Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices

This article contains content used from authors: Brother Peter Dimond and Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery.com

Bishop Richard Williamson, (born 8 March 1940) is an English traditionalist self-professed Catholic bishop who is a member of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Williamson claims to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church who opposes the changes in the Conciliar Church brought about by the Second Vatican Council, since he sees such changes as being unacceptably liberal, modernistic, and fundamentally non-Catholic, and as such, being destructive to the Church.

See: The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II

In 1988, the Vatican II sect declared that Williamson had incurred "automatic excommunication" latae sententiae as a direct and immediate consequence of his unauthorized consecration as a bishop by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (heretics and non-Catholics have no power or jurisdiction to excommunicate anyone). Williamson and his supporters denied the validity of the excommunication, saying that the consecrations were necessary due to a moral and theological crisis in what he considers to be the Catholic Church (but which in reality is the non-Catholic Vatican II sect).

At the request of the four surviving bishops, the Vatican II sect supposedly lifted in 2009 the "excommunication" that it had declared had been incurred by them.

Many sedevacantists view the SSPX and its adherents as in schism from the Vatican II sect they recognizes as a valid Catholic hierarchy. The SSPX also consider the Vatican II antipopes as "true" popes in its public declarations, though it considers that many of the Vatican II's leaders are, as individuals, erroneous. So the SSPX obstinately operates outside of communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, even though it recognizes it as a true and Catholic hierarchy. This is actually schismatic. Therefore, it is true to say that Bishop Richard Williamson is a schismatic against the Church (or rather, sect) he deems legitimate.

In October, 2012, Bishop Bernard Fellay, the heretical superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, expelled Bishop Richard Williamson from the SSPX. After a number of incidents, including calling for the deposition of Bernard Fellay as the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, his refusal to stop publishing his weekly email and an "unauthorised" visitation to Brazil, Williamson was finally expelled from the Society.

Bishop Williamson's supporters maintain that far from being unbalanced, schismatic or heretical, Bishop Williamson is one of the few remaining "Catholic" leaders, and that his beliefs are solidly orthodox - supported by the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and other great doctors of the Church. They also argue that his excommunication was invalid.

The Society of St. Pius X

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is an international traditionalist non-sedevacantist "Catholic" organization which defines its mission as opposing innovation and modernity within the Vatican II Church.

Although its main focus has always been the preservation of the Latin Mass as a viable form of worship, SSPX has tragically promoted theological errors and heresies on a large scale among its adherents.

See: The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) & Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices

In the United States, SSPX claims about 100 chapels and 24 schools. Its U.S. monthly periodical, The Angelus, has about 3,000 subscribers. It also maintains a Web site.

History

The Society of St. Pius X was founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991) in reaction to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. These reforms included a New Mass, the other new "sacraments", and the heretical teachings of Vatican II (i.e. religious liberty, salvation outside the Church, esteem for false religions, prayer and divine worship with false religions, NFP, etc).

Now, Paul VI was the man who claimed to be the head of the Catholic Church from June 21, 1963 to August 6, 1978. He was the man who promulgated the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass. Paul VI solemnly ratified all 16 documents of Vatican II. It is not possible for a true Pope of the Catholic Church to solemnly ratify teachings that are heretical. The fact that Paul VI did solemnly ratify the heretical teachings of Vatican II proves that Paul VI was not a true pope, but an antipope.

If you go to the New Mass or embrace the teachings of Vatican II, the confidence that you have that these things are legitimate is directly connected to the confidence that you have that Paul VI was a true Catholic Pope. Yet, despite the evidence to the contrary, the SSPX still considers Paul VI as true Catholic Pope.

Read more: The Amazing Heresies of Antipope Paul VI Exposed

Bishop Richard Williamson's Beliefs, Heresies and Practices Exposed

Williamson is said to be noted for his "uncompromising" views. He rejects the reforms of Vatican II and is fiercely critical of what he calls "neo-Modernist" tendencies in post-Vatican II "Catholicism". Instead he advocates his own an integral view of Catholicism which attempts to mould every aspect of life, including politics, education, and culture. Some of these views are controversial even among members of the SSPX and other Traditionalist "Catholics". A few of his views are even considered "illegal" in several Western European countries.

Vatican II

Of the SSPX bishops, Williamson is generally regarded as the most openly critical of the Vatican II. He has written that "Neo-modernist Rome has fallen with the untruths of Vatican II." (Bishop Williamson Letter, February 1, 2000) In the course of August 2005 negotiations between Bishop Bernard Fellay and "Pope" Benedict XVI (see Benedict XVI's Heresies), Williamson remarked that a "web of deceit" had been "spun by the Vatican for too long. It is a case of 'welcome to my parlour, said the spider to the fly'." (Pope Opens Talks with Latin Mass Renegades, The Times, August 29, 2005)

In an October 2005 interview, Williamson said: "As things stand now, for there to be an 'agreement', either Rome – neo-modernist Rome – drops its neo-modernism, or the Society betrays its Catholicism, or half and half, etc. We pray to God that Rome may convert. We beg God that the Society may not betray." (Interview with John Grassmeier, Angelqueen, October 2005) However, Williamson has indicated that he believes that Rome will eventually "revert" to the traditionalist brand of Roman-Catholicism favoured by SSPX priests and laity; in May 2005, he said: "The wheels of God grind slowly. It takes time for the Truth to filter. But there are indications that the Truth is filtering. So, with time, Rome will eventually come back to the Truth." (Interview with Michael Chapman, The Remnant, May 2005)

Some commentators have alleged that Williamson is a crypto-sedevacantist, based on published remarks such as those found in his letters of September 1999 and February 2001:

  • "pray for your part that the minds of Society priests (and bishops!) never slip anchor until God restores the Pope and Rome, not necessarily in Rome!" (Bishop Williamson Letter, September 1, 1999)

  • "so long as any organization like the Society has the Truth while Rome has not, then the Society is in the driving-seat FOR ALL CATHOLIC PURPOSES, and any behavior, shape, size or form of negotiations which would allow this Rome to get back into the driving-seat would be tantamount to a betrayal of the Truth. Of course, from the moment when Rome returned to the Truth, Rome would be back in the driving-seat, because that is how Our Lord built His Church." (Bishop Williamson Letter, February 1, 2000)

Defenders of Williamson have noted the May 2005 interview in which - while criticising "Pope" Benedict for "undermining the belief in an absolute truth" - he stated unequivocally that the SSPX "do believe Benedict is Pope." He made a similar statement in his April 2005 letter to friends and benefactors. (Bishop Williamson Letter, April 27, 2005)

In his April 2006 message he recounted how he told Vatican officials that he and they "belong to two different religions." (April 2006 message)

Jews and Judaism

Williamson has frequently been accused of "anti-Semitism" on the basis of reported remarks concerning Jews, Judaism and the Holocaust. In published letters to friends and benefactors he has quoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as authoritative, and reports of spoken remarks suggest he has sought to "downplay" the extent and significance of the so-called Jewish Holocaust:

  • In 1989, while speaking at Notre Dame de Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Canada, he is reported to have claimed that "there was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel.... Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism." (Thomas W. Case, "The Society of St. Pius X Gets Sick", Fidelity Magazine, October 1992) Williamson subsequently defended these remarks, saying "I was attacking the enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that includes Jews, as well as Communists and Freemasons."

  • In his March 2000 letter to friends and benefactors, he wrote: "we may blame Jews and Freemasons and others like them for engineering the destruction of the Church". (Bishop Williamson Letter, March 1, 2000)

  • In his April 2000 letter, he wrote: "down 2,000 years Jews have repeatedly sought to undermine the Catholic Church and to take Christ out of Christendom (leaving only endom or enddoom!)." (Bishop Williamson Letter, April 2, 2000)

  • In his May 2000 letter, he wrote: "God puts in men's hands the Protocols of the Sages of Sion and the Rakovsky Interview, if men want to know the truth, but few do." (Bishop Williamson Letter, May 1, 2000)

  • In his October 2001 letter, he wrote: "each time the United States attempts to act evenhandedly towards the Arabs, Jewish power inside the United States - e.g. virtual control of finance and the media - blocks the attempt, and the United States returns to oppressing the Arabs." (Bishop Williamson Letter, October 1, 2001)

  • In his November 2005 letter, he referred to "the domination of Jewish finance." (Bishop Williamson Letter, November 10, 2005)

In January 2009, Swedish television broadcast an interview recorded earlier at the SSPX's Seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany. During the interview, Bishop Williamson had expressed a belief that Nazi Germany did not use gas chambers during the Holocaust and that a total of between 200,000 and 300,000 Jews were killed. Based upon these statements, the Bishop was immediately charged with and convicted of Holocaust denial by a German court. The Vatican II sect was prompt to declare that "Pope" Benedict had been unaware of Williamson's views when he lifted the "excommunication" of the four bishops, and that Williamson would remain suspended from his episcopal functions until he unequivocally and publicly distances himself from his position on the Shoah. In 2010 he was convicted of incitement in a German court in relation to those views; the conviction was later vacated on appeal but then reinstated on retrial in early 2013. He appealed again, but his appeal was rejected.

The SSPX silences Bishop Richard Williamson for questioning official "Holocaust" story

Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX has silenced a member of his group because he dared to offend the Jews.

This is truly outrageous. The control and influence of the Jews has created a world-wide ambience in which even supposed Catholics and Christians are terrified at the thought of offending Jews or questioning their beliefs. The official story of the Holocaust is refuted even by Jewish sources, as credible documented proof shows. But even if one isn’t convinced on that point, certainly inquiry and divergent opinions in this area are acceptable for a Catholic. But no… the heretical leadership of the SSPX is so ashamed of offending the Jews that they feel obliged to silence a bishop of their society for simply expressing his opinion on the matter. Think about this! In so doing, they have essentially elevated belief in the Jewish version of the Holocaust to the status of a dogma which one cannot question.

If we continue on this path, in just a short time it will probably be illegal basically everywhere to question anything the Jews do or believe. If this comes to pass, it will be, in large part, as a result of weak and phony “Christians,” as well as the machinations of those who wield Jewish power and influence. Here’s a headline which captures where we are headed: "Holocaust denial violates Catholic teaching"

“Bishop Bernard Fellay… said that he had disciplined the bishop who made the statement, British-born Richard Williamson, and ordered him not to speak out again on any political or historical issues. Williamson's remarks on the Holocaust, most recently on Swedish TV last week, provoked widespread criticism by Jews who said he had wiped out nearly half a century of dialogue with Catholics.”

Consider these fact: 1) there are many facts which contradict the official “Holocaust story”, 2) news articles shows how the “Holocaust” has become the super-dogma of the nations; 3) combined with the control and influence of the Jews, the Official Holocaust hoax story has effectively created a world-wide ambience in which even supposed Catholics and Christians are terrified at the thought of offending Jews or questioning their beliefs.

It’s illegal in at least 14 countries to deny the official “Holocaust” story. Holocaust denial is illegal in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Switzerland. Think about that for a moment, and then ask yourself who is really in power. It’s illegal to question the official story of the “Holocaust,” even though it’s perfectly legal in those countries to deny the Divinity and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That means that those countries are truly Jewish states, for their laws uphold and imprison those who deny beliefs dear to Jews, but not to people of other religions.

Role of Women

In his September 2001 letter entitled "Girls at university" he wrote: (Bishop Williamson Letter, September 1, 2001)

  • "Almost no girl should go to any university"

  • "Universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls"

  • "In all things pertaining to motherhood she is man's superior, in all else she is his inferior"

  • "Woman's thinking is subjective, inward, intuitive, concrete, small-scale"

With reference to women wishing to replace men in positions of power:

  • "You cannot take their place!!!!"

Women should not dress or act like men, for this is an abomination in God's eyes. God created the human race with two genders, intending each to have his and her proper place in Creation. Men and women are not meant to behave or dress the same manner. Part of the beauty of the human race is found in the differences between men and women. We each live within a larger society. We are each influenced by the culture around us. Yet society and culture often teach us false things, which lead us away from God. Most women (at least in Western society and culture) dress and act very much like men. They seek the same roles in society, the family, and the Church. They are following a popular teaching of our culture today, that women and men are meant to have the same roles, and especially that women are meant to take up roles formerly held only or mainly by men. They are displaying their adherence to this teaching by dressing like men. This teaching of our culture is contrary to the teaching of Christ.

