Home ... the One, True, Holy, Catholic Church
“Know you not that the friendship
of this world is the enemy of God?
Mary, Conceived without Sin,
pray for us who have recourse to Thee
Why ... Why did Christ Die on the Cross ...
if ANY “religion” whatsoever will bring you Salvation?
and any conceivable answer to it
— is the most compelling argument against the
heretical project of what we have come to
understand as “Ecumenism” (a word first
coined in 1948) — the novel and ultimately
implausible notion that was the principal
motivation behind the convocation of the Second
Vatican Council. It is an unavoidable
question that is absolutely unanswerable in
terms consistent with the teachings, doctrines,
and dogmas of the Catholic Church prior to that
catastrophic convocation we have come to call
“Vatican II” that rended the Church as the 21st
Ecumenical Council beginning, conceptually, in
1959 under John XXIII and formalized between
1962 and 1965. Paul VI ran with it for
the next 15 years. The ball was subsequently
handed on to John Paul II who carried it for the
next 27 years (as it increasingly came apart at
the seams) — and then to all his successors
since — until it became threadbare and
barely recognizable under Bergoglio (Francis).
Under PachaPapa the stitching was methodically
undone and all four panels discarded
(Magisterium, Tradition, Sacred Deposit of
Faith, Sacred Scripture). The deflated Church
was now on equal playing ground with every other
“Spiritual ... Idiom” on Earth — and
all were right and true
despite their oddly inherent and insuperable
contradictions ... THAT is Ecumenism.
Allah, Buddha, Pachamama, Satanism, and Brahma:
just different names for the same deity.
WHY was itNECESSARY for Christ to die on the Cross —
ANY religion, belief, cult, or
years earlier he had emphasized this radical
insistence on ecumenism through a different tack,
the absolutely clear terms of which by now we are
For Francis, it is not the proclamation of the Gospel and the conversion of souls to Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Churchthat is unimpeachable — since it is an obligation unequivocally mandated by Christ Himself — in fact, they were His very last words, His very last commandment, to His Apostles:
No — for Francis it is the heretical “IDEOLOGY” of Ecumenism — formally condemned by Holy Mother Church in 1928 by Pope Pius XI in the encyclical “Mortalium animos”.
It is absolutely vital that we understand that “Ecumenism” is a novelideology formulated in 1910 by an exclusively Protestant collaborative in Scotland called the International Missionary Conference.
It is this Protestant initiative that Francis (and each his Post-Conciliar predecessors) chose as the paradigm for post-Vatican II Catholicism; that is to say, Catholicism construed as an ideology 2 — not a unique and indispensable religion.
It is no longer a matter of the salvation of souls (a now antiquated and disreputable concept in the “Post-Conciliar Catholic Church”) but the construction of a human federation of intrinsically and mutually contradictory denominations largely promoting a “social gospel” and social justice. Simply put, the focus is man, not God; society, not salvation.
To reiterate the point:
Why, then, was it necessary for Christ to die on the Cross —if “any religion” suffices to bring man to God, offers salvation, and ultimately leads men to Heaven?
answer to this question had apparently been
peripheral to the “Council Fathers” and the
answer to it still eludes the sophistic
casuistry of Catholic and Protestant theologians
alike, as it had in their collaborative
construction of the Council and the spurious
documents that emerged from it.
The “god of surprises”?
Absurdity may, in fact, be a
prerogative of Francis’s
fabricated “god of surprises” — but it is
not the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob; not the God revealed in His Incarnate
Son, and certainly not the God worshipped in the
(“ut unum sint”) as We also are. While I was with them, I kept them [the Apostles] in Thy name. Those [the Apostles] whom Thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition [Judas], that the Scripture may be fulfilled.” (Saint John 17.11-12)
If you argue that the revelation of God is a gradually evolving and on-going process, a continual “up-dating” of His most holy will so that He, Who created the world, can keep pace with the times and man’s “evolving consciousness”— then Jesus is not the final Word of God after all:
The revelation of God was completed in His Son, and ended upon the death of the last Apostle, Saint John.
This is long-established Catholic Doctrine. But now, we are to believe, God is going to speak through Francis and abolish this doctrine by revealing that Christianity (Catholicism) is not the only way to the Father despite what Christ Himself said:
proclamation — without precedent in Catholic
history — is nothing less than a betrayal of
Christ, the Teachings of Christ’s Church, the
Sacred Deposit of Faith and is a grievous wound
in our Holy Mother the Church whom he has also
betrayed. It is heresy.
Geoffrey K. Mondello
We do not argue that the Seat
of Saint Peter is empty — which is to say that we
are not Sedevacantists (from the Latin “sede
vacante”, “the chair being vacant”)
Some popes have been saints. Some have been scoundrels. Jorge Bergoglio, regrettably, is certainly and most notoriously among the latter.
Petri” is not and has never been empty (apart, of
course, from the interregnum between the death of a pope
and the nomination of his successor — the longest of
which was 3 years (1268-1271) With Francis occupying the
Cathedra Petri since 2013 however, this position
has become increasingly untenable. At what point does a
man — including a pope — cease to be in communion with
the Church? At what point does he cease to be Catholic?
If he does not hold what the Church teaches, what Sacred
Scripture teaches, what Sacred Tradition teaches, what
the authentic Magisterium of the Church has taught for
2000 years — in what sense do we hold him to be in
communion with what he has openly repudiated —
Is the Pope Catholic?
Many Catholics and non-Catholics have, for some time now, nevertheless asked themselves what was once an amusing question intended to be a litmus test for the faithfulness of a Catholic. “How can you possibly question her fidelity to the Church? She’s as Catholic as the pope!” This, of course, presupposes that the pope is the paradigmatic Catholic entrusted with preserving and promoting Catholic teaching, dogma, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the authentic and unbroken Catholic Magisterium, and millennia of Catholic Tradition.
This question can legitimately be asked — but without anticipating a positive response. Indeed, under the papacy of Francis, to be “as Catholic as the pope” is to be an uncertain, uncommitted Catholic, unsure of the credentials of the Catholic Church and uncertain of the morality historically predicated of Her and derived from Sacred Scripture. Anon-creedal Unitarian Universalist would be more in keeping with the mind of Francis than Catholicism as it has been historically understood.
Before we attempt to make sense of this apparent paradox, there are a few things that we must be clear about; harsh as they may appear, they are quite nearly incontrovertible:
Francis is not a proponent of Catholicism , but an ideologue whose primary concern is an elusive and esoteric notion of “encounter” with all that is alien to Catholicism and most often antagonistic toward it — a program of assimilating other cultures by repudiating Catholic dogma and identity. For Francis there is nothing specific in the way of identity — essentially there is no differentiation—nothing is unique, nothing idiomatic: it is only sameness expressed in other terms that can never be incongruent. Uniqueness is anathema — even if that means sacrificing millennia old Catholic beliefs inseparable from the unique identity of Catholicism. Catholicism is an obstacle and if it is not consonant with every other belief system, it is Catholicism that must yield. Remember the absurd “Encounter Groups” which proliferated in the 60’s? (not coincidentally the era of Vatican II) These were even more flexible than Francis’s obscure — and rigid vision of the notion of Encounter. Yes, “rigid!” — the very epithet that Francis solely reserves for Traditional Catholics.
A “so-called” Catholic identity?
Why “so-called”? It appears that for Francis there is no unique “Catholic identity” that is distinguishable from every and any other social and religious identity. Each is simply a culturally inflected iteration of the other.
(much as Masons envision) rather than a
Communion of Saints
binding every Catholic to every other Catholic in the
Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the
Church Triumphant in Heaven with the singular goal of
reaching Heaven, rather than “perfecting society
on earth” as the Communists envision? Every
member of a “fraternal society” will eventually perish. But
not so for those who cleave to the Body of Christ (His
Church) — and not the World — and who will not
perish, but have everlasting life. (Saint John 3.15)
The Most Compelling Question is this: Given Francis’s Malfeasance, Why does God Allow it?
Even a Pope is Given the Free Will
to do what he wills — rather than What God
word, it is completely independent,
self-referent, and completely free. However
faithfully or unfaithfully a pope executes his
Petrine Office is largely determined by the man. He
may be good or he may be evil. In either case — even
given the exalted office conferred upon him — he is
withal and necessarily exercising his own
free will. Even a pope is free to do what he
wills, rather than what God wills. He can
incorporate and exercise the legitimate
responsibilities of his office, or he can be
despotic and utterly ignore them, and with them,
God. It is up to the man.
equally remember two episodes, one from the Old
Testament, and one from the New Testament in which
we find God bringing good even out of evil:
Pilate surely believed that it was in his power to crucify Christ or to free Him — but Jesus responds:
“Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.” (Saint John 19.11)
These are two striking examples of God’s Permissive Will — not simply respecting the free will He conferred upon man, but of His power to bring a seemingly impossible good out of the evil devices of men. Most often we do not see the end to which his benevolent, Permissive Will, is directed — and may not in this life at all. We are left with the assurance by Saint Paul:
It is true
that Jorge has uttered some things good and true —
but because one utters some things that are
true and good, we cannot infer that the one saying
them is himself good ... or true.
