity" at work between Bergoglio and his predecessors, those who have worn the Shoes of the Antichrist are in abject discontinuity from the truths of the Catholic Faith.

The second passage from yesterday's address to the Orthodox in the Patriarchal Cathedral of Saint George that is being brought to the attention of the readers of this site involves Bergoglio's having repeated the distortions of the history of the Catholic Church that have been made in the past twenty years by the likes of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Walter Kasper:

It is not by chance that the path of reconciliation and peace between Catholics and Orthodox was, in some way, ushered in by an encounter, by an embrace between our venerable predecessors, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI, which took place fifty years ago in Jerusalem.  Your Holiness and I wished to commemorate that moment when we met recently in the same city where our Lord Jesus Christ died and rose. 

By happy coincidence, my visit falls a few days after the fiftieth anniversary of the promulgation of Unitatis Redintegratio, the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Christian Unity.  This is a fundamental document which opened new avenues for encounter between Catholics and their brothers and sisters of other Churches and ecclesial communities.

In particular, in that Decree the Catholic Church acknowledges that the Orthodox Churches “possess true sacraments, above all – by apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy” (15).  The Decree goes on to state that in order to guard faithfully the fullness of the Christian tradition and to bring to fulfilment the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Christians, it is of the greatest importance  to preserve and support the rich patrimony of the Eastern Churches.  This regards not only their liturgical and spiritual traditions, but also their canonical disciplines, sanctioned as they are by the Fathers and by Councils, which regulate the lives of these Churches (cf. 15-16).

I believe that it is important to reaffirm respect for this principle as an essential condition, accepted by both, for the restoration of full communion, which does not signify the submission of one to the other, or assimilation.   Rather, it means welcoming all the gifts that God has given to each, thus demonstrating to the entire world the great mystery of salvation accomplished by Christ the Lord through the Holy Spirit.  I want to assure each one of you here that, to reach the desired goal of full unity, the Catholic Church does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith.  Further, I would add that we are ready to seek together, in light of Scriptural teaching and the experience of the first millennium, the ways in which we can guarantee the needed unity of the Church in the present circumstances.  The one thing that the Catholic Church desires, and that I seek as Bishop of Rome, “the Church which presides in charity”, is communion with the Orthodox Churches.  Such communion will always be the fruit of that love which “has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (cf. Rom 5:5), a fraternal love which expresses the spiritual and transcendent bond which unites us as disciples of the Lord. (Divine Liturgy in the Patriarchal Church of St. George.)

This old canard owes its proximate origins to none other than that "restorer of tradition," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who helped to convince his superior at the time, "Saint John Paul II," to write about such a "restoration" of how popes "presided" in" charity in communion with the Eastern churches, which means that, according to the conciliar reveolutionaries, those popes did not excercise Papal Primacy over the Eastern churches in the First Millennium.

Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger wrote the following in his very misnamed Principles of Catholic Theology thirty-two years ago now:

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 primacy 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.)

Perhaps influenced by his chief ideologist, "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, this distortion of Catholic history found its way into the text of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, which was the complete and total contradiction of Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928: 

Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy. As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God’s faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in “a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life … If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator“.

In this way the primacy exercised its office of unity. When addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that “for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light. But … it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry … I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned“.

This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea “that they may all be one … so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:21)? (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995.)

It was twelve years later, October 13, 2007, the ninetieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun, that an "unofficial" official document, the Ravenna Document, was issued by William "Cardinal" Levada on behalf of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that formalized the musings of Ratzinger in Principles of Catholic Theology and of Wojtyla/John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint:

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)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI put his “papal” seal of approval on The Ravenna Document just forty-one days after its issuance on the ninetieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal:

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.

Everything that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done in the past four hundred ninety-nine days has pointed to a very well thought-out plan to change the entire nature of how the conciliar Petrine ministry" is exercised while contending, perhaps with tongue in cheek, that the doctrine of Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility will remain untouched. Only those willing to suspend all rationality can accept this gratuitius denial of what is part of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church and was defined solemnly at the [First] Vatican Council on July 18, 1870:

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Chapter 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

As has been noted before on this site, Pope Leo XIII put the lie to the contention that Papal Primacy had been exercised any differently in the First Millennium than was the case thereafter:

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.  We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.

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.”

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches.  It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.  On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God’s bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.  May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: “Make the schisms of the Churches cease,” and “Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (See also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki’s Tumultuous Times.)

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio continues to propagate a myth and desires to find a way to exercise the office of what he thinks is the "Bishop of Rome" in a manner that tears to shred the letter and the spirit of the [First] Vatican Council and thus the entire received patrimony of the Catholic Church. Jorge's address to the Orthodox yesterday were simply boilerplate conciliarism, and that means, of course, they were conceived by the adversary in order to lead souls to eternal perdition.