God wants men and women to act and dress according to their gender and the place God has given each one in Creation. Clothing and hairstyles are expressions of one's thoughts, behavior, and attitude. Women are not meant to behave like men, nor to have the same roles as men, therefore they should not dress or groom themselves like men. And vise versa.

In his September 1991 letter entitled "Women's trousers are an assault upon woman's womanhood" he wrote: (Bishop Williamson Letter, September 1, 1991)

  • "Girls, be mothers, and in order to be mothers, let not wild horses drag you into shorts or trousers"

  • "When activities are proposed to you requiring trousers, if it is something your great-grandmother did, then find a way of doing it, like her, in a skirt. And if your great-grandmother did not do it, then forget it!"

  • "Today's feminism is intimately connected to witchcraft and satanism"

Homosexuality

In his October 1997 letter entitled "Regarding: "Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children" he wrote: (Bishop Williamson Letter, October 8, 1997)

  • "God will, as He has told us in the Gospel, go to almost any lengths to help the sinner who is trying to get out of his sin, but He abominates the sinner who wallows in it, and upon these modern cities that flaunt their perversity in annual homosexual parades, He is preparing such fire and brimstone as may make what fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah look like a fall of dew, because at least those cities never knew the Gospel (cf. Mt. XI, 20-24)."

  • "To speak of homosexuality as an "alternate life-style" is as perverse as equating the violation of nature with its observance"

  • "Homosexuality is a violent repugnance"

  • "Homosexuality is a vice, or sinful habit"

  • "Homosexual activity is intrinsically wrong"

In the same letter he also describes homosexuality as:

  • "Foully corrupt"

  • "Natural repugnance"

See: Does God Create Homosexuals? ; and: Overcoming Homosexuality.

Modernism

In his September 1991 letter entitled "Women's trousers are an assault upon woman's womanhood" he wrote: (Bishop Williamson Letter, September 1, 1991)

  • "Her generation created your country, your generation is destroying it"

  • "Old-fashioned is good, modern is suicidal"

By the way, Padre Pio used to refuse to hear the confession of women who were wearing pants or an immodest dress.

Economics

Williamson's socio-economic theories have also attracted controversy. He is firmly against modern systems of economics and their attendant lifestyles, calling the Unabomber Manifesto "well worth reading". (Bishop Williamson Letter, April 2, 1998) Williamson wrote in a May 2000 letter that the United States is "a Communist country in all but name." (Bishop Williamson Letter, May 1, 2000)

The Sound of Music

Bishop Williamson has frequently criticised The Sound of Music, arguing that far from constituting a wholesome family film, it is emblematic of the corrosion of Catholicism and Western culture in general. In a much-circulated letter of November 1997, he wrote: "The problem with The Sound of Music is that it is not just the innocent entertainment that it seems to be... all the elements of pornography are there, just waiting to break out... Dear friends, any supposed Catholicism in The Sound of Music is a Hollywood fraud corresponding to the real-life fraud of that "Catholicism" of the 1950's and 1960's, all appearance and no substance, which was just waiting to break out into Vatican II and the Newchurch. Right here is the mentality of sweet compassion for homosexuals and of bitter grief for Princess Di, of sympathy for priests quitting the SSPX for the Novus Ordo. Everything is man-centered and meant to feel good, the apostasy of our times." (Bishop Williamson Letter, November 7, 1997)

Williamson proposed that in place of watching The Sound of Music at Christmas, Catholics play games, talk, and read.

Williamson has used "Sound-of-Musicians" as a critical term for insufficiently traditional contemporary Catholics. Describing the state of modernity in April 1996, he wrote: "If only it was not so! If only I could be on good terms both with God and with the mainstream! How much easier life would be! What a nice picture! A huge speaker on each corner of my party-raft drifting downstream blasts out that the hills are alive with the sound of music — my friends and I smell an increasingly unpleasant stench of sewage in the water, and ahead of us, is that the thunder we hear of a great waterfall? My friends, turn up the speakers! Sprinkle more smell-killer! The party is to go on for ever!" (Bishop Williamson Letter, April 1, 1996)

At the end of a September 2003 letter penned on the occasion of his departure from the United States, Williamson attached a poem in which The Sound of Music is both criticised and, in its final line, quoted. The poem also provides a summary of Williamson's socio-economic teaching: (Bishop Williamson Letter, Daily Catholic, vol. 14, no. 35, September 1-6, 2003)

Flee electronics. Stay with real life. / Give time, love and attention to your wife. / Forget "The Sound of Music", silly stuff / Of which the world has had more than enough. / So ends the last Newsletter I shall write. / Soon I must fly far south into the night. / Ah, my dear friends! - I feel like I could cry! / SO LONG! FAREWELL! AUF WIEDERSEHEN! GOOD-BYE!"

Concerning the the viewing of television

Most people of this generation, even those who profess themselves Christian, are so fallen away in morals that even the debauched people who lived a hundred years ago would be ashamed of the many things people today enjoy. And this is exactly what the devil had planned from the start, to step by step lowering the standard of morality in the world through the media until, in fact, one cannot escape to sin mortally by watching it with the intention of enjoying oneself. Yes to watch ungodly media only for enjoyment or pleasure or for to waste time (which could be used for God), as most people do, is mortally sinful.

54 years ago (1956), Elvis Presley had to be filmed above the waist up on a tv-show because of a hip-swiveling movement. Not that it was an acceptable performance, everything tending towards sensuality is an abomination, but still it serves to prove how much the decline has come since then, when even the secular press deemed inappropriate what today would be looked upon as nothing. But even at that time, in major Hollywood films like The Ten Commandments, could be seen both women and men that are incredibly immodestly dressed. The fall and decline of morals have been in progress ever since the invention of motion picture. God allowed this deceit to be invented because of people’s sins, especially for sins of the flesh. The media have such power that it preconditions peoples mind in such a way - since people look at TV as reality - that what was shameful yesterday will be the norm today! So if the media shows immodesty as norm, norm it will become!

Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

Our enemy, the Devil, first and foremost comes to us and enter our hearts through our eyes. No other sense is more potent in tempting man. Learning to control what you look at is absolutely crucial in order to be saved, for every time you look willfully with lust in your heart at an unchaste, enticing or unsuitable object, or any object at all for that matter, even if modest, you have most assuredly committed a mortal sin! Therefore, whenever you come across something sinful with your eyes (or even something licit but which is very beautiful) you must make a habit to look down or away – for the sin of lust will not be far away – making the sign of the cross and saying 1 or 3 Hail Mary’s, which is highly recommended since it helps against impurities.

Countless of Saints have rebuked people for the great error of failing to control their eyes. St. Ignatius of Loyola for example rebuked a brother for looking at his face for more than a brief moment. St. Bridget made a specific confession for every single face she saw during each day! This is true wisdom, but the world and current custom and habit tells you to always watch the person you are with, or looking at, in the face, even if they are on the Television! This is a bad custom or habit to say the least. This will many times lead to sins and impure thoughts and temptations of the Devil. Modesty and purity requires us to not stare people in the face, and especially the eyes, even at all, or only for a very short moment, even when we talk to them directly. In former times, this was common knowledge.

St. Alphonsus Liguori writes the following concerning this: “But I do not see how looks at young persons of a different sex can be excused from the guilt of a venial fault, or even from mortal sin, when there is proximate danger of criminal consent. "It is not lawful," says [Pope] St. Gregory, "to behold what it is not lawful to covet." The evil thought which proceeds from looks, though it should be rejected, never fails to leave a stain upon the soul.” (The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

This virtue may indeed be hard to put into practice for many in the beginning, but overtime and with practice, it will become easier.

The above quote from St. Alphonsus also shows why most of the things broadcasted on the media are totally unsuitable to watch or read. News in itself isn’t evil or contrary to God or morals but most newspapers or news-channels today have totally unacceptable pictures or immodestly dressed or very beautiful tv-hosts, which make them extremely unsuitable to read or watch, or at least to fix one’s eye on. Remember, "It is not lawful," says St. Gregory, "to behold what it is not lawful to covet." To read newspapers which you know will contain many unchaste, immodest and sexual pictures and useless stories about sex, etc., is complete idiocy and will lead to sins of the flesh if you cannot guard yourself. Therefore, if you care for your salvation, you must not read any newspaper or magazine or watch any show or film that contains immodesty of people tempting you.

St. Alphonsus, On Avoiding the Occasion of Sin: “Now, no one can receive absolution unless he purpose firmly to avoid the occasion of sin; because to expose himself to such occasions, though sometimes he should not fall into sin, is for him a grievous sin. And when the occasion is voluntary and is actually existing at the present time, the penitent cannot be absolved until he has actually removed the occasion of sin. For penitents find it very difficult to remove the occasion; and if they do not take it away before they receive absolution they will scarcely remove it after they have been absolved.” (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, p. 543)

For example, in the past I have gone to numerous mainstream news websites just to read news, and it has become so bad that I never go to them unless I first have all the images blocked (on my web-browser). In fact, I have even made a habit of surfing the web without any images or JavaScript enabled at all, or at least without images on depending on the browser and the work I do. Almost all sites works perfectly fine without images and JavaScript enabled anyway. And on the few sites that don’t work without JavaScript or images enabled, one can always allow an exception for that site.

It is highly important for one’s salvation to block and not allow images to be shown when surfing the internet because without a doubt, almost all sites without exception will have some form or another of immodestly dressed women displayed; and, in the cases they are not immodest, they are still very beautiful or sensual looking. It’s unavoidable, even if the article may seem sound. In truth, I have seen and learned that from personal experience too many times.

Adblock or Adblock Plus extension for Firefox or Google Chrome web-browsers are also good tools to get rid of all internet ads, immoral or otherwise. And so if people don’t use a web-browser that can use extensions (or if they don’t have an Adblock installed) they must change internet browser and install an Adblock by virtue of obedience to God’s law that demands modesty and the avoidance of occasions of falling into sin when it is possible to do so.

That one must avoid the proximate occasion of sin in order to be Saved and receive Forgiveness of one’s sins from God is a certain fact of the Natural and Divine law that has always been taught by the Church and Her Saints. For instance, Blessed Pope Innocent XI during his papacy, condemned three propositions that denied this truth:

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #61, March 4, 1679: “He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #62, March 4, 1679: “The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #63, March 4, 1679: “It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Here we see that the Church confirms that the opinion that “It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor” is directly condemned. And this condemnation is about those who “seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning” for a good cause, rather than for a selfish cause. But most people in this world do not even watch or listen to evil and ungodly media for a good cause but rather for the sake of pleasure or for other unnecessary reasons, and it is certainly not necessary “for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.” This shows us that the Church and the Natural Law absolutely abhors and condemns the opinion that one can watch or listen to media that can tempt a person to sin. Indeed, not only the occasions of sin, like evil, worldly and ungodly media, but also the “the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor” must be totally rejected and shunned if one wants to attain salvation.

People who reject this advice and continue to put themselves in a proximate or near occasion of sin will undoubtedly lose their souls, since God will allow the devil to fool them in some way since they rejected the Word of God, and chose to put themselves in the way of temptation. Many there are, indeed, who presumptuously claim that they won’t get tempted by watching or listening to worldly media, or that they will be able to control it, but here we see in the condemnations of Blessed Pope Innocent XI that one may not even put oneself in “the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor”. God will undoubtedly leave a person who is presumptuous and prideful, and the Church and Her Saints have always condemned such individuals that trusts in their own strength. As a matter of fact, one can even understand from the light of natural reason that one is not allowed to put oneself in the occasion of sin, so those who do this act will have no excuse whatsoever on the day of judgment. In addition, a person who watches bad, worldly or ungodly media, tempts his fellow man to watch these evil things also, and thus, by his bad example, puts both himself and others in the way of damnation by his selfishness and presumption. So in addition to damning himself if he obstinately continues in such a course of life, such a person also actually tries to damn others by his bad example, trying to drag others with him into the eternal darkness and fire of hell. This is a kind of evil that is breathtaking to behold! It is thus a fact “that when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

The pitiful and unreasonable addiction to media by so many “Catholics” or “Christians” today is something new, and almost no one before the 20th century was so miserably addicted to it as the weak and bad willed population of our own times! The amount of pitiful and pathetic excuses that we have had to hear from bad willed people who try to excuse their act of putting themselves in the proximate or near occasion of sin is, simply said, almost endless. Even though they understand that they are not allowed to endanger their souls, they just couldn’t care since they are hooked on the media, just like a drug addict, who need his daily “fix” to endure the day. For about a hundred years ago, almost no media existed as compared to today, and people thrived and the crime rates was as nothing when compared to today. So the unreasonable addiction to media cannot be excused, for man does not need media at all to survive, and putting oneself in the near or “the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor” is directly condemned by the Church.

