Francis: It Seems Formal Heresy To Me.

Evil Clown strikes again!


This little effort is read by a couple of thousand people every day, which is, I think, the number of people that the parish priest of a normal, or biggish, parish, will reach. Obviously I am not a priest, nor a theologian come to that, and I am sure those who read me take this into account when evaluating what I read. Still, this is one of those days when I feel particularly keenly that one day I will have to answer for what I have written, and must therefore pay much attention not to stray from the straight and narrow. Do not, therefore, expect from me any statement that goes beyond what I have the right to say, because that would be the way to Sedevacantism.

Visit Louie Verrecchio's site, and watch the two videos about the latest papal speech on Christian Unity and Mr Verrecchio's comment on the same. Notice, also, how the bad seeds already planted by the mentality of V II are now undergoing a sort of genetic mutation under Francis, and the wrong perspective is becoming a wrong ideology openly defended as such.

This was not an off-the-cuff comment. This is a video message Francis decided to record in Spanish exactly because it is the language of which he has full control.

This was also, with all certainty, proofread by other people, as not only the nature of the document but the obvious remarks of the man abundantly prove.

Francis' attempt to hide behind his finger, saying that he “might” be saying something nonsensical or even heretical, shows in fact all the arrogance of this allegedly so humble man: he knows – because he has been warned, of course; but he knows in any case – that what he is about to say might be heretical, but he says it anyway, defends it as the truth, says it is the way God thinks. He feels like saying it, therefore he does. What he feels trumps Catholic Truth, because he knows how God thinks.

This seems, to me, formal heresy all right. Granted, he has not said he knows that what he is about to say is heretical, but he professes it anyway; but he has said something which I cannot consider any less grave: he knows what God thinks and therefore he says it, and he does not care whether this homemade truth is heretical or not.

The blood chills. A Pope goes public worldwide and says he just does not care whether what he says is heretical or not. He will say it anyway, and will present it to you as God's opinion, compared to which the matter whether this opinion is heretical or not sinks into utter irrelevance because hey, God and Francis can't be wrong so Catholicism must be.

In my eyes there is no difference with Luther's famous – real or attributed – statement “here I stand, I can do no other”. Francis is very clearly saying that he is aware of the possible consequences, and just does not care. This is the very definition of heretical rebellion, and would be rebellion even in the case – that does not apply here – that what Francis says happens not to be heretical. But in this case what Francis says is heretical, so we have not only the open intention of putting oneself above the truth of the Church, but the acting upon it.

I fully agree with Mr Verrecchio that this must be challenged by those members of the hierarchy who care for orthodoxy. Cardinals first, probably, but certainly every bishop should feel challenged to admonish the Pope to “clarify” (polite for “retract”) his statement, or declare himself a heretic.

Mind, though, that it is not for me to declare that the Pope is a formal heretic and therefore – say I, out of my own authority given to me by the Mundabor Mini Me Sedevacantist Quasi Church Of Catholic Truth – not the Pope anymore. But it certainly for me to say that declarations have been made that have a very strong smell of formal heresy, and the Bishop and Cardinals should feel the duty to publicly challenge the Pope on this and call him to change his ways or face the consequences, which would then be trial and possible deposition as abundantly discussed on this blog (see also the bar above).

This challenge to the Pope is something that, it seems to me, every Cardinal and bishop should feel as a duty at this point, because the challenge to Catholicism is, this time, openly proclaimed in full defiance of it.

Unavoidably – and Mr Verrecchio very fittingly points out to this – this will cause in many prelates and priests unpleasant reflections concerning the bad seeds planted by V II. But there can be no doubt that this here is an incursion into fully new territory, the territory of heresy publicly proclaimed in open opposition to Catholic teaching; this is a completely different animal from badly formulated encyclicals which have heretical elements in them whilst claiming to upheld Catholic truth in toto.

At least, this time we will not be plagued by the usual “he does not know” comments. He knows very well. He says so himself.

He just does not care.



Posted on May 27, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 44 Comments.

  1. hristoroquen

    This statement marches right up to the lineof Formal Heresy, but I deem falls just short as he does not formally repudiate a doctrine. It is typically neo-modernist.