No time really needs to be spent on the "joint declaration" that was issued yesterday by Beroglio and Bartholomew as it contained nothing new whatsoever, something that readers can see for themselves by purusing a sampling of previous "joint" or "common" declarations dating back to 1964. Even Jorge and Bartholomew's references to "ecology" and "preserving the environment" have been made in the past. One wonders if someone behind the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River simply did not cut and paste most of the text of yesteday's "declaration" from the conciliar library of such statements of apostasy and betrayal.

Sure, Jorge denounced violence against Christians in the Middle East. He also used his press conference aboard his flight back to Rome from Istanbul to make a moral equivalence between so-called "Islamic extremists" who use terrorism, which is simply part of the false religion of Mohammedanism, a reality that Jorge, once again showing his ignorance of true history, cannot accept in the slighest, from its very diabolical inception over fourteen hundred years ago now, and "fundamentalist" Christians, meaning each of us, good readers:

"I sincerely believe that you cannot say that all Muslims are terrorists just as you cannot say that all Christians are fundamentalists; every religion has these little groups," the pope said. (Jorge's Press Confab.)

To equate faithful Catholics with the killers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is obscene. It is perverse.

Ah, what can one expect from a man who does not believe that Mohammedanism is a religion of terror, first of all against the honor and glory of God and His Sacred Deposit of Faith, which He has revealed and entrusted to the Catholic Church exclusively, and secondly against infidels who will not convert to the worship of its false gods?

Bergoglio even boasted of having prayed inside the “Blue Mosque,” which is a den of the devil, on Saturday, November 29, 2014, the Feast of the Vigil of Saint Andrew and the Commemoration of Saint Saturninus:

During a televised moment of silent prayer in Istanbul's Blue Mosque Nov. 29, alongside the city's grand mufti, "I prayed for Turkey, I prayed for the mufti, I prayed for myself because I need it, and I prayed above all for the peace and an end to war." (Jorge’s Press Confab.)

It was in 1948 that The Holy Office, which was headed at the time by none other than Pope Pius XII, reiterated the Catholic Church’s complete ban on Catholics participating in the services of false religions or “praying” within their temples that had been reaffirmed by Pope Pius XI Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

Mixed gatherings of non-Catholics with Catholics have been reportedly held in various places, where things pertaining to the Faith have been discussed against the prescriptions of the Sacred Canons and without previous permission of the Holy See. Therefore all are reminded that according to the norm of Canon 1325 § 3 laypeople as well as clerics both secular and regular are forbidden to attend these gatherings without the aforesaid permission. It is however much less licit for Catholics to summon and institute such kind of gatherings. Let therefore Ordinaries urge all to serve these prescriptions accurately.

These are to be observed with even stronger force of law when it comes to gatherings called “ecumenical”, which laypeople and clerics may not attend at all without previous consent of the Holy See.

Moreover, since acts of mixed worship have also been posed not rarely both within and without the aforesaid gatherings, all are once more warned that any communication in sacred affairs is totally forbidden according to the norm of Canons 1258 and 731, § 2.

Given at Rome, at the premises of the Holy Office, on June 5th 1948. (This was translated by those who run Novus Ordo Watch. See The Holy Office's 1948 Canonical Warning against Ecumenical Gatherings.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, acting in complete “continuity” with his conciliar predecessors, believes that such statements were erroneous because men sought to “cage” God the Holy Ghost. As noted in yesterday’s commentary, however, we know that the origins of Jorge’s “spirits are diabolical as he projects into God his own imaginings of what He really teaches in spite of all past “errors." Bergoglio placed himself outside of the pale of Holy Mother Church long before his "election" six hundred twenty-nine days ago, that is, on Wednesday, March 13, 2013.

Jorge also let it be known that the work of the "Holy Spirit," which is really nothing other than his own projections of what he wants God to teach, will continue despite a more "conservative" passage about practitioners of the sin of Sodomy that appeared in the final report of his "extraordinary synod of bishops on the family" that concluded with the "beatification" of Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick on Sunday, October 19, 2014, the Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost:

The "substance" of controversial language on "welcoming homosexuals" in the midterm report at the October 2014 extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family survived in the corresponding section of the final document, even though the latter was widely considered more conservative. He said the synod was not a parliament but an "ecclesial space where the Holy Spirit can work" and was just part of a process to be continued through the coming year of preparation for an October 2015 worldwide synod on the same subject. (Jorge’s Press Confab)

Yes, Jorge Cooked the Books from the very beginning of his false “pontificate” on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. He is a patient man, who may engage in a few more “purges” of conciliar non-bishops have sought, he believes, to “cage” or to “tame” God the Holy Ghost from leading what he thinks is the Catholic Church into a less “closed-in-on-itself” and “unwelcoming” position about those who practice the sin of Sodom, one of the four sins that out to Heaven for vengeance.