We advice all people to use the internet in this safe way as described above, and always have images blocked. And we want to warn people not be deceived by the Devil or their evil attachment to images on this point. Again, remember what St. Alphonsus says: “when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions.”

Attachment to images made me delay using the internet in this safe way for way too long. If there are images you want to view, then you can always open another web-browser (with an ad-block installed!) where images are enabled, or enable them quickly on the web-browser you’re currently on. (Or you can just right click on the image and click with the scroll mouse button on “view image” in Firefox so that the image can be seen in a new tab; in Chrome just right click and press “Open image in new tab” and it will show the image.) Most of the time there are no real reasons or necessity to see any images anyway. Only curiosity makes us want to see them. Of course, when images are necessary or needed, then it is lawful to surf with them on for as long as it is necessary, provided it is not a danger to one’s soul and the site is not bad. But how often do we need to see images at all times? Never. Therefore, if we have no reason or necessity to have them on, they must be off.

The best and easiest user experience in using the internet in this safe way is using a web-browser with add-ons or extensions installed that manually blocks and unblocks all images easily with just one click of a button, which means that you will not have to enter settings all the time to do this. By using extensions to block images, you can just click on the icon visible on the top-right side of the web-browser, thus manually blocking and unblocking all images, or just press on the image itself as explained in the Google Chrome section.

We generally recommend no one to use any other webbrowser than Google Chrome, since it is so much better when it comes to the extensions available, as is explained in the above article. The image blocker extension for Google Chrome is just superior to all other webbrowsers, which means that more people will continue using an image blocker when surfing the internet and not give up.

If you want recommendations for other webbrowsers such as Firefox, Opera, Safari, Edge, Internet Explorer etc. you need to consult the links.

For the best ad-blocker for Google Chrome web-browser, visit this link:

uBlock Origin:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm

This adblocker is the perhaps the best of them all but more advanced and comes with the additional plus that it has no “acceptable” advertising built into the program, which means there is no need to disable anything as with the other adblockers. It also helps you keep your Ad-Blocker active and the webpage working, when you visit a website and it asks you to disable.

In order to understand how to use and configure uBlock Origin in order to remove as much ads as possible, you need to read this and the following section.

If you want to use other adblockers and other webbrowsers and configure them correctly, you need to consult these links:

uBlock Origin for Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Microsoft Edge

AdBlock for Google Chrome, Opera, Safari and Microsoft Edge

Adblock Plus for Google Chrome, Opera, Safari and Microsoft Edge

Adblock Plus for Firefox

For best image blockers for Google Chrome web-browser, visit these links:

Wizmage Image Blocker:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wizmage-image-blocker/ifoggbfaoakkojipahnplnbfnhhhnmlp

This image blocker is the most convenient and user friendly image blocker that I know of. With one click, you can display the image or hide it again. It is only available for Chrome, sadly. If you want to learn how to use this image blocker and everything it can do you will need to read the more detailed instruction on how to use it.

But in order for the above image blocker to work more effectively, it will be necessary to also install Fast Image Blocker for Google Chrome and have it activated at the same time with Wizmage Image Blocker. The reason for this is that the Wizmage extension does not always block all images on certain sites nor does the programs always block all images immediately. You also have the additional benefit that the Wizmage’s image feature (of easily showing the images) still works in most cases with Fast Image Blocker activated at the same time.

Here is the direct download link to Fast Image Blocker for Google Chrome:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fast-image-blocker/khgnndhdnkpmlflndgobodbhgheaegon

If you need more detailed instructions with images explaining how to use and configure the extensions, see the section on Fast Image Blocker for Chrome, and Wizmage Image Blocker for Chrome.

After installing Fast Image Blocker, click on the camera icon and remove every single site already put into the “exceptions list”. Press the X icon in order to remove a website from the list. There are a lot of websites put into this list as exceptions as you will see after having installed the program (not a smart move, since it makes people think the program doesn’t work!).

Only add exceptions (the + icon with the address already inserted) that are absolutely necessary or needed, since it won’t block images on that site if you have it added.

Also, when clicking the camera icon, if the camera icon in the menu is colored, this means the image blocker is activated; if it is grey, it means it is disabled for all websites.

Since there are some known problems when using both of these image blockers at the same time, it is advisable that you read the section “Solutions to some known problems when using the extensions”. It is important that you use both image blockers at the same time.

If you want to use other image blockers and other webbrowsers and configure them correctly, you need to consult these links:

The best and safest image blockers for Firefox

Best and safest Image Blocker for Opera

Why you should completely disable images in Internet Explorer even if you never use it

Microsoft Edge, Safari, and others

For best flash and html5 blockers for Google Chrome web-browser, visit these links:

(A flash blocker helps you have more control of flash content by preventing it from loading in webpages until you allow it, such as videos and other flash related content, which means that you cannot see videos or things that are flash related playing or showing their content automatically without you first having given your authorization.)

Flashcontrol:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/flashcontrol/mfidmkgnfgnkihnjeklbekckimkipmoe

This flash blocker is the only one we currently recommend for Chrome since it blocks more flash content than any other flash blocker we know of.

But in order for the this flash blocker to work properly, you need also to download and install an extension that blocks html5 content from automatically playing on youtube and on other websites that you are browsing, such as this one:

Disable HTML5 Autoplay:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/disable-html5-autoplay/efdhoaajjjgckpbkoglidkeendpkolai

Since html5 is becoming the new standard online, is not enough with just a flash blocker anymore; and most youtube videos are also automatically played with the new html5 format when available.

In order to learn all the information you need to know about these flash and html5 blockers and how to use and configure them in the best possible way for your own convenience, please see the Flashcontrol section, and the Disable HTML5 Autoplay section for Google Chrome.

If you want to use other flash blockers and other webbrowsers and configure them correctly, you need to consult these links:

The best and safest flash and html5 blockers for Firefox

Best and safest Flash and HTML5 Blocker for Opera

Internet Explorer

Microsoft Edge, Safari, and others

If you don’t use an add-on (which you should be doing) the best browser to use is the Google Chrome web-browser since it allows you the option to disable both images and JavaScript on all specific internet sites (Firefox doesn’t allow this option with Java or Images at all unless one first download extensions); and it is best since it allows you (after you have disabled images or Java in settings) an option to enable the images or java on the site you’re currently on—without having to enter settings all the time to do this. The bad thing with this option, however, is that it perpetually enables and allows all images to be shown on that domain and not just temporarily. So do not allow images to be shown in this way on all sites or bad sites but only on trustworthy sites you go to often. It is idiocy to perpetually allow images on various websites just because you are curious of the pictures in one article. (You can also remove sites manually from “allow images” exceptions in settings afterwards if you made a mistake. It is also possible to right click on a blocked image an press “Open image in new tab” and then it will show the image. But it is preferable to just install in image block extension instead since it is so much more easier and convenient.)

Also, in Firefox, the images displayed by Google is not blocked by all image blockers. That is why we recommend users to use Google Chrome instead of Firefox. So when you search for something on this browser, you will not risk seeing something bad being displayed by Google against your will. Please see the best image blockers for Firefox for all the information on how to safely block all images in this web-browser.

Always surf without images on. Don’t be a fool by rejecting this advice of the Popes and Saints of the Church concerning the unlawfulness of putting oneself in the proximate occasion for sinning and of looking on things that are unlawful to covet or behold and that are a danger to one’s salvation. If you want to see images on some site, then allow the images only temporarily and afterwards block it again so that you do not continue surfing the internet with images on.

And yes, it is a sin to refuse to follow this advice since it’s virtually impossible to escape bad and immodest images and commercials of men or women tempting you every day when surfing the internet (and the same of course applies to watching most media too, which is why we recommend people never to watch movable images and that they only listen to the audio). Only a condemned person not fearing God or sin at all would refuse to follow this good advice that helps him avoid falling into sexual temptations and sins everyday.

We also advice you to never watch news on television or the like since it is so filled with sins that it’s almost impossible to watch without seeing things that will injure your virtue like immodesty, make-up, sensuality, blasphemy, gloating, useless and unnecessary stories, lust, adultery, fornication... continuing in infinity. However, to watch news daily is hardly necessary and St. Alphonsus clearly rebukes people for this in his most excellent work, The True Spouse of Christ.

“St. Dorotheus says: "Beware of too much speaking, for it banishes from the soul holy thoughts and recollection with God." Speaking of religious that cannot abstain from inquiring after worldly news, St. Joseph Calasanctius said: "The curious religious shows that he has forgotten himself." It is certain that he who speaks too much with men converses but little with God, for the Lord says: "I will lead her into the wilderness, and I will speak to her heart." (Osee, ii. 14.) If, then, the soul wishes that God speak to its heart, it must seek after solitude; but this solitude will never be found by religious who do not love silence. "If," said the Venerable Margaret of the Cross, "we remain silent, we shall find solitude." And how will the Lord ever condescend to speak to the religious, who, by seeking after the conversation of creatures, shows that the conversation of God is not sufficient to make her happy? Hence, for a nun that delights in receiving visits and letters, in reading the newspapers, and in speaking frequently of the things of the world, it is impossible to be a good religious. Every time that she unnecessarily holds intercourse with seculars, she will suffer a diminution of fervor.” (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, Volume X, pp. 468-469)

We ourselves do not watch any videos anymore except exclusively when for the sake of making videos. We also try to avoid reading any secular news or other worldly websites. Now we only listen to religious audio, having all the movable images blocked. On YouTube, when we still watched YouTube (we now have it blocked), we did not watch the videos but only listened to them by downloading them as audio (or video) and listened to them only in audio, or at least, by avoiding watching at the screen if we were watching it on youtube, or on other video sites. Anyone who cares about virtue and about their eternal salvation and for those who fear not to offend God by viewing or seeing bad scenes or images, will of course do the same thing, since it’s almost impossible to watch anything today that does not contain immodesty or that will harm one’s virtue. Even purely Christian films, whether on tv or youtube, have many bad and unacceptable scenes, statues or images in them. What then could be said about more secular media, documentaries, or series?

Also consider that it is very easy to sin in one’s thought. In fact, one consent to an evil thought is enough to damn a person to burn in Hell for all eternity! and all the bad scenes one sees in all the films, television, movies, series etc. tempts one to commit exactly this sin against God.

St. Alphonsus: “Listen to this example: A boy used often to go to confession; and every one took him to be a saint. One night he had a hemorrhage, and he was found dead. His parents went at once to his confessor, and crying begged him to recommend him to God; and he said to them: "Rejoice; your son, I know, was a little angel; God wished to take him from this world, and he must now be in heaven; should he, however, be still in purgatory, I will go to say Mass for him." He put on his vestments to go to the altar; but before leaving the sacristy, he saw himself in the presence of a frightful spectre, whom he asked in the name of God who he was. The phantom answered that he was the soul of him that had just died. Oh! is it you? exclaimed the priest; if you are in need of prayers, I am just going to say Mass for you. Alas! Mass! I am damned, I am in hell! And why? "Hear," said the soul: "I had never yet committed a mortal sin; but last night a bad thought came to my mind; I gave consent to it, and God made me die at once, and condemned me to hell as I have deserved to be. Do not say Mass for me; it would only increase my sufferings." Having spoken thus, the phantom disappeared.” (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, p. 167)

“O eternity, eternity! The saints tremble at the mere thought of eternity; and ye sinners, who are in disgrace with God, you do not fear? You do not tremble? It is of faith that he who dies in the state of sin goes to burn in the fire of hell for all eternity!” (Ibid, p. 108)

Scripture teaches that few are saved (Mt. 7:13) and that almost the entire world lies in darkness, so much so that Satan is even called the “prince” (John 12:31) and “god” (2 Cor. 4:3) of this world. “We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness.” (1 John 5:19)

Why are most people damned? Most people are damned because they don’t care enough about God nor fear Him enough to avoid all sin and the occasions of falling into obvious sin, nor do they love Him more than they love their own perverse will or self-love—which is the direct reason for their indifferent lifestyle; neither do they care enough about God so as to avoid even what they obviously know will lead them into possible sin. The great St. Ambrose said concerning this: “True repentance [and thus love of God] is to cease to sin [all sin, however small].”

That of course means that one must do all in one’s power to avoid not only mortal sin, but also venial sin. It also means to in fact never even have a will to commit even the slightest sin that one knows to be a sin culpably or with full consent against the all good God — and now we may deduce already why most people in fact are damned.