    Modernism is the idea that there are no eternal truths, that truth is the correspondence of the mind with one’s lifestyle (adaequatio intellectus et vitae), and that, therefore, old dogmas must be abandoned and new beliefs must arise that meet ‘the needs of modern man’. This is a radical denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth: the correspondence of the mind with reality (adaequatio intellectus et rei), which is the basis of the immutability of Catholic dogma.

    No, the post-conciliar theological principle is neo-modernism, and the theology that is based on it is known as the nouvelle theologie. It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional ‘formulas’: dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the ‘needs of modern man’. This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism. It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the ‘formulas’ of faith that must be abandoned–they use the term ‘formula’ to distinguish the supposedly mutable words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutable meanings. Therefore, neo-modernism can effectively slip under the radar of most pre-conciliar condemnations (except Humani generis, which condemns it directly) insofar as its practitioners claim that their new and unintelligible theological terminology really expresses the same faith of all times. In other words, neo-modernism is supposed to be ‘dynamic orthodoxy’: supposedly orthodox in meaning, yet always changing in expression to adapt to modern life (cf. Franciscan University of Steubenville’s mission statement).

    • Hristoquen, we know about Modernism, but it seems to me undeniable that this here is beyond changing the way we say things, but not caring whether the things we say are heretical.

    • hristoroquen

      My point is that a neo-modernist will never give you clear chance to call him a heretic that we as lay people could judge. It will take a later Pope or Council to decide, and then I think we will see this whole band of Popes from John xxiii to present condemned and maybe even excommunicated. Francis is a material heretic many times over, but this can be said about most members and clergy of the Roman Church today. Many laity I know are outright formal heretics as they actively reject Chruch teaching. We have many many priest up tothe Cardinal level that are clearly formal heretics. However, as far as I know, we still do not thave the smokng gun to call any of the counciliar Popes formal heretics. Francis is really no worst that the others, really. Actually, he may be better, as his oral diarrhea exposes his anti-Christ thinking more clearly than his predecessors.

    • Maybe, but in my eyes the words mentioned in this post smell enough of formal heresy to ask him to retract or be considered such.

      It is in the nature of evil to, at some point, cross the line the leads to its doom.


    • hristoroquen

      We may see that point at the upcoming Synod. De facto schism may turn into de jure schism, material heresy into formal, especially if Francis signs off on an heretical document. Should he be called out? Every Pope since John xxiii should have been called out for grave error and heresy. Many have done so, to little avail save among their own ranks. Even now, most so called Catholics are heretics in fact and probably apostates in all but name….

    • Every Pope should have been called out even before. In fact, even St Peter was.

      I am, at times, terrified at thinking how many here on earth, today, are considered Catholics by those in heaven.


  2. He has to retract these statements. They are heretical. Even though he and cardinals like Tagle no doubt think that heresy is amusing and antiquated, this man cannot remain pope while knowingly clinging to falsehoods about the nature of the Church. It’s a very serious situation.

    • You mean Tagle thinks orthodoxy antiquated 😉

      Yes, he has to retract. If he doesn’t, he will obviously remain the Pope, but further damage will be done.
      There can be no doubt he will remain the Pope until he is deposed, resigns, or dies.

  3. I have to say that I have only the highest level of confidence in Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, and he has a very different understanding of the Pope’s comments.
    I don’t speak Spanish, so I don’t know what the Pope said.
    Jimmy Akin, in my 15 years as a Catholic, has never steered me wrong.

    (OT I’m extremely embarrassed to have misspelled Novus Ordo in another comment. I should have used “NO” and spelled out Traditional Latin Mass, instead of the other way around. My face is bright red.)

  4. Mundabor,
    “In my eyes there is no difference with Luther’s famous – real or attributed – statement “here I stand, I can do no other”.”
    Yes, though Luther was much more of a Christian than Francis. He actually believed in God, you know…

    “I fully agree with Mr Verrecchio that this must be challenged by those members of the hierarchy who care for orthodoxy. Cardinals first, probably, but certainly every bishop should feel challenged to admonish the Pope to “clarify” (polite for “retract”) his statement, or declare himself a heretic.”
    I am very interested in the reactions of Cardinals Burke, Pell and Sarah – these three specifically. Also, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX. I think we will see much more clearly just where the battle lines will be drawn after these four have spoken. If indeed they will not just elect to remain silent for more and more flimsy reasons of “prudence” or “respect for the Pope”.