An Apposite and Frightening Paradigm
our paradigm is no one less than Satan, who himself
quoted Scripture in the Temptations of Christ
(Saint Matthew 4.1-11) What he said was true in his
unsuccessful attempts to seduce Christ from
redeeming the souls of men, but because he quoted
directly from Holy Scripture itself in no way
mitigates his evil.
Like Satan, Francis can quote Scripture, too …
such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder:
for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of
(2 Corinthians 13-14)
2 An intensional definition gives the meaning of a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used by denoting the properties that an object requires in order to be understood as a referent of the term. For example, an intensional definition of the word “bachelor” is an “unmarried man”.
3 atautology is the uttering of the same thing twice in different words.
best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming
down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no
change, nor shadow of alteration.”
(Saint James 1.17)
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Comments? Write us:email@example.com
PV2 = Enrolled prior to Vatican II and deleted after Vatican II
New: the Roman Martyrology can now be downloaded entirely as either a or as a Microsoft Word File
Each day we bring you a calendar, a list really, of the holy Martyrs who had suffered and died for Christ, for His Bride the Church, and for our holy Catholic Faith; men and women for whom — and well they knew — their Profession of Faith would cost them their lives.
They could have repudiated all three (Christ, Church, and Catholic Faith) and kept their lives for a short time longer (even the lapsi only postponed their death — and at so great a cost!)
What would motivate men, women, even children and entire families to willingly undergo the most evil and painfully devised tortures; to suffer death rather than denial?
Why did they not renounce their Catholic Faith when the first flame licked at their feet, after the first eye was plucked out, or after they were “baptized” in mockery by boiling water or molten lead poured over their heads? Why did they not flee to offer incense to the pagan gods since such a ritual concession would be merely perfunctory, having been done, after all, under duress, exacted by the compulsion of the state? What is a little burned incense and a few words uttered without conviction, compared to your own life and the lives of those you love? Surely God knows that you are merely placating the state with empty gestures …
Did they love their wives, husbands, children — their mothers, fathers and friends less than we do? Did they value their own lives less? Were they less sensitive to pain than we are? In a word, what did they possess that we do not?
Nothing. They possessed what we ourselves are given in the Sacrament of Confirmation — but cleaved to it in far greater measure than we do: Faith and faithfulness; fortitude and valor, uncompromising belief in the invincible reality of God, of life eternal in Him for the faithful, of damnation everlasting apart from Him for the unfaithful; of the ephemerality of this passing world and all within it, and lives lived in total accord with that adamant belief.
We are the Martyrs to come! What made them so will make us so. What they suffered we will suffer. What they died for, we will die for. If only we will! For most us, life will be a bloodless martyrdom, a suffering for Christ, for the sake of Christ, for the sake of the Church in a thousand ways outside the arena. The road to Heaven is lined on both sides with Crosses, and upon the Crosses people, people who suffered unknown to the world, but known to God. Catholics living in partibus infidelium, under the scourge of Islam. Loveless marriages. Injustices on all sides. Poverty. Illness. Old age. Dependency. They are the cruciform! Those whose lives became Crosses because they would not flee God, the Church, the call to, the demand for, holiness in the most ordinary things of life made extraordinary through the grace of God. The Martyrology we celebrate each day is just a vignette, a small, immeasurably small, sampling of the martyrdom that has been the lives of countless men and women whom Christ and the Angels know, but whom the world does not know.
“Exemplum enim dedi vobis”, Christ said to His Apostles: “I have given you an example.” And His Martyrs give one to us — and that is why the Martyrs matter.
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Boston Catholic Journal
Note: We suggest that you explore our newly edited and revised “De SS. Martyrum Cruciatibus — The Torments and Tortures of the Christian Martyrs” for an in-depth historical account of the sufferings of the Martyrs.
Totally Faithful to the Sacred Deposit of
Faith entrusted to the Holy See in Rome