Hence that most people are damned and always have been. So the only reason it would be hard for someone to be forgiven his sins and be saved is if he don’t love God enough, fear God enough, nor trust God enough with his whole heart—trust and love, such as believing in Him and that He will forgive you if you do what you must—and that He hears all your prayers and grants all your prayers that are good for you, such as all prayers for the grace of attaining forgiveness and salvation. Therefore, it is only hard to be saved for the bad — and not for the good souls.

Also see: About the sacrament of penance and contrition and about receiving forgiveness without an absolution

Generally, one of course cannot know whether a film, documentary or show that one watches or desires to watch will have any bad images or scenes in them—before having already watched it. (There are some sites that offers warnings of immodesty, bad language, nudity etc., but their warnings probably are not enough, nor will they, in all likelihood, include a warning against the so-called modern day women’s fashion in which women show of their womanly figure by pants or revealing and tight clothing since this is how every one dress today (which in itself would be bad enough to forbid watching these shows entirely), and of course, the modern day “Catholic” or “Christian” standard of modesty is not enough and is even evil in many cases.) Therefore, it is playing with fire to watch movable images and risk one’s soul; and as we have seen, God will ultimately abandon a person that willfully put himself in danger of falling. Again, remember what St. Alphonsus said: “WHEN MEN AVOID THE OCCASIONS OF SIN, GOD PRESERVES THEM; BUT WHEN THEY EXPOSE THEMSELVES TO DANGER, THEY ARE JUSTLY ABANDONED BY THE LORD, AND EASILY FALL INTO SOME GRIEVOUS TRANSGRESSIONS.”

We recommend that no one watch videos or even listen to audios at all (unless perhaps you wish to only listen to strictly religious things), but if you want to watch more secular things (such as news clips, documentaries or whatever else, even religious films) then listen to audio only. This means that you should turn the television around or put something over the screen. If on the internet, it means that you should avoid watching the video that is playing; or download vlc player and disable video in preferences, and download the videos instead of watching them on the internet, and listen to them only as audio through vlc player or some other video player. You can also download videos and convert them to mp3 or download an extension or program that does it automatically for you. This is a good youtube to mp3 website that we recommend (enter it without images on, of course, since I have no idea of what it may show!):

http://convert2mp3.net/en/

If you enter youtube videos, you should disable auto play so that videos do not play automatically for the same reason (the flashblock addons linked to above does the trick). You can also disable youtube comments in channel settings or by extensions. Many of them are pure evil, filthy and spiritually distracting anyway. But the comments vary in badness depending on the video you are watching or entering. But just so you know, it is possible to disable seeing them.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hide-youtube-comments/kehdmnjmaakacofbgmjgjapbbibhafoh/

Images must also be blocked when surfing on youtube! The number of bad, immodest and mortally sinful inducing images I myself have seen on youtube, and especially in the related videos while watching a video, or after it ended, is almost innumerable! (and no, I don’t watch sensual material and anyone who has spent any time on youtube will know from experience that related thumbnails can be pure evil and filthy regardless of what videos you are watching, be it a news clip or a religious video, and the latter example is especially true if it concerns a moral subject). Having images blocked goes for all websites that have any bad images in them, even wikipedia, unless the article is deemed safe. (For the same reason, it is evil and a sin to link to articles that one knows contains any bad images. Yet many people, even traditional so-called Catholics, frequently, and without any scruple, link to such articles all the time just as if they thought they will not receive a judgment for every person that has becomes affected or aroused sensually by what they posted, linked to or were personally responsible for.) Also, on Firefox, never watch a youtube video to the end, or, if you do, scroll down before the film ends, since the related video images on Firefox—that are shown in the video screen—sadly doesn’t get blocked by having images disabled. I have seen not a few evil images because of that, sadly. Now I know better, and that one must avoid seeing this and falling into this devilish trap (but happily, we don’t even watch videos anymore and we encourage all to follow this same advice).

St. Alphonsus, On avoiding the occasions of sin: “Some also believe that it is only a venial sin to expose themselves to the proximate occasion of sin. The catechist must explain that those who do not abstain from voluntary proximate occasions of grievous sin are guilty of a mortal sin, even though they have the intention of not committing the bad act, to the danger of which they expose themselves. … It is necessary to inculcate frequently the necessity of avoiding dangerous occasions; for, if proximate occasions, especially of carnal sins, are not avoided, all other means will be useless for our salvation.” (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, pp. 351-355)

Considering the quotes of St. Alphonsus on avoiding occasions of sin and about how God demands more of certain souls that He has given more graces: it is highly important for one’s salvation to not watch media or expose oneself to dangerous occasions (such as by surfing the internet with images on).

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #61, March 4, 1679: “He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #62, March 4, 1679: “The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #63, March 4, 1679: “It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of the SSPX says John Paul II was a “good man” and that he doesn’t have the same religion as his “Pope”

In 2005 The Remnant (a traditional so called Catholic magazine) held an interview with Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The interview (May 15, 2005 issue) consisted mainly of his thoughts on the election of Benedict XVI. I will quote portions of this interview and then interject some comments, but first it is important to remind the readers of the definition of schism.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope. The position of the SSPX acknowledges the Vatican II “popes” as true popes and holds the Novus Ordo “bshops” to be Catholic bishops. However, the SSPX operates outside of communion with this hierarchy, which it considers to be the Catholic hierarchy. This is clearly a schismatic position. Now, prescinding from their denial of the salvation dogma, let me point out that the Society of St. Pius X could have been confused in good faith about the fullness of what was happening with regard to the Novus Ordo hierarchy for a certain period time – perhaps a number of years. When the Vatican II apostasy broke, they justifiably wanted to resist it. The full ramifications of what was occurring were not very clear to them. However, after decades, when the dust finally settled, the leaders of the SSPX had to examine their position and come to the realization that they have no justification for operating independently of the Novus Ordo hierarchy if the Novus Ordo hierarchy is, in fact, Catholic. The only reason that they could be independent of the Novus Ordo hierarchy is if the Novus Ordo hierarchy has lost the Faith, is not Catholic, is outside the Church and holds no authority.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" [by that very fact] deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

But the SSPX, after decades of apostasy taught by the Vatican II sect, and after decades to examine its untenable position, still obstinately maintains that the apostate, Novus Ordo hierarchy is the true Catholic hierarchy! Yet, it refuses to put itself under their authority and operate in communion with them. The SSPX’s official position is without any doubt obstinately schismatic. They are operating outside of communion with the hierarchy they deem to be the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, (A.D. 110): “He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clean conscience.” (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:50)

St. Jerome, Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, (A.D. 386): “Between heresy and schism there is a distinction made, that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the Bishop.” (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2:1371a)

That being said, here are some quotes from Bishop Williamson’s 2005 interview with The Remnant:

“Q: What do you think about Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger being elected to the papacy?”

“A. Bishop Williamson: I was a little surprised, at first, because some people had said he wasn’t really in the running. After that, to tell you the honest truth, I don’t expect a great deal from Rome as it stands. They are too far gone in the “New Religion,” and the “New Religion” is too radically different and distant from the True Religion. Rome is Rome, though, and I do believe there the popes are, and there are the cardinals, and that is where the official structure of the Church is to be found. But, I’m afraid, for the defense of the Faith, you’ve got to wait for some grave event to shake Rome and/or to drive the true cardinals out of Rome to start again somewhere else. I’m afraid that Rome is too deeply in the grips of the enemies of God.”

This, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the completely ridiculous – and schismatical – position of the SSPX, which is (for lack of a better description) so obstinately inconsistent that it is correctly labeled THEOLOGICAL PUKE. Bishop Williamson holds that the Vatican II religion is a new religion. This, ladies and gentlemen, means that the religion of the Vatican II Church is NOT THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. This means that the MEN WHO LEAD THIS RELIGION ARE LEADERS OF A FALSE, NON-CATHOLIC RELIGION. They are not Catholics. But the heretic Bishop Williamson holds that the men who lead this new, non-Catholic religion that is “radically different” from the “True Religion” are still Catholics, are inside the Catholic Church, and are the legitimate hierarchy of the Church. This is theological puke from the pit of hell – especially when we consider that this has been the position of the SSPX for about 30 years now and they still refuse to change it. Even though they recognize the leaders of this new religion as Catholics (contradiction 1), Williamson and the SSPX’s leaders refuse to operate under them (contradiction 2) and thus operate schismatically. The fact that Bishop Williamson can continually spew this completely illogical, totally schismatic garbage year after year, in talk after talk, and the people at the SSPX, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, etc. accept it as Catholic, tells us something about how little most of them care about the Catholic Faith.

BISHOP WILLIAMSON TELLS US THAT JOHN PAUL II WAS A “GOOD MAN” AND THAT BENEDICT XVI IS “THE SAME KIND OF MAN”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“Q: Is the use of the “human dignity” argument drawn from Karl Rahner’s teaching?”

“A. Bishop Williamson: Definitely. They’re centering everything on man. Pope John Paul II centered so much on the human person. He believed in the human person, he believed in man. And remember what Jeremiah said: Woe to any person who puts his trust in man. It’s the same, very much alive with John Paul II. I think John Paul II was sincere. I think he was a good man, but he was just deeply mistaken. And I think Pope Benedict XVI is the same kind of man. I believe he’s decent and sincere, but deeply mistaken.”

This is probably the most evil statement I’ve ever read from a “traditionalist” leader who claims to be opposed to the Vatican II religion. Bishop Williamson tells us these lies about Antipope John Paul II, who he knows: kissed the Koran; presided over a new religion; prayed with devil worshippers; embraced Judaism; etc.; etc.; etc. – I don’t even want to give the whole list, as Williamson knows all about it. Yet this “Bishop” Williamson tells us that John Paul II was a “good man”! This is an outrageous abomination! This proves that Bishop Williamson has absolutely no faith. Bishop Williamson, you are, sad to say, of Satan.

St. Ireneaus, Against Heresies: “Once he [St. Polycarp] was met by Marcion, who said to him, ‘Do you recognize me?’ and Polycarp replied, ‘I recognize you as the firstborn of Satan!’” (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:212)

I’m at a loss for words. I don’t know what to write to attempt to communicate how evil the above statement from Bishop Williamson is. It means that the entire Catholic Faith which John Paul II continually rejected (but was still a “good man”) is utterly meaningless; that Jesus Christ, whom John Paul II continually rejected by endorsing false religions, is utterly meaningless; that the entire Traditional Catholic Faith is utterly meaningless; that the Traditional Mass (which John Paul II forbade except where it could counter independent chapels’ Latin Masses) is utterly meaningless; that basically every man is a good man and is saved, since if John Paul II was a “good man” then everyone is good. This shows us that beneath all of the externals of the SSPX, beneath all the pomp and ceremony, there is a very dark reality that is reflected in their absolutely heretical positions on the Vatican II sect and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.

1 Kings 15:22-23: “And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected thee from being king.”

This passage of scripture concerns obedience to the Word of God – faith in His revealed word. The chilling admonition above in 1 Kings 15 was made by the prophet Samuel to King Saul, who had offered sacrifice in direct violation of God’s word. Saul had attempted to please God with his sacrifice, while he was simultaneously contravening God’s spoken word. King Saul’s sacrifice, therefore, was completely rejected by God and Saul himself was cast off by the Lord. The words spoken by Samuel to King Saul could be said to the multitude of phony “Catholics,” especially the obstinate supporters of the SSPX and other false “traditionalists” who believe that non-Catholics can be saved, who reject God’s voice (His revealed dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church) or who equate good with evil – the Church of Christ with the Vatican II religion – or who hold that apostates can be “good men.” And because they don’t accept His Word on the truths of the Faith, and confuse the truth of God with a lie, while they think they can please Him by offering sacrifice at the Traditional Latin Mass, their sacrifice at the Traditional Latin Mass will not profit them and will be rejected by God. Because they reject the “voice of the Lord” – the hard truths of Jesus Christ – and put the Mass (the Sacrifice) before the Faith (obedience to His word), God utterly rejects their sacrifices and offerings.