    • I think the SSPX is more likely to come out with a public statement.
      The likes of Burke might decide to organise themselves in private, and threaten the Pope with an open, public condemnation if he plays stupid at the Synod. I know this falls short of their duty, but I think this is what they might do.

  5. No big deal! His papal motto may be: Jorge Mario Bergoglio, SJ spewing heresies since 1969.

  6. Mundabor,
    I want to preface what I am about to say with the very firm declaration that I am not a sedevacantist and I do NOT espouse any form of sedevacantism. I believe that Jorge Bergoglio is the validly elected Pope of the Catholic Church. This I say just to avoid any possible misunderstandings arising from the following thoughts. Also, please excuse the length of the comment, as I do not know how to say it any shorter without sacrificing the precision required in such a delicate and supremely important matter.

    If a Catholic were to come to the conclusion, based upon the words and actions of Jorge Bergoglio, his knowledge of the Faith, and his personal best judgement, that Bergoglio was a formal heretic, he would obviously lack the authority to declare loss of office. He would not start to go around and try to convince the world that sedevacantism was true. But would he not have to entertain serious doubts regarding the Papacy of Jorge Bergoglio? As far as I know, a formal heretic immediately loses, as a matter of law, all ecclesial offices as he is no longer a member of the Catholic Church, which is a requirement for holding ecclesial office. A formal heretic – as opposed to a material one – could not possibly be Pope while holding to his formal heresy. That, at least, is my understanding of the matter (which may well be wrong).

    Now, unless a competent authority were to declare Jorge Bergoglio a heretic and an anti-pope, that Catholic could not *know* with certainty whether Bergoglio was indeed a valid pope or not. In any case, given the current situation in the Church, such a declaration is very unlikely in the short term. Until a definitive declaration is made, said Catholic would have reason to doubt Jorge Bergoglio’s claim to the Papacy. Given that the burden of proof would certainly be on the doubting Catholic, he would not be allowed to act on his doubt, of course, but the doubt would be there – and it would be reasonable, legitimate and not sinful, as long as he did not presume to know.

    Said Catholic would continue to act as though Francis were Pope. He would continue to go to a non-sedevacantist Mass. He would not denounce other Catholics who do not share his doubt. But objectively, the formal heretic would still have lost his Papal office, as a matter of law, if indeed his suspicions were proven true afterwards.

    The declaration would so to speak “ratify” the objective fact that the formal heretic was not a valid Pope, and that “ratification” would be absolutely necessary for all Catholics to have certainty, but it would not “create” the fact. If, say, the declaration only happened a century after Bergoglio’s death, Bergoglio would not “cease to have been” pope the moment the declaration was made – he would have never been Pope at all, even during the time without an official declaration by a competent authority.

    So, if all that is, in fact, correct, there is a possibility that an individual Catholic could reasonably and justifiably, as a private opinion, doubt Bergoglio’s claim to the Papacy. He could, so to speak, become “agnostic on sedevacantism” without ceasing to be a good Catholic.

    If I am wrong, where is the error in my thinking?

    Again, to be clear, this is just my attempt at understanding the situation, and what would be possible to hold, if in the future things should become much more serious than they are even now. I do not entertain any serious doubts regarding the Papacy of Jorge Bergoglio. I think it is possible a future competent authority could come to the conclusion that Francis was a formal heretic and an anti-pope, but not very likely.

    • I think you are wrong.

      My understanding is that a formal heretic as Pope has lost the moral right to be Pope, but remains the one who holds the office until he is deposed. A mad king remains king, until deposed, even if he is unfit to rule.
      That this Pope is not due obedience in everything that is against what the Church teaches is a matter of fact, but has no bearing on who is the one that holds the office.

      So if Pope Francis wakes up tomorrow and says “I might be heretical here, I don’t know, but I have no doubt that there is no hell” he would still be the pope until he is deposed. We would only refuse obedience to him because we can see for ourselves that he is unfit, but we would not be able to say he does not hold the office.

      I am afraid there will be many more of these discussions in future.