Finally, Bergoglio even noted that there were “conservative” opponents of “ecumenism” within the structures of the heretical and schismatic Greek Orthodox Church and those of his own false, heretical and schismatic sect:

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches include conservative members resistant to ecumenism, who must nonetheless be treated with respect: "A conservative has a right to speak, you don't expel him."

Treated with respect, eh?

Hey, Jorge, are you referring to the “respect” you have given the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate and the Institute of the Good Shepherd or to those “bishops” who have criticized you publicly? That kind of respect?

Actually, Bergoglio is a self-serving, hubristic hypocrite who plays up the role of the “papal populist” while engaging in a tyrannical repression of believing Catholics within the structures of his false church.

Obviously, as noted most recently in Perpetual Immunity of the Church from Error and Heresy, Catholics who believe that Bergoglio is “Pope Francis,” a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ on earth, must obey him without complaint. No one has the “right” to criticize a true pope. If this is not so, then Pope Leo XIII erred when issuing Est Sane Molestum and Epistola Tua, documents contained in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis that no one in the Society of Saint Pius X or the “resist while recognize” movement thus far has admitted exists, no less stops them from publishing articles critical of one they accept to be a true pope.

Yes, this era of apostasy will pass. When it does, my friends, rest assured that it will be the working of the same Blessed Mother who brought forth her only Child at Midnight in Bethlehem in piercing cold, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will triumph over the apostasies and sacrileges and blasphemies and errors of the moment just as that same Immaculate Heart of Mary was so filled with joy at the time of the Nativity of her Son, Christ the King.

We need to resolve now and always to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits and as we seek to make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, which was formed out of her own Immaculate Heart, for our own sins and those of the whole world, praying fervently for all those so steeped in error including the lords of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of concilairism.

Let us keep close to Our Lady and Saint Joseph in this Advent as we ask them to protect us from those who have worn the Shoes of the Antichrist and their minions.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint Andrew the Apostle, 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

Joint (Common) Declarations of Conciliar "Popes" and "Ecumenical Patriarchs

1. Grateful to God, who mercifully favored them with a fraternal meeting at those holy places where the mystery of salvation was accomplished through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and where the Church was born through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. They are persuaded that in acting this way, they are responding to the call of that divine grace which today is leading the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as well as all Christians, to overcome their differences in order to be again "one" as the Lord Jesus asked of His Father for them.

2. Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

3. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

4. Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of the Lord: "If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:

A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.

C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors—among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust—eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.

5. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through cleansing of hearts, through regret for historical wrongs, and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands.

They hope, nevertheless, that this act will be pleasing to God, who is prompt to pardon us when we pardon each other. They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church. (Joint Declaration of Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I to remove from the memory and XXX of the Church the sentences of excommunication issued in 1054 [7 December 1965].)

 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. (Joint declaration of Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I at the conclusion of the visit of the Patriarch to Rome [28 October 1967].)

We, Pope John Paul II, and the Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I, give thanks to God who has granted us the possibility of meeting to celebrate together the feast of the apostle Andrew, the one first called and the brother of the apostle Peter. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph 1:3).

Seeking only the glory of God through the accomplishment of his will, we affirm again our resolute determination to to everything possible to hasten the day when full communion will be reestablished between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and when we will at last be able to concelebrate the divine Eucharist.

We are grateful to our predecessors, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, for everything they did to reconcile our Churches and cause them to progress in unity.

The progress made in the preparatory stage permits us to announce that the theological dialogue is about to begin and to make public the list of the members of the mixed Catholic-Orthodox commission that will be responsible for it.

This theological dialogue aims not only at progressing towards the re-establishment of full communion between the Catholic and Orthodox sister-Churches, but also at contributing to the multiple dialogues that are developing in the Christian world in search of its unity.

The dialogue of charity (cf. Jn 13:34; Eph 4:1-7), rooted in complete faithfulness to the one Lord Jesus Christ and to his will over his Church (cf. Jn 17:21), has opened up the way to better understanding of our mutual theological positions and, thereby, to new approaches to the theological work and to a new attitude with regard to the common past of our Churches. This purification of the collective memory of our Churches is an important fruit of the dialogue of charity and an indispensable condition of future progress. This dialogue of charity must continue and be intensified in the complex situation which we have inherited from the past, and which constitutes the reality in which our effort must take place today.

We want the progress in unity to open up new possibilities of dialogue and collaboration with believers of other religions, and with all men of goodwill, in order that love and brotherhood may prevail over hatred and opposition among men. We hope to contribute in this way to the coming of true peace in the world. We implore this gift of him who was, who is, and who will be, Christ our one Saviour and our real peace. (Joint declaration of Pope John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I at the conclusion of the visit of the Pope to the Phanar [30 November 1979].)

We are gathered here today in the spirit of peace for the good of all human beings and for the care of creation. At this moment in history, at the beginning of the third millennium, we are saddened to see the daily suffering of a great number of people from violence, starvation, poverty and disease. We are also concerned about the negative consequences for humanity and for all creation resulting from the degradation of some basic natural resources such as water, air and land, brought about by an economic and technological progress which does not recognize and take into account its limits.

Almighty God envisioned a world of beauty and harmony, and He created it, making every part an expression of His freedom, wisdom and love (cf. Gen 1:1-25).

At the centre of the whole of creation, He placed us, human beings, with our inalienable human dignity. Although we share many features with the rest of the living beings, Almighty God went further with us and gave us an immortal soul, the source of self-awareness and freedom, endowments that make us in His image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-31;2:7). Marked with that resemblance, we have been placed by God in the world in order to cooperate with Him in realizing more and more fully the divine purpose for creation.

At the beginning of history, man and woman sinned by disobeying God and rejecting His design for creation. Among the results of this first sin was the destruction of the original harmony of creation. If we examine carefully the social and environmental crisis which the world community is facing, we must conclude that we are still betraying the mandate God has given us: to be stewards called to collaborate with God in watching over creation in holiness and wisdom.

God has not abandoned the world. It is His will that His design and our hope for it will be realized through our co-operation in restoring its original harmony. In our own time we are witnessing a growth of an ecological awareness which needs to be encouraged, so that it will lead to practical programmes and initiatives. An awareness of the relationship between God and humankind brings a fuller sense of the importance of the relationship between human beings and the natural environment, which is God’s creation and which God entrusted to us to guard with wisdom and love (cf. Gen 1:28).

Respect for creation stems from respect for human life and dignity. It is on the basis of our recognition that the world is created by God that we can discern an objective moral order within which to articulate a code of environmental ethics. In this perspective, Christians and all other believers have a specific role to play in proclaiming moral values and in educating people in ecological awareness, which is none other than responsibility towards self, towards others, towards creation.

What is required is an act of repentance on our part and a renewed attempt to view ourselves, one another, and the world around us within the perspective of the divine design for creation. The problem is not simply economic and technological; it is moral and spiritual. A solution at the economic and technological level can be found only if we undergo, in the most radical way, an inner change of heart, which can lead to a change in lifestyle and of unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. A genuine conversion in Christ will enable us to change the way we think and act.

First, we must regain humility and recognize the limits of our powers, and most importantly, the limits of our knowledge and judgement. We have been making decisions, taking actions and assigning values that are leading us away from the world as it should be, away from the design of God for creation, away from all that is essential for a healthy planet and a healthy commonwealth of people. A new approach and a new culture are needed, based on the centrality of the human person within creation and inspired by environmentally ethical behavior stemming from our triple relationship to God, to self and to creation. Such an ethics fosters interdependence and stresses the principles of universal solidarity, social justice and responsibility, in order to promote a true culture of life.

Secondly, we must frankly admit that humankind is entitled to something better than what we see around us. We and, much more, our children and future generations are entitled to a better world, a world free from degradation, violence and bloodshed, a world of generosity and love.

Thirdly, aware of the value of prayer, we must implore God the Creator to enlighten people everywhere regarding the duty to respect and carefully guard creation.

We therefore invite all men and women of good will to ponder the importance of the following ethical goals:

1. To think of the world's children when we reflect on and evaluate our options for action.

2. To be open to study the true values based on the natural law that sustain every human culture.

3. To use science and technology in a full and constructive way, while recognizing that the findings of science have always to be evaluated in the light of the centrality of the human person, of the common good and of the inner purpose of creation. Science may help us to correct the mistakes of the past, in order to enhance the spiritual and material well-being of the present and future generations. It is love for our children that will show us the path that we must follow into the future.

4. To be humble regarding the idea of ownership and to be open to the demands of solidarity. Our mortality and our weakness of judgement together warn us not to take irreversible actions with what we choose to regard as our property during our brief stay on this earth. We have not been entrusted with unlimited power over creation, we are only stewards of the common heritage.

5. To acknowledge the diversity of situations and responsibilities in the work for a better world environment. We do not expect every person and every institution to assume the same burden. Everyone has a part to play, but for the demands of justice and charity to be respected the most affluent societies must carry the greater burden, and from them is demanded a sacrifice greater than can be offered by the poor. Religions, governments and institutions are faced by many different situations; but on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity all of them can take on some tasks, some part of the shared effort.

6. To promote a peaceful approach to disagreement about how to live on this earth, about how to share it and use it, about what to change and what to leave unchanged. It is not our desire to evade controversy about the environment, for we trust in the capacity of human reason and the path of dialogue to reach agreement. We commit ourselves to respect the views of all who disagree with us, seeking solutions through open exchange, without resorting to oppression and domination.

It is not too late. God's world has incredible healing powers. Within a single generation, we could steer the earth toward our children's future. Let that generation start now, with God's help and blessing. (Joint declaration of Pope John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I on the protection of creation [Rome – Venice, 10 June 2002].)

1. In the spirit of faith in Christ and the reciprocal love that unites us, we thank God for this gift of our new meeting that is taking place on the Feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and witnesses to our firm determination to continue on our way towards full communion with one another in Christ.

2. Many positive steps have marked our common journey, starting above all with the historical event that we are recalling today: the embrace of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, on 5 and 6 January 1964. We, their Successors, are meeting today to commemorate fittingly before God that blessed encounter, now part of the history of the Church, faithfully recalling it and its original intentions.

3. The embrace in Jerusalem of our respective Predecessors of venerable memory visibly expressed a hope that dwells in all hearts, as the Communiqué declared: "With eyes turned to Christ, together with the Father, the Archetype and Author of unity and of peace, they pray God that this encounter may be the sign and prelude of things to come for the glory of God and the enlightenment of his faithful people. After so many centuries of silence, they have now met with the desire to do the Lord's will and to proclaim the ancient truth of his Gospel, entrusted to the Church" (Common Declaration of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, Tomos Agapis, Vatican-Phanar, 1971, n. 50, p. 120).

4. Unity and Peace! The hope kindled by that historic encounter has lit up our journey in these last decades. Aware that the Christian world has suffered the tragedy of separation for centuries, our Predecessors and we ourselves have persevered in the "dialogue of charity", our gaze turned to that blessed, shining day on which it will be possible to communicate with the same cup of the precious Blood and the holy Body of the Lord (cf. Patriarch Athenagoras I, Address to Pope Paul VI [5 January 1964], ibid., n. 48, p. 109). The many ecclesial events that have punctuated these past years have put on firm foundations the commitment to brotherly love: a love which, in learning from past lessons, may be ready to forgive, more inclined to believe in good than in evil and intent first and foremost on complying with the Divine Redeemer and in being attracted and transformed by him (Address of Pope Paul VI to Patriarch Athenagoras I [6 January 1964], ibid., n. 49, p. 117).

5. Let us thank the Lord for the exemplary gestures of reciprocal love, participation and sharing that he has granted us to make; among them, it is only right to recall the Pope's Visit to the Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios in 1979, when the creation of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and all the Orthodox Churches was announced at the Phanar, a further step to sustain the "dialogue of truth" with the "dialogue of charity"; Patriarch Dimitrios' visit to Rome in 1987; our meeting in Rome on the feast of Sts Peter and Paul in 1995, when we prayed in St Peter's, despite the painful separation during the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy, since we cannot yet drink from the same chalice of the Lord. Then, more recently, there was the meeting at Assisi for the "Day of Prayer for Peace in the World", and the Common Declaration on Environmental Ethics for the Safeguard of Creation, signed on 10 June 2002 [in the context of the Fourth Symposium on Ecology: The Adriatic Sea: a Sea at Risk - Unity of Purpose].

6. Despite our firm determination to journey on towards full communion, it would have been unrealistic not to expect obstacles of various kinds: doctrinal, first of all, but also the result of conditioning by a troubled history. In addition, the new problems which have emerged from the radical changes that have occurred in political and social structures have not failed to make themselves felt in relations between the Christian Churches. With the return to freedom of Christians in Central and Eastern Europe, old fears have also been reawakened, making dialogue difficult. Nonetheless, St Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians: let all things be done in charity, must always be vibrant within us and between us.

7. The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and all the Orthodox Churches, created with so much hope, has marked our progress in recent years. It is still a suitable instrument for studying the ecclesiological and historical problems that are at the root of our difficulties, and for identifying hypothetical solutions to them. It is our duty to persevere in the important commitment to reopen the work as soon as possible. In examining the reciprocal initiatives of the offices of Rome and of Constantinople with this in view, we ask the Lord to sustain our determination, and to convince everyone of how essential it is to pursue the "dialogue of truth".

8. Our meeting in Rome today also enables us to face certain problems and misunderstandings that have recently surfaced. The long experience of the "dialogue of charity" comes to our aid precisely in these circumstances, so that difficulties can be faced serenely without slowing or clouding our progress on the journey we have undertaken towards full communion in Christ.

9. Before a world that is suffering every kind of division and imbalance, today's encounter is intended as a practical and forceful reminder of the importance for Christians and for the Churches to coexist in peace and harmony, in order to witness in agreement to the message of the Gospel in the most credible and convincing way possible.

10. In the special context of Europe, moving in the direction of higher forms of integration and expansion towards the East of the Continent, we thank the Lord for this positive development and express the hope that in this new situation, collaboration between Catholics and Orthodox may grow. There are so many challenges to face together in order to contribute to the good of society: to heal with love the scourge of terrorism, to instil a hope of peace, to help set aright the multitude of grievous conflicts; to restore to the European Continent the awareness of its Christian roots; to build true dialogue with Islam, since indifference and reciprocal ignorance can only give rise to diffidence and even hatred; to nourish an awareness of the sacred nature of human life; to work to ensure that science does not deny the divine spark that every human being receives with the gift of life; to collaborate so that our earth may not be disfigured and that Creation may preserve the beauty with which it has been endowed by God; but above all, to proclaim the Gospel Message with fresh vigour, showing contemporary men and women how the Gospel can help them rediscover themselves and to build a more human world.

11. Let us pray to the Lord to give peace to the Church and to the world, and to imbue our journey towards full communion with the wisdom of his Spirit, "ut unum in Christo simus" [so that we may be one in Christ].  (Common Declaration of Pope John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Bartholomew I (July 1, 2004).)

This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it!” (Ps 117:24)

This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God’s work, and in a certain sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lord’s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ. May our meeting be a sign and an encouragement for us to share the same sentiments and the same attitudes of fraternity, cooperation and communion in charity and truth. The Holy Spirit will help us to prepare the great day of the re-establishment of full unity, whenever and however God wills it. Then we shall truly be able to rejoice and be glad.

1. We have recalled with thankfulness the meetings of our venerable predecessors, blessed by the Lord, who showed the world the urgent need for unity and traced sure paths for attaining it, through dialogue, prayer and the daily life of the Church. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I went as pilgrims to Jerusalem, to the very place where Jesus Christ died and rose again for the salvation of the world, and they also met again, here in the Phanar and in Rome. They left us a common declaration which retains all its value; it emphasizes that true dialogue in charity must sustain and inspire all relations between individuals and between Churches, that it “must be rooted in a total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for their own traditions” (Tomos Agapis, 195). Nor have we forgotten the reciprocal visits of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Dimitrios I. It was during the visit of Pope John Paul II, his first ecumenical visit, that the creation of the Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was announced. This Commission brought our Churches together with the declared aim of re-establishing full communion.

As far as relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are concerned, we cannot fail to recall the solemn ecclesial act effacing the memory of the ancient anathemas which for centuries have had a negative effect on relations between our Churches. We have not yet drawn from this act all the positive consequences which can flow from it in our progress towards full unity, to which the mixed Commission is called to make an important contribution. We exhort our faithful to take an active part in this process, through prayer and through significant gestures.

2. At the time of the plenary session of the mixed Commission for theological dialogue, which was recently held in Belgrade through the generous hospitality of the Serbian Orthodox Church, we expressed our profound joy at the resumption of the theological dialogue. This had been interrupted for several years because of various difficulties, but now the Commission has been able to work afresh in a spirit of friendship and cooperation. In treating the topic “Conciliarity and Authority in the Church” at local, regional and universal levels, the Commission undertook a phase of study on the ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the Church. This will permit us to address some of the principal questions that are still unresolved. We are committed to offer unceasing support, as in the past, to the work entrusted to this Commission and we accompany its members with our prayers.

3. As Pastors, we have first of all reflected on the mission to proclaim the Gospel in today’s world. This mission, “Go, make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19), is today more timely and necessary than ever, even in traditionally Christian countries. Moreover, we cannot ignore the increase of secularization, relativism, even nihilism, especially in the Western world. All this calls for a renewed and powerful proclamation of the Gospel, adapted to the cultures of our time. Our traditions represent for us a patrimony which must be continually shared, proposed, and interpreted anew. This is why we must strengthen our cooperation and our common witness before the world.

4. We have viewed positively the process that has led to the formation of the European Union. Those engaged in this great project should not fail to take into consideration all aspects affecting the inalienable rights of the human person, especially religious freedom, a witness and guarantor of respect for all other freedoms. In every step towards unification, minorities must be protected, with their cultural traditions and the distinguishing features of their religion. In Europe, while remaining open to other religions and to their cultural contributions, we must unite our efforts to preserve Christian roots, traditions and values, to ensure respect for history, and thus to contribute to the European culture of the future and to the quality of human relations at every level. In this context, how could we not evoke the very ancient witnesses and the illustrious Christian heritage of the land in which our meeting is taking place, beginning with what the Acts of the Apostles tells us in evoking the figure of Saint Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles? In this land, the Gospel message and the cultural tradition of the ancient world met. This link, which has contributed so much to the Christian heritage that we share, remains timely and will bear more fruit in the future for evangelization and for our unity.

5. Our concern extends to those parts of today’s world where Christians live and to the difficulties they have to face, particularly poverty, wars and terrorism, but equally to various forms of exploitation of the poor, of migrants, women and children. We are called to work together to promote respect for the rights of every human being, created in the image and likeness of God, and to foster economic, social and cultural development. Our theological and ethical traditions can offer a solid basis for a united approach in preaching and action. Above all, we wish to affirm that killing innocent people in God’s name is an offence against him and against human dignity. We must all commit ourselves to the renewed service of humanity and the defence of human life, every human life.

We take profoundly to heart the cause of peace in the Middle East, where our Lord lived, suffered, died and rose again, and where a great multitude of our Christian brethren have lived for centuries. We fervently hope that peace will be re-established in that region, that respectful coexistence will be strengthened between the different peoples that live there, between the Churches and between the different religions found there. To this end, we encourage the establishment of closer relationships between Christians, and of an authentic and honest interreligious dialogue, with a view to combating every form of violence and discrimination.

6. At present, in the face of the great threats to the natural environment, we want to express our concern at the negative consequences for humanity and for the whole of creation which can result from economic and technological progress that does not know its limits. As religious leaders, we consider it one of our duties to encourage and to support all efforts made to protect God’s creation, and to bequeath to future generations a world in which they will be able to live.

7. Finally, our thoughts turn towards all of you, the faithful of our Churches throughout the world, Bishops, priests, deacons, men and women religious, lay men and women engaged in ecclesial service, and all the baptized. In Christ we greet other Christians, assuring them of our prayers and our openness to dialogue and cooperation. In the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles, we greet all of you: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 1:2). (Common declaration by His Holiness Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I (November 30, 2006.)

Your Holiness, beloved brother Bartholomew,

When I was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, I often took part in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox communities there.  Today, the Lord has given me the singular grace to be present in this Patriarchal Church of Saint George for the celebration of the Feast of the holy Apostle Andrew, the first-called, the brother of Saint Peter, and the Patron Saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Meeting each other, seeing each other face to face, exchanging the embrace of peace, and praying for each other, are all essential aspects of our journey towards the restoration of full communion.  All of this precedes and always accompanies that other essential aspect of this journey, namely, theological dialogue.  An authentic dialogue is, in every case, an encounter between persons with a name, a face, a past, and not merely a meeting of ideas.

This is especially true for us Christians, because for us the truth is the person of Jesus Christ.  The example of Saint Andrew, who with another disciple accepted the invitation of the Divine Master, “Come and see”, and “stayed with him that day” (Jn 1:39), shows us plainly that the Christian life is a personal experience, a transforming encounter with the One who loves us and who wants to save us.  In addition, the Christian message is spread thanks to men and women who are in love with Christ, and cannot help but pass on the joy of being loved and saved.  Here again, the example of the apostle Andrew is instructive.  After following Jesus to his home and spending time with him, Andrew “first found his brother Simon, and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which means Christ).  He brought him to Jesus” (Jn 1:40-42).  It is clear, therefore, that not even dialogue among Christians can prescind from this logic of personal encounter.

It is not by chance that the path of reconciliation and peace between Catholics and Orthodox was, in some way, ushered in by an encounter, by an embrace between our venerable predecessors, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI, which took place fifty years ago in Jerusalem.  Your Holiness and I wished to commemorate that moment when we met recently in the same city where our Lord Jesus Christ died and rose. 

By happy coincidence, my visit falls a few days after the fiftieth anniversary of the promulgation of Unitatis Redintegratio, the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Christian Unity.  This is a fundamental document which opened new avenues for encounter between Catholics and their brothers and sisters of other Churches and ecclesial communities.

In particular, in that Decree the Catholic Church acknowledges that the Orthodox Churches “possess true sacraments, above all – by apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy” (15).  The Decree goes on to state that in order to guard faithfully the fullness of the Christian tradition and to bring to fulfilment the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Christians, it is of the greatest importance  to preserve and support the rich patrimony of the Eastern Churches.  This regards not only their liturgical and spiritual traditions, but also their canonical disciplines, sanctioned as they are by the Fathers and by Councils, which regulate the lives of these Churches (cf. 15-16).

I believe that it is important to reaffirm respect for this principle as an essential condition, accepted by both, for the restoration of full communion, which does not signify the submission of one to the other, or assimilation.   Rather, it means welcoming all the gifts that God has given to each, thus demonstrating to the entire world the great mystery of salvation accomplished by Christ the Lord through the Holy Spirit.  I want to assure each one of you here that, to reach the desired goal of full unity, the Catholic Church does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith.  Further, I would add that we are ready to seek together, in light of Scriptural teaching and the experience of the first millennium, the ways in which we can guarantee the needed unity of the Church in the present circumstances.  The one thing that the Catholic Church desires, and that I seek as Bishop of Rome, “the Church which presides in charity”, is communion with the Orthodox Churches.  Such communion will always be the fruit of that love which “has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (cf. Rom 5:5), a fraternal love which expresses the spiritual and transcendent bond which unites us as disciples of the Lord.

In today’s world, voices are being raised which we cannot ignore and which implore our Churches to live deeply our identity as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The first of these voices is that of the poor.  In the world, there are too many women and men who suffer from severe malnutrition, growing unemployment, the rising numbers of unemployed youth, and from increasing social exclusion.  These can give rise to criminal activity and even the recruitment of terrorists.  We cannot remain indifferent before the cries of our brothers and sisters.  These ask of us not only material assistance – needed in so many circumstances – but above all, our help to defend their dignity as human persons, so that they can find the spiritual energy to become once again protagonists in their own lives.  They ask us to fight, in the light of the Gospel, the structural causes of poverty: inequality, the shortage of dignified work and housing, and the denial of their rights as members of society and as workers.  As Christians we are called together to eliminate that globalization of indifference which today seems to reign supreme, while building a new civilization of love and solidarity.

A second plea comes from the victims of the conflicts in so many parts of our world.  We hear this resoundingly here, because some neighbouring countries are scarred by an inhumane and brutal war.  I think in a particular way of the numerous victims of the grotesque and senseless attack which recently killed and injured so many Muslims who were praying in a Mosque in Kano, Nigeria.  Taking away the peace of a people, committing every act of violence – or consenting to such acts – especially when directed against the weakest and defenceless, is a profoundly grave sin against God, since it means showing contempt for the image of God which is in man.  The cry of the victims of conflict urges us to move with haste along the path of reconciliation and communion between Catholics and Orthodox.  Indeed, how can we credibly proclaim the Gospel of peace which comes from Christ, if there continues to be rivalry and disagreement between us (cf. Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi, 77)?

A third cry which challenges us is that of young people.  Today, tragically, there are many young men and women who live without hope, overcome by mistrust and resignation.  Many of the young, influenced by the prevailing culture, seek happiness solely in possessing material things and in satisfying their fleeting emotions.  New generations will never be able to acquire true wisdom and keep hope alive unless we are able to esteem and transmit the true humanism which comes from the Gospel and from the Church’s age-old experience.  It is precisely the young who today implore us to make progress towards full communion.  I think for example of the many Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant youth who come together at meetings organized by the Taizé community.  They do this not because they ignore the differences which still separate us, but because they are able to see beyond them; they are able to embrace what is essential and what already unites us.

Dear brother, very dear brother, we are already on the way, on the path towards full communion and already we can experience eloquent signs of an authentic, albeit incomplete union.  This offers us reassurance and encourages us to continue on this journey.  We are certain that along this journey we are helped by the intercession of the Apostle Andrew and his brother Peter, held by tradition to be the founders of the Churches of Constantinople and of Rome.  We ask God for the great gift of full unity, and the ability to accept it in our lives.  Let us never forget to pray for one another. (Divine Liturgy in the Patriarchal Church of St. George, November 30, 2014.)

Appendix B

Ways in Which the Orthodox Defect from the Catholic Faith

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:

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. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)

This is what the Orthodox still believe, which makes them fit "partners" for "ecumenical dialogue" with Ratzinger/Benedict, who has 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)

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:

  1. 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.)

These are not minor matters. And this all going to be "bridged" by means of appeals to the "heart"? Preposterous.

A mutual dislike of Scholasticism and a desire to "re-read" the Church Fathers without the "filter" provided by Saint Thomas Aquinas links Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "New Theology" and the ambiguous doctrinal views of the Orthodox. I explored this in an article seventeen months ago now:

The following passages from Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, describe--and condemn--the entirety of the intellectual work of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is using his "vague notions" and outright heresies to appeal for "unity" with the schismatic and heretical Orthodox churches without forcing them to accept the dogmatic pronouncements of the Second Millennium that were made without their "participation" and that were "distorted" by Scholasticism as a result:

Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.

Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Such is 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."