The leaders of the Society of St. Pius X are not Catholics. Bishop Williamson is a not a Catholic. He is used by the devil to mislead Traditional Catholics. The SSPX undoubtedly does some good things and hopefully not every single person who goes there is a heretic or a schismatic. But the SSPX also does evil things – such as publishing books which teach that souls can be saved in false religions – and some of their official positions are absurd, wicked, not Catholic and lead people into schism and heresy and therefore to Hell. Many of the people who go there have fallen into heresy and schism as a result of their non-Catholic positions. Those who continue to support them after becoming aware of information such as this (see The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) & Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices) will go to Hell. Further, many of those who haven’t seen the heretical positions of the SSPX refuted are still being led into schismatic and heretical beliefs, such as that the Church can officially teach error and “canonize” incorrectly. These people are being led to reject what they deem to be “the Catholic Church” as an erroneous body which needs the SSPX’s correction.

Remember, Bishop Williamson is also the same man who, when Antipope John Paul II “canonized” Josemaria Escriva, told us (as did Fr. Peter Scott) that canonizations are not infallible anymore!

Bishop Richard Williamson of SSPX, Dec. 6, 2002: “Therefore, for Pope John XXIII to have been truly a Blessed, and for Msgr. Escriva to have been truly a Saint, the Second Vatican Council would have to have been a true Council, or a Council true to Catholic Tradition. Which is ridiculous, as at least regular readers of this Letter know. Yet are not Catholic canonizations infallible?”

Indeed before Vatican II, Catholic theologians agreed that canonizations (not beatifications) of Saints were virtually infallible... But since Vatican II... there has followed such a flood of canonizations under John Paul II, that the whole process of canonizing has lost, together with its solemnity, any likelihood of infallibility. Indeed, how can John Paul II intend to do anything infallible, or therefore do it, when he so often acts and talks, for instance about ‘living tradition’, as though truth can change?

So this or that Saint ‘canonized’ by John Paul II may in fact be in heaven, even Msgr. Escriva, God knows, but it is certainly not his ‘canonization’ by this Pope which can make us sure of that fact. Nor need we then feel obliged to venerate any of the post-Vatican II ‘Saints’. ... Similarly Church infallibility does not mean that the Church’s teachers will never teach untruth by, for instance, dubious ‘canonizations’, only that, amongst other truths, the truth of the Christian sanctity will never be totally falsified or silenced... Obviously, Padre Pio was an entirely traditional Saint, and we need not doubt the worthiness of his canonization. However, it might be advisable not to profit by his Newchurch ‘canonization’ to venerate him officially or in public, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch ‘canonizations’ a credit which is not due to them.”

This is totally heretical and reveals that Williamson has no Faith whatsoever in Papal Infallibility or the Church of Jesus Christ.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

Here is more from the interview with Williamson:

“Q: One, would you explain what you mean by the “New Religion” and, two, do you think Pope Benedict is consciously or willingly promoting the “New Religion”?”

“A. Bishop Williamson: The “New Religion” starts from man and is centered on man. The “New Religion” starts from the proposition that God, and the idea of God, is too strange for modern man, and so, to get through to modern man, we must start from man. That’s what’s called from Karl Rahner the anthropological term, the “turn towards man.” And Fr. Ratzinger, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, was closely tied to Karl Rahner, a close disciple. So, the young Joseph Ratzinger was soaked in this brand new theology. For instance, instead of saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God from eternity who took a human nature, it [the New Religion] says that Jesus Christ is the man who was such a perfect man that he could be called the Son of God.”

“Q: Is that what Karl Rahner said?”

“A. Bishop Williamson: Yes, that’s Rahner and Fr. Ratzinger. It’s an absolute revolution. And it has, deep down, nothing to do with the Catholic Faith. It’s an attempt by Catholic priests who want to say something that will be acceptable and understandable by modern man—an attempt by these priests to re-write, to empty out all the bottles, all the dogmas, of their old content and re-fill the dogmas with brand new content that will be acceptable to modern man. And that new content is coherently a system that starts with man, centers on man, and finishes with man. Hence, the New Mass is said in the language of man and no longer in Latin. And it’s said with the priest turned towards man, and no longer towards God. Those are two concrete examples of the “turn towards man.” That is, briefly, the “New Religion.” Is Cardinal Ratzinger conscious of all this? I believe he’s in good faith. I can easily be wrong. I believe that he and his like, sincerely believe the “Old Religion,” the old Catholic religion, was out of touch with modern man, and they sincerely believe that, whatever the Catholic religion is, it’s got to be in touch with the men of its time or get in touch with the men of its time.”

This is outrageous. Bishop Williamson tells us again and again that the leaders of this new, non-Catholic religion – which accepts false religions, etc., etc., etc. – are in good faith. When he says this, he again condemns himself as a schismatic. For if one can be in good faith while not only adhering to the new religion, but leading it, then Williamson is showing us again that he has no excuse for not being in communion with this hierarchy.

“Q. If you were talking to a run-of-the-mill Novus Ordo Catholic about the dogmas being spilled and refilled, how would you explain that to him? And explain the point about the Church being inverted?”

“A. Bishop Williamson: I would quote some of the statements from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: I think he’s a decent representative of a crazy mistake. I do believe he’s a decent man. But the question is not whether he’s decent or sincere. The question is, what is he actually saying? And is he actually defending the Faith?”

Bishop Williamson and the official position of the SSPX hold that the Catholic Church has become a “crazy mistake.” In their bad will, they refuse to acknowledge that the Vatican II antipopes and the Vatican II/Novus Ordo bishops are not part of the Catholic Church.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.’”

REGARDING INDEPENDENT CHAPELS WHICH ACKNOWLEDGE BENEDICT XVI AS THE “POPE”

Finally, I would like to say a few words to all those people who hold that Benedict XVI, or currently, Francis (see Antipope Francis’ Heresies, The Apocalypse & The End of the World), is the pope and who attend and support independent traditional chapels – which are independent of the hierarchy of the Novus Ordo bishops, such as Fr. Wathen’s chapel, Fr. Pulvermacher’s, etc. If you want to obstinately assert (after you’ve seen the evidence and the arguments) that you are not a sedevacantist and that you hold that Benedict XVI or Francis is the Pope, while at the same time you support an independent chapel such as those named above, then you are acknowledging yourself to be a schismatic. You are outside of communion with the hierarchy you deem to be the Catholic hierarchy. Most of you also probably reject the “canonizations” declared by John Paul II, such as his “canonization” of the modernist heretic Josemaria Escriva, in addition to rejecting the “beatification” of John Paul II himself which Benedict XVI declared, and the “canonization” of John Paul II which Francis recently declared. You have fallen into schism; you blaspheme the Catholic Church and you are outside the Catholic Church, all because you have refused to accept that heretics are not Catholics and don’t hold authority in the Church – the present sedevacantist reality. Don’t tell me that he is “the pope” while you attend a chapel that is outside of his authority and shun the chapels under his authority. Don’t tell me that he is the “pope” unless you are prepared to go to the Indult Mass or the New Mass and have true unity with this heretic by denouncing the independent chapels as outside the communion of the Church. Stop mocking God, because unless you change your position – and if you continue to support such heretical priests (or any heretics for that matter) – you will go to Hell.

Also, we hear from many people, especially at the SSPX, that they are just laypeople who cannot get involved in these issues, such as the sedevacantist issue. They just go to Mass at the SSPX and support them and try to be good, spiritual people who live the Faith. This is the response of many SSPX supporters when confronted by sedevacantist arguments. Okay, if that’s the case – if you don’t have the authority to get involved with these issues and you are just a “simple layman who goes to Mass” and tries to live the Catholic Faith – THEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ATTEND THE SSPX OR ANOTHER INDEPENDENT CHAPEL. IF YOU ARE TOO SIMPLE TO “FIGURE THIS STUFF OUT” AND YOU CANNOT GET INVOLVED WITH THESE ISSUES – IF THAT IS YOUR POSITION (WHICH GOD FORBID) – THEN ACCEPT YOUR LOCAL NOVUS ORDO CHURCH, GO TO THE NEW MASS, AND ACCEPT VATICAN II, WHICH IS THE RELIGION APPROVED BY THE LOCAL NOVUS ORDO BISHOP. But “no,” the would-be “simple” layman who “just goes to the SSPX and tries to live a good life” and doesn’t get involved in “these issues” all of a sudden gets involved in the issues and becomes a “theologian.” He “knows” that he cannot accept the New Mass and his local Novus Ordo religion. He thus condemns himself out of his own mouth, refutes his own argument and shows his hypocrisy by only “getting involved” where he wants to get involved.

For the bottom-line is that if one can accept the New Mass and Vatican II religion and save his soul then there is no justification whatsoever for going to an independent chapel or the SSPX. It’s all a matter of preference, in that case. But if one holds that faith obliges him to reject the New Mass and the Vatican II religion as something which will cause the loss of his salvation, then the local church and the New Mass (and the authorities who imposed it) cannot represent the Catholic Church. The Holy Catholic Church can never lead us to hell.

So, the person must either: 1) return to the local Novus Ordo authorities or 2) correctly conclude that they don’t represent the Catholic Church – the sedevacantist position (see Sedevacantist, Sedevacantism and Sede Vacante Explained). If he obstinately refuses, in the face of evidence and arguments, to come to appropriate conclusion that the Novus Ordo authorities who offer him this false religion are not Catholic and hold no authority in the Church (the sedevacantist position), this person condemns himself as a schismatic. His excuse that he is too simple “to get involved in all of these issues” and that he “just goes to Mass” obviously will not be accepted by God because then he would have been justified before God by simply following his local Novus Ordo parish.

All of this hopefully shows us again that the only Catholic position is, of course, the sedevacantist position, and that all the other false positions are heretical and schismatical, including the false position of the SSPX.

THE NECESSITY TO STUDY AND KNOW THE CATHOLIC FAITH

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Prima Secunda Pars, Q. 76, Art. 2: “Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: Wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.”

Truly, one is bound to know the Catholic Faith well enough to be able to spot heresy when it is presented. So then - in accordance with the Angelic Doctor - if we know that our priest, bishop, church building etc. is heretical or schismatical, but we adhere to them anyway, then we indeed share in their sin of heresy or schism, whereby we would then be labouring OUTSIDE the true religion. Invincible ignorance on the other hand - ignorance that is not able to be overcome by any well ordered human effort - is a different matter, and is totally excusable, unless we are speaking about the essential mysteries (the Trinity and the Incarnation), and the natural law, which must be known explicitly by everyone above the age of reason for salvation. When people break the natural law it’s always a sin, and cannot be excused, since this law is written by God on every man’s heart. Ignorance of the Trinity and the Incarnation, however, is not a sin in itself, but God withholds this knowledge of the essential mysteries from many people since He foreknew that they would reject His offer of salvation.

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

WHY THE SSPX AND THEIR OBSTINATE ADHERENTS AND DEFENDERS ARE HERETICAL

Firstly and most importantly, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has always been a non-Catholic sect because it teaches its flock the salvation heresy, which was held by its founder, the notorious heretic Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Hence every person with the use of reason aware of these facts who obstinately attends Mass at an SSPX church is outside the Catholic Church for being associated with a non-Catholic church.

The SSPX is also heretical on several other counts. The heretical SSPX has once again proved that it is a false opposition party set up by Satan to trap nominal Catholics who put the Mass before the Faith. Bowing down before the apostate Vatican II Church, the bishops of the SSPX have petitioned the head of the Vatican II Church, apostate Antipope Benedict XVI, to lift their excommunication—which Benedict (the Rat Man) did on January 21, 2009. The SSPX is now in the process of being regularized and completely homogenized with the non-Catholic Vatican II Church and its apostate antipopes, which includes being Judaised by bowing down before the apostate Jews by removing anything offensive to the apostate Jews from their teaching instruments. Yes, that means the SSPX must bow down to the Holocaust Memorial Idol that has replaced the Passion of Christ and justified the whole apostate Jewish race. And that means they must not call apostate Jewish Christ-denying evildoers evil. “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” (Isa. 5:20)

But one of the SSPX bishops, Richard Williamson, has thus far refused to bow down to the apostate Jews and their phony Holocaust. He has correctly exposed the official Holocaust story of Jews in gas chambers during World War II as a huge lie or exaggeration. And for this he is being persecuted by not only the Vatican II Church and the world, but also the SSPX. Bending over backwards to kiss the feet of apostate Jews, Bishop Fellay (the head of the SSPX) has silenced Bishop Williamson and said that if he does not recant his truthful statements about the Holocaust he will be kicked out of the SSPX. In other words, Fellay commanded Williamson to tell a huge lie in order to appease apostate Jews and the Vatican II Church. Bishop Williamson has committed the only so-called sins that really matter in this modern world: he denied the Holocaust and spoke against apostate Jews. Three countries so far are in the process of bringing criminal charges against Bishop Williamson: Germany, Argentina, and France. So we have more proof that those who deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints are rewarded while those who expose the blasphemous and evil Jews are punished and excommunicated from the world community.

The Jews waited for the right moment to use Bishop Williamson’s comments, as proved by the sequence of events that took place after the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops. And it also proves that the Vatican II Church is controlled by apostate Jews and is an instrument of the Antichrist. In the end the apostate Jews will have achieved their goal by Judaizing the SSPX and warning others not to behave as it has regarding its attacks against the apostate Jews. Bishop Williamson, I warn you that you are being punished for your own mortal sins of heresy and association with the heretical SSPX. Get out of the SSPX before God pulls back all of His grace from you and totally abandons you. This is your moment to convert and abjure into the true Catholic Church, which is found not in the many Traditionalist churches that go by the name Catholic but in the small remnant who faithfully adhere to all the Church’s dogmas. For the love of the one true God, the Catholic God, get out of the evil, heretical, and hypocritical SSPX, which is nothing more than a spiritual harlot like its bastard founder Bishop Lefebvre. This is your day of salvation. You may not get another chance!

Proof for the Sedevacantist Position

Antipope Francis’ Heresies on Atheism and Atheists

It is infallibly taught in Sacred Scripture that everyone above the age of reason can know with certainty that there is a God. They know this by the things that are made: the trees, the grass, the sun, the moon, the stars, etc. Anyone who is an atheist or agnostic (who believes that God does not exist or is unknowable) is without excuse. The natural law convicts him. This is a revealed truth of Sacred Scripture.

Creation itself bears witness that there is a God, that is, a living, omnipotent and intelligent Being who created it. The apostle Paul wrote to the saints in Rome that since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and Godhead – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made (Romans 1:20); and David said that the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork (Psalm 19:1). Therefore, since the existence of God is so clearly witnessed by His works, those who deny His existence are without excuse. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 53:1).

God defined infallibly, based on Romans 1, that the one true God can be known with certitude by the things which have been made, and by the natural light of human reason.

Romans 1:19-21: “Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and divinity: SO THAT THEY ARE INEXCUSABLE.”

Yet, the Vatican II sect officially teaches that one can be an atheist through no fault of his own:

Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16: “Nor does divine providence deny the helps that are necessary for salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, have not yet attained to the express recognition of God yet who strive, not without divine grace, to lead an upright life.”

Vatican II is teaching here that there are some people who, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, have not yet attained to the express recognition of God. In other words, there are people who, through no fault of their own, don’t believe in God (i.e., are atheists). This is heresy.

St. Paul teaches that atheists are inexcusable because God’s creation proves His existence. Vatican II and Francis, on the contrary, teaches that atheists can be excused and saved. This causes us to ask, “What bible was Vatican II and Francis using?” It must have been the revised satanic edition. Their statement about those who don’t acknowledge God is not only condemned by St. Paul, but also by Vatican Council I. Vatican I dogmatically defined the principle set forth in Romans 1 – which directly contradicts the teaching of atheism, agnosticism and the Vatican II sect.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, On Revelation, Can. 1: “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, On God the Creator, Can. 1: “If anyone shall have denied the one true God, Creator and Lord of visible and invisible things: let him be anathema.”

Vatican II and Francis falls directly under these anathemas by its heretical teaching above.

Yet despite this dogmatic teaching based on Romans 1, in On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13 Francis says he respects atheists and doesn’t try to convert them. He also says that their “life is not condemned”:

I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect himnor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not. For that reason alone everyone has a series of virtues, qualities, and a greatness of his own.” (Francis, On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13)

In contrast to Francis, the Council of Florence dogmatically defined that any individual who has a view contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Trinity, or any one of the truths about Our Lord or the Trinity, is rejected, condemned and anathematized by God.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “… the holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy SpiritTherefore it [the Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ [and of God], which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

An atheists interviewed Francis for the Italian newspaper The Republic. The interview was published on October 1, 2013. Francis directly told the atheist that he has no intention of trying to convert him. Francis rejects proselytism four different times in this interview. Francis declared: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.”

Now, our Lord commanded the apostle to go and proselytize, to go and teach. He said: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commended you.” (Matthew 28:19)

How clear is that? And what’s really outrageous about this statement is that he’s essentially spitting on and mocking the martyrs, who suffered, died, were tortured, for teaching, preaching and spreading the true faith; and this apostate has the nerve to call it a solemn nonsense. That anyone claiming to be the Pope says such an evil statement, is incredible.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that manbut let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”

Pope Pius IV, profession of faith, Council of Trent, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that atheists are condemned and that they must be converted to the Catholic faith for salvation. Yet, Antipope Francis is dominating the headlines around the world with his assertion that people don’t need to believe in God to get to heaven.

Antipope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (# 254), Nov. 24, 2013: “Non-Christians [such as pagans and atheists], by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs.”

Some may argue that when Francis continued in his Evangelii Gaudium, saying: “they [false religions, practices and beliefs] can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences” -- that this means they will be converted. But we already know he doesn’t believe the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, and that he rejects proselytizing atheists; so that is not what he means. He is just saying it could happen - “they can” - not that it will, which is why he said: they can be justified if they follow their conscience. And then he ended saying: “which can help us better to live our own beliefs.” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 254)

His position is of course, heresy and apostasy. He made a similar statement in an open letter to the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica.

Statements like this only confirm what we’ve documented about the Vatican II antipopes, and what was proven in the video “What Francis Really Believes.” I’ve read Francis’ entire letter. The headlines accurately reflect what Antipope Francis wrote in his Evangelii Gaudium.

Concerning atheists, Francis wrote:

“First of all, you ask if the God of Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God’s mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.” (“Pope” Francisco writes to La Repubblica: “An open dialogue with non-believers”, 2013/09/11/)

Here Francis clearly indicates that people who don’t believe in God can be forgiven and saved if they obey their own conscience and follow what they perceive to be good; and later in his “Evangelii Gaudium” (254) he confirmed that this indeed was what he meant. So don’t allow any liar to claim that Francis’ statement has been misrepresented. It has not been misrepresented as Antipope Francis himself confirmed.

Bishop Williamson and the SSPX Will Not Obey

It is like the sin of witchcraft, to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey.” - 1 Kings 15:23

I will be quoting from a letter from the non-Catholic heretic and schismatic, Bishop Richard Williamson, who is the SSPX bishop for the United States. In this letter Bishop Williamson is speaking of Rome’s initiative to make contact with the schismatic SSPX in order to convert them and bring them back into the Church. Remember, Bishop Williamson believes that those in Rome are Catholic and legitimate Church authorities. He believes that John Paul II is Catholic and a Pope, and he believes his bishops in Rome are Catholic bishops with authority and jurisdiction. Keeping this in mind we will now read Bishop Williamson’s schismatic teachings.

Bishop Richard Williamson, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, “Newsletter on the Negotiations,” February 1, 2001: “Let us be very clear that the initiative for these latest contacts came from Rome. It was Rome that opened up these latest contacts last summer with the Society, and not the Society that opened them up with Rome.”

Bishop Richard Williamson: “Rome still being, by Our Lord’s design, the command-centre of the Catholic Church.” (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, “Newsletter on the Negotiations,” February 1, 2001)

With his lips he says Rome is the command centre, but, in his heart, which is proven by his works and deeds, he acts as if the SSPX is the command centre. “Let us not love in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (1Jn. 3:18) Below, he makes it quite clear that he sees no good in entering into negotiations with Rome, let alone be in contact with Rome.

Bishop Richard Williamson: “… when they [false ecumenism] are used, as today, in the service of Vatican II, then automatically the Society is in peril if it tries to cut a deal with these Romans. Our Lord said to his disciples, "I send you out as sheep amongst wolves", but that is no excuse for putting oneself in the wolf’s throat, outside of extreme necessity. True, the Romans may always convert, but, again, given a track-record such as the Vatican’s over the last 40 years, then the burden of proof lies with those who claim they have converted, and not with those who assume, by the Romans’ fruits, that they are still wolves and foxes and sharks!… The simple fact of having entered into negotiations will have played for Rome and against the organization in the Society’s position… if in exchange they have succeeded in putting a leash and/or muzzle upon the Society which was until then free to serve God as best it understood, what will such a Society have gained in exchange for the freedom to serve God which it will have lost?” (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, “Newsletter on the Negotiations,” February 1, 2001)

A Protestant heresiarch could not have said it better. Bishop Williamson does not want to negotiate with Rome until “they have converted”, nor does he want to submit to Rome as they are at present. He refers to submission to a man he believes is the pope and his hierarchy, as being leashed and muzzled, because, like all Protestants and Schismatics, he wants to remain “free” to serve God as he and the SSPX best understands, without submission too, or interference from Rome. Is this not what all the Protestants and Schismatics have done, freed themselves from the domination of Rome, from being submissive and obedient to Rome? Are not all Protestants and Schismatics now “free,” as they say, to make their own doctrines and rules; free to follow God as best they understand? Remember, dear reader, Bishop Williamson believes that those in Rome are Roman Catholic officials, the rulers of the Roman Catholic Church. He speaks of being trapped by Rome if the SSPX talks with Rome, a Rome he believes is Catholic, although “wolves and foxes and sharks”, and thus he and the SSPX will surely lose their freedom, so he recommends the SSPX does not talk with Rome at all.

Bishop Richard Williamson: “The Society’s position stands a good chance of falling into a Roman trap. At best, it obtains unsure concessions in exchange for a sure loss of freedom… the Society’s best course in the circumstances would be not to talk with Rome at all.” (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, “Newsletter on the Negotiations,” February 1, 2001)

This is Jansenism and Gallicanism Schism all over again; a professed belief in the papacy and in the pope, while in deed they disobey the pope and his Roman hierarchy, and place themselves above it. Bishop Williamson has it upside down and backward. It is he who must be in contact with and submission to the Rome he believes is the Catholic centre, not Rome in submission to him and the SSPX. It is he and the SSPX who must prove their faith to the Rome they believe is the Catholic centre. It is they who must first satisfy what they believe is Catholic Rome, the Apostolic See, the pope, before even attempting to convince other men of their orthodoxy in faith and discipline. They waste their words on others if they are not in contact with, approved of, and reconciled to a man they believe is the pope and his hierarchy. The SSPX stands condemned just as the past schismatics were, their spiritual brothers.

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra, 1873: “8. For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church. As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men. …

“9. … The Council of Constantinople held in the year 536, Mennas the bishop of that city affirmed openly with the approval of the fathers, ‘We follow and obey the Apostolic See, as Your Charity realizes and we consider those in communion with it to be in communion with us, and we too condemn the men condemned by it’. Even more clearly and emphatically St. Maximus, abbot of Chrysopolis, and a confessor of the faith, in referring to Pyrrhus the Monothelite, declared: ‘If he wants neither to be nor to be called a heretic, he does not need to satisfy random individuals of his orthodoxy, for this is excessive and unreasonable. But just as all men have been scandalized at him since the chief man was scandalized, so also when that one has been satisfied, all men will doubtless be satisfied. He should hasten to satisfy the Roman See before all others. For when this See has been satisfied, all men everywhere will join in declaring him pious and orthodox. For that man wastes his words who thinks that men like me must be persuaded and beguiled when he has not yet satisfied and beseeched the blessed Pope of the holy Roman Church. From the incarnate word of God Himself as well as from the conclusions and sacred canons of all holy councils, the Apostolic See has been granted the command, authority and power of binding and loosing for all God’s holy churches in the entire world’. For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared—and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later—‘that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries’. This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.”

Bishop Williamson and the SSPX waste their words trying to convince other men of their innocence, it is the Apostolic See, Peter, the man he believes is the pope, John Paul II, whom he must satisfy and convince. Instead, Bishop Williamson and the SSPX teach that the Rome they believe is the Catholic centre must be in submission to them and not them in submission to Rome. And worse, he does not even want to talk to Rome at all. “The Society’s best course in the circumstances would be not to talk with Rome at all.” Below, he again refers to those in Rome, as Roman Church officials, whom he does not want to cut a deal with, and whom he refers to in a disparaging manner as only Protestants and Schismatics would.

Bishop Richard Williamson: “Roman Church officials are masters of negotiating… they have 2000 years of experience in out-witting whoever happens to be facing them… the Society is in peril if it tries to cut a deal with these Romans.” (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, “Newsletter on the Negotiations,” February 1, 2001)

The Greek Schismatics and Martin Luther could not have said it better. True Roman Church officials are the ultimate masters at negotiating because they have God as their source and guide for all they do. But, Bishop Williamson links the true Roman Church officials with the apostates in Rome! Therefore, he and the SSPX do not want to cut a deal with them; with these deceitful and lying Romans, who he believes are the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Where does that place Bishop Williamson and the SSPX? It places them in direct opposition and in the opposite camp of what he believes is the hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church. It places him, by his own implied admission, outside the Catholic Church. Greek schismatics set up their Patriarch as their final arbitrator, in place of the pope. The Lutherans set up Martin Luther as their final arbitrator, in place of the pope. The Anglicans set up the King, Henry VIII, as the final arbitrator in England in place of the pope. The SSPX has set up Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as their final arbitrator, in place of a man they believe is the pope. The SSPX is worse, and more dangerous. They are akin to the Jansenist and Gallican schismatics, who verbally profess allegiance to the pope and the papacy, while treating him as if he has no supremacy, power, and authority over them.

Bishop Richard Williamson Blasphemes God

SSPX Walks Two Ways Upon Earth

Be not incredulous to the fear of the Lord: and come not to him with a double heart. Be not a hypocrite in the sight of men, and let not thy lips be a stumblingblock to thee. (Eclcus. 1:36-37) Woe to them that are of double heart... and to the sinner that goeth on the earth two ways. (Eclcus. 2:14) The fear of the Lord hateth evil: I hate arrogance, and pride, and every wicked way, and a mouth with a double tongue.” (Prv. 8:13)

Out of one side of its mouth the SSPX teaches that John Paul II, and Benedict XVI were Popes and Catholics and that Francis is Catholic and a Pope and his bishops are Catholic bishops with offices and ordinary jurisdiction. They believe the Conciliar (Vatican II) Church is the Catholic Church, while out of the other side of their mouth they speak of them as non-Catholic entities. Bishop Williamson speaks of the Conciliar Church as a “Newchurch” and implies they are not the “true Church”.

Bishop Richard Williamson, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, “Letter to Benefactors”, March 3, 1998: “Now if people deny that there is a crisis in the Catholic Church, then little of anything that the Society of St. Pius X does can make much sense. But if anybody grants that on the one hand the true Church owes to Catholics all the help they need to live up to its demanding laws, and that on the other hand the Newchurch is not providing that help, then it makes sense that the Society, amongst others, will step into that gap where it reasonably can, even if it has no territorial jurisdiction, and where it so steps in it may reasonably assume, in accordance with Canon Law, that the Church will, case by case, for the salvation of souls which is the supreme law, supply any missing authority or jurisdiction.”

Note carefully the two hands Bishop Williamson’s presents, one “the true Church” and the other, “the Newchurch,” which he places in opposition with the “true Church.” It is clear that in this passage he is saying that the Conciliar Church is not the true Church; is not the Catholic Church, but rather, it is a “Newchurch.” Yet, out on the other hand he teaches the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, and that John Paul II, Benedict XVI were Popes and Catholics and Francis etc. is Catholic, and the Pope. Both cannot be true. Light has nothing to do with darkness, and woe to them that call evil good and good evil (Isa. 5:20). The Holy Catholic Church is not the Newchurch invented at Vatican II. The Holy Catholic Church was created on Pentecost Sunday two thousand years ago. Yet, Bishop Williamson will have us believe this Newchurch is also the Catholic Church, thus he implies there has been a New Pentecost and a Newer New Covenant, just as apostate antipopes of the Vatican II sect teaches. Bishop Williamson speaks of Rome; a Rome he believes has a Pope and Catholic hierarchy, as being a home for the “Devil” and those in Rome as being “wolves”, “foxes” and “sharks”, who have to convert.

Bishop Richard Williamson, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, “Newsletter on the Negotiations,” February 1, 2001: “Our Lord said to his disciples, ‘I send you out as sheep amongst wolves’, but that is no excuse for putting oneself in the wolf’s throat. … True, the Romans may always convert. … There will certainly be a next attack on the Society from the Devil or from his Rome. … by the Romans’ fruits, [it is clear] that they are still wolves and foxes and sharks!”

Again, a Protestant and Greek Schismatic could not have said it any better, by accusing Rome that Bishop Williamson believes is the Catholic centre, as being run by wolves, foxes and sharks and being the home of the Devil since only the Devil himself would attack the truth! That is sacrilege and blasphemy. He clearly teaches that those in Rome have lost the faith by saying, “the Romans may always convert.” He says they must convert, but he does not even accuse them of teaching heresy and of being heretics who are excommunicated. One must then ask, from what exactly must they convert? He goes on to teach that Rome, a Rome he believes is the command centre of the Catholic Church (the Apostolic See), does not have the truth, but the SSPX does.

Bishop Richard Williamson: “The Society happens to have guarded the Deposit of Faith. … The Society has the truth while Rome has not. Of course from the moment when Rome returns to the truth, Rome would be back in the driving-seat. … the Society happens to have guarded the Deposit of the Faith around which Our Lord’s Church officials, if they themselves lose it, must hover like moths around a flame. Therefore, if the Society loses the Deposit -- humanly, more than possible -- and if Rome continued to reject that Deposit, then tomorrow Rome will be hovering around whatever other flame God will have subsequently lit to take the entrapped Society’s place.” (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, “Newsletter on the Negotiations,” February 1, 2001)

He says Rome is not in the drivers seat, meaning he and the SSPX are, but he still refers to Rome as the command centre of the Catholic hierarchy. He says the SSPX has guarded the deposit of faith! Talk about bold lies. The SSPX would not know what a heresy is, or who is a heretic, if it bit them on the nose. Imagine that, the apostate, heretical, and schismatic SSPX sect claims it is “guarding the deposit of the Catholic faith”. That is like having thieves guard a store, or wolves guard sheep, or prideful idiots teach the uneducated. If Rome, those in Rome, do not have the truth, then how can they be the Catholic hierarchy? And if Rome does not have the truth and the SSPX does, then does that not indicate two Churches? Yet, Bishop Williamson and the SSPX count themselves as members of this Roman Church that does not teach the truth. Pope Pius XI condemns Bishop Williamson and the SSPX.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928: “8. … Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err; He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. …

“9. … Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.’ … We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? … How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians.”

Bishop Williamson teaches the SSPX has the truth and Rome does not, yet, they belong to the same Federation. Every time the SSPX priests pray with John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis I etc. in the Te Igitur prayer they are saying “God speed” to him and the whole Conciliar Church, whom they are professed members of. Mind you dear reader, this Rome that Bishop Williamson says does not have the truth and needs to convert, is the Rome he still believes is Catholic and is the home of a man he believes is the pope, the head of the Church, who is the living representative of the Apostolic See. We will now review the infallible teachings of the Holy Catholic Church regarding the traits of a pope, the Apostolic See, and the disposition Catholics must have toward them.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4, July 18, 1870: “The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our Lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, [Mt 16, 18] cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion.”

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4, July 18, 1870: “It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have returned, strengthen your brethren [Lk 22, 32].”

By Bishop Williamson identifying the manifestly heretical antipopes of the Vatican II sect as true popes, he has implied the Apostolic See (the infallible rock of the Catholic Church) has become blemished and thus defected, because he teaches that the Vatican II sect in Rome, that he believes is the Apostolic See, does not have the truth. Pope Leo XIII condemns Bishops Williamson’s blasphemous and heretical teachings and practices regarding the Apostolic See, which is the living, authoritative, Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896: “9. Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. ‘Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee’. In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? - without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others.”

The Catholic Church is greater than any man on earth, and no man, not even a true pope, can destroy or blemish the Catholic Church, rather if a pope sought to do so by teaching manifest heresy it is the man who defects not the Catholic Church and Her spotless, unblemished Apostolic See. While Bishop Williamson believes John Paul II, Benedict XVI were Popes, and Francis I etc. is the Pope and representative of the Apostolic See (the living Magisterium), he does not refer anything to him at all and wants no contact with him, which is a violation of the Vatican Council decrees regarding the pope and the Apostolic See. Indeed, he and the SSPX walk two ways upon the earth. Out of one side of his mouth Bishop Williamson does not accuse John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis I etc. of teaching heresy and of being a heretic, yet, out of the other side of his mouth he teaches that the man he believes is the pope, has deviated from infallible truths.

Bishop Richard Williamson: “Peter has for prolonged period… has to a significant extent—albeit not entirely—lost the truth.” (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, “Newsletter on the Negotiations,” February 1, 2001)

Bishop Richard Williamson, Eleison Comments CCCXVII ― Saturday, 19th October 2013: “Francis Godless - Catholics who retain any real sense of their faith are being scandalized by the words and deeds of the man presently seated on the Chair of Peter. One almost wonders if he was put there to destroy what remains of the Catholic Church. Like a true child of Vatican II, he is turning away from God towards man.” (Weekly columns by Bishop Williamson, in German and English, since June 2000)

Bishop Williamson does not seem to think the loss of an infallible truth is a heresy and the one who teaches it is a heretic. If the Vatican II antipope has lost even one infallible truth then he is teaching heresy and is a heretic. A Catholic must profess all of the infallible truths. If a Catholic has lost one infallible truth he is no longer Catholic, and thus he is outside the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The Church has always ‘regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.’… St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity… ‘If any one holds to one single one of these [heresies] he is not a Catholic’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).”

Protestants profess many individual truths, but they are not Catholic and do not have the Catholic faith, because they do not profess the full deposit of the Catholic faith. Bishop Williamson is saying that Peter, the pope, has lost the truth, but not entirely. What he is saying is that a pope can deny a dogma, as long as he professes other truths (other dogmas) and still be the pope, and thus not entirely lose the Catholic faith. This is heresy by teaching one can deny an infallible truth and either, still have the Catholic faith, or partially have the Catholic faith. The truth is, a man either has the Catholic faith, whole and entire, or he does not have it at all. Bishop Williamson clearly teaches that the Vatican II antipopes, whom he believes are true popes, has lost certain truths, and that can only mean John Paul II, Benedict XVI were teaching heresy and were heretics, and that Francis I etc. is teaching heresy and is a heretic, but Bishop Williamson will not use the “H” words “heresy” and “heretic.” The implication of Bishop Williamson’s teaching that a pope can teach contrary to past infallible truths and still be pope, is that the Apostolic See has become blemished and the Catholic Church has defected. Indeed, Bishop Williamson does teach the Catholic Church Herself, the spotless Bride of Christ, has fallen into untruth.

Bishop Richard Williamson: “What is unique about the Catholic Church amongst all organizations of men on earth is that it rises with the Truth and falls with untruth. … As soon as Rome comes back to the truth—as it will—Rome will rise again.” (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, “Newsletter on the Negotiations,” February 1, 2001)

The Catholic Church never falls (although evil people within the Church can fall and cause great scandal and even lead people to hell), or else She would defect and the gates of hell would have prevailed over Her. Bishop Williamson has spoken heresy and blasphemed the Catholic Church. It is men that fall into untruth by teaching heresy and/or schism and thus fall outside the Catholic Church by ipso facto excommunication. It is not the eternal Rome, the Roman Catholic Church, which needs to come back to the truth. She is the infallible, unblemished, unadulterated truth. It is the men in Rome, the non-Catholic imposters, and evil people, that need to come back to the truth if they want to save their souls. The Holy Catholic Church does not need, nor depend upon the conversion of heretics to convert in order to rise again, because She can never fall in the first place. Fallen-away Catholics—being mortal sinner, idolaters, apostates, heretics, and/or schismatics—need the Catholic Church if they want to rise again by repentance and conversion.

Being that Bishop Williamson teaches the Catholic Church has fallen from the truth, one would expect that he also explicitly teach that the Holy Catholic Church has become spotted and blemished. Yes, he does believe in, and teach this heresy, and goes out of his way to blaspheme God, by blaspheming His Holy Catholic Church. He has referred to the Holy Catholic Church as being an “infectious mother” and of having a “disease,” and this is blasphemy and heresy!

Bishop Williamson, “To Friends and Benefactors”, February 4, 1998, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary: “As for our former colleague’s nine arguments against the Society, they mostly come down to the same “Either, or”, to which the Society replies, “Both, and”. Imagine a devoted son hovering by the bedside of his gravely ill and infectious mother. Our former colleague would tell him, “Make up your mind. Either you go right up to her because you love her, or you get right away, because she’s infectious, but you can’t just stand there, betwixt and between!” To which the Society replies, “Our mind is made up! We must both stand close to that Church which is our Mother, and stand far enough off not to catch her disease which would make us unable to help her, [He infers that the SSPX is greater than the Holy Catholic Church in that the SSPX must save and perfect the Catholic Church. Is it not the Church that perfects and saves all men that submit to Her?] so here we stand, in a contradictory situation, but not contradicting ourselves”. For indeed neither sedevacantists nor the Society are responsible for the contradictory situation of the Vicar of Truth being immersed in error, but the difference is that while the sedevacantists (and liberals) short-circuit the contradiction, the Society endures it. Simplifications are always simpler, but they are not always true. They do, however, have their appeal to souls tired of complications, especially if the simplification carries an emotional charge as well.”

He admits that he and the SSPX are the fence sitting fallen angels by saying they are “betwixt and between.” This is a frank admission that they are bewitched, confounded, and confused because they are heretical rebels. He clearly states that he will not choose either, or, but will try to reconcile both, both light with darkness and good with evil, the sacred with the profane. In his attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable he has blasphemed God by teaching the Holy Catholic Church is an “infectious mother” and has a “disease.” Pope Pius XI condemns the wretched, infectious, and diseased, non-Catholic Bishop Williamson and the SSPX:

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), January 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.’ The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that ‘this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.’ For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

The Holy Catholic Church is not diseased or infectious. She is pure, holy, unblemished, and undefiled. Yes, the Holy Catholic Church is abused, mocked and beat up, just as our dear Lord Jesus Christ was, but neither She or He, are infectious or diseased! Bishop Williamson admits that he is not residing in the bosom of what he believes to be the Catholic Church. He says the SSPX is close to the Church, but far enough away as not to catch her disease. “We must both stand close to that Church which is our Mother, and stand far enough off not to catch her disease.” It is clear that he does not see himself and the SSPX as residing in the bosom of what he believes to be the Catholic Church. Catholics, if they want to remain Catholic, must reside in the very inner most bosom of the Holy Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Bull Cantate Domino” (1441): “No one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Would God have Catholics reside in the bosom of a diseased and infectious Church? No, that is why the Church is spotless, pure, and unblemished, because She is the safe haven of Catholics in the Church militant. Bishop Williamson admits he and the SSPX are not resting in the bosom of what he believes is the Catholic Church, when he says that the SSPX is close, but far, united but separated. He is inside and outside the Catholic Church, but no, he teaches he is neither inside or outside the Catholic Church, rather he is “betwixt and between,” a sort of limbo for schizophrenic fallen-away Catholics. If this is not the biggest piece of double talk, borrowed from the Conciliar Church, then I don’t know what is! It is the same heresy of the Conciliar Church that says Protestants and Schismatics are joined to the Catholic Church in a certain though imperfect way. Maybe Bishop Williamson will tell us that he and the SSPX belong to the soul of the Church while not belonging to Her Body. A Jackass has more sense than Bishop Williamson and the SSPX. Are you offended by my use of the word Jackass? Our Lord, Himself, teaches that faithless men are worse than animals.

“Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken. I have brought up children, and exalted them: but they have despised me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath not understood. Woe to the sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a wicked seed, ungracious children: they have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they are gone away backwards.” (Isa. 1:2-4)

Out of one side of his mouth, Bishop Williamson, says, “Peter has for prolonged period… has to a significant extent—albeit not entirely—lost the truth.” While out of the other side of his mouth he says this loss of the truth is simply an error and not heresy, and as a result he does not accuse any of the antipopes of being a heretic. This is the mark of a hypocrite who speaks with a double tongue.

Bishop Williamson, “To Friends and Benefactors”, February 4, 1998, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary: “That is why when John XXIII and Vatican II began seriously to err, easily most Catholics were caught off their guard. Whether they accepted error with their erring leaders and became liberal, or repudiated the erring leaders with the error and left the Church or became sedevacantists, either way they lost their Catholic balance. … For indeed neither sedevacantists nor the Society are responsible for the contradictory situation of the Vicar of Truth being immersed in error.”

Bishop Williamson only refers to the heresies and heretics as errors and erring leaders. He sins by omission by not condemning the crimes and the criminals for what they are. He also refers to the Vicar of Truth as being immersed in error. Does he mean heresy, or an allowable error regarding a non-infallibly defined doctrine? If he does not mean heresy, but an allowable error regarding an undefined doctrine, then by what right does he have to separate from a man he believes is the pope based upon an allowable error? But, the dilemma he finds himself in, is that even if he admitted John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis did teach heresy and is a heretic, his denial of the teachings that a manifest heretic cannot be pope, leaves him no choice but to remain under the discipline and government of a man he believes is the pope. In every case the reality is that whoever does not sufficiently condemn the antipopes and the Conciliar Church, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy of being manifestly non-Catholic entities, shares equally in their crimes.

Because of Bishop Williamson’s blasphemous teaching that the Holy Catholic Church is infectious and has a disease, he has attempted to turn the Catholic Church into something to be endured and not to be loved and whole heartily embraced.

Bishop Williamson, “To Friends and Benefactors”, February 4, 1998, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary: “For indeed neither sedevacantists nor the Society are responsible for the contradictory situation of the Vicar of Truth being immersed in error, but the difference is that while the sedevacantists (and liberals) short-circuit the contradiction, the Society endures it.”

What a horrible thing to say, “the Society endures it.” The “endures it” he is referring to is what he thinks is the Holy Catholic Church. The Holy Catholic Church is not to be looked upon by Catholics as something to endure, but as God’s spotless and holy Bride on earth that is to be wholeheartedly embraced and loved, and the only true haven and joy on earth. What Catholics must endure is the cross they must carry because of sinful men, the evil world, and wickedness around them. Instead of loving the Catholic Church and abiding joyfully in Her innermost bosom, Bishop Williamson says, he and the SSPX must “endure” the Catholic Church, because he believes the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. That’s like saying the Apostles had to endure Jesus Christ; keep Him close, but far off. What Bishop Williamson and the SSPX are actually enduring is a non-Catholic harlot that he and the SSPX are joined to.

“For the lips of a harlot are like a honeycomb dropping, and her throat is smoother than oil. But her end is bitter as wormwood, and sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down into death, and her steps go in as far as hell. They walk not by the path of life, her steps are wandering, and unaccountable [false ecumenism, apostasy, idolatry, heresy, willful ambiguity, etc.]. Now, therefore, my son, hear me, and depart not from the words of my mouth. Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the doors of her house. Give not thy honour to strangers [the Conciliar Church and its antipopes], and thy years to the cruel. Lest strangers be filled with thy strength, and thy labours be in another man’s house [the Conciliar Church, and not the Catholic Church], And thou mourn at the last, when thou shalt have spent thy flesh and thy body, and say; Why have I hated instruction, and my heart consented not to reproof, And have not heard the voice of them that taught me, and have not inclined my ear to masters [the past popes’ infallible decrees]? (Prv. 5:3-13) For the price of a harlot is scarce one loaf: but the woman catcheth the precious soul of a man. Can a man hide fire in his bosom, and his garments not burn? [i.e., can a man be a member of the manifestly non-Catholic Conciliar Church, a harlot, and escape the fires of hell?] (Prv. 6:26-27) My son, give me thy heart: and let thy eyes keep my ways. For a harlot is a deep ditch: and a strange woman is a narrow pit. She lieth in wait in the way as a robber, and him whom she shall see unwary, she will kill [that is, kill souls and send them to hell].” (Prv. 23:26-28)

See: Is the Vatican II sect the Whore of Babylon Prophesied in the Apocalypse?

The SSPX tries to reconcile the lie of the Conciliar Church with the truth of the Holy Catholic Church mingling falsehoods with truth, and in so doing has tripped over the cornerstone that has become a stumbling block. Why has this happened to them? - Because they too, are apostates, heretics, and schismatics, because they would not obey the truth. If those in the SSPX do not repent, convert, and abjure then this same cornerstone that has fallen upon them, will grind them into powder, that is to say, crush them eternally in the fires of everlasting hell.

“Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner... And whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” (Mt. 21:42,44)

Bishop Williamson has rejected Christ, the Cornerstone, by referring to the Conciliar Church as the Catholic Church, since the crimes are now manifest to all. I repeat Bishop Williamson’s professed commitment and union with the Conciliar Church: “For indeed neither sedevacantists nor the Society are responsible for the contradictory situation of the Vicar of Truth being immersed in error, but the difference is that while the sedevacantists (and liberals) short-circuit the contradiction, the Society endures it.” The liberals are professed members of the Conciliar Church and believe it is the Catholic Church, even though they do not obey all the decrees of the Conciliar Church, just as the SSPX are professed members of the Conciliar Church but do not obey it either, and are worse than the liberals because they do not obey Her decrees. However, those who hold the sedevacantist position do not profess membership in the Conciliar Church and reject it as a non-Catholic entity. Therefore, there is no comparison of the two positions. One of the mandatory requirements, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, if a man wants to be Catholic, and has knowledge of the heresies of the Vatican II sect, is that he hold the sedevacantist position, that being, the Holy See and local sees are vacant and the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, but an imposter Church, a poorly disguised harlot who pretends to be the Catholic Church. There is no short circuit here, but a complete rejection of the Conciliar Church and its apostates and heretics. There is no mingling here of truth with falsehoods, of light with darkness, or Christ with Belial, or the Temple of God with that of idols. The liberals and the SSPX, who are actual liberals also, have both short-circuited the Conciliar Church that they believe is the Catholic Church by being rebellious and disobedient to it. The SSPX is worse than the professed liberals, because they have short-circuited the Conciliar Church by setting up their own Church, with bishops, priests, and chapels, independent from the Conciliar Church. Catholics holding the sedevacantist position have completely and thoroughly condemned this non-Catholic harlot, exposing her for the fraud that she is, and removed themselves from this invention of Lucifer and defend the glory of the one True God and His one true Church in whom there is no lie mingled with truth and no profane ritual mingled with the holy, who would not sit in the assembly of the malignant. Bishop Williamson and the SSPX sit in the assembly of the malignant along with the liberals, both professing that they are in communion with the antipope and the Conciliar Church, both praying una cum (one with) him—whom currently is Antipope Francis (Jorge Bergoglio)!

Warning: As a side note of caution to the reader, just because a man or group holds the sedevacantist position does not mean they are Catholic. If they hold or practice any heresy then they are not Catholic. Many of those who hold the sedevacantist position are not Catholic and are the pre-Vatican II heretics that led to the Great Apostasy. Many are also ambitious rebellious heretics, who have taken advantage of the vacant sees.

MORE ON FRANCIS’ HERESIES ON HOMOSEXUALS AND HOMOSEXUALITY

Antipope Francis recently gave a shocking interview to the editor of the so-called Jesuit journal, La Civilta Cattolica. He was interviewed by Antonio Spadaro on behalf of La Civilta Cattolica, Thinking Faith, America and several other major Jesuit journals around the world. The interview was conducted in Italian. After the Italian text was officially approved, a team of five independent experts were commissioned to produce the English translation, which is also published by America.

We will be quoting from the English pdf translation found in the Jesuit journal Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013.

On p. 7 of the interview, Francis is talking about homosexuals. He says:

“In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexuals persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.” He goes on to say, “it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 7.

He then re-quotes something he said previously about homosexuals:

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: “‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 8.

This is wicked heresy! First he says, he’s “no one to judge” and that “the church does not want to do this [that is, condemn the homosexuals].” That’s interesting because the First Vatican Council declared that a Pope (a true Pope) is the supreme judge of the faithful. Francis doesn’t judge or condemn anyone because he’s not a Catholic and he’s not the Pope. Also, to say that the Church does not condemn homosexuals is equivalent to saying that God does not condemn homosexuals. There is no difference between the two.

Second, he’s discussing homosexuals. He says he’s no one to judge, and he teaches that God and the Church doesn’t condemn them or reject them. That indicates quite clearly, that homosexuals could be justified despite their wickedness and abominable behavior. And, we know Francis is including active homosexuals in his comments, because he makes no distinction between people who merely consider themselves to have a homosexual orientation, and those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Indeed, we know he’s talking about those who engage in homosexual acts because Francis refers to homosexuals who have claimed to him that they feel excluded. That obviously includes active homosexuals. In fact, in this very context Francis speaks of confession. “This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 8.

Read more: Antipope Francis approves of Atheism, False religions, and Homosexuality, teaching that they all saves a person!

Related articles:

www.allmonks.com
Free DVDs, Articles and Books
FREE DVDs & VIDEOS
WATCH & DOWNLOAD ALL OUR DVDs & VIDEOS FOR FREE!