  7. monk johanan

    I’m on the exact same tract as you. In fact this very morning in my devotions I had the similar chilling certainty: ‘we are being deceived!’ and if true, and i too have ‘tasted’ all the evidences. then to willingly deceive our children is to be at minimum an antipope..

    • You are confusing terminology, I think.
      An antipope is, by definition, a man who claims to be Pope in opposition to a reigning Pope and is seen by many others to be the legitimate Pope. Francis could never claim the papacy in opposition to… himself. He is the Pope, bad as he is. And boy, is he bad…

  8. Well, the issue is as you stated: he knows, he cares not. But in that knowing is the critical understanding that no one will stand up to him.

  9. I can’t get the video to work on mr Verraccio’s site. Can you give us a working link please.

  10. Nor will his defenders be able to take refuge in the “he was mistranslated” excuse, either.

  11. Yes, Mundabor, you will have to answer some day for what you have written. My hope and prayer is that I get the same answer you will: “Well done, good and faithful servant”.

  12. “but he says it anyway, defends it as the truth, says it is the way God thinks. He feels like saying it, therefore he does. What he feels trumps Catholic Truth, because he knows how God thinks.”

    He wasn’t claiming to know how God thinks, but rather how the devil thinks. It was the devil he was referring to as the persecutor in his “ecumenism of blood” ramblings.

    Apart from that, I think your analysis is spot on. For the humblest Pope ever, he really is full of manure.

    • I thought that too at the beginning (though I do not know if the devil is meant here, or a generic Muslim persecutor; the expression is very common in Italian, for example). But note that Francis takes what the devil thinks as a starting point to tell us *what is*. Therefore, he claim the fact that this is the reality God wants us to understand.

      A message telling the Proddies “the devil thinks we are all one, God doesn’t” would not make any sense to them, actually it would be extremely offensive to them. No, Francis was clearly espousing a new theology.

      Then we have the additional turn (I wanted to write a second post yesterday; no time) that we have here a Pope who takes evil people (or the devil) as a foundation of how we must see ourselves. Which is stupid beyond words, but again would not make sense without the obvious implication that what the evil people think is what it is.


  13. This ecumaniacal heretical nonsense is commented in the “Derzinger-Bergoglio” blog, and there is also the full speech video:

    This excellent page are being translated in english, but I don’t know where.

  14. Pope Francis stated:

    “I feel like saying something that may sound controversial or even heretical. But there is someone who knows that despite our differences we are one. It is he who is persecuting us. It is he that is persecuting Christians today; he who is anointing us with the blood of martyrdom, knows that Christians are disciples of Christ. That we are one, that we are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic. He doesn’t care! They are Christians.”

    Wasn’t he was referring to what he called the “Ecumenism of Blood”” ? To what is happening to Christian brethren in the Middle East and Africa i.e. Christian martyrdom at the hands of evil, militant Jihadist Islamists? Here’s how he stated it:

    “Our martyrs are crying out: we are one. This is what the ecumenism of the blood is. We must follow this path courageously and carry on moving forward. If we wait for theologians to reach an agreement, that day will never come !

    They were killed simply for the fact that they were Christians ….

    “The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard. It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians! “

    • Yes, this is what he was also referring to; though he clearly expands it into saying that this means there is no difference now, on this earth, whether one is a Catholic or not. The one and the other are obviously heresies. But this is not the point.

      A Pope can say something heretical thinking he is being orthodox.

      This Pope says what he thinks it’s right, and does not care if it is heretical, and tells you so in your own face. He puts himself above orthodoxy, he claims the right to be heretical every time he wants.

      As I have already stated, if one talks in this way whether what he says afterwards is heretical or not is quasi incidental. In this particular case, it is heretical (Catholic doctrine does not allow to consider a murdered protestant a Christian martyr in the proper sense, because he is still outside of the Church; much less allows to infer, as Francis does, that there is a unity of Christians in fact irrespective of their being murdered), but this is not the point. The point is that a Pope says “I do not care whether I am a heretic”. This is as near to openly proclaimed formal heresy as can be.


  15. I don’t suppose one should be astonished at this most recent remark of TMAHICH; I just couldn’t have guessed he would be so open with it—my guess is that he is ‘fishing’ to see if anyone takes ‘the bait’, the better for him to prepare for the upcoming horrendous synod.

  16. A follow up article

    Judging the matter of Christian unity- Louie Verrecchio

  17. Re: Akin-tranquilizer: I agree it has worn quite thin. As others have pointed out for some time now, there is something wrong when someone must be constantly deconstructing and re-framing the Pope’s remarks in order to make them palatable.

  18. Thank you for the link Mundabor. So how can we be in unity with Anglicans with their female bishops and transgendered naming ceremonies?? Our brothers in baptism? Ok, but don’t true brothers need to come home? The Catholic Church is the one True Church….in the face of persecutions why don’t they reunite with us to be one instead of rejecting and dissenting? Is Pope F going for a lowest common denominator approach? And I am not sure about the wounds to the Body of Christ in His Church either. Aren’t Protestants etc outside the Church? No harm in praying for unity, of course, but doesn’t that mean they should come home? Where is he trying to take us? Scary stuff.

    • It is not only that we can never be in unity with them.

      It is that the Church must start to seriously consider throwing them in the same pit of the Jehova’s Witnesses and the Mormons.


    • Unity is unity under and in obedience to the Church.
      I think Francis would rather worship Satan than pray for it.

  19. Ps. Wasn’t the Pope not long ago encouraging Muslims to hold fast to their Qurans? And now he is blaming them, amongst others, for persecuting Christians. Did it not occur to him that the Quran views Christians as gone astray and sets Islam up as the true religion above Christianity? Some “Christians” like Jehova’s Witnesses reject the divinity of Christ, as do the Muslims. Where are we supposed to draw the line? It’s all nonsense.

    • We draw the line when Christianity is not recognisable. I think everyone of us knows a honest Proddie is still undoubtedly a Christian.

  20. I never heard of a Pope before prefacing what is to say with: “this might be heresy.”

  21. Mundabor,

    Your many articles on this TMAHICH has opened my eyes. Thanks a trillion. I don’t know whether you have seen it or not,? but myself have seen so clear that all the troubles this pope has made so far like making a lot of statements opposing Church’s doctrines, Jesus’ teaching and throwing the smoke bomb on Church’s founder, Jesus Christ, he just has one purpose only is to lure the Church in to One World Church. This world church will be under control of NWO, off course Lucifer. So in the mean time we have to expose him as much as we can denouncing him as a heretical, evil pope and keep praying to Jesus who put this pope away. That’s His Church and He ‘s not going to let power of hell destroying it. God have mercy.

  22. The Catholic news agency Zenit published the original story and got it completely wrong, attributing to God what the Pope said about the devil. They have since issued a corrected version, as Jimmy Akin points out here: . Mr. Akin also commented that the Pope said that what he was about to say would maybe “sound” heretical to his listeners, not that the statement in and of itself was heretical. I agree with you that if what you are saying is true this is a grave issue but I don’t think that is the case here.

    • Seriously, Lauren, I am embarrassed at the level of stupidity your message betrays.

      As always, Akin creates a straw man and then proceeds to demolish it. And as always, Akin makes an embarrassingly bad job of it.

      Already the fact that you are ready to be content with a Pope that says he may “sound” heretical to his listeners, and says it anyway, shows how far from catholicism you have veered.

      You, Mr Akin and all those like you need to seriously wake up and understand that this stubborn refusal of looking at reality for what it is puts your own soul in danger.

      And stop being such a child. if your daughter were to say “I wil now say something that may sounds slutty to you”, and then proceeded to say something very slutty, I do not think you would be content with he saying she said she would “maybe sound”, so it’s fine.

      Now consider ho wmuch more important it is that a Pope does not even give the slightest suspicion of his being in th eleast heretic, and you have it. But again, the likes of you and Mr Akin will never get it.


    • Ah, I forgot.

      I will not insult your intelligence saying that Francis takes the devil (or the ISIS, or whatever it is) to tell *us* what *he* thinks, and *we must think*, who is Christian. If he was talking of the devil, *he obviously share his argument*.

      Wake up.

      Wake up.

      Wake up.


  23. I agree with Jave. What he wants to say is that the Catholic Church is just one part of the Church of Jesus Christ. One part of many other parts, all equal. This stands truth on its head, which is the mark of the Devil of course.

%d bloggers